Armed Polite Society
December 04, 2020, 03:01:26 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: R.I.P. Scout26
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
  Print  
Author Topic: I'm voting for Ron Paul  (Read 19685 times)
CAnnoneer
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 2,136


« Reply #75 on: October 24, 2007, 12:03:57 PM »

Within that context, you are the one making the unlikely claim: that only a small minority of those 30,000 were killed by US troops. If you accept that Bush's own number reflects mainly those killed in direct action, then you're stuck trying to explain how Iraq came to have 30,000 terrorists in it, when for example Al Qaeda is known to have only a few hundred, or at most a couple thousand, members.

What is your claim? That among the 30k, only a few are terrorists and the rest are innocent civilians killed by US troops? The reports that do perculate through the media indicate that a lot of Iraqis die by Iraqis in sectarian violence, which quickly fizzles out when US troops move in.

If anything, Bush's numbers roughly correspond to what has been in the media. If you sum up the reports, the declared casualties are less than 500 a month, 6k a year, or roughly 24k for all four years. Taking into account that CNN is not in every single little village, the casualties are probably a bit higher, so 30k is about right.

You have to ask yourself what you would rather have. Should the US troops just keep out each time sectarians start genociding each other and doing ethnic purges? What would the casualties be then? Would you blame the US troops for Iraqis killing Iraqis? Or you'd rather have Saddam gas and kill Iraqis?

What the Iraqis have been given by a turn of fate is, if anything, another lease on life by the US presence. Without it, they would descend in civil war and it would be THEN that the casualty numbers would truly explode. Saying "yeah, that's why Saddam should have been kept" is naive. Sooner or later, probably sooner due to advanced age, Saddam would have died of natural causes, and then his incompetent sons would have lost control, resulting in a civil war or Iranian invasion, or both. If anything, the Iraqis should be thankful to the US for the given chance at freedom and peaceful coexistence.
Report to moderator   Logged
Patriot
New Member

Posts: 27


« Reply #76 on: October 24, 2007, 12:22:18 PM »

First, Rudy is not 'centrist'.  Rudy is a big city antigun liberal, and probably a big spender on the order of GWB (who has managed to outspend LBJ of 'Great Society' fame, btw).

Let me clarify:  Rudy is relatively centrist given a full political spectrum (not just one party), particularly compared to Paul

Quote
Second, a lot of the 'crap that has been foisted on America' was so foisted during a Republican administration with a Republican congress. Why is there any reason to expect a continuing Republican majority will unfoist it?

Quote
Because Ron Paul types have this annoying habit of throwing up their hands and threatening to (a) not vote, (b) repudiate their party affiliation, (c) go Libertarian, they aren't going to be considered secure votes.

FDR and select 20th century Congresses are responsible for a majority of it.  Don't get me wrong, the Republicans acted like idiots during much of their late congressional majority.  Many started out with very different rhetoric.  Don't be naive enough to blame it solely on one or both parties.  Power corrupts plain and simple.  That and voter apathy, as evidenced by the fact that far more value is placed on the occupant(s) of the Presidency than those of Congress.  It is popular to fixate on presidents while ignoring Congress's role. 

Quote
Again, it's this kind of arrogance that may very well result in a Dem POTUS andCongress come 2009. And if you don't think that's possible, I've got two words for you. Ross Perot.  I experienced that arrogance personally in a phone call with the California Republican chairman just before the 2004 elections.  I was expressing my concern regarding the President's and Congress' departure from the principle of big spending, intrusive government.  His answer?  "So, what are ya gonna do, vote for Kerry?  You've got nowhere else to go".   

People who have nowhere to go usually stay home. And I suspect there are many, many more like me who will do the same.  And frankly, whatever Democrat is elected can't possibly do more damage than Bush has.

I will print out and eat this post if Ron Paul gets 18% of the popular vote in a general election as a third party candidate.  Why do you keep levying accusations of arrogance?  Pragmatism, cynicism maybe but not arrogance.  The chairman makes a reasonable - if tactless - point, particularly for the 2004 elections.  Kerry would have been worse.  He was not only pro-war, pro-spending, pro-big gov, but he also championed leftist social policies. 

People who stay home are - if you'll excuse my bluntness, which is not personally-directed - idiots.  Not voting does one thing:  completely excludes you from the process.  This has been proven time and time again across the world, non-participation is a sure way to guarantee your concerns will be flouted.  Conservatives excluding themselves tilts the pool toward big-gov proponents.  If you don't vote, then plan on STFU (again, excuse my bluntness) about politics for the next four years.  Bush did four things I don't care for:  deficit spending, miscalculation in foreign intervention, and screwing with civil liberties/checks and powers.  The president in 2008 could easily trump all of these (you don't think Hillary can spend an extra $120 billion annually [a tiny fraction of the federal budget]?  Her $5000/child alone is 17% of that, not to mention the indirect costs of damage to the economy).  The Clintons' record on the other issues is less than stellar as well. 

