Oh Good Lord

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Jason1

So your blaming 9/11 on the Clinton Era? Please. You cant blame 9/11 on anybody. But you can blame the Bush Administration for how poorly they handled the situation. Instead of actually finding and capturing the person that is responsible for 9/11, they go and finish what daddy Bush started, which had nothing to do with 9/11. FACE THE FACTS: Hussien might have been a bad man, but he had NOTHING to do with what happened on 9/11. But hey, we got him right? While Osama runs free in the desert...

go watch Farienheit 911.

I have seen it, and it is possibly one of the most dishonest and truthfully bankrupt films ever made. The sheer number of lies of omission and lies of editing are astounding.

go watch FahrenHYPE 9/11 or just read this: http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf

I'm not just blaming Clinton, btw. It was everyone's fault during that time, including Bush in his presidency before that date. Here's the facts: Bin Laden attacked the US and US interests at least 4 times during Clinton's presidency, including the first World Trade attack (not fact, but most evidence supports it)... and he sent a cruise missile into an empty camp in retalliation. Thats it. His own aids have admitted to this and his chief advisor at the time, Dick Morris, believes that Clinton was a complete incompetant when it came to battling the terrorist problem.

My worry is not about the past or blamer, however, it is about repeating the mistakes we have made before and actually looking at the war in Iraq through the eyes of a rational being and not a shoot from the hip "give peace a chance" simple-minded mongoloid. If we pull out of Iraq or attempt to "manage" the middle east, we are done for.

Iraq was intended to be a jumping ground for the future war on terrorism, IMO. It had the best infrastructure in the whole of the Middle East and large base of educated citizens. Even as of the last poll I saw over 60% of them did not want the US Military to leave before their country established a solid government. See how educated they are? It was in the hope that democracy could breed in the area, and the jury is still out on this matter. It will take more than a handful of years to see if an entire region's political idealogy can change with influence. I think that we could have done this much better than Rumsfeld did, but I don't think this policy should be abandoned.

Also ask yourself this question, Jason: If the Democrats are going to lead the world to peace and freedom, why are the terrorists celebrating the fact that they won?

Now here is the next question: Which 2 sentences is Jason going to concentrate on responding to this time, while ignoring every other argument I make (and it's reasoning)?

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Also ask yourself this question, Jason: If the Democrats are going to lead the world to peace and freedom, why are the terrorists celebrating the fact that they won?

If you're referring to why the terrorists are celebrating why the democrats won, (opposed to meaning the terrorists won, if I understand correctly) they could, you know, logically be celebrating because with a Democratic reign, comes peace. As you said. With peace, comes no war. With no war, comes no deaths in their nation. It seems pretty blatently simple to me.

Unless you were trying to imply that the terrorists love democrats, therefore all democrats must love terrorists.

Either one makes a goatload of sense to me.

[Xantar]

I'm going to sidestep the world peace argument for now because really, nobody knows what's going on out there. I just want to focus on one little point here.

As for the world being a better place under Democrats... maybe. Who knows, the future hasn't happened yet and the Denocrats did elect conservative blue-dog reps.

It's conventional wisdom that the Democrats ran a bunch of "conservative" candidates and that's how they won the House and the Senate. There's a grain of truth to this, but we have to be careful about what we mean by the word "conseravtive."

Jon Tester of Montana, for example, is against the flag-burning amendment, is against a gay marriage ban, is pro-choice, is very pro-environmentalist (he used to be an organic farmer) and wants the tax system restructured so that the rich are paying a greater portion of it. A lot of the media has called him "conservative," and I guess since he supports gun rights then in that sense he is more conservative than than John Kerry. But given that list, I hardly think you could call him a true "conservative," whatever that word means nowadays.

Jim Webb of Virginia is really hard to nail down one way or another because his stated positions are actually pretty vague. You can look at his website and see if you can figure it out for yourself. About the only thing I've been able to glean is he thinks the tax system is too favorable to the rich and that the middle- and lower-classes are getting squeezed.

Claire McCaskill of Missouri wants to raise the minimum wage, supports "fair trade" policies (I've never been sure what that means, but it's always a Democrat position for some reason), wants to develop renewable energy resources, is strongly pro-environment and is against privatizing Social Security. In fact, her opponent was slamming her for being "too liberal" for Missouri.

The other new Democratic senators come from Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Ohio, none of which are exactly Republican bastions.

As for the House, we have people like John Yarmuth in Kentucky. He doesn't have too many stated positions, so all I have been able to find is he is against privatizing Social Security, wants universal health care and is a strong critic of No Child Left Behind.

I could get into all 28 other House candidates, but you get the idea by now. These people aren't pinko hippies, to be sure, but I don't think you could call most of them "conservative."

Oh, and one other thing.

Your comments, while likely intended to get a rise out of me, are the common contention between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives think, while liberals feel. World peace would be wonderful, but logical analysis quickly brings the conslusion that world peace is an impossibility. So while conservatives recognize this fact and act in ways to try and protect themselves and their people, liberals refuse to apply logic and lessons learned in history and insist on believing that if we were just nice to everyone the world would be filled with lollypops, dandylions and free Phish concerts.

Come on now. All liberals are just acting on "gut instinct" or something? None of them are out there actually using their brains? There is absolutely no logical basis for their thinking at all? All the liberal thinkers out there are actually not thinking and their conservative counterparts are?

That's a wee bit harsh, not to mention simplistic, don't you think?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Xantar

Come on now. All liberals are just acting on "gut instinct" or something? None of them are out there actually using their brains? There is absolutely no logical basis for their thinking at all? All the liberal thinkers out there are actually not thinking and their conservative counterparts are?

