Does this matter?

Everything Political

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:26 pm

CS,
cartoonsyndicate wrote:When I said I was done arguing with Ray what I meant was that we, two, have irreconcilable points of view and that the argument is meaningless since no resolution is possible.


IMO, it only seems irreconcilable because you only want to talk about what you want to talk about. That is an issue of parity, and such an issue will always be a problem in a discussion that wishes to be meaningful. I have highlighted where I see a lack of parity to you before, but you never address it. The latest example is when I challenged your application of one statistic over a statistic I have presented. You appear to simply refuse to address this point, yet I am willing to listen IF you have a good foundation for why your statistic is preferred over mine. I might even agree. Instead, there is only silence, and so I am left to either assume that you cannot defend your application of that statistic as more appropriate than the one I quoted, or you are in silent agreement that my quoted statistic is more appropriate. Do you see the problem there? Either acquiesce the point to me (a noble thing to do when you know you are cornered) or defend it. But your silence and unwillingness to address my points is what leads to the lack of parity in this dicussion. And that, IMO, is what makes it SEEM that we have irreconcilable differences.

You're an intelligent guy, I give you that. But I don't see you willing to play the "give and take" that is necessary to find common ground. You enjoy the "take" but when it gets to a point where a reasonable man sees he has to "give", you either ignore it (hoping it will be forgotten) or bow-out.

More later on your link...
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA


Postby I.P.Freely » Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:13 am

Ray your a man with firm convictions in what you believe and I respect that. I think toon like me has just come to the conclusion that we are just to set in our views and this is going nowhere. Basically you, me, and toon are just too stubborn. At least thats my perspective.
"You can either trust people or not. I choose to trust what people say and sometimes I get lied to. If I were to trust no one I would never hear the truth." - James (IPF) Martell
I.P.Freely
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 611
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:48 pm

Postby ryguy » Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:37 am

Ray - I like your style... You approach arguments in the same way I do - and because of that I'd like to challenge you to a duel...a debate. I'll admit, I approach this as a major challenge...but I'm curious how a debate between us would pan out....especially on an issue as hot as GWB. Like I said, I'm normally a moderate Republican - but I believe the Bush legacy (and his family's legacy) transcends political party lines. It's important enough to take some time to really lay out both sides by two guys who feel pretty strongly about it. Unlike CS - I promise not to shy away from those solid punches you throw. ;)

One opening post each. Then we alternate, one post after another, for 3 posts. Then a concluding post. Same style as an ATS debate.

Topic: "George W. Bush is a tyrant who has single-handedly dealt a black eye to the entire free world."

The sides are obvious -
Arguing For: ryguy
Arguing Against: Ray

I will give you the choice whether you want to open or not (assuming you're interested). Word limit of 300 opening post, and 700-800 words each followup post (use MS word for wordcount).

Interested in some friendly debate? If you accept this friendly challenge, I'll open up a new thread for it and we can go at it. ;)

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:32 am

Hi Ry,

ryguy wrote:Interested in some friendly debate? If you accept this friendly challenge, I'll open up a new thread for it and we can go at it. ;)


Interesting idea. My fear, however, is that this is going to eat into some quality "Robot Chicken" time. :lol: But I'm game. Go ahead and start the thread, and since you offered to allow me to go first, I'd be happy to.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Postby cartoonsyndicate » Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:40 pm

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:CS,
cartoonsyndicate wrote:When I said I was done arguing with Ray what I meant was that we, two, have irreconcilable points of view and that the argument is meaningless since no resolution is possible.


IMO, it only seems irreconcilable because you only want to talk about what you want to talk about. That is an issue of parity, and such an issue will always be a problem in a discussion that wishes to be meaningful. I have highlighted where I see a lack of parity to you before, but you never address it. The latest example is when I challenged your application of one statistic over a statistic I have presented. You appear to simply refuse to address this point, yet I am willing to listen IF you have a good foundation for why your statistic is preferred over mine. I might even agree. Instead, there is only silence, and so I am left to either assume that you cannot defend your application of that statistic as more appropriate than the one I quoted, or you are in silent agreement that my quoted statistic is more appropriate. Do you see the problem there? Either acquiesce the point to me (a noble thing to do when you know you are cornered) or defend it. But your silence and unwillingness to address my points is what leads to the lack of parity in this dicussion. And that, IMO, is what makes it SEEM that we have irreconcilable differences.

