Political DiscussionA place to hold political debates and general discussion. Please remember to always respect the opinions of other members and above all else, be civil.
Her son reenlisted for a second tour of duty. Something tells me that had he not agreed with what was happening, he wouldn't have reenlisted. Cindy Sheehan is a mouthpiece for the Liberal party. She's saying whatever they tell her to say, and has no original thoughts. And you can spout your Carl Rove stuff about Bush all you want, the oil being sold in dollars. This isn't about oil, it's about what's best for America. Those people there would stop at nothing to kill a white man, or American. As for the polls. You know those are biased right? Loko at some of the places they're polling. They didn't vote republican, I can assure you that. News outlets such as CNN, Fox, etc are doing the majoirty of those approval polls. They are liberal media outlets, so they're going to skew the numbers to say what they want. If democrats are so good, why could they not find one of them that could oppose Bush and win the election? Fact is, the majority believes in Bush and voted for him. Don't think for one second that a democrat would have done a better job handed the same situation. They'd be doing the same thing Bush is. Doing what they think is best. I don't always agree with his diplomacy, but for the most part, I like the way he's handling the situation. And I honestly don't think he'd still have troops there if he felt there was no immenent threat. This is America, and we stand up for countries that can't. That's what we've always done. You can disagree with me, but you're still not going to change my views. I'll respect you for your opinion, and still reserve my right to disagree. I don't like Cindy Sheehan running her damned mouth about shit she has no clue about. She doesn't agree. Good for her, but don't try to divide and conquer because you didn't agree with something your son supported.
Well, as an example, I re-enlisted and I don't support what the President is doing. So that doesn't mean anything. I did so for personal reasond (was about to finish my degree, I was given an opportunity to learn a new trade, and I was given a $60K bonus) not because I agreed or disagreed with the President.
I don't doubt that Bush believes that what he's doing is best for America. It doesn't mean that it is, tho. Bush listens to his close friends more than he'll listen to studies or the people. If his advisers tell him that something is better he'll do it and stick by it, even if countless studies tell him it's wrong. But this war is an economic war. It's not necesarily all about his pockets (or his cronies' pockets) but if the economy takes a down swing, not only will he be blamed for it, but the country will suffer because of it.
Also, one of the big reasons Bush won the election is because he ran on a moral ticket. People voted more on what they believed morally over what was beneficial to them economically or socially.
Well, as an example, I re-enlisted and I don't support what the President is doing. So that doesn't mean anything. I did so for personal reasond (was about to finish my degree, I was given an opportunity to learn a new trade, and I was given a $60K bonus) not because I agreed or disagreed with the President.
I don't doubt that Bush believes that what he's doing is best for America. It doesn't mean that it is, tho. Bush listens to his close friends more than he'll listen to studies or the people. If his advisers tell him that something is better he'll do it and stick by it, even if countless studies tell him it's wrong. But this war is an economic war. It's not necesarily all about his pockets (or his cronies' pockets) but if the economy takes a down swing, not only will he be blamed for it, but the country will suffer because of it.
Also, one of the big reasons Bush won the election is because he ran on a moral ticket. People voted more on what they believed morally over what was beneficial to them economically or socially.
It doesn't matter if he ran on a porn ticket. More people wanted him to be president and more people voted for him, regardless of the reasoning behind it. John Kerry ran on so many platforms, I'm still not sure of his stance on a lot of issues. I don't eventhink he knows at this point, cause he flip-flopped depending on whom he was speaking too so much. Bush was straight forward, and didn't waver from what he believed. More American's believed in him as a man than Kerry, plain and simple. That's why he is the president. Because he recieved more votes.
I voted for Bush because he stands for a lot of the same things I believe in. He also spoke his mind openly and without waiver on every issue. He's an honest man, and is open with his morals (meaning he displays them in his decisions, speach, and actions). Bush was also for keeping me for paying for something I'll never see in Social Security. He felt that people should be free to invest it as they choose (so to speak). I also agree with that. Seems to me like lots of people felt the same way.
You re-enlisted for a reason. Free education, and monetary gain. You also knew the situation we were in as a country, and the stance that our government took on said situation. You accepted the fact that there was a possiblity that you'd go back. That would be my rationale for lots of the young kids that go. There is a purpose to enlisting, regardless of whether you're wanting to fight in the war, get a free education and be compensated for it, etc. You still knew the possiblities and saw that your potential for self gain was a good option. You accepted (whether you agree with the diplomacy or not) the consequences of re-enlisting. That's what Casey did when he re-enlisted. Reports, however, from the rest of the family was that he supported Bush's decision. The part of the family that has alienated Cindy from their lives. Such as Casey's father, her soon to be former husband, etc. She increased her exposure, yet tore her life and family apart. I don't feel sorry for her about that. I'm sorry she lost her son, yes, because every soldier that dies is a tragic loss of a hero. She is disgracing the memory though using him as her mouthpiece and platform to speak through on her back-handed comments about the war, our country, and our military.
