Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Can the Right compromise?

Politics-American Conservatives Liberals Compromise

  • Please log in to reply
179 replies to this topic

#161 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 03 August 2004 - 11:30 AM

Please keep it civil, everyone.

#162 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 03 August 2004 - 11:34 AM

Hambil wrote:

First, thank you for a reasoned reply. I was setting up what I believe happened. I thought I did it in a pretty fair way, intentionally leaving out judgemental wordings.

Thank you, yourself. I can be argumentative at times, I will make an effort likewise.

Reasons which I agree with. The timing was what I found suspicious. I feel it derailed us from fighting terrorism, and I question why it had to be done when it was done.

This is a standard accusation by the Democrat party, it's true. But if Bush really did as ascribed, why liberate Afghanistan two months after 9/11? Bush waited 8 months while the UN and the inspectors wrangled with Hussein's government, how is sitting around from Summer 2002 to March 2003 a rush to Iraq that distracted us from anything?

He was elected by the thinest margin in US history. So he had to make the case to the people who didn't elect him, and the world.

Millions more Americans voted for Bush than voted for Clinton/Gore into two elections. Bush won with 49% of the vote, while Clinton won with far smaller percentages. Yet no one ever said Clinton didn't have a mandate to represent the American people.

based on the threat of WMD falling into the hands of terrorists. An idea that was sold to us very strongly by Condoleeza Rice, among others.

And what was it about Saddam Hussein's past behavior that led you to believe... he wouldn't do give WMD to terrorists? That's the benefit of a doubt the critics ask us to extend to Hussein. It's nonsensical no matter how you look at it.

But, I would not have chosen to invade Iraq when we did had I not been convinced it was critical to the war on terror.

We're fighting Islamic terrorism, no other creed that I know of. There's no better place to fight it. (Certainly better Iraq than your home or my home town.)

What I do believe is that the 'civilized' countries of the world need to start working together, not pulling apart.

We are working with the civilized countries of the world on terrorism. The war on terror has created many new allies, and strenghtened our ties to countries like Russia, Pakistan, and others that have agreed to help, no matter what their dispirate interests.

A sign of intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing thoughts at the same time. Saddam was evil. I'm glad he's gone. I would not have chosen to remove him from power at the time we did, over continuing the war on terror though.

A sign of intelligence would be to hold two simultaneous thoughts: 1) to agree with the Clinton administration of 1998 that Saddam Hussein needed to be toppled and a democratic republic be created in place of his dictatorship. and 2) that Saddam's removal should have been done years ago and not left to a new president to deal with who already has plenty to deal with as a result of  9/11.

Put those two thoughts together, and they spell out how Bush is cleaning up someone else's mess. (Either Bush I or Clinton, take your pick)

All presidents promise to work to bring peace to the middle east. I don't think Bush campaigned he was planning to invade to accomplish that, but I could be wrong.

Bush did not campaign solely on peace, unlike his predecessor he saw a future middle east full of Democracies, not dictatorships as it currently contains. But that would confirm that Bush and company had a PLAN for rebuilding Iraq, which is in complete contradiction of the DNC talking point that there was no plan. It's not a coincidence that we're bringing democracy to the Middle East, or that terrorists flood across the Syrian and Iranian borders to put a halt to a democracy in their midst. There are no coincidences here, Hambil, despite the wishes of the opposition.

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 03 August 2004 - 11:35 AM.


#163 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 03 August 2004 - 11:36 AM

I should know better than to try to discuss philosophy with someone who thinks Alanis Morrisette's got it all figured out.

She doesn't even know the proper definition of irony.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#164 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 03 August 2004 - 11:43 AM

Drew, on Aug 3 2004, 04:34 PM, said:

I should know better than to try to discuss philosophy with someone who thinks Alanis Morrisette's got it all figured out.

She doesn't even know the proper definition of irony.
I'm going to assume that you got my point, and that there was supposed to be a smilie at the end of that post :)

#165 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 03 August 2004 - 11:52 AM

Cyberhippie, on Aug 3 2004, 06:35 AM, said:

What worries me about the use of Sharia law in Iraq (just going back to something mentioned on the previous page) is that Sharia has been used to justify things like stonings, mutilation (as in cutting off people's hands) and other punishments that I don't associate with a freedom in thought and action, multicultural society that Iraq would like to become.
I can your point about the stoning if it's done for speaking one's mind. But as to the cutting of a hand that is done to theives. I guess it beats a 13 step program where the thief is shown where his act was wrong and is made to feel bad for stealing. Excapt thieves usually only feel sorry at getting caught not for doingthe crime.