That's a wee bit harsh, not to mention simplistic, don't you think?

Well it is a generality, but generalities are a must in society. Without them the world would screech to a halt as no decision could be made on any subject. I will say this: I do not think that today's American liberals are bad people, only misguided. They have the best intentions at heart.

To use less of a generality, I actually view liberals in one of two categories: "Raving Loons" and "Super-Intelligent Cyber-Men From the Future".

Raving Loons are those who love Michael Moore and Al Gore. They run on pure passion, whether thats joy or pure venom. Anything said by any individual that supports their pre-determined opinions is immediate fact. Anything that contests that "fact" is immediately wrong for the simple fact it dared challenge their beliefs. The believe things are true because they sound good and wholesome and anything that sounds as good as "universal healthcare" could not possibly have any downside, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just an evil, money grubbing shill for some nondescript rich people regardless of the validity of the content of the challenge. The subgenre's underneath Raving Loon include Conspiracy Loons (believe 9/11 was caused by Bush and that every election won by a Republican in hisrtory was "stolen") and Nature Loons (bio-engineered food is horrible even though its probably saved billions of lives from starvation and malnutrition).

Super-Intelligent Cyber-Men from the Future, on the other hand, have gone the other direction. They have read and learned so much that they have completely disassociated themselves from the human race, and view them as ants that need to be ruled becase ants cannot possibly know what is best for them. Kind of like Dr. Manhattan in Alan Moore's The Watchmen. Everything has become relative and reality and theory have combined into "thereality", where ideas are just as good as precedent and pragmatism. Cyber-Men believe that they must help man transcend their mundane form and existence and reach their level of reality. Concepts like "roller-derby", "NASCAR" and "exchange of currency for goods and services that can then be exhanged for goods and services" are barbaric and insulting. Cyber-Men tend to exist solely in intellectual bubble worlds, like universities and grant operated think-tanks. The real world tends to be too harsh and unmalliable for their liking.

Is this a little more specific for you?

On the political front, I think you left out Casey in PA as a pretty moderate Dem who booted Santorum. I do want to clarify, though, when I referred to conservative democrat, I was meaning that they were more moderate than what we have veiwed Dems as recently. They tended to be more socially conservative but militarily and financially liberal. The Dem leadership are far more left of center than the Dems that were just elected. It could make things interesting next year.

By the way, Lamont really creamed Leiberman, didn't he? Wow, what a blowout.

Sorry, I had to do it.

[Xantar]

If liberals spend a lot of time thinking things over, it's because they're always having to deal with conservatives who prefer to simplify the problem until it's black and white, jump in, shoot first, ask questions later (because the rapture is coming anyway) and then blame liberals for the mess because they didn't give 100% support to the mission to bless the world with the glory of America and halt the spread of evolution's teachings.

I can stereotype too.

I do want to clarify, though, when I referred to conservative democrat, I was meaning that they were more moderate than what we have veiwed Dems as recently. They tended to be more socially conservative but militarily and financially liberal. The Dem leadership are far more left of center than the Dems that were just elected. It could make things interesting next year.

Well, none of this was a surprise. Swings in Congress are always made in the center, and the leadership is always more extreme in order to give the appearance of "leading" as opposed to middling in the center. The leaders of the Republican party are now Mitch McConnell and Trent Lott, neither of whom are exactly centrist.

And yeah, I forgot about Casey, although compared to Santorum, Casey looked like a downright hippie.

By the way, Lamont really creamed Leiberman, didn't he? Wow, what a blowout.

Sorry, I had to do it.

I'm not sure if you were trying to get a rise out of me, but I had no stake in the race. I said after the primary that Lamont and Lieberman were in a dead heat in the polls and that I thought Lamont had a shot in the final election. It looks like he flubbed really badly (he actually went to Maine right after the primary for a few days...why?), and that's the end of that. People like to make a lot out of Lieberman's support for the Iraq war and his criticism of the entertainment industry, but his bite has been far worse than his bark on those issues. And on the environment, social security, taxes, gay rights, gun control and more, Lieberman is as liberal as they come. His "moderate" principals are largely an act, and I don't like his political showmanship at all. But legislatively, I can live with him.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Xantar

If liberals spend a lot of time thinking things over, it's because they're always having to deal with conservatives who prefer to simplify the problem until it's black and white, jump in, shoot first, ask questions later (because the rapture is coming anyway) and then blame liberals for the mess because they didn't give 100% support to the mission to bless the world with the glory of America and halt the spread of evolution's teachings.

I can stereotype too.



Well, none of this was a surprise. Swings in Congress are always made in the center, and the leadership is always more extreme in order to give the appearance of "leading" as opposed to middling in the center. The leaders of the Republican party are now Mitch McConnell and Trent Lott, neither of whom are exactly centrist.

And yeah, I forgot about Casey, although compared to Santorum, Casey looked like a downright hippie.



I'm not sure if you were trying to get a rise out of me, but I had no stake in the race. I said after the primary that Lamont and Lieberman were in a dead heat in the polls and that I thought Lamont had a shot in the final election. It looks like he flubbed really badly (he actually went to Maine right after the primary for a few days...why?), and that's the end of that. People like to make a lot out of Lieberman's support for the Iraq war and his criticism of the entertainment industry, but his bite has been far worse than his bark on those issues. And on the environment, social security, taxes, gay rights, gun control and more, Lieberman is as liberal as they come. His "moderate" principals are largely an act, and I don't like his political showmanship at all. But legislatively, I can live with him.

Reading this post makes me happy. You are so much fun to screw around with.