Being as I am one in the middle of the political spectrum, I have made some very clear observations from reading this topic.
This is about the 54th example in QZ's history in which dozens of questions are asked, and the conservative only answers the few in which he is able to give (what he sees as) a concrete answer. The non-conservative, on the other hand, does his best to answer everything that comes his way, even if it poses more questions in the end.
Even if such questions lean to the rhetorical, is it that difficult for the conservative to admit that the other person may have decent points, even if there is no immediate solution? Of course the answer is yes, because most conservative thinkers are those who think black and white (ie, not outside the box), and need immediate solutions, as well as constant division between right and wrong. Thus such an admission is seen by them as a weakness.
There are three kinds of people who have just read the above post: those who found this to be news, those who did not find it to be news, and those who will reject it out of denial.
Sorry, I'm in one of my moods.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Sorry GH, did you say you are a moderate? You're kidding right?
Sorry GH, did you say you are a moderate? You're kidding right?
Moderate indeed.
If I were on the left, I would have posted a direct rebuttle against you, perhaps giving reasons why certain things you said were plain wrong. But I didn't do that. I acknowledged that you did have good points. However, I also acknowledged that you clearly missed points that do not coincide with your political leaning.
Just because I noticed this doesn't mean I must therefore be on the left.
Iron_Eagle, what is country bashing? When in a discussion like that someone says "US", s/he is talking about the current government, at least I do. It's the government that defines the country in the eyes of the world and is responsible for such actions as the war in Iraq. That does not mean the US is a "bad country", they just have a government that does not respect other countries and sure not international law. Hopefully, they are not re-elected.
But peace nobel price winner and UN observer of elections (in non-democatic countries!!) Jimmy Carter already stated in the Washington Post yesterday, that Florida is AGAIN about to manipulate the outcome of the Presidential election. Again tens of thousands of voters are about to be deprived of their voting rights and again Bush campaign people are in charge of the elections. I don't understand why this is not much of a topic in the media. In the end, Bush will be a president without legal mandate.
But peace nobel price winner and UN observer of elections (in non-democatic countries!!) Jimmy Carter already stated in the Washington Post yesterday, that Florida is AGAIN about to manipulate the outcome of the Presidential election. Again tens of thousands of voters are about to be deprived of their voting rights and again Bush campaign people are in charge of the elections. I don't understand why this is not much of a topic in the media. In the end, Bush will be a president without legal mandate.
"No Iraq is not better off, but they will not be better off if the US leaves prematurely. The three religious factions will slaughter each other. The turning point appeared to come with the Iraqi prisoner torture fiasco. Suddenly the US appeared just as evil as the Baathists, Shiites and Al Qaeda. But is that really the case? The job still needs to be finished in Iraq - even if the terrorists hide in civilian areas. The terrorists cannot be caved into.
I am not a fan of Rumsfeld (did he authorize the torture - maybe) But elections should still be held if the terrorist areas refuse to participate. They effectively voted not to participate."
What is the "job" that needs to be finished? Can't you see that the "terrorists" you want to fight did not even exist in the Iraq before the US invasion? There is not one big group with a leader you can fight - you are fighting against a very small group of Al-Quaida people (who were not in Iraq before the war, they come from Saudi Arabia), groups of Islamistic terrorists from other countries who never operated in the Iraq before, some groups of Saddam loyalists - and you fight against civilians who just take a gun to defend their country against an illegal invader. Each dead Iraqui woman and child will make another civilian take a gun and fight the intruder.
This is not a "job", it's a war taken into a country that never was a threat for the USA, it's a war that was started against the UN resolutions, it's a war that was "justified" with lies and faked graphics shown to the world by US Secretary od State Colin Powell. It's a war that will end in a fiasco, a civil war in Iraq and increased terror all over the world.
And as to the elections: people are not terrorists only because they live in Falludja, Najaf or other cities which cannot be enterd by the US army anymore. If you deny them their voting rights, what kind of legal mandate are you trying to achieve? The Arab world begins to believe that the alleged freedom and democracy the US has in mind for the Iraq is not the same freedom and democracy they are talking about when it's their own country. How is it possible that the top officer who is in charge for deciding if Baath members are eligible for a job is searched for murder in Germany? How is it possible that US officials just ignore that they employ a killer as long as he only hates the Baath party enough?
And to Rumsfeld: it does not matter if he personally ordered the torture, he was in charge. In any democracy such a severe breach of law which hurts the country's reputation in the world leads to the resignation of the top official to show the world that such outrageous actions are not condoned by the government. That he is still in office only shows the total disrespect of this administration for the rest of the world.
I am not a fan of Rumsfeld (did he authorize the torture - maybe) But elections should still be held if the terrorist areas refuse to participate. They effectively voted not to participate."
What is the "job" that needs to be finished? Can't you see that the "terrorists" you want to fight did not even exist in the Iraq before the US invasion? There is not one big group with a leader you can fight - you are fighting against a very small group of Al-Quaida people (who were not in Iraq before the war, they come from Saudi Arabia), groups of Islamistic terrorists from other countries who never operated in the Iraq before, some groups of Saddam loyalists - and you fight against civilians who just take a gun to defend their country against an illegal invader. Each dead Iraqui woman and child will make another civilian take a gun and fight the intruder.