Paul doesn't seem electable.  Despite highly motivated supporters, he consistently trails Rudy, McCain, Romney, Thompson, and Huckabee in virtually all scientific polls by reputable, polling-specific organizations. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Manedwolf
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,516



« Reply #77 on: October 24, 2007, 01:01:57 PM »


Bunch of wild-eyed kooks whom I wish would go away...and take their shrilly whining messiah with them.

That is NOT presidential material!


Several around these parts (West Michigan) felt the same way about the banner waving sycophants attending dubya's 2004 visit / city shutdown. 

Fact is, Manedwolf, if you move in next to the zoo, you're gonna smell elephants.   
Steve

I'm not complaining about the rest of the candidates or their supports. They're nearly invisible. It's the Paulians that are like some sort of freakish Hare Krishnas.
Report to moderator   Logged
Len Budney
Senior Member
**
Posts: 1,023


« Reply #78 on: October 24, 2007, 01:21:06 PM »

Within that context, you are the one making the unlikely claim: that only a small minority of those 30,000 were killed by US troops. If you accept that Bush's own number reflects mainly those killed in direct action, then you're stuck trying to explain how Iraq came to have 30,000 terrorists in it, when for example Al Qaeda is known to have only a few hundred, or at most a couple thousand, members.

What is your claim? That among the 30k, only a few are terrorists and the rest are innocent civilians killed by US troops?

What is your counterclaim? Apparently, that the US troops killed only a few terrorists, and the rest of the 30K dead killed each other.

Quote
You have to ask yourself what you would rather have. Should the US troops just keep out each time sectarians start genociding each other and doing ethnic purges? What would the casualties be then? Would you blame the US troops for Iraqis killing Iraqis? Or you'd rather have Saddam gas and kill Iraqis?

Odds of survival under Saddam were much higher than they are now, and the "sectarian violence" was practically nil. Saddam was very, very bad. The invasion is much worse. For the Iraqis, I mean--that's without taking into account that it was unconstitutional, immoral, pointless and a violation of the Nuremberg doctrine.

--Len.
Report to moderator   Logged

In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.
Finch
Member
*
Posts: 465


WWW
« Reply #79 on: October 24, 2007, 01:42:02 PM »

If you don't vote, then plan on STFU (again, excuse my bluntness) about politics for the next four years.

So if I don't like any of the candidates come Nov 2008, what do I do? Not voting is a vote...for none of the above.
Report to moderator   Logged

Truth is treason in the empire of lies - Ron Paul
Patriot
New Member

Posts: 27


« Reply #80 on: October 24, 2007, 02:01:12 PM »

If you don't vote, then plan on STFU (again, excuse my bluntness) about politics for the next four years.

So if I don't like any of the candidates come Nov 2008, what do I do? Not voting is a vote...for none of the above.

That's not really the case.  In philosophy, one can argue that, abstractly, not choosing is a choice (i.e. choosing to not choose).  That doesn't follow when it comes to voting. 

Abstaining in an election is not a vote, it is an omission (your vote is not cast at all).  Don't fool yourself thinking that you're voting against all of the candidates.  What you are doing is not participating in deciding which candidate wins.  One of them is going to win, period.  You might as well vote for the best available choice.  Failing that, at least vote third party.  Not voting at all is ridiculous. 

All that pertains to the general election.  I can't see why one wouldn't vote in the primary. 
Report to moderator   Logged
CAnnoneer
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 2,136


« Reply #81 on: October 24, 2007, 04:00:20 PM »

What is your counterclaim? Apparently, that the US troops killed only a few terrorists, and the rest of the 30K dead killed each other.

First off, I doubt that the terrorists are that few, unless you do not count local hirelings to whom terrorism is outsourced. But let's just say for argument that they account for 5k. Why is it so hard to believe that 25k killed one another? They seem dead set on doing so, whether by bullet or car bombs.

In any case, my interpretation is supported by what we observe in official, unofficial, and media reports. Yours is not. Again, you are free to believe what you wish, but you are the one that made the public claim about the US killing Iraqis "by the bushel". Either take it back or defend it.

Quote
Odds of survival under Saddam were much higher than they are now, and the "sectarian violence" was practically nil. Saddam was very, very bad. The invasion is much worse. For the Iraqis, I mean--that's without taking into account that it was unconstitutional, immoral, pointless and a violation of the Nuremberg doctrine.

Hitler pretended to be attacked by the Polish. Is your claim we pretended to be attacked on 9/11, so we could invade Iraq? Are you implying we are as bad as Hitler and subject to Nuremberg-like tragic guilt? I encourage you to drop the long-winded innuendos, state your points clearly, and defend them.