I think the beheading of killers is correct as well. I mean we are not arguing the innocence or guilt of a prisoner mearly the punishment for his crime. I know you oppese capital punishment in all it's forms whileI do not. I hope you understand that I do not want to put an innocent man to death and am willing to debate that innocents for 20 years if need be but once the debate is over, if the person is determined to be guilty, I have no problem seeing such a person die.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#166 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 03 August 2004 - 11:56 AM

G1223, on Aug 3 2004, 04:50 PM, said:

Cyberhippie, on Aug 3 2004, 06:35 AM, said:

What worries me about the use of Sharia law in Iraq (just going back to something mentioned on the previous page) is that Sharia has been used to justify things like stonings, mutilation (as in cutting off people's hands) and other punishments that I don't associate with a freedom in thought and action, multicultural society that Iraq would like to become.
I can your point about the stoning if it's done for speaking one's mind. But as to the cutting of a hand that is done to theives. I guess it beats a 13 step program where the thief is shown where his act was wrong and is made to feel bad for stealing. Excapt thieves usually only feel sorry at getting caught not for doingthe crime.

I think the beheading of killers is correct as well. I mean we are not arguing the innocence or guilt of a prisoner mearly the punishment for his crime. I know you oppese capital punishment in all it's forms whileI do not. I hope you understand that I do not want to put an innocent man to death and am willing to debate that innocents for 20 years if need be but once the debate is over, if the person is determined to be guilty, I have no problem seeing such a person die.
Women can, and have, been stoned to death for disobeying their husbands. Women have been convicted of, and killed for, adultery on the word on their husband alone. Islamic law, whatever group it is taken from, is playing with fire. Especially if you don't happen to be a man.

#167 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 03 August 2004 - 12:34 PM

Ogami, on Aug 3 2004, 12:32 PM, said:

Millions more Americans voted for Bush than voted for Clinton/Gore into two elections. Bush won with 49% of the vote, while Clinton won with far smaller percentages. Yet no one ever said Clinton didn't have a mandate to represent the American people.
That's not quite correct.

1992:

Clinton: 44,909,806 popular votes, (43.01%)
370 electoral votes, (68.77%)

GHW Bush: 39,104,550 pop, (37.45%)
168 elect, (31.23%)

1996:

Clinton: 47,400,125 pop, (49.23%)
379 elec, (70.45%)

Dole: 39,198,755 (40.72%)
159 elec, (29.55%)

2000:

Bush: 50,460,110 pop (47.87%)
271 elec, (50.37%)

Gore: 51,003,926 pop (48.38%)
266 elec, (49.44%)

Sure, Bush was elected with a higher percentage than Clinton's first election and did receive more individual votes than Clinton ever did, but that's simply because there were more eligible voters--the population grew.  Turnout has consistently remained right around 60% for the last few elections.  Also, there was no viable third-party candidate in the 2000 election.  Nader took less than 3 percent of the popular vote, whereas Perot took 19% in his first run.

However, in both of Clinton's elections, he won by a much larger margin in both popular and electoral votes.

-Nick

#168 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 03 August 2004 - 12:56 PM

^ Thanks Nick.
Can't Touch This!!

#169 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 03 August 2004 - 01:05 PM

Nick wrote:

Millions more Americans voted for Bush than voted for Clinton/Gore into two elections. Bush won with 49% of the vote, while Clinton won with far smaller percentages. Yet no one ever said Clinton didn't have a mandate to represent the American people.  

That's not quite correct.


Uh, it is quite correct, by your own numbers. Bush II got 6 million more votes than Clinton first term, 3 million more votes than Clinton second term. Clinton got only 43% of the vote in his first term, and you're right, equivalent to Bush's percentage his second term. Bear in mind that Clinton had Perot sapping votes in 1992, while Bush's numbers include Nader sapping Gore's numbers.

It's a great comparison. If Bush doesn't have an election mandate to represent the people of America, than Clinton certainly didn't either, with lower numbers across the board.