It doesn't matter if he ran on a porn ticket. More people wanted him to be president and more people voted for him, regardless of the reasoning behind it. John Kerry ran on so many platforms, I'm still not sure of his stance on a lot of issues. I don't eventhink he knows at this point, cause he flip-flopped depending on whom he was speaking too so much. Bush was straight forward, and didn't waver from what he believed. More American's believed in him as a man than Kerry, plain and simple. That's why he is the president. Because he recieved more votes.
I voted for Bush because he stands for a lot of the same things I believe in. He also spoke his mind openly and without waiver on every issue. He's an honest man, and is open with his morals (meaning he displays them in his decisions, speach, and actions). Bush was also for keeping me for paying for something I'll never see in Social Security. He felt that people should be free to invest it as they choose (so to speak). I also agree with that. Seems to me like lots of people felt the same way.
You re-enlisted for a reason. Free education, and monetary gain. You also knew the situation we were in as a country, and the stance that our government took on said situation. You accepted the fact that there was a possiblity that you'd go back. That would be my rationale for lots of the young kids that go. There is a purpose to enlisting, regardless of whether you're wanting to fight in the war, get a free education and be compensated for it, etc. You still knew the possiblities and saw that your potential for self gain was a good option. You accepted (whether you agree with the diplomacy or not) the consequences of re-enlisting. That's what Casey did when he re-enlisted. Reports, however, from the rest of the family was that he supported Bush's decision. The part of the family that has alienated Cindy from their lives. Such as Casey's father, her soon to be former husband, etc. She increased her exposure, yet tore her life and family apart. I don't feel sorry for her about that. I'm sorry she lost her son, yes, because every soldier that dies is a tragic loss of a hero. She is disgracing the memory though using him as her mouthpiece and platform to speak through on her back-handed comments about the war, our country, and our military.
You're right on your last paragraph in that I accepted the risks in order to gain my rewards. I knew that I might have to go back to the sand box (or wherever else sent) and I rolled the dice. I'm still alive, thankfully, so no complaints here (I'm short on time, too, only 10 more months for me). But I continue to disagree that anyone can know what Casey really believed or supported. We can speculate, but we can never know.
On the Social Security platform, he stands to gain economically from it (he and his cronies). They are all business men and hold stock in many corporations. They would really benefit if people started buying stocks, don't you agree? The best alternative was/is to fix the system, not to eliminate it. If it's done right, the way many economists (including Greenspan who is a very big proponent of the SS system and how to fix it) believe it should, the system will maintain it's health for way over 70 years. That should be plenty of time to reconsider another alternative 20 or 30 years down the road when we know much more about the world and the current situations. Hell, even investing SS money in foreign markets (which isn't done right now) would produce higher gains on the money invested but those who control the money prefer to invest only in American bonds and trusts. Kind of good for American trusts but not really that great for those who will one day reap the rewards of it (as they should be more concerned about making that money grow as opposed to just keeping it in the States, especially with our global economy).
But I didn't plan on teaching SS reform so I'll stop at that. But don't believe that Bush really has your best interests at heart when it comes to Social Security. I tend to believe Allan Greenspan over George Bush when it comes to economics. How about you?
Nobody is immune to changing their mind. To say that Kerry was a flip-flopper and imply that Bush wasn't is to bend the truth and distort reality. But, Bush did get more votes (this time) so he is rightfully our President.
Well, many people (even hightly-educated, Ph.D.'s, professors, and highly-regarded scientists) have blamed the current hurricane series (the intensity, not the quantity) on our past environmental policies. Whether Bush's fvckups in the environment have taken so quickly I cannot say (I doubt they would but I'm not a climatologist), but I can see how someone would be justified in so doing.
In the 1940s, I believe we had a string of really bad hurricanes, very simliar to the pattern that we are seing this season. After the 40s we had a decline and the number and intensitiy are expected to once again slowly decline like they have in the past. Granted warmer ocean temps lead to more and greater intensity hurricanes, but the warmer ocean is not the result of environmental policies. The ocean is in a constant cycle that will eventually in the next few years have unusually cooler ocean temperatures. It would be just as crazy to say cooler temps mean we have an off the hook envrionmental policy, as it is to say that warmer temps are the results of a poor one.
Quote:
Anywho, who a terrorist is and who a freedom fighter is depends on what side of the line you're standing on. In the abstract, al-Qaeda is a freedom-fighting organization but political propaganda will prevent you from hearing that in this country. Ask an Afghani, a Syrian, or a Jordanian and they will use those words to describe them.