As far as how things are for the Iraqi, it appears you completely missed my point. Saddam was an temporary authoritarian freeze on an inevitable reckoning among groups that have hated one another for centuries. His natural death woud have plunged the country in uncontrollable chaos and civil war. The US is doing the Iraqis a big favor by offering them the opportunity to build a federal government that can help them live in peace. Without the US and the relative security it enforces, they stand no chance whatsoever to resolve differences peacefully and negotiate their way out of a bloody genocidal civil war. Our troops are the firefighters in an arsenal stacked with gunpowder.
Report to moderator   Logged
LAK
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 915


« Reply #82 on: October 24, 2007, 10:51:50 PM »

Patriot
Quote
Paul doesn't seem electable.  Despite highly motivated supporters, he consistently trails Rudy, McCain, Romney, Thompson, and Huckabee in virtually all scientific polls by reputable, polling-specific organizations.
Which scientific polls by which reputable, polling-specific organizations? Owned and run by whom?

ABC is a major TV network, and they conducted a poll alright; and initially simply omitted Ron Paul from the webpage results even though he scored higher than all the others you mention - by an enormous margin.

----------------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Report to moderator   Logged
Len Budney
Senior Member
**
Posts: 1,023


« Reply #83 on: October 25, 2007, 01:01:44 AM »

In any case, my interpretation is supported by what we observe in official, unofficial, and media reports....
At the current level of vagueness, neither of us can claim statistical support for our position. I pointed out that at least 30K have died, and Al Qaeda members amount to a few hundred, or at most a few thousand people, leaving the rest unexplained so far. You point out that "lots" of people are killed in sectarian violence. Neither of those statements are anywhere near precise enough to start appealing to statistics.

Quote
Yours is not. Again, you are free to believe what you wish, but you are the one that made the public claim about the US killing Iraqis "by the bushel". Either take it back or defend it.
While neither of us have offered genuine statistical proof, my observation is more credible than yours. At least I think so, and others probably do too. Some may think your view is more credible--namely, that the US army has killed at most a couple thousand Iraqis since 2003. More power to them. But you hardly have provided sufficient foundation to justify a demand for my retraction.

Quote
Quote
Odds of survival under Saddam were much higher than they are now, and the "sectarian violence" was practically nil. Saddam was very, very bad. The invasion is much worse. For the Iraqis, I mean--that's without taking into account that it was unconstitutional, immoral, pointless and a violation of the Nuremberg doctrine.

Hitler pretended to be attacked by the Polish. Is your claim we pretended to be attacked on 9/11, so we could invade Iraq?

What does 9/11 have to do with the price of tea in China? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I've gone on record clearly stating that I'm not a 9/11 Truther: 9/11 happened. So did Pearl Harbor. And both had equally much to do with Iraq--namely, nothing whatsoever.

Quote
Are you implying we are as bad as Hitler and subject to Nuremberg-like tragic guilt?

You seem to have trouble reading clear and simple statements. WE created the Nuremberg doctrine. And we violated it. To violate the Nuremberg doctrine doesn't make one Hitler; it makes one a violator of the Nuremberg doctrine. You're doing your darndest to Godwin the thread, but it won't work.

Quote
As far as how things are for the Iraqi, it appears you completely missed my point. Saddam was an temporary authoritarian freeze on an inevitable reckoning among groups that have hated one another for centuries....

Sure. Fine. I only point out that one's chance of survival under Saddam was considerably higher than it is today. We're directly responsible for much of the death, and indirectly responsible for the rest by unleashing sectarian violence that was, as you admit, restrained before we launched an unconstitutional and illegal invasion.

Quote
His natural death woud have plunged the country in uncontrollable chaos and civil war...

Maybe. However it is not an admissible murder defense to say, "She would've died anyway."

--Len.
Report to moderator   Logged

In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.
Sergeant Bob
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 5,861



« Reply #84 on: October 25, 2007, 01:26:29 AM »

Which scientific polls by which reputable, polling-specific organizations? Owned and run by whom?

ABC is a major TV network, and they conducted a poll alright; and initially simply omitted Ron Paul from the webpage results even though he scored higher than all the others you mention - by an enormous margin.

----------------------------------------

How about all these polls which show him never at a level above 3%? You can say what you want about who owns and runs them but, historically, most of them have been pretty close to the mark in past elections.
Why all the sudden would they decide to diss one candidate which, if he won, would destroy their credibility as pollsters?

If you have information indicating they are truly dishonest (besides unscientific phone in or internet polls after a debate) please enlighten us. Something other than emotional rhetoric amounting to lalalalalalalalalalala!!!! I can't hear you!!!!
Report to moderator   Logged

Personally, I do not understand how a bunch of people demanding a bigger govt can call themselves anarchist.
I meet lots of folks like this, claim to be anarchist but really they're just liberals with pierced genitals. - gunsmith

I already have canned butter, buying more. Canned blueberries, some pancake making dry goods and the end of the world is gonna be delicious.  -French G
Paddy
Guest
« Reply #85 on: October 25, 2007, 04:31:43 AM »

Quote
FDR and select 20th century Congresses are responsible for a majority of it.

Right. Let's go back and blame FDR.  Especially those of us who didn't live through the Depression and WWII.  Nevermind the Depression was largely caused by 'free market' policies and the measures FDR put in place have since prevented such an economic meltdown.