You're an intelligent guy, I give you that. But I don't see you willing to play the "give and take" that is necessary to find common ground. You enjoy the "take" but when it gets to a point where a reasonable man sees he has to "give", you either ignore it (hoping it will be forgotten) or bow-out.

More later on your link...
Ray


No Ray, I'm backed into no corner.

Only a fool or a deliberate dissembler would deny that generosity is rooted in sacrifice; that the relative degree of altruism exhibited by any person or nation is based upon the percentage of wealth donated relative to its total wealth. In this regard, according to the charts that you posted, the United States is shamefully next to last on the list of generous nations- our donations failing by more than two thirds of the conservative percentage recommended by the United Nations.

cs
amidst the growing ripples and wiry bamboos, broken in youth like the teeth of a mutant.. Afterburn, ca 1978
User avatar
cartoonsyndicate
Suspended
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: The Borg

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:40 pm

CA,

cartoonsyndicate wrote:Only a fool or a deliberate dissembler would deny that generosity is rooted in sacrifice; that the relative degree of altruism exhibited by any person or nation is based upon the percentage of wealth donated relative to its total wealth.


This was really the only direction you could go. And I knew you would go there. Yes, it is about sacrifice, and I believe you would have to agree that it is about willing sacrifice. In other words, voluntary charitable donations, not donations that are forced via taxes. And this is where your analysis is terribly shallow. You stopped when you found the answer you needed to "shame America". An effective analyst continues to probe the numbers to find out "why are they this way". You don't have to probe far to figure out why. Take a look at the top contributor on a per GNI basis, Norway. Are you aware that Norway is (a) Socialist and (b) one of the most (if not THE most) heavily taxed society on the face of the planet? I can show you the data that tells this story if you like, but you are also capable of finding it. So I am afraid that FORCED sacrifice through government-directed wealth redistribution does not align with American ideals. We are not a socialist state. Nice try. In fact, if you examine the "top five" on a per GNI basis, you will see ALL of these countries have much higher tax bases than the USA. Don't you think correlations matter in explaining phenomena?

In this regard, according to the charts that you posted, the United States is shamefully next to last on the list of generous nations-


And this is really what it is all about with you - shaming America and shaming other people. Isn't it? it is your MO. It shows in virtually all the interactions I have had with you. Your attempt to tell me I had a "sub rosa" agenda was an attempt to shame me.

our donations failing by more than two thirds of the conservative percentage recommended by the United Nations.


And we have seen how trustworthy the UN has been in the oil-for-food program, haven't we? Would you now like to do a little research with me and locate statistics on countries and their VOLUNTARY donation levels?

http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi

Click on the chart for "Most Improved". An issue such as this is seriously multi-dimensional. What I am NOT saying is that our charitable giving can't be improved. It can. But there are other issues (such as corruption on the receiving ends) that rarely get attention. It is much too easy to point the finger at the USA and "shame them into giving more". Look at the bigger picture.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Postby cartoonsyndicate » Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:30 pm

What I am NOT saying is that our charitable giving can't be improved.

on this we agree.

Let me introduce here a modest proposal on taxes and democracy. Let a law be passed by Congress that allows every taxpayer to 'earmark' his federal tax contribution. Various categories would be devised that would cover the entire spectrum of Congressional spending and all filers would select, from this list, where his/her taxes would apply. All cabinet departments would then have no more, no less than the amounts allocated to them by individual American taxpayers. This allocation would be based on 1040 reporting only. Let's then see if the Dumbya wars will be supported, if Americans demand greater contributions to the third world, if alternative energy shall be funded, if national healthcare shall become a reality- and on and on. Every department starts with a zero sum. The people will decide on American priorities. To my mind this would be the truest exercise of democracy.

Let's let the People decide.

cs
amidst the growing ripples and wiry bamboos, broken in youth like the teeth of a mutant.. Afterburn, ca 1978
User avatar
cartoonsyndicate
Suspended
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: The Borg

Postby Max » Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:21 am

That is the dumbest, most ridiculous proposal you have made to date.

To hell with fact-finding, to hell with prioritizing, to hell with the hearings where these things take place, all in an attempt to keep "Dumbya" from waging "his" war.

Fund the knee-jerk reaction of the day and to hell with it.

On one hand, toon, you are so passionate about the Constitution, when it suits your purposes, On the other hand you want to throw out what the founding fathers devised, a representative form of government, because you think the masses would be more likely to agree with your skewed views. And they just might, because they would be working from a position of ignorance, without all the facts necessary to make those important funding decisions. Just like you are.
Bleh.
View my Blog

You can't photoshop logic.
User avatar
Max
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby ryguy » Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:20 am

Max wrote: And they just might, because they would be working from a position of ignorance, without all the facts necessary to make those important funding decisions.