-Ogami

#170 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 03 August 2004 - 02:21 PM

Ogami, on Aug 3 2004, 02:03 PM, said:

Uh, it is quite correct, by your own numbers. Bush II got 6 million more votes than Clinton first term, 3 million more votes than Clinton second term. Clinton got only 43% of the vote in his first term, and you're right, equivalent to Bush's percentage his second term.
From your own post:

Ogami said:

Millions more Americans voted for Bush than voted for Clinton/Gore into two elections. Bush won with 49% of the vote, while Clinton won with far smaller percentages. Yet no one ever said Clinton didn't have a mandate to represent the American people.

You are correct the millions more voted for Bush than Clinton/Gore in two elections.

You are incorrect that it means anything remotely relevant.  The percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot has been roughly the same for these past three elections--about 60%, or about 50% of the voting-age population.  Populations grow with time, people turn 18, gain citizenship, finally get around to registering, etc. Whoever wins this next election will do so by millions more votes than the 2000 election, and it'll still be an equally pointless assertion. This has no bearing at all on any sort of "public" mandate and is meaningless when discussing the legitimacy of an election.

You are incorrect that Bush won with 49% of the vote.

You are also incorrect that Clinton won with far smaller percentages.  Only in his first election did he win a smaller percentage than Bush and that was a difference of less than 5%.

So . . . *drumroll* you weren't quite correct. (as opposed to dead wrong)

Ogami said:

Bear in mind that Clinton had Perot sapping votes in 1992, while Bush's numbers include Nader sapping Gore's numbers.

I did.  That's why I mentioned it in my last post.

Ogami said:

It's a great comparison. If Bush doesn't have an election mandate to represent the people of America, than Clinton certainly didn't either, with lower numbers across the board.

It's a horrible comparison.  Because, amazingly enough, GW Bush didn't run against Clinton--he ran against Gore, and lost the popular election.  But presidents aren't elected by a popular vote, and so he just barely scraped by with Florida.  Clinton's elections weren't anywhere near being that close.  He won both popular votes and won the electoral votes by a very comfy margin.

I'd continue to blather on about the 2000 election, but tennyson so wisely pointed out--we have a search feature . . . there are many threads regarding that. :)

-Nick

#171 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 03 August 2004 - 03:36 PM

Nick wrote:

You are incorrect that it means anything remotely relevant.

Okay, what I say about Bush is not relevant.

Populations grow with time,

Ah, I see. So you determine what is relevant in statistics whereas I do not. Gotcha.

That sort of simplifies debate, doesn't it?

You are incorrect that Bush won with 49% of the vote.

Ah yes, it was 48%, thank you for the correction. This matters why? Clinton still had a far lower percentage of the vote in his first term. Bush fares well by comparison on the matter of whether he has a "mandate" to lead.

So . . . *drumroll* you weren't quite correct. (as opposed to dead wrong)

May all your victories be small ones.

It's a horrible comparison. Because, amazingly enough, GW Bush didn't run against Clinton--he ran against Gore, and lost the popular election. But presidents aren't elected by a popular vote, and so he just barely scraped by with Florida.

Since Bush is smarter than Gore, he campaigned in areas that would help him in the Electoral College.

Clinton's elections weren't anywhere near being that close. He won both popular votes and won the electoral votes by a very comfy margin.

It must really have frosted you that Bush won 49%, 'scuse me 48% of the popular vote and Clinton only won with 43%. And that was with Nader and Perot running as spoilers, respectively. Otherwise you wouldn't be jumping down my throat over a difference of 1%.

-Ogami

#172 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 03 August 2004 - 03:55 PM

^ He's not jumping down your throat O.




Quote

Ah yes, it was 48%, thank you for the correction. This matters why? Clinton still had a far lower percentage of the vote in his first term. Bush fares well by comparison on the matter of whether he has a "mandate" to lead.


A lower margin of victory twice.  He beat the incumbant Bush, then had the good fortune of running against Bob Dole.

I think Bush proved Nicks point in the last election. It isn't about how big you win, just that you win.

IIRC Nixon won 60% to 40, or less for HHH, and look how that turned out.
Can't Touch This!!

#173 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 03 August 2004 - 08:15 PM

Kosh is right--I'm not trying to jump down your throat.  Nothing about any of the recent presidential elections has "frosted" me in any particular way--mainly because I was 9, 13 and 17 years old for each of them.  Well, being 3 months away from 18 and unable to vote was a bit maddening in 2000 . . . but, I'm over it. ;)

I just think it's silly to assume that millions more votes 4 & 8 years later means anything at all, since the turnout rate stayed the same.  Nothing happened in any recent election that would draw a record-high turnout rate.