That's true. Groups that support their efforts are going to call them freedom fighters. They weren't fighting for freedom when they stole our planes and crashed them into buildings. It's one thing for radical islamic groups to call them freedom fighters, but it's a completely different story when there is an American woman, a military family nontheless that uses the loss of her son to gain a stage, and take a position that divides this country and completely denegrades the service of our fighting men and women, not to mention disrespects the 2000 lives that have been lost.
Quote:
I have no problem with her calling them freedom fighters. I'd also have no problem with her if she decided to join an al-Qaeda cell and plot against the U.S. (as that is her prerogative). Don't get me wrong, not that I want people to plot against this country (and anyone who does should be arrested and tried as such), but she is a free human being and is free to choose as such.
She does have that right. She has so much ambition what if she used it bring this country together instead of dividing it. I realize Bush hasn't done everything right, but he has done somethings right. Attack his mistakes, but keep the personal attacks to yourself. Calling him a terrorist and a bastard is just not called for.
Quote:
It's kind of hard to explain but I believe in freedom and that entails many things that people today would like to ban you from doing (such as abortions, drugs, homosexuality, whatever your personal decisions and choices lead you to do).
In order to preserve a blanket set of fundamental freedoms (those guranteed by the constitution), you have to restrict non-fundamental freedoms, the freedoms that typically interfere with the freedoms of others. That's why some of this stuff is so controversial. People are demanding rights that interfere with the rights of others. Such as homosexuality. On one side there is a demand for gays to have full rights to marriage, but at the same time, the other side demands the right to raise their kids teaching them marriage is man and woman and homosexual behaviour is not natural, without having to compete with society. So that's where conflicts set in. Both sides are entitled to their rights, but there is going to have to be some sort of compromise, because neither one is explicitly written in the constitution.
People need to be governed, or there would be genocide. People that suddenly feel like killing someone today, or raping a girl they find attractive. You have to limit freedoms to the extent that they do not interefere with the freedoms or beliefs of someone else. There are extremists on the left and right that debate which side can get the law to support their way of thinking. The real answers are inbetween. Extremists get all of the attention, while the moderate folks get the work done. Personally I feel that the states need more control, that way people that believe one way can live in a state that has laws based on what they believe, and stay away from states that differ.
In the 1940s, I believe we had a string of really bad hurricanes, very simliar to the pattern that we are seing this season. After the 40s we had a decline and the number and intensitiy are expected to once again slowly decline like they have in the past. Granted warmer ocean temps lead to more and greater intensity hurricanes, but the warmer ocean is not the result of environmental policies. The ocean is in a constant cycle that will eventually in the next few years have unusually cooler ocean temperatures. It would be just as crazy to say cooler temps mean we have an off the hook envrionmental policy, as it is to say that warmer temps are the results of a poor one.
Actually, warmer oceans are the result of environmental policies. The more you heat the earth the more you'll heat the water. And, not only that, but water tends to keep the temperature longer than land (cools off slower) so eventually we'll start to see more huricanes in the later parts of the season (as we're seeing now) than we ever did before. Even in the warm cycles, hurricanes were never as intense so late in the season.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pheaton
That's true. Groups that support their efforts are going to call them freedom fighters. They weren't fighting for freedom when they stole our planes and crashed them into buildings. It's one thing for radical islamic groups to call them freedom fighters, but it's a completely different story when there is an American woman, a military family nontheless that uses the loss of her son to gain a stage, and take a position that divides this country and completely denegrades the service of our fighting men and women, not to mention disrespects the 2000 lives that have been lost.
There are many sides to that argument. By supporting the war you're disrespecting all the civilians who have and continue to die every day in Iraq. You're also disrespecting the families of those soldiers who did not want to go over there to begin with (I know it's their duty).
I also believe that they were fighting for freedom when they stole the planes and crashed them. They were fighting for the freedom of their people and to stop the interference of the west in their affairs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pheaton
She does have that right. She has so much ambition what if she used it bring this country together instead of dividing it. I realize Bush hasn't done everything right, but he has done somethings right. Attack his mistakes, but keep the personal attacks to yourself. Calling him a terrorist and a bastard is just not called for.
I have no beef with people telling it as it is. Just because we agree with him doesn't mean he's not a terrorist. If she can back up her claim with facts then she has every right to say it. Just because those who support Bin Laden don't call him a terrorist doesn't mean he ceases to be one. By the same token, Bush doesn't cease to be one just because we support his cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pheaton
In order to preserve a blanket set of fundamental freedoms (those guranteed by the constitution), you have to restrict non-fundamental freedoms, the freedoms that typically interfere with the freedoms of others. That's why some of this stuff is so controversial. People are demanding rights that interfere with the rights of others. Such as homosexuality. On one side there is a demand for gays to have full rights to marriage, but at the same time, the other side demands the right to raise their kids teaching them marriage is man and woman and homosexual behaviour is not natural, without having to compete with society. So that's where conflicts set in. Both sides are entitled to their rights, but there is going to have to be some sort of compromise, because neither one is explicitly written in the constitution.