I'd have to agree wholeheartedly. It isn't a matter of ignorance or stupidity, it's just that there is absolutely specialized training and education that goes into finance/funding and budgets. If the American people were left to simply left to select where they wanted their money to go, like it's some charitable contribution - we'd have a multi-billion dollar breast cancer research appropriation and a $2.00 road and bridge maintenance program. People feel very passionate about certain things - and others they simply take for granted. It is the purpose and the job of those we elect, to consider the needs of everyone as a whole - and appropriate funds where they are most needed by society.

That's the idealistic picture anyway. The reality is that politicians have their "pet projects" for their home states, as well as the powerful industrial & military that drives many of those funding decisions that may not necessarily be for the good of everyone. That's human nature, and so there certainly need to be guidelines or laws put in place to avoid that kind of behavior in misappropriating funds as well.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby Max » Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:29 pm

The American PEOPLE that allow their representatives to fund things that the populace is against are the ones that carry the ultimate responsibility for those in charge. It's very easy for the likes of toon to constantly bash "Dumbya", but the American people re-elected him.

For years there was a deep anger building about what was happening to the country, therefore the sweeping Republican winnings during Newt Gingrich's contract with America which gave rise to Republicans controlling all three govt branches. Now there have been somewhat more modest but still telling victories by Democrats. Anger building on the other side. None of this is new, but what is new is that the country is fractured just about 50/50. Red and Blue maps. People on both sides are fed up with the other. Tolerance is at an at all time low. Anger is at an all time high. Dangerous times. Stuff civil-wars are made of. And our enemies love it.

In times past our enemies worried that killing 3,000 plus people would "wake up a sleeping tiger" (Pearl Harbor). Now our enemies are in the process of bringing down a country by killing 3,000 and blowing up a couple of buildings.

And what has caused this? The vitriolic attacks by the famous and not so famous. The likes of Alex Baldwin and Whoopi Goldberg who were going to move out of the country if "Dumbya" was elected. Cher who with a high school dropout education felt qualified to call a Harvard graduate dumb. The Leahy's and Pelosis and Schumers of the world who will twist and turn facts to benefit their political agendas and to whom truth doesn't matter. And yes. on a much smaller scale and less significantly, our beloved toon.

And I guess they think they're accomplishing something with all this vitriol. They're too dumb to understand that the conservative side just gets angrier and there will be payback. They choose to forget that their beloved leader transferred military technology to China for political contributions, even forget that after the Clinton-caused debacle in Somalia Osama Bin Laden made the statement that if you give the Americans a bloody nose they'll run away. Some Americans haven't forgotten all of that and fully know what the meaning of the word is, is.

In the aftermath of the last National Election there were even calls for a separation of the Nation based on the deep divides by some very well known, noted columnists.

Strap your seat belt on tight, it's going to continue to get more and more turbulent in this atmosphere.

(BTW RY, Quote"It isn't a matter of ignorance or stupidity"Unquote. , Per Oxford English Dictionary: ignorance: • noun lack of knowledge or information.)
View my Blog

You can't photoshop logic.
User avatar
Max
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby ryguy » Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:36 pm

Max wrote:The American PEOPLE that allow their representatives to fund things that the populace is against are the ones that carry the ultimate responsibility for those in charge. It's very easy for the likes of toon to constantly bash "Dumbya", but the American people re-elected him.


Actually - Diebold voting machines in Ohio re-elected him...but let's not go there...lol

Tolerance is at an at all time low. Anger is at an all time high. Dangerous times. Stuff civil-wars are made of. And our enemies love it.


I agree to an extent...but it's what makes most free nations unique. We're free to express our discontent with government - we're free to disagree (many times quite fervently - as you yourself express well right here in this thread)....but so do the soldiers who are on the battlefield. You think they don't have these same exact debates that we're having back at base camp? But when under fire - they come together, they support eachother as American soldiers. That's what we do. We can disagree - but stay united under a common flag of freedom.

We'll certainly swap power back and forth between party. Yes, as a Republican I helped swap congressional power to the Democrats. I'm proud of that, and was happy to see the majority felt the same. The Republicans were getting a little too content and arrogant for their posts, it was time for a changing of the guard, that was quite clear to most.