Quote
  Don't get me wrong, the Republicans acted like idiots during much of their late congressional majority.  Many started out with very

different rhetoric.  Don't be naive enough to blame it solely on one or both parties.  Power corrupts plain and simple.

And yet you suggest we continue to vote for corruption rather than take a new direction.  The only issue Republicans have left is fear.  That's it, that's all they've got to sell, and I'm not buying.



Quote
That and voter apathy, as evidenced by the fact that far more value is placed on the occupant(s) of the Presidency than those of Congress.  It is popular to fixate on presidents while ignoring Congress's role.

Yes, well thankfully Republicans lost both Houses of Congress last year depriving Bush of his sugar daddies.


Quote
I will print out and eat this post if Ron Paul gets 18% of the popular vote in a general election as a third party candidate.

He says he won't run as a third party candidate and the Republican party isn't smart enough to nominate him, so I think you're safe


Quote
Why do you keep levying accusations of arrogance?  Pragmatism, cynicism maybe but not arrogance.  The chairman makes a

reasonable - if tactless - point, particularly for the 2004 elections.

This is not (or didn't used to be) a government of, for and by political parties, remember?


Quote
  Kerry would have been worse.  He was not only pro-war, pro-spending, pro-big gov, but he also championed leftist social policies.


An opinion many would reject.  As odious as Kerry truly is, he could not have been anywhere near as destructive as Bush (who is also pro-war, pro-spending and pro-big gov btw).  First, he wouldn't have enjoyed the rubber stamp Congess Bush had, giving him everything he wanted. 

Second, he was critical  of the Iraq war during the election campaign.  He would have been forced to bring it to some resolution as early as possible, rather than repeat the droning mantra of 'stay the course'. 

Third, he denounced Bush's open border policy and acknowledged the destruction of the middle class caused by illegal immigration.

And it could go on and on.


Quote
People who stay home are - if you'll excuse my bluntness, which is not personally-directed - idiots.  Not voting does one thing:  completely

excludes you from the process.  This has been proven time and time again across the world, non-participation is a sure way to guarantee your

concerns will be flouted.

Wrong.  Casting a vote for tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum is a choice.  Voting third party or withholding my vote altogether are other choices.  It's my vote to cast or withhold as I see fit.   Congress was lost to the Democrats last time by that very mechanism. The purposeful withholding of votes is most assuredly an exercise of participatory power.


Quote
  Conservatives excluding themselves tilts the pool toward big-gov proponents.

I voted for Bush twice and still got bigger government. That makes me part of the problem.  If (when) Giuliani is nominated and you vote for him, you become part of the problem.   Record borrowing from future generations to fund an imperialistic war is not a conservative value.


Quote
  If you don't vote, then plan on STFU (again, excuse my bluntness) about politics for the next four years.

Wrong again. As I've already explained, the purposeful withholding of votes can drastically affect the outcome of an election.  That's influence and active participation.

Quote
Bush did four things I don't care for:  deficit spending, miscalculation in foreign intervention, and screwing with civil liberties/checks and powers.  The president in 2008 could easily trump all of these (you don't think Hillary can spend an extra $120 billion annually [a tiny fraction of the federal budget]?  Her $5000/child alone is 17% of that, not to mention the indirect costs of damage to the economy).  The Clintons' record on the other issues is less than stellar as well.

'Bush is bad but the others are worse', is that your point?  Sheesh. That's what I've been saying all along.  NEITHER ARE ACCEPTABLE.  That's why we need a new direction.  Continuing to vote for 'Republicans' for no other reason than you think Dems are worse is idiocy IMO.  And insanity can be described as continuing to do the same thing while expecting a different outcome.

Just say no to idiocy and insanity.
Report to moderator   Logged
roo_ster
Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 21,225


Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats


« Reply #86 on: October 25, 2007, 05:43:21 AM »

Len:

If you are going to claim that our men in Iraq are killing noncombatants by the bushel, you need to produce some evidence that it is so.  Evidence that is more substantive than your estimate of the number of terrorists & sectarian militiamen subtracted from some number between 30K & 1M.

Otherwise, it will be viewed as a libel perpetrated by a fool.

Man up and either produce some evidence that our men, wittingly or otherwise, killed noncombatants by the bushel or retract the accusation.  Either path is honorable.  What is not honorable is to let it lie there, unanswered, or to use oily, clintonian language to weasel out of your statements.
Report to moderator   Logged

Regards,

roo_ster

ôFallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.ö
----G.K. Chesterton
roo_ster
Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 21,225


Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats


« Reply #87 on: October 25, 2007, 05:50:14 AM »

Quote
FDR and select 20th century Congresses are responsible for a majority of it.