This is not a "job", it's a war taken into a country that never was a threat for the USA, it's a war that was started against the UN resolutions, it's a war that was "justified" with lies and faked graphics shown to the world by US Secretary od State Colin Powell. It's a war that will end in a fiasco, a civil war in Iraq and increased terror all over the world.
And as to the elections: people are not terrorists only because they live in Falludja, Najaf or other cities which cannot be enterd by the US army anymore. If you deny them their voting rights, what kind of legal mandate are you trying to achieve? The Arab world begins to believe that the alleged freedom and democracy the US has in mind for the Iraq is not the same freedom and democracy they are talking about when it's their own country. How is it possible that the top officer who is in charge for deciding if Baath members are eligible for a job is searched for murder in Germany? How is it possible that US officials just ignore that they employ a killer as long as he only hates the Baath party enough?
And to Rumsfeld: it does not matter if he personally ordered the torture, he was in charge. In any democracy such a severe breach of law which hurts the country's reputation in the world leads to the resignation of the top official to show the world that such outrageous actions are not condoned by the government. That he is still in office only shows the total disrespect of this administration for the rest of the world.
YV perhaps not you but you yourself know for a fact over the years there has been lots of country bashing--from all corners...
in regards to Carter-- funny how he complains 36 days out of the election with his partys canadate down by some 6 points--
one of his own aides from his time in the WH said this----
Randy Lewis, who worked as a press aide in the Carter White House and for a former speaker of Florida's House, was among those who questioned Carter's attack.
Florida's elections are overseen by county election supervisors who do not answer to state officials, which is not the case in many other states, Lewis said.
The voting machines that Florida is using this year have proven reliable in state elections since 2000, including the August primary, and are similar to those used elsewhere, including Georgia, Lewis and Faraj said.
"If [Carter's criticisms] are valid in Florida, they're even more valid in Georgia," said Lewis, who has a public relations firm, Fitzpatrick & Lewis, in Atlanta.
now remember they had a primary in August-- he said.....nothing then....nothing about his own state....or any other state with the machines..
nothing more then partisan politics IMO
in regards to Carter-- funny how he complains 36 days out of the election with his partys canadate down by some 6 points--
one of his own aides from his time in the WH said this----
Randy Lewis, who worked as a press aide in the Carter White House and for a former speaker of Florida's House, was among those who questioned Carter's attack.
Florida's elections are overseen by county election supervisors who do not answer to state officials, which is not the case in many other states, Lewis said.
The voting machines that Florida is using this year have proven reliable in state elections since 2000, including the August primary, and are similar to those used elsewhere, including Georgia, Lewis and Faraj said.
"If [Carter's criticisms] are valid in Florida, they're even more valid in Georgia," said Lewis, who has a public relations firm, Fitzpatrick & Lewis, in Atlanta.
now remember they had a primary in August-- he said.....nothing then....nothing about his own state....or any other state with the machines..
nothing more then partisan politics IMO
That's even worse then, isn't it? The most powerful man in the world is elected and there are doubts about the voting process, that should not happen.
As to the country bashing: I know what you are talking about. As a German I grew up with that: whenever a discussion comes up, I get the Nazis, WW2 and the Holocaust thrown in my face, even if the discussion is about a Queen bootleg. I just wanted you to know that I did not intend to bash the United States as a country, I am not that stupid.
As to the country bashing: I know what you are talking about. As a German I grew up with that: whenever a discussion comes up, I get the Nazis, WW2 and the Holocaust thrown in my face, even if the discussion is about a Queen bootleg. I just wanted you to know that I did not intend to bash the United States as a country, I am not that stupid.
nope didnt take it that way dear
btw still working on it....
btw still working on it....
I dont this board is equiped to handle political conversations. Everytime we do it every one just bitches at each other.
Yeah, but that's what makes it fun.
Sara, you well know what my position on this is, and so does everyone else, so I don't think I need to repeat it. What I will say is that I really don't give a shit who did what in or out of Vietnam, or who voted for what with regards to this stupid war. Bush's politics really frighten me, and his cabinet frightens me even more. I'm sick of having a right-wing nutjob in office, bin Laden or no bin Laden.
I dont this board is equiped to handle political conversations. Everytime we do it every one just bitches at each other.
Yeah, but that's what makes it fun.
Sara, you well know what my position on this is, and so does everyone else, so I don't think I need to repeat it. What I will say is that I really don't give a shit who did what in or out of Vietnam, or who voted for what with regards to this stupid war. Bush's politics really frighten me, and his cabinet frightens me even more. I'm sick of having a right-wing nutjob in office, bin Laden or no bin Laden.
*grins* I think I succeeded in doing what I set out to do.
I decided I could revive the board by pissing at least half the people off.