Also, I'm curious about your concepts of "large" and "small".  I mean, over 50% means "most", yet 5% is "a large percentage" but 1% is not. :unsure:

-Nick

#174 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 03 August 2004 - 09:56 PM

I think Bush has as much of a mandate as President as Clinton did, and I'll leave the percentages to you.  :cool:

-Ogami

#175 Soton

Soton
  • Islander
  • 249 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 06:42 AM

Kosh, on Aug 3 2004, 03:53 PM, said:

IIRC Nixon won 60% to 40, or less for HHH, and look how that turned out.
I think you're thinking about Nixon vs McGovern.  Nixon only beat HHH by a half million votes.

#176 Soton

Soton
  • Islander
  • 249 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 06:50 AM

Nick, on Aug 3 2004, 08:13 PM, said:

I just think it's silly to assume that millions more votes 4 & 8 years later means anything at all, since the turnout rate stayed the same.  Nothing happened in any recent election that would draw a record-high turnout rate.
IIRC, the turnout for the 2000 election was higher than it was for the 1996 election.

#177 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 09:30 AM

Hambil, on Aug 3 2004, 10:47 AM, said:

My original post was pondering my perception that the right cannot compromise. It assigned no fault about WMD, it simply stated that the right will not say no weapons of mass destruction were found.

Here is what I believe happened.

1. Bush wanted to invade Iraq.
2. Bush had many reasons for this, which can be speculated but can't really be known since they have not been revealed by in large.
3. Bush needed to make a case for the invasion to the American people and the UN.
4. WMD, given the events of 9/11, provided the most dramatic case.
5. Faulty intelligence strengthed beliefs Bush didn't have much desire to question anyway.
6. When threat of WMD didn't convince the UN, Bush invaded anyway.
7. WMD were not found.
8. Bush revealed some of his probably more true reasons for invading - such as desire to establish a democracy in the middle east.

My problem with all this: I don't like being manipulated.
1. Bush and Blair didn't make it up.  Even Clinton has come out several times and stated that his administration absolutely believed that Saddam had WMD also, which is one of the reasons he bombed the hell out of the place several times during his administration.  This makes sense considering that Bush kept Clinton's head of the CIA, yes the head of the CIA was a Clinton guy, not a Bush guy.

2. All the reasons for going where stated at the time, in fact we had several lively discussions about them here if you want to go back and look at the posts from before the war.  One of the reasons this forum ended up getting started.  The weren't "revealed" later.

3. The UN WAS CONVINCED!!!! Period.  You can rewrite history all you want but it's a fact.  They even passed their resolutions.  The problem was that when it came time to act, France and Russia decided to block the action, with moderate support from Germany.  Since both France and Russia are permanent members of the Security Council (because the were in the group of original possessors of Nuclear Weapons) they can block anything they want, just as we can.  They were playing games. I wish people would stop attributing actions taken by France to "The UN" because it doesn't wash.  It wasn't the UN that was against anything, it was France and Russia because war would disrupt their financial interests of collusion with Saddam.  There are well known facts of how they were not honoring the blockade, how France was lining their pockets with the "Food for Oil" program,  how new fake French passports where found for Saddam's family so the could be snuck out of the country, how Saddam owed France/Russia/Germany billions of dollars because they helped him rebuild the palaces Clinton bombed even though the people of Iraq didn't have adequate anything (food medicine...).

#178 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 09:52 AM

Thanks Stardust.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#179 Mr.Calgary

Mr.Calgary

    Has left.

  • Islander
  • 1,348 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 01:16 PM

Delvo, on Aug 1 2004, 07:37 AM, said:

That's what I was thinking when I saw the title of this thread. To act like the right is the extremists who "draw lines in the sand" and never cross them, and the left is all about compromise and trying to keep everybody happy, is just another standard lefty attack on the eeeevil baaad right for not quite always doing whatever the left demands. The facts just don't support it; in fact, there's somewhat of a trend in the opposite direction, toward lefty stubbornness and pushiness and righty spinelessness.
:blink:  After going through 5 plus change, pages of messages.

My first thought was how did I miss this for three days? :o

My second reaction was, what a silly thread title.  :hehe:

The "right" has been compromising for forty years.....as stated, to the point of spinelessness.
Favourite Coda thread quotes.....

(1)  Yes. Bad Trance! Wicked, Evil Trance!

(2)  Stayed purple.   (3)  Bad, bad Trance!

(4)  Love and Blowing Things Up continue forever. The universe wins

#180 Coffee Please

Coffee Please
  • Islander
  • 59 posts

Posted 05 August 2004 - 01:25 PM

I too had to wade through all these pages having been away from a connection over the weekend.  I would like to comment on many things in this thread, but what a task!  Here is something that stuck out that I would like to question (it may need to go to another thread, though):

Handmaiden

Quote

In fact, for many years the same was true of Islam. Islam has a very long tradition of non-coercion when it comes to faith, and an even better standing tradition of tolerance and welcome to "the people of the book" i.e., Christians and Jews. The strain of intolerance we see today gains ascendancy against a backdrop of poverty, lack of education, and other social factors.

There are two assertions here -

1) Islam has a very long tradition of non-coercion

2) The strain of intolerance we see today gains ascendancy against a backdrop of poverty, lack of education, and other social factors.

I question both these assertions.  The first is a matter of history.

As to the second, while not denying the presence and pervasiveness of poverty, lack of education, and other social factors, I disagree that they are the primary motivating factors for intolerance. Handmaiden, have you seen any of the studies regarding extreamist suicide bombers?  They tend to be middle-class educated prospering citizens.

Here are some excerpts from a few recent articles:


The Iffy-Psychology of Suicide Bombers

Quote

Yet, many writers are pointing to factors in the so-called psychology of suicide bombers. These factors include low social status, religious fanaticism, and personality disorders. But suicide bombers often come from middle class and even wealthy families, according to Nasra Hassan who interviewed hundreds of volunteer suicide bombers in her article for the New Yorker, and are otherwise considered "model youth" in their communities.

Quote

Pain and suffering alone do not create a suicide bomber; they must be coupled with an environment where there is no outlet to express that pain and suffering. Israeli forces quash any legitimate redress of Palestinian woes, delegitimizing peaceful dissent. Here we have the makings of desperation and terror, and here is where we may start unraveling the complex realities that lead someone to use suicide as a weapon.


Suicide terrorism: seeking motives beyond mental illness - Insights - Brief Article
Psychology Today,  Sept-Oct, 2002  by Kaja Perina

Quote

Attempts to understand suicide terrorism are understandably culture-bound. Western media emphasize a Palestinian society awash in calls to self-destruct: Iraq and Saudi Arabia pay thousands of dollars to the families of suicide terrorists, and schools teach reverence for martyrs alongside arithmetic. Palestinian mental health professionals counter that Westerners ignore the despair inherent in this logic. Mahmud Sehwail, M.D., a psychiatrist in Ramallah, says that post-traumatic stress disorder abounds among the potential--and eventual--suicide bombers he treats and cites surveys indicating that more than a quarter of all Palestinians are clinically depressed.

But the rationale of despair is a "double discourse aimed at Western audiences," according to Scott Atran, Ph.D., an anthropologist at the National Center for Scientific Research in France. "Muslims are told that these bombers have everything to live for, otherwise the sacrifice doesn't make sense." Atran's forthcoming book, In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion, cites a recent study of 900 Muslims in Gaza who were adolescents during the first Palestinian intifada (1987 to 1993). Exposure to violence correlated more strongly with pride and social cohesion than with depression or antisocial behavior. Indeed, the Gaza teens expressed more hope for the future than did a control group of Bosnian Muslims.


Suicide bombers driven more by politics than religious fundamentalism
Riaz Hassan, The Electronic Intifada, 7 May 2004

Quote

After reviewing psychological studies of suicide attackers, University of Michigan psychologist Scott Atran concluded that suicide attackers have no appreciable psychological pathologies and are as educated and economically well-off as the surrounding populations. To understand why nonpathological individuals volunteer to become suicide attackers we must focus on situational factors, which are largely sociological in nature. In the the Middle East, these include a collective sense of historical injustice, political subservience and a pervasive sense of social humiliations vis-a-vis global powers and their allies.

Even if terrorists are primarily politically motivated as opposed to motivated by religion, that does not discount the role religion has played in the psychology/sociology of violent behavior in the terrorist context.  

If intolerance is preached from a pulpit, politics at least wears a religious face.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Politics-American, Conservatives, Liberals, Compromise

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users