Right. Let's go back and blame FDR.  Especially those of us who didn't live through the Depression and WWII.  Nevermind the Depression was largely caused by 'free market' policies and the measures FDR put in place have since prevented such an economic meltdown.
Hoover's later actions and 'purt near all of FDR's actions prolonged the depression.  The main difference between Hoover & FDR was not their willingness to intrude into the economy, but whether direct payments to individuals was a good idea.  Both waded through the economy wielding the power of fed.gov like it was a billy club.  Both were knuckleheads.  Both caused their fellow countrymen to suffer needlessly.
Report to moderator   Logged

Regards,

roo_ster

ôFallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.ö
----G.K. Chesterton
Len Budney
Senior Member
**
Posts: 1,023


« Reply #88 on: October 25, 2007, 06:10:50 AM »

Otherwise, it will be viewed as a libel perpetrated by a fool.
With or without evidence, it will be viewed that way by some, probably including you. Nice job sneaking a personal attack in through the back door, though.

It's hard to get accurate information, notably because the administration resolutely refuses to supply any. Even the 30K number that leaked out of Bush's mouth was an accident; the official position was "we don't do body counts," and when put on the spot Bush revealed the number because he wasn't quick enough on his feat to reiterate the official line.

Quote
Man up and either produce some evidence that our men, wittingly or otherwise, killed noncombatants by the bushel or retract the accusation.
Your attempt to put words in my mouth, and convert my statement into a specific accusation against specific servicemen, is noted. It's cheesy and it won't work. I've already made my position on that clear:

1) Missiles, sorties and similar forms of assault don't involve servicemen having the faintest idea who they're targeting. They're simply accepting coordinates from their superiors. All blame rests on those superiors.

2) Many deaths are in combat--and I never said "noncombatants," BTW, for that reason. An Iraqi firing on US troops in defense of self, property and loved ones, is acting reasonably. The US soldiers returning fire are also acting understandably. The fault for the confrontation lies entirely with those who ordered the operation, and ultimately with those who ordered the invasion.

3) Actual, intentional killing of non-combatants, is known to have happened, but there is no evidence that it's common. US soldiers are men like any other, and no more likely than anyone else to be a sadist or a murderer.

--Len.
Report to moderator   Logged

In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.
Patriot
New Member

Posts: 27


« Reply #89 on: October 25, 2007, 08:34:52 AM »

Quote
FDR and select 20th century Congresses are responsible for a majority of it.

Right. Let's go back and blame FDR.  Especially those of us who didn't live through the Depression and WWII.  Nevermind the Depression was largely caused by 'free market' policies and the measures FDR put in place have since prevented such an economic meltdown.

Who said what about the Depression?  I thought this was about government bloat.  Outspending economic downturns has proven to be such a wonderful policy. 


Quote
And yet you suggest we continue to vote for corruption rather than take a new direction.  The only issue Republicans have left is fear.  That's it, that's all they've got to sell, and I'm not buying.

Whose buying what Paul's selling?  Not Congress.  Govtrack says that his % of votes missed is poor in relation to peers (he misses significantly more than Pelosi and Kucinich for crying out loud, so much for the model Congressman). 

Quote
Statistics: Ronald Paul has sponsored 343 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 338 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 0 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers).

98.5% of the bills he sponsors don't even make it out of committee and NONE of them have been enacted.   His congressional "effectiveness" says something about his position relative to the center (and probably about his ability to accomplish things as well).  Even if he somehow ended up president, he's not accomplishing much of anything without Congress's backing [unless your boy decides that executive orders aren't really an abuse of constitutional power.  After all, it's for a good cause....]. 

Quote
Yes, well thankfully Republicans lost both Houses of Congress last year depriving Bush of his sugar daddies.

You're either missing or willfully ignoring the fact that power corrupts.  The small government, fiscally responsible "knight in shining armor" opposition party ends in up in power.  Now what?  They enact a few token reforms to demonstrate their effectiveness, then either become a do-nothing Congress who antagonize voters who want progress, or suddenly realize that power is cool, as pork, favors, and other parliamentary nonsense abounds.  Or all of the above. 

Quote
He says he won't run as a third party candidate and the Republican party isn't smart enough to nominate him, so I think you're safe

I know I'm safe.  He lacks confidence and votes to run third party.  My point was that he is no Perot. 


Quote
This is not (or didn't used to be) a government of, for and by political parties, remember?

We have popularly elected representation (namely Congress).  Parliaments have parties, period.  Even "one party" states have factions within the state party. 


Quote
An opinion many would reject.  As odious as Kerry truly is, he could not have been anywhere near as destructive as Bush (who is also pro-war, pro-spending and pro-big gov btw).  First, he wouldn't have enjoyed the rubber stamp Congess Bush had, giving him everything he wanted. 

Second, he was critical  of the Iraq war during the election campaign.  He would have been forced to bring it to some resolution as early as possible, rather than repeat the droning mantra of 'stay the course'. 

Third, he denounced Bush's open border policy and acknowledged the destruction of the middle class caused by illegal immigration.

It is an opinion, you can agree or disagree.  It happens to be an opinion many hold as well. 

First, maybe. 

Second, Kerry didn't even try to disguise the fact that he'd say anything to get elected.  I don' care what you think about the origins of the war, withdrawing before Iraq is stabilized (or we are told to leave by the Iraqi government) would be a grossly irresponsible act. 

Third, you actually believe in the veracity of Kerry's statements on that issue?   rolleyes  One word:  'credulity.' 

Quote from: Patriot
Not voting does one thing:  completely excludes you from the process.  This has been proven time and time again across the world, non-participation is a sure way to guarantee your concerns will be flouted.
Quote
Wrong.  Casting a vote for tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum is a choice.  Voting third party or withholding my vote altogether are other choices.  It's my vote to cast or withhold as I see fit.   Congress was lost to the Democrats last time by that very mechanism. The purposeful withholding of votes is most assuredly an exercise of participatory power.

How clever.  You should be a sophist.  Did you miss or deliberately ignore what I said later on: 

Quote from: Patriot
That's not really the case.  In philosophy, one can argue that, abstractly, not choosing is a choice (i.e. choosing to not choose).  That doesn't follow when it comes to voting.

Abstaining in an election is not a vote, it is an omission (your vote is not cast at all).  Don't fool yourself thinking that you're voting against all of the candidates.  What you are doing is not participating in deciding which candidate wins.  One of them is going to win, period.  You might as well vote for the best available choice.  Failing that, at least vote third party.  Not voting at all is ridiculous.

You are fudging the line between making a choice and actually voting.  You can CHOOSE to vote for a candidate and you can CHOOSE to not participate.  You can only VOTE in the election.  You cannot vote by not participating.  Withholding a vote only has significance where a specific amount of votes are needed or your vote is required (say in a legislative assembly).  That does not pertain here.  Votes are cast.  They are positive actions only.  If a vote is not cast, it does not exist. 

Voting is representative of a choice; it is also a specific form of influence.  Not voting means you exercise none of that influence on who's elected.  Additionally, since you did not participate in the election, the candidates are not beholden to you.

No one's disputing that you can do what you will with your ability to vote. 

Your assertions about the 2006 elections are debatable, but for sake of argumentation, sure.  What have the Dems accomplished that you are so proud of?  They've continued in some form every one of the "Republican" policies you take such issue with, in addition to monkeying with taxes, social programs, and foreign policy. 

Quote
Record borrowing from future generations to fund an imperialistic war is not a conservative value.

Quote
Imperialism was the imposition of colonial rule by European countries, especially the scramble for Africa, during the late nineteenth century. Many writers construed imperialism in terms of their understanding of the motivating forces. Among these, Hobson, Luxemburg, Bukharin, and especially Lenin focused on economic factors, the rational pursuit of new markets and sources of raw materials. Lenin argued, in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917), that imperialism is an economic necessity of the industrialized capitalist economies, seeking to offset the declining tendency of the rate of profit, by exporting capital. It is the monopoly stage of capitalism.

NOPE.

Quote
Schumpeter (1919) defined imperialism as the non-rational and objectless disposition on the part of a state to unlimited forcible expansion.

NOPE

Quote
Imperialism is rooted in the psychology of rulers and the effects of surviving pre-capitalist social structures,

NOPE

Quote
not the economic interests of nation or class. Alternative accounts view imperialism as: an outgrowth of popular nationalism; a device to underwrite the welfare state, which pacifies the working class (notably in Britain); personal adventurism; an application of social Darwinism to struggles between races; a civilizing mission; and as simply one dimension of international rivalry for power and prestige. The latter implies that socialist states too were prone to be imperialistic.

Nope, nope, nope. 


Quote
Wrong again. As I've already explained, the purposeful withholding of votes can drastically affect the outcome of an election.  That's influence and active participation.


War is peace.  Ignorance is knowledge.  Slavery is freedom.  And non-participation is participation, apparently. 

Even if not voting affected the outcome of the election, I doubt it was in a positive manner.  Does this follow:    (a) You didn't vote for the GOP because you don't approve of them.  (b) You didn't vote for the Dems, ditto.  (c) You didn't vote for a 3rd party for some reason known best to yourself.  (d) You wanted change and the GOP were in charge.  (e) Therefore, you wanted them to lose.  (f) You don't agree with Dems, so you don't vote for them either.  (g) Therefore, you sit out of the election because you want the GOP to lose.  (h) That means, in a two-party system, the Dems will win.  (i) Therefore, you want you actions to help the Dems to win.  (j) However, you don't vote for the Dems because you don't agree with them, yet you tacitly understand that your [in]action's likely result is in putting the Dems in power.  (k) Therefore, a reasonable observer might conclude that you acted in a specific way with specific goals, but did so in an effort to avoid direct culpability.  (l) You attempt to avoid direct participation because the Dems don't meet your standards either. (m) Therefore you try to avoid acknowledging that your choice is inconsistent with your principles  (n) Therefore you did precisely what you condemn in others, supporting the lesser of two evils. 

There is no way that could be termed active.  It is a passive attempt predicated on the assumption that willful passivity involves less culpability than willful action despite being directed toward the same end. 

Quote
'Bush is bad but the others are worse', is that your point?  Sheesh. That's what I've been saying all along.  NEITHER ARE ACCEPTABLE.  That's why we need a new direction.  Continuing to vote for 'Republicans' for no other reason than you think Dems are worse is idiocy IMO.  And insanity can be described as continuing to do the same thing while expecting a different outcome.