However the attacks against the standing president, at least speaking personally (I can't speak for anyone else) - has little to nothing to do with politics. It has to do with where a family's finances and heart lies, in relation to an individual's professional responsibilities as president. When there's a major disconnect there, there's a major problem.

Our enemies won a major blow, when the son of the man who supported them through Intel (CIA activities) and through family financial investments, won the 2000 election. That was the year that our nation was dealt a major blow. Everything else afterwards has been our payback for making a stupid and "ignorant" election decision (twice). You can be sure more people will be doing their proper homework this time (hopefully).

-Ry
Last edited by ryguy on Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby cartoonsyndicate » Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:39 pm

Said Max:
In the aftermath of the last National Election there were even calls for a separation of the Nation based on the deep divides by some very well known, noted columnists.


wow. i musta slept thru that debate! who exactly were these noted columnists?

And why do you rely on the 'vitriol' of actors and comedians rather than intellectuals (and noted columnists) who made the same point about this tassel-loafered moron who squandered a Yale education on cocaine, blackjack and cheer-leading? For example: Andrew Bacevich, Pat Buchanan, Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo, Taki, Leon Hadar, Joe Sobran, Paul C. Roberts, Bill Lind, Ivan Eland, Dr. Ron Paul, Joshua Frank, Jude Wanniski (RIP), Michael Scheuer, John Pilger, Robert Fisk and on and on...?

I'll take my advice from Pat Buchanan over Whoopi Goldberg any day.

Best,

Toon
amidst the growing ripples and wiry bamboos, broken in youth like the teeth of a mutant.. Afterburn, ca 1978
User avatar
cartoonsyndicate
Suspended
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: The Borg

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:34 pm

Max,

You certainly have demonstrated that you have CS's number, along with so many others that fall victim to the liberal partisan disease which prevents them from seeing a middle ground.

Max wrote:And what has caused this? The vitriolic attacks by the famous and not so famous. The likes of Alex Baldwin and Whoopi Goldberg who were going to move out of the country if "Dumbya" was elected.


And like so many Hollywood types who sling such vitriol, it was all just an act. They do not even have the guts to stand by their convictions. It's play-acting intended to do nothing more than stir people's emotions, so they don't bother trying to think rationally.

And I guess they think they're accomplishing something with all this vitriol. They're too dumb to understand that the conservative side just gets angrier and there will be payback. They choose to forget that their beloved leader transferred military technology to China for political contributions, even forget that after the Clinton-caused debacle in Somalia Osama Bin Laden made the statement that if you give the Americans a bloody nose they'll run away. Some Americans haven't forgotten all of that and fully know what the meaning of the word is, is.


And yet again you point to CS's (and his ilk's) Achilles heel. Since the first time CS chose to engage me (and tell me what my motivations just HAD to be), I have attempted to shine a light on the middle ground. I have avoided Clinton-bashing and using childish and provacative name-calling attacks on the liberal stalwarts that CS and his ilk no doubt worship. But true to his game plan, he can conveniently ignore the "bad" and "evil" that Clinton brought to our country. Shall we dredge-up more bitter memories, since you have touched-on payback? Yes, let's do so.

For all those years that the Republicans controlled the Congressional agenda, we were constantly hearing the whining of the Democrat minority about how "unfair" the Republicans were being, and how they were "closing out" the Democratic Party's voice through implementing their "Draconian" rules. Of course such cries were intended to get you to believe that these same Democrats are honest, and fair, and would never pull such tactics were they in power. Enter Nancy Pelosi. And now we see "payback" for all those years that the Republicans "demeaned" them.

Now, as a conservative who understands and fully tries to stay planted on the middle ground, I can even admit that the Republican Party uses the same tactics, and that when they took control of Congress their actions were, indeed, "payback for all those years". But of course, we never see such admissions from CS. Instead, he totally obfuscates the fact that Clinton gave away technology to China for campaign $, and even goes a step further and tries to pin this on Clinton's predecessor (another of those evil Republicans).

My entire point has been to try and get people (especially thick-headed name-callers like CS) to understand that their vitriolic actions are exactly what the Party Bosses want. It serves their agendas on both sides. It divides the American people right down the middle. So as smart as CS thinks he is, he is really doing nothing more than playing into their hands as he goes on his Quixotic consevative-bashing, name-calling rants.

