I'd like to second (or third) what Batman said. If people want to discuss things, it'll mean ignoring the lowest common denominator (to say nothing of a self-declared DOMINATOR (sic)). And no, I don't mean ignore conservatives or certain viewpoints. I mean having the self-control to simply not respond to any poster who obviously has none. Personally, I'm thinking the next 7 months would be a good, good time to stay away from the D&D forum.
As someone who was around here during the 2000 Selection, I would have to agree with you. The 2004 election will be ugly and nasty, and it will definitely be reflected here.
I go through periods where I just don't bother, but it's not about the extremity of the poster's views, it's about their intransigence. Of all the pre-war pro-war posters in here, there are maybe 2 who have reconsidered in light of all the lies, mistakes, manipulations and intimidations which have come to light. People who chanted WMD, nukes, 9-11, etc. pre-war now say that those never mattered because Saddam was a bad guy. People who scoffed at those of us who said intel was not solid ground upon which to justify an invasion now excuse the administration's role in the war argument because of the shaky nature of intel. It just makes me think the whole debate is pointless sometimes.
I guess I hurt somebody's little feelings, eh? I was illustrating absurdity by being absurd. That's when the "inbreeder" taunt comes out. I thought I'd dish out some of my favorite liberal stereotypes (which I know are just that) to counter the "sale at Wal-Mart" stereotype by NYROCKET. What's even more alarming is that my wife drives.....a VOLVO!!! Guess that makes me a lib, right? Give it a break, folks. As that crooked police chief in Super Troopers said, "Defeat is a stinky cologne." Fellas, I can smell it all over you. Just think, you'll get another 4 years to b****, whine and moan about that evil GWB and how he is singlehandedly destroying the world. I'm going to enjoy laughing at your desperate attempts to smear GWB. It's so.....pathetic. So desperate are you to throw him out you jump on the first (Dean) and then second candidate (Kerry) to show signs of life without stopping to think, "Is this guy right for our country?" You are driven by hatred for GWB and not because you love Kerry. How is that an enlightening and uplifting agenda. Join us because.....we hate Bush! Oh joy. All I hear from you people is a constant stream of negativity. The statement "9/11 changed everything" you throw around like a rude taunt, when it really did change our nation forever.
Interesting. Either way, the combination of the two is not very fun, for me at least. I do think tone matters. Being hyperbolic and spewing rage is absolutely and purely counterproductive. Works for AM radio ratings, I suppose, and it works if you lack higher brain function. But hey, I'll admit it: I'm instransigent as of right now. I will not vote for George W. Bush in November. Period. I've seen enough to make up my mind there. He is not good for 95% of this country. Nevermind the rest of the world, the environment, et cetera -- I'll base my vote on what's good for the American people, thank you. Kerry? I will vote for him, unless his platform becomes somehow more destructive to what I hold dear than Bush. So I'm part of the problem I'm predicting for the next many months, and I should just stay out of it. I've made up my mind.
Honestly, I don't think you get it. Those of us who have opposed this war were told '9-11 changed everything.' time and again, far more than the mock version has been tittered over. We were told it when we asked how we could go to war based on intel alone, when intel is a shaky proposition. We were told it when we asked how we could be so sure that the rest of the planet was wrong, and we were right. We were told it when we asked how repeated intel gaffes by the administration didn't make pro-war types question the 'sources' we were using to get said intel. We were told it when we said we were rushing to a war when there really was no imminent danger. We were told it when the Patriot Act was put in place, and when we were assured it would only ever be used to protect us from terrorists. We were told it when we said that the supposition that we would be welocomed in Iraq with open arsm was not an established faxt just because DIck said it was. We were told it when we were being told that opposing the war was treason, giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and loving Saddam. We were told it when we had trouble with our administrations characterization of every nation which didn't support the war as being self-serving traitors or cowards. Etc. Etc. Essentially, any time the logical flaws in the war argument were pointed out, we would hear about 9-11. After having been proven sadly correct on each and every one of them, please forgive us for parodying the band-aid catchphrase which was used to defy reason, and bring our nation into a very dangerous place. It is at least, in part, our fear based pre-emptive attack on future uses of same to excuse irrational acts...something you should be comfortable with.
Oh, I see a difference also. I just think it'll be disingenuous (sp?) of me to sit here and say "well, you folks aren't really discussing anything! You've already made up your mind to vote for Bush!" when I've definitely made up my mind not to do so. In an ideal world, no mind could be made up until it lines up with mine, but...
My point is that we reserve the right to attack those who we consider a threat by harboring terrorists or threatening others (including us) with WMD. I'm all about power politics, because idealism is naive and illogical. States act in their own interests and to oppose our govt. because you don't like the action they take on the behalf of our vital national interests is puzzling to me. The intel might have been flawed, but GWB, in my opinion, acted on intel that he thought was reasonable. I'm not going to pin you with the moniker that you'd rather Saddam still be in power thumbing his nose at UN declarations (rendering the UN as useful as a fifth wheel) while slaughtering his own people, but isn't that what you are basically saying when you say the war was a mistake? We would have been over there forever anyhow containing him (as many liberal voices stated, that containment works) while he continued his reign of terror and pursuit of WMD. I hate to deal in hypothetical situations, but what if he was able to develop nukes while we had him "contained" and threatened to use said nuke on one of our cities? Guess we'd be up the proverbial creek without a paddle. I hate to see that so many soldiers have died over there, but I still feel we have done the world a favor dealing with Saddam once and for all. I won't and can't blame GWB for that.
For the moment let's ignore all the evidencw which shows that they knew the intel was fsulty pre-war, or that there was a concerted effort to accumulate intel which supported the war rather than just to read intel and react to it, etc. Let's even ignore the fact that the flaws in the intel based war argument were so glaring that many of us in here were pointing them out pre-war... Let's instead just focus on this prinicple you have outlined here, specifically the key phrase:the right to attack those who we consider a threat. Point by point, let's look at this phrase: 'right'. By right, you mean ability, I assume. Surely you wouldn't support the practice world wide, ascribing the 'right' to invade other countires which you feel might represent a future threat to every other nation on the planet, correct? So what differenetiates us, aside from the fact that 'we' are us, and therefore agree with ourselves? Oh, right...might. 'we'. By 'we', I assume you mean the government you support, not thegeneral population, correct? Because were it the general population, there would have been no need to deceive or manipulate in order to convince us of the threat...correct? 'consider'. But surely this consideration must have some sort of standard...correct? I mean, anyone can be a possible future threat. Canada, for example. Mexico. North Kore...oh, sorry. I forgot. Only those threats which are theoretical need apply. SO what is the standard for consideration, bama? Intel is obviously not a reliable tool for such an assesment, right? Problem is, many of us were saying this pre-war, and were scoffed at. Called traitors, cowards, etc. We didn't consider it a threat...Oh, and the intel community didn't either. Until we floated the nuke issue, neither did most of the country. So when you say 'consider', do you really mean' are frightened, manipulated, or shouted down if disagreeing with a select group of people who want the war'? But, bama, what you fail to account for here are two crucial points: The first is that international relations have progressed a tad since the Age of the Vikings, and nations are NOT supposed to just do whatever they feel is in their best interests when those interests are abroad. Nowadays we call that kind of thingie imperialism. We make exceptions when one party has been attacked by the other party, but short of that there is nothing to morally distinguish our invasion of Iraq with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, or the Soviet's invasion of Afghanistan. You will say that in the age of terrorism, you have to act pre-emptively in your defense. I will respond that the UN defined what does and what does not consitute an act of defense, and pre-emptive invasions in specifically classified as an act of aggression. We know this in part because we wrote it. You will say that times have changed. I will say A) Only really for us, Europe has been dealing with terrorism for quite some time, and we didn't let them re-write the rule book, and B) Even if you accept that, if you are going off the page, you'd better be damned sure you're right. Without getting into how not damned sure we were, suffice it to say that if you do break the rules, and turn out to be wrong, you should be the one held accountable, not your intel. YOU made the discision, and 'sorry, their bad' won;t cover it. The second point is to what degree this was in our own interests. I realize that you will never budge on this issue, but suffice it to say that our intel said Iraq was no threat, and since then they have been proven correct. And nations which support or harbour terrorists is not only a specious and convenient label ( as it includes us, ect.) but it has been shown to be pure rhetoric, in that Saudi Arabia, and other nations which have much more substantial links to terrorism than Iraq, but also have more substantial economic links to the US, have been ignored. Pure hypocrisy. The fact that you still buy it puzzles me, or used to.
I will agree that there is probably little that could happen between now and the elction that will change my or many others' votes, and in that respect I agree with you. I haven't really gotten involved in many Rep-Dem debates outside the war, which is an ongoing issue, IMO. Regarding that issue, I will probably continue my pattern of periods of throwing up my hands and realizing that most won't even look at where they were wrong offset by periods of intense post debating as though I could make a difference. As for general election debates, once we have decided that Kerry is the guy who is going against Bush, the debate ends in all but academic realms for me. Bush os the worst thing to happen to this country in my lifetime, and unless Kerry suddenly shows himself to be even more of a disaster, I'll support him merely because he's not W. He doesn't really excite me, but at this point I'll take safe, run of the mill, and boring over iditiotic, arrogant, and dangerous, an oddly conservative decision.
Thank you for proving my earlier point that those on the left are going with Kerry because he is Anybody but Bush, not because he is their best guy for the job.
Comparing Bush to Charles Manson is utterly ridiculous. It's funny, if Bush so rankles you people, there must be something right about him after all!
Just like Clinton in the 1990s, huh? If he had all those wack job Nazi conservatives in an uproar, he must be doing something right, because they'd only support the status quo of racism, sexism, and repressed homosexuality...
I gave you too much credit. Obviously I am not saying Bush=Manson. What I was trying to point out was that a known quantity, if bad enough, justifies choosing another merely for not being the known bad quantity. That in a 2 option election, Anyone But Bush and the best man for the job are not mutually exclusive, nor even non-related, but in fact, synonomous. Even as I was 'typing' the Manson point, I briefly considered that you might come up with this kind of "Comparing Bush to...yada yada" response, but assumed you wouldn't take the T_J route. I was wrong.
It's a good a day to be a Democrat. We chose a well qualified man who's fought in wars, fought off cancer, and has come back from the brink of political defeat. Let there be no doubt this race will be tough, but we have a fighter this time, folks. Oh and damn John Edwards is good guy. I hope he is the vice presidential nominee. I'd love to see the debate between Dick Cheney and John Edwards.