Just say no to idiocy and insanity.

New direction, sure.  We just differ on what precisely that direction should take and how to best accomplish it. 

Continuing to passively stick your head in the sand in midterm elections could be termed much the same, with the added issue of beating around the bush (no pun intended). 

That's not insanity, that's chaos theory  grin 

I've humored you by going relatively far afield, but I still think Ron Paul is a minimally viable candidate.  Go marshal up support.  Prove me wrong.  In the meantime, I'll back someone who actually has a chance.  That 'lesser of two evils' argument is only one perspective.  The other is that 'perfect' is the enemy of 'good enough.' 

Assuming that anyone not voting for Paul is voting for Rudy is, well, *what was the term in that other Pres discussion for people who only think in good and bad with nothing in between*  rolleyes
Report to moderator   Logged
roo_ster
Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 21,225


Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats


« Reply #90 on: October 25, 2007, 08:42:03 AM »

In other words, you have no evidence, but are unwilling to retract your allegation.

I think we have your measure.
Report to moderator   Logged

Regards,

roo_ster

ôFallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.ö
----G.K. Chesterton
Len Budney
Senior Member
**
Posts: 1,023


« Reply #91 on: October 25, 2007, 08:55:00 AM »

In other words, you have no evidence, but are unwilling to retract your allegation. I think we have your measure.

Are you referring to the allegation that you persist in mis-characterizing? Anyway, your reply was just an excuse to sneak an extra ad hominem in, in case your previous ones weren't sufficient. I won't play that game, so if you try again I'll let you have the last word. It would be classier of you, though, if you didn't.

--Len.
Report to moderator   Logged

In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.
CAnnoneer
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 2,136


« Reply #92 on: October 25, 2007, 08:55:48 AM »

Len, the equivalent of what you are doing in this thread is for me to do state the following:

"Len is a wife-beating, puppy-torturing, child-molester." And when you say "CAnn, either show evidence or retract your accusation.", I say "Well, in the absence of further evidence, my interpretation of the facts is as good as yours. So there. Prove you are not a wife-beating, puppy-torturing, child-molester, otherwise my statement stays."

You might want to check out libel/slander laws that are already on the books.
Report to moderator   Logged
fistful
Lifestyle Editor: Gorilla Channel
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 55,897


Unsightly Primate Head


« Reply #93 on: October 25, 2007, 09:08:25 AM »

Anyway, your reply was just an excuse to sneak an extra ad hominem in, in case your previous ones weren't sufficient. 

Oh, quit whining. 
Report to moderator   Logged

Republican: Woke since 1854
Len Budney
Senior Member
**
Posts: 1,023


« Reply #94 on: October 25, 2007, 09:30:21 AM »

You might want to check out libel/slander laws that are already on the books.

That's an absurd statement, I'm afraid. First, malice must be proven to establish libel. Second, comment on public figures is also specifically protected as free speech and, in general, not subject to prosecution as libel. Third, political speech is specifically protected. Since all three protections apply in this case, and you should be quite familiar with them if you've read what you're recommending I read, your statement is silly.

Quote
Prove you are not a wife-beating, puppy-torturing, child-molester, otherwise my statement stays."

No. For starters, I not only state my conclusion but the foundation on which it rests. In particular I discuss the difficulty of specific statistics, because the only one with access to detailed intelligence refuses to reveal any numbers.  For a typical example, read this press briefing and search on "how many". It's not mysterious why the number of dead, let alone a breakdown by cause of death, is mostly speculative. Therefore discussion must, of necessity, be general and imprecise.

There is also the difficulty that you keep reinterpreting the claim. Not all "insurgents" are "terrorists," for starters. An ordinary, law-abiding Iraqi is as justified in defending his country as we would be over here, were the tables turned. Some "insurgents" are, in particular, "innocent." The soldiers who shoot (back) at them are of course following orders and acting in self-defense, so the other side of the coin is important as well: killing an "innocent" does not automatically make one a "murderer." Your casual interchanging of "noncombatants" with "innocents," and "insurgent" with "terrorist," and killing of a non-terrorist with premeditated murder, renders the whole discussion hopelessly confusing.

It's relatively undisputed that there are about 20,000 "insurgents" in Iraq. If we assumed that all of them were Al Qaeda operatives, and that every single one of them is among the 30,000 dead that Bush confessed to, we'd still by left with 10,000 innocent deaths by the smallest body count available today--and regardless of who actually killed them, blame rests with the administration which invaded illegally and unleashed sectarian violence that didn't exist previously.

The above source argues persuasively that at most a thousand or so are in fact terrorists, leaving well over 15,000 non-terrorist "insurgents." They weren't all killed, of course, so more than 10,000 of the 30,000 are clearly non-terrorist non-insurgents. So we have "more than 10,000 innocents," and "more than 25,000 non-terrorists," based on reasonable numbers, recalling that the administration itself is withholding any numbers that it knows.