People need to be governed, or there would be genocide. People that suddenly feel like killing someone today, or raping a girl they find attractive. You have to limit freedoms to the extent that they do not interefere with the freedoms or beliefs of someone else. There are extremists on the left and right that debate which side can get the law to support their way of thinking. The real answers are inbetween. Extremists get all of the attention, while the moderate folks get the work done. Personally I feel that the states need more control, that way people that believe one way can live in a state that has laws based on what they believe, and stay away from states that differ.
I think you meant anarchy, not genocide. Either way, governments should be there to protect the citizens, I agree, but there is a certain level of protection that is too much. They should only protect those basic freedoms we need, not any others.
For example, you say people have the right to raise their children teaching them that homosexuality is wrong. Fine, I agree, but there is no reason why they can't do that even if homosexuals are accepted by society. The belief that homosexuality is wrong stems from the Bible and to introduce it in our form of governance would be to increase the theocracy that some wouldn't mind seeing. People have a right to define their own morals when those morals do not interfere with the society we live in. Murder, for example, interferes; stealing also interferes; homosexuality, on the other hand, does not interefere with our basic functions as a society.
I'll put it to a simple test (for all those Christians out there): WWJD? Yes, what would Big J do? I think he'd forgive them, accept them, and love them. Bible thumpers are quick to point out how homosexuality is considered evil in the Bible. Well, so was prostitution and adultery but Jesus saved and forgave many adulterers and prostitutes. He even stopped a crowd from kililng a woman asking telling the person without sin to cast the first stone. So, I believe that Jesus, the person most of these people who would like to ban homosexual marriage look up to and try to live as, would do the opposite of what they are trying to do.
One other point I'd like to make. I see everyone who dislikes Cindy saying she is dividing the country. Why doesn't it work the other way? Why don't you say that Bush is dividing the country with his policies? One person (not the President) can't divide the country unless other people believe in what that person is saying. The President, on the other hand, can easily divide it by going against the people's wishes.
I contend it is Bush, not Cindy, who is dividing this country.
Last edited by silverdevil : 09-28-2005 at 04:15 PM.
Link for proof that she blamed katrina on bush? She is a highly intelligent woman, she would not make idiotic comments
If she's intelligent I must be Albert Einstein. The woman has made so many rediculous comments. I feel bad she lost her son, but im SURE he wouldnt agree with what she's been doing. She doesnt understand the basic ideas of enlisting in the U.S. military, the honor that goes with serving your country, or the fact that yes, if you enlist you might actually have to go fight and die for your country. Its a risk you take. Im glad she was arrested. Now we wont have to hear her nonsense for at least a little while. The fact that shes supposedly the "Voice" of American Liberals is simply dumbfounding to me
The President, on the other hand, can easily divide it by going against the people's wishes.
I contend it is Bush, not Cindy, who is dividing this country.
The president can divide our country by going against the people wishes? If there's a division, then clearly he's only going against SOME peoples wishes, while the other group supports him. If by "going against our wishes" you mean going into Iraq, then don't blame bush for that, blame your DEMOCRATIC congressmen who voted for the Iraq resolution.....unless of course you're into John Kerry and his BS "I was for the war and against it"
The president can divide our country by going against the people wishes? If there's a division, then clearly he's only going against SOME peoples wishes, while the other group supports him. If by "going against our wishes" you mean going into Iraq, then don't blame bush for that, blame your DEMOCRATIC congressmen who voted for the Iraq resolution.....unless of course you're into John Kerry and his BS "I was for the war and against it"
Yes, clearly anyone dividing the country is going against some people's wishes. What I mean is he's going against a big group (not necessarily a majority, but a big enough group).
Well, I blame the President for pushing the issues using known-untruthful data. If he was afraid of the economic impact of the region changing to the Euro from the Dollar, for example, he should've mad it clear. Coming up with some co(kamame bullshit reason, knowing it's false and having people forcibly report false information, is what I'm talking about. Those Democratic Congressmen had nothing to do with that.
What would you like him to do? He's got to go one way or the other, unless he'd rather constantly change his stance like say, John Kerry. It makes the most sense to go with the majority. I definately don't agree with some of Bush's policies, but his decision to go to Iraq is one I do agree with. The whole debate really boils down to intelligence, and whether you feel their was enough to go to Iraq, or that their wasn't and Bush manipulated it to his liking. I think it was some of both. I think he definately pushed for the info to be made public. Yes, some of our intelligence, along with European intelligence ended up being