It worked :)
Hehe! :)
Wheeeeeeeee
Okay, I just finished reading this thread and I am spent. I would come up with a sentient, logical post, but...well, I'm spent. But I have to say something...someone in this thread mentioned something about Native Americans and tried to use it in his or her argument. Don't use that argument anymore. It is probably the most irrelevant thing I've seen in this thread (well, one of them...). That is all.
Music Man, the native american argument always meets that response...'It's the past...it's irrelevant...why dwell on it...'?
I big problem with US citizens is our total lack of understanding of our own history. Hell, the history of the continent for that matter. It clouds our ability to see the big picture for what it is. We tend to lack perspective. Both in terms of historical context and worldly contexxt. The US is not some amazing shining example of a great country that is untouchable by the rest of the planet's nations. We forget that. We tend to get overly patriotic. We turn nationalistic. And then think we're holier than though. And then we do stupid things. ;o)
The saving grace is that we're quick to forget the stupid things and go on as nothing happened.
Take the carter announcement today. People are upset about this? Do we forget that George W Bush lost the popular vote but win the presidency due to a miscount in the state where is own brother is the governor and his cousin was in charge of Fox's presidential election coverage? A state that was shown to use fraugelent methods to deny citizens the right to vote? A state that had a faulty voting system?
Yes. It's in the past. But let's not forget it. You constantly hear the bush admin-followers preaching '9/11...never forget' while at the same time spewing things like 'wellstone is dead...get over it' and 'Florida was 4 years go...let it go'.
Anyhoo, SirGH is a smart person. To be fair, conservatives are actually quite intelligent folks as well. As are liberals. There used to be a time when civil discoure used to be the way to figure things out. The followers of Bush aren't into that. They're a loud, aggressive subset of the GOP. They're not the majority, but they have the power. THOSE are the people that tend to not answer the questions, and instead try to simply muddy the conversation. Bush will be forever analyezed, studies, and immitated in countless debate classes for decades to come. He knows how to spin.
Bull, on the other hand, I'm not sure what to say to you. You seem to taunt folks to get a response from them, then fail to address any of their actual replies to you. You also tend to flip a comment around into an inane counter-question. It's hard to carry on a conversation in that manner.
I big problem with US citizens is our total lack of understanding of our own history. Hell, the history of the continent for that matter. It clouds our ability to see the big picture for what it is. We tend to lack perspective. Both in terms of historical context and worldly contexxt. The US is not some amazing shining example of a great country that is untouchable by the rest of the planet's nations. We forget that. We tend to get overly patriotic. We turn nationalistic. And then think we're holier than though. And then we do stupid things. ;o)
The saving grace is that we're quick to forget the stupid things and go on as nothing happened.
Take the carter announcement today. People are upset about this? Do we forget that George W Bush lost the popular vote but win the presidency due to a miscount in the state where is own brother is the governor and his cousin was in charge of Fox's presidential election coverage? A state that was shown to use fraugelent methods to deny citizens the right to vote? A state that had a faulty voting system?
Yes. It's in the past. But let's not forget it. You constantly hear the bush admin-followers preaching '9/11...never forget' while at the same time spewing things like 'wellstone is dead...get over it' and 'Florida was 4 years go...let it go'.
Anyhoo, SirGH is a smart person. To be fair, conservatives are actually quite intelligent folks as well. As are liberals. There used to be a time when civil discoure used to be the way to figure things out. The followers of Bush aren't into that. They're a loud, aggressive subset of the GOP. They're not the majority, but they have the power. THOSE are the people that tend to not answer the questions, and instead try to simply muddy the conversation. Bush will be forever analyezed, studies, and immitated in countless debate classes for decades to come. He knows how to spin.
Bull, on the other hand, I'm not sure what to say to you. You seem to taunt folks to get a response from them, then fail to address any of their actual replies to you. You also tend to flip a comment around into an inane counter-question. It's hard to carry on a conversation in that manner.
Joey - suppose you are talking about Jingles. He made one semi-decent point in this whole topic and I responded to it.
I do not regret taunting Jingles. Jingles was not shy about hurling insults (and not just at me).
"You also tend to flip a comment around into an inane counter-question."
Should I respond with an insult in kind?
I do not regret taunting Jingles. Jingles was not shy about hurling insults (and not just at me).
"You also tend to flip a comment around into an inane counter-question."
Should I respond with an insult in kind?
"Should I respond with an insult in kind?"
See...like that. I did not insult you. But you ask a question in response implying that I did. It's clever. It works on some folks.
Did anyone catch Peter Jennings showing a clip of Bush stating 'and I vehemently disagree with my opponent who said we'd be better off with Saddam in power' only to cut to a clip of Kerry's speech he was referring to where Kerry said nothing even close to that? It's funny because it's so blatant. It's scary because half of the country doesn't care.
See...like that. I did not insult you. But you ask a question in response implying that I did. It's clever. It works on some folks.
Did anyone catch Peter Jennings showing a clip of Bush stating 'and I vehemently disagree with my opponent who said we'd be better off with Saddam in power' only to cut to a clip of Kerry's speech he was referring to where Kerry said nothing even close to that? It's funny because it's so blatant. It's scary because half of the country doesn't care.
"Inane" = constructive criticism?