That's a far cry from purely unsubstantiated allegations like, "Cannoneer beats his wife."

--Len.
Report to moderator   Logged

In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.
Headless Thompson Gunner
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 8,517


« Reply #95 on: October 25, 2007, 09:47:35 AM »

and regardless of who actually killed them, blame rests with the administration which invaded illegally and unleashed sectarian violence that didn't exist previously.
This is what your argument boils down to.  There are lots of Iraqi dead, and you assume that it must be entirely Bush's fault.  You use false premises (the war is illegal, Bush created the sectarian violence, etc) and faulty logic (post hoc, cum hoc, among others) to back it up. 

Sorry, that sort of argument doesn't cut it around here.  Give us sound, logical reasoning as to why Bush is responsible for those 30,000 deaths.  Show us evidence.  Find some proof.  We're looking for some solid critical thinking, not the same old tired platitudes.
Report to moderator   Logged
Patriot
New Member

Posts: 27


« Reply #96 on: October 25, 2007, 09:50:33 AM »

regardless of who actually killed them, blame rests with the administration which invaded illegally and unleashed sectarian violence that didn't exist previously.

Illegal?  According to whom?  Congress explicitly authorized the use of force in the 'Iraq War Resolution.' 

Read up on your history.  Sectarian violence in Iraq is hardly a new problem.  If Hussein's regime "stabilized" the situation, it did so by brutality.  Even so, that regime mounted violent campaigns against the Kurds in Iraq and expelled thousands of Shiites during the Iraq-Iran war. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Len Budney
Senior Member
**
Posts: 1,023


« Reply #97 on: October 25, 2007, 10:06:07 AM »

and regardless of who actually killed them, blame rests with the administration which invaded illegally and unleashed sectarian violence that didn't exist previously.

This is what your argument boils down to.  There are lots of Iraqi dead, and you assume that it must be entirely Bush's fault.  You use false premises (the war is illegal, Bush created the sectarian violence, etc)...

You and Patriot make identical points, so I'll answer both at once. It's not open for debate that the war was illegal. Congress did not declare war. End of discussion. I suggest a reread of section 8 of the Constitution. And yes, I realize that it's just a @#$@#$ piece of paper. But to some of us, it means something. At the very least, it means what it says.

The rest follows from there. All of the consequences of the original crime are on the head of the criminal. That includes not only the administration, but Congress who failed to impeach the president for waging undeclared war. I don't recall ever saying something as simplistic as, "It's Bush's fault."

Indeed, Congress is doubly contemptible. That passed a non-declaration of war so they could claim they were "strong on national defense," but refrained from declaring war so they could blame the outcome on Bush. If they suddenly had an attack of morality, they would impeach Bush--and then have themselves shot for treason.

--Len.
Report to moderator   Logged

In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.
Paddy
Guest
« Reply #98 on: October 25, 2007, 10:12:22 AM »

Thanks for hijacking this thread with your anarchist bullshit, Len.
Report to moderator   Logged
Len Budney
Senior Member
**
Posts: 1,023


« Reply #99 on: October 25, 2007, 10:16:38 AM »

Thanks for hijacking this thread with your anarchist bullshit, Len.

AFAICT, we agree about the Iraq war. Crazy is not knowing who your friends are.

(For the record, by the way, I have stuck strictly with Constitutional bullshit. Not a trace of anarchism in this thread.)

--Len.
Report to moderator   Logged

In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
ankara escort ata┼čehir escort pendik escort ┼či┼čli escort kurtk├Ây escort ankara escort ankara escort avc─▒lar escort istanbul travesti escort bayan escort avc─▒lar escort antalya escort ankara escort istanbul escort t├╝rk porno ─░stanbul Escort ankara escort Ankara Escort Bayan taksim escort maltepe escort Ankara Escort Eros Porno Bah├že┼čehir Escort ankara escort Sincan Escort Bayan Etlik Escort Kurtk├Ây Escort Demetevler Escort ├ťmraniye Escort Escort ankara Keci├Âren Escort Escort Ankara Umraniye Escort Kad─▒k├Ây Escort Escort bayanlar Ankara Escort Bayan Kurtk├Ây Escort Eryaman Escort Kurtk├Ây Escort Escort ─░zmir Beylikd├╝z├╝ Escort ├çankaya Escort escort izmir Ankara escort Antalya escort Ankara Escort Altyaz─▒l─▒ Porno T├╝rk├že Altyaz─▒l─▒ Porno Beylikd├╝z├╝ Escort istanbul escort Bah├že┼čehir Escort Ankara escort Porno izle izmir escort Pendik escort Bostanc─▒ Escort Anadolu Yakas─▒ Escort mersin escort kocaeli escort izmir escort izmir escort Altyaz─▒l─▒ Porno izmit escort fmovies casino siteleri yabanc─▒ dizi ankara escort PORNO buca escort Antalya escort Mersin escort Pendik Escort Tuzla Escort Kartal Escort Kurtk├Ây Escort Beylikd├╝z├╝ Escort