I could easily stoop to his level, and fight fire with fire, and start calling Bill Clinton and Hillary, and Howard Dean, and all the other usual suspects all sorts of demeaning, hateful names. But if I did so, not only would I be just as bad as CS, but I would be giving the Republican partisan wanks exactly what they want. So for all the posturing that CS does about "uniting America" his actions speak so much louder than his words. Clearly he could never, EVER see ANY good that has come about from Bush II, or Bush I, or Reagan, etc. it is just not in his EMOTIONAL makeup to "go there".

I see good and bad in all things, as this is the way of the universe. It is part of nature. All things can be used for good or bad, and all things have their evil side. When you begin to not only think this way, and preach it, but actually live it in your life you will join the largest contingent of Americans who DO want to remain unified, and who do NOT give into the vitriolic nonsense that both political parties feed off of.

I am 100% in your corner, Max. You are a gentleman and a scholar.
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Postby ryguy » Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:54 pm

I've locked this thread...everyone please cool off for a day or two. No new threads in this section for 24 hrs, until we can find a way to keep people on the issues and off of eachother.
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby ryguy » Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:59 pm

I am unlocking this thread again, but first would like to make a few points regarding extremism in politics.

I recall my discussions with a particular member of my family, who is very, very right-wing Conservative. Loves listening to Rush. Goes ice fishing with his buddy and discusses the immoral qualities of Kennedy and Kerry (the two most hated democrats from Massachusetts) over the fishing holes. He adores Fox News and despises all other news networks as "bastions of liberalism".... And repeats all of the right-wing "talking points" - we must not "cut and run" from Iraq, the 'persecution' of 'Scooter' Libby, the hypocritical statements of the Clinton duo....etc...

When I first said that I'm a "moderate"...he said "oh yes, yes...me too". The same goes for anyone at the other extreme. We're all moderate in our own eyes. The real test is whether you can watch CBS news or FOX news without your blood pressure rising because you think either report is too "biased". The real test is whether you can discuss a hot issue, such as Iraq, or China, or current Congressional hearings, or even the inproprieties of a particular politician - without resorting to attacking either party. If you can - then you are a moderate.

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:Max,

You certainly have demonstrated that you have CS's number, along with so many others that fall victim to the liberal partisan disease which prevents them from seeing a middle ground.


CS is one extreme of liberalism. I'd even step out far enough here to say I'll bet he falls into the "no more blood for oil" crowd - and would be quick to attack "the extreme conservative agenda". In my mind he's quickly out of the running for being moderate. However - the same goes for Ray and Max. The "liberal partisan disease" is no more pandemic than the "neo-conservative disease". However, I will submit that they are both as virulent and harmful to the cohesiveness of our country. But I further submit that what you three have displayed here is exactly why - both ends consider themselves the middle while continuing to follow the tactics of the right or left wing, and repeating those extreme "talking points" about the "other side".


Max wrote:And what has caused this? The vitriolic attacks by the famous and not so famous. The likes of Alex Baldwin and Whoopi Goldberg who were going to move out of the country if "Dumbya" was elected.


Yes, what has caused this are the Hollywood types - the "no more blood for oil" types, but also the Conservatives who can't see beyond their own party politics, their own bible, or accept their own blindness to the realities that are causing the most severe problems in this nation. We need to be willing to accept, not only that members of the "other" party are contributing to the problems, but that members of our own are equally as bad. And yes, past presidents haven't been perfect, but we can't ignore the improprieties of a current president because we feel the need to defend him on the grounds of party loyalty.

It's play-acting intended to do nothing more than stir people's emotions, so they don't bother trying to think rationally.


Not everyone. Personally, after the 2004 election issues (please carefully review http://www.blackboxvoting.org/)...and reading about how voting machines are misallocated between wealthy areas vs. disadvantaged areas, it's clear our elections are not democratic and are jaded to favor the views and votes of the wealthy. Please study the election problems carefully before forming an opinion either way.

I certainly was not play acting when I removed myself from the mailing list of the Republican electronic communications, or when I assisted several Democratic efforts in NH (and was very pleased to see that state flip from previously "red" to "blue").... A lot of people are waking up to the reality here - that the disparity between wealth and disadvantage and the influence of wealth in politics has reached a breaking point. People (truly in the middle) are not willing to stand for it any longer - regardless of personal political affiliation.

And I guess they think they're accomplishing something with all this vitriol. They're too dumb to understand that the conservative side just gets angrier and there will be payback.


Who exactly is too dumb? What payback? I'd say over 3000 dead soldiers should be enough to at least cause all of us to pause for a moment and take a careful examination of why we've asked these men and women to make such a sacrifice, were and are the benefits worth the sacrifice, their lives (consider it as though the life is either your own or a loved one), and we must consider which socio-economic segment of the population is being asked to make the largest sacrifices - and will the benefits be distributed in the same way? I don't know....how many of those folks earn over $100,000 hazard pay from Haliburton? No...those folks are earning soldier's pay for soldier's work. Consider these issues from a standpoint without party bias or hatred.

....even forget that after the Clinton-caused debacle in Somalia Osama Bin Laden made the statement that if you give the Americans a bloody nose they'll run away.


Not forgotten at all! Clinton should have never conducted that debacle in the first place. It was the wrong way to handle the situation to begin with - and once you have put your boot in the s^~t, do you continue to step in it further, or do you pull back and lick your wounds - and accept that you've made a mistake from the start? When you're in a mess of your own making, and it's a catch22 whether you leave or stay - you do what it takes to avoid the soldiers who are still alive from having to pay for your mistakes more than their comrades already have. You bring them home alive and lick your wounds - and swear to them that you'll never do such a thing to them ever again.

Some Americans haven't forgotten all of that and fully know what the meaning of the word is, is.


No...some Americans remember the lessons learned from Vietnam. How long before we finally pull out of the quagmire and accept that we were wrong? That our intelligence was flawed, partially manipulated by politicians, and led to us asking our soldiers to make a sacrifice for reasons that were not entirely honest. That is unacceptable. If my friend or family died in such a conflict, I would be outraged. A great many are - see http://www.gsfp.org/. I know many dislike Cindy....but the groups cause is a strong one, and their numbers have grown exponentially...it's stunning. The list of families grows very long, and their rallies are large and emotional.

From the father of Nick Berg:

Yes, I hold George Bush accountable as well as the people who killed him. George Bush who never once sent a word to me or my family. George Bush who only used my son's death to further justify his unjustifiable war. George Bush who tried and executed my son's supposed killer Abu Masab al Zirqawi with his orders to bomb Zirqawi's expected location. George Bush who has now deprived me of ever knowing who really killed my son.

For all of these reasons and that you know it is the right thing to do, IMPEACH GEORGE BUSH.

Yours in Peace,

Michael S. Berg
Father of Nick Berg, April 2, 1978 - May 7, 2004 Died near Fallujiah, Iraq.


Nick was only 3 years younger than me. That could easily have been any of us...was it worth it? I know, I know..."fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here"....we were fighting them in Afghanistan...they ran away into Pakistan...so we invaded......er....Iraq. Don't think this is about terrorism for heavens sake. If it was, we'd have found Bin Ladin in a hole rather than Saddam. Think we didn't have the capability to find that little piece of fecal matter in the mountains? Please.

Now, as a conservative who understands and fully tries to stay planted on the middle ground, I can even admit that the Republican Party uses the same tactics, and that when they took control of Congress their actions were, indeed, "payback for all those years". But of course, we never see such admissions from CS. Instead, he totally obfuscates the fact that Clinton gave away technology to China for campaign $, and even goes a step further and tries to pin this on Clinton's predecessor (another of those evil Republicans).


In all honestly - I can't deny any of that. Clinton made a mountain of mistakes in all honesty. Any true moderate will accept that.

My entire point has been to try and get people (especially thick-headed name-callers like CS) to understand that their vitriolic actions are exactly what the Party Bosses want. It serves their agendas on both sides. It divides the American people right down the middle. So as smart as CS thinks he is, he is really doing nothing more than playing into their hands as he goes on his Quixotic consevative-bashing, name-calling rants.


Yes...but Ray the error in caving and counter-punching is you potentially reveal the true nature of your political slant and bias (if there is one). Or at least you give the appearance of having such a bias. Now one cay point to this and say - "ah see....he's really an extreme right-wing conservative."

Clearly he could never, EVER see ANY good that has come about from Bush II, or Bush I, or Reagan, etc. it is just not in his EMOTIONAL makeup to "go there".


That is true - and there is some good. But one must also go the extra mile and weigh the good vs. the bad. When the scales have tipped overwhelmingly to one side (when examined truthfully), one must also truthfully accept that there's a serious problem.

I am 100% in your corner, Max. You are a gentleman and a scholar.
Ray


I agree with that statement. I think you're both gentlemen. I hope to see, moving ahead here, that you are both good scholars as well.

Let's move ahead on the issues, not on the political parties. Fair enough? Feel free to tear my post here to shreds. Just do it like a scholar and not like a thug.

Cheers,
-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

PreviousNext

Google

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron