Ursa_Eagle Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 scott_harpell (pg 2) said: The war is justified 30 different ways. Perhaps the main reason Bush gave for entry was not valid but there are scores of other reasons. Genocide, Humanitarian Tradgedies, not allowing unfettered UN inspections etc. It is impossible to say that this war in unjustified. Then scott_harpell (pg 7) said: Why do you feel we need 30 when one is all that in necessary. He was attempting genocide on the Kurds. No matter what, the war is justified despite whatever reasons we were duped into believeing. Oh yeah, and your reasoning is still shows a lack of rational and comprehensive understanding of the facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Another quick question: if most people on this board think Bush is stupid and a very bad president yet he receives more votes than any president since 88, where does that leave you? It's called percent. Raw number doesn't mean much when your population grows. This was one of the closer elections ever. And to answer your question - I think many Americans are dim and ill informed. Statistics like this: Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points. Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Reinforce that position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmace Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Sorry, dont quite get that, what do they mean when they say Bush recevied the majority and he was the first to do that since 88? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrest_m Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 dryad wrote: I feel the same way as minx on this one and I finally figured out why. This election demonstrates the final triumph of anti-intellectualism in this country. The last election was a sign, but a lot of us were optimistically thinking, yeah maybe people could be fooled into electing a dumbass one time, but they'll see the error of their ways once they see him in action, plus he wasn't really elected anyway, so this will all sort itself out the next time around. Well, wrong. The majority of Americans saw the idiocy and decided they liked it. Now we bicoastal urban secular non-NASCAR-watching "culturally elite" types fully realize just how fundamentally different we are from the rest of America, and this sense of disconnect is depressing. dryad - thank you for articulating what i've been feeling all day. i mean, i've always been aware that my personal political beliefs are more "progressive" (or whatever) than the majority, but i've sustained myself with the feeling that i was just ahead of the curve... and after last night, i realize that, no, actually, i'm moving in the opposite direction from the "average" america, and i'm starting to despair of ever having a government that represents anything approaching my values. the majority of people in this country looked at the last four years and decided they wanted more. it makes me want to cry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Democracy is where you get what you deserve not what you need. You got Bush. Maybe instead of fleeing the country because your side lost you should WORK HARDER FOR THE NEXT 4 YEARS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sverdina Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Democracy is where you get what you deserve not what you need. You got Bush. Maybe instead of fleeing the country because your side lost you should WORK HARDER FOR THE NEXT 4 YEARS. Bingo! ...and it takes a Canadian to point this out. Sadly, most of us won't be alive in 70 years to embrace this change. ha ha... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Sorry, dont quite get that, what do they mean when they say Bush recevied the majority and he was the first to do that since 88? This was the first year people didn't throw their vote away on a 3rd Party. Your proving my earlier point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeezix Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 dryad wrote: I feel the same way as minx on this one and I finally figured out why. This election demonstrates the final triumph of anti-intellectualism in this country. The last election was a sign, but a lot of us were optimistically thinking, yeah maybe people could be fooled into electing a dumbass one time, but they'll see the error of their ways once they see him in action, plus he wasn't really elected anyway, so this will all sort itself out the next time around. Well, wrong. The majority of Americans saw the idiocy and decided they liked it. Now we bicoastal urban secular non-NASCAR-watching "culturally elite" types fully realize just how fundamentally different we are from the rest of America, and this sense of disconnect is depressing. dryad - thank you for articulating what i've been feeling all day. i mean, i've always been aware that my personal political beliefs are more "progressive" (or whatever) than the majority, but i've sustained myself with the feeling that i was just ahead of the curve... and after last night, i realize that, no, actually, i'm moving in the opposite direction from the "average" america, and i'm starting to despair of ever having a government that represents anything approaching my values. the majority of people in this country looked at the last four years and decided they wanted more. it makes me want to cry. I agree. I think it's from watching too much TV. It makes one stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Did you ever think that maybe the liberals are moving and the rest of the public is staying the same? If the liberal party would stay true to its roots, an extremist like GWB would not be able to get in. 50+% of Americans did not yell out that they are aligned with Bush but rather that they are angry with the left for being more concerned with continuing the "progressive" moniker than actually fighting for the original causes of their party. Most people I knew that voted for Bush did so because they cannot endorse a candidate so radically left. They disagreed with Bush, but felt that even Bush could represent them better than someone so out of touch with the average American and is so driven on carying the "progressive" moniker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Scott, have you noticed how all the liberals on this site have failed to be introspective? Instead, they're striking out with their blunted claws like the angry people they are, angry that they lost when they were so confident they had it won. Instead of trying to figure out what's wrong with their ideals, they can only say that the neocon ideal is wrong. Quite pathetic, really. A word about a word: "progressive" goes both ways. The opposite of progressive is not necessarily 'regressive,' the word one party would apply to any ideal of the other party. Liberals like to call themselves progressive but conservatives can be progressive too. It depends on the particular issue under discussion and the way you think about the issue. How much do you want to change or maintain the status quo? Liberals often like the status quo on matters yet they call that ideal progressive. And visa versa for the neocons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Your certainly right Scott. The liberal party is moving, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Organisms of any sort (be they nations or bacteria) need to learn, grow, change and adapt. It seems like the conservatives want a ridgid, inflexible government that homogonizes everyone, while the liberals are trying to move forward. I would say that's a good thing though, led to abortion rights, desegregation, womens suffrage, etc. And it's not just TV, it's the entire, culture, of mass produced, easily digestable, uncontrovercial, ultra homogonized, unoffensive, crap, be it N-Sync, Britney Spears, Walmart, Fear Factor, or Reality TV. The whole problem is that so many things in our society are geared towards not being acceptable and marketable to everyone, hence no ones beliefs are challenged in ways that force them to critically analyze them. I think this goes for both sides of the political spectrum. The whole process of life has become "easy", following the paths that are not necessarily good or right, but are the ones that immediately appear under our feet. Can't remember who said it but "Following the path of least resistance, is what makes rivers and men crooked" and it's the path this country seems to want to be on. I've got a friend who I went to highschool with (and is a really intelligent guy) but drifted into the whole libertarian/constituitanalist/states rights movement. For a while he was actually part of the new incarnation of Amway, and firmly believed that the best way to make lots of money (which in my opinion is disproportionally important to him) was to find someone with lots of money, and imitate them/do what they say works. The fault in his logic was that the people telling him what to do, weren't looking out for his best interests they were looking out for their own. It was apparent if you really sat down and thought about it... of course they all said, don't think, do what I tell you....What's easy and attractive is rarely right. and people in this country are making too many decisions based on what's easy or pleasant, and not on what's good or right in my opinion. (Again this goes for both sides of the political spectrum to some degree) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Scott, have you noticed how all the liberals on this site have failed to be introspective? Instead, they're striking out with their blunted claws like the angry people they are, angry that they lost when they were so confident they had it won. Instead of trying to figure out what's wrong with their ideals, they can only say that the neocon ideal is wrong. Quite pathetic, really. Not quite all the liberals Anyways, it's just the and talking as everyone trys to dull the pain and contemplates moving to Canada and giving away the south. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Scott, have you noticed how all the liberals on this site have failed to be introspective? Instead, they're striking out with their blunted claws like the angry people they are, angry that they lost when they were so confident they had it won. Instead of trying to figure out what's wrong with their ideals, they can only say that the neocon ideal is wrong. Quite pathetic, really. funny to see this below dryad's post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWolfe Posted November 4, 2004 Author Share Posted November 4, 2004 Klenke, not all of us are liberals. Some of us are irritated Old Conservatives, shocked at the brash swashbuckling "New Conservatives", who seem to have adopted that worst element of the Dems. It is also that way on the otherside, to be fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willstrickland Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 So if you're going to bomb a nuclear facility (or Nukular if you prefer)...there is bound to be a radioactive mess. My question is: Does that mean we can just shoot a ICBM nuke into Iran? I mean a regular bomb on a nuclear facility or a nuclear bomb on a nuclear facility...what's the difference really? Some of those Minutemen missiles are pretty old, might as well dust em off and let G-dubs and Dicky Vader punch in the launch codes, turn the dual keys, and push the red buttons before those missiles are useless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Schuldt Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 So my Republican dad said the election was about values. My question is what the hell are values going to do for you when your kid gets killed in Iraq and you run out of unemployment? With all the bad news on the economy and the war all some folks cared about is values. WTF? My republican uncle told me: "I am voting not for Bush, who I think is an idiot, but as one who is concerned about who gets apointed to the Supreme Court" Thousands of people are getting killed in Iraq and elsewhere and folks in this country are worried about "values" Doesn't life have value? My dad said: "You liberals don't get it". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWolfe Posted November 4, 2004 Author Share Posted November 4, 2004 Your uncle is right. Your dad is right too. They are speaking of "core" values, not valuing individual lives, or lives at all. Conservatism understands that all successes are at a cost, and if you stick to your "values" things will not go awry. My issue is the Republicans making the assumption that their "New Conservative" values supercede and are inclusive of, the core understanding of slow progression. Which it is obviously not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 (edited) Will... edit: hey wait a minute. You edited your post. I'm not sure I follow your "new" post. Edited November 4, 2004 by klenke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Some of those Minutemen missiles are pretty old, might as well dust em off and let G-dubs and Dicky Vader punch in the launch codes, turn the dual keys, and push the red buttons before those missiles are useless. Don't worry Will, the contracts have already gone out to have them refurb'd. The defence industry does not rest when there's money to be made. Oh, and to make you feel more secure, DOD wants ONE soild fuel missile contractor in the future. As in only one contractor with the ability to fulfill the contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 A word about a word: "progressive" goes both ways. The opposite of progressive is not necessarily 'regressive,' the word one party would apply to any ideal of the other party. Liberals like to call themselves progressive but conservatives can be progressive too. It depends on the particular issue under discussion and the way you think about the issue. How much do you want to change or maintain the status quo? Liberals often like the status quo on matters yet they call that ideal progressive. And visa versa for the neocons. The thing is that the current status quo in the liberal party is not working. You would think that they would understand this. If GWB can get re-elected, something is wrong. Perhaps the motto "being progressive at any cost" is not working. Kerry had near carte blanche and blew it. Hopefully the dems can figure this out and re-configure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 I don't see any masive catastrophy happening in the next 4 years (with the possible exception of Roe v. Wade being overturned) What I do see is 4 more years of: Increasing budget deficit Fewer people with health insurance Ignoring more science and more trashing of the environment. More Jesus More war. I don't believe that Kerry would have had any more success in Iraq than Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dberdinka Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 BUT are we still going to MARS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 How come so many extremely religious individuals feel honestly believe that only their "morals" are valid? Do they honestly feel that everyone else is completely immoral and with out any sense of ethics or what's right? This goes for both the terrorists, and a lot of religious right. I never quite understood that. How can people be so arrogant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 How come so many extremely religious individuals feel honestly believe that only their "morals" are valid? Do they honestly feel that everyone else is completely immoral and with out any sense of ethics or what's right? This goes for both the terrorists, and a lot of religious right. I never quite understood that. How can people be so arrogant? Who are you talking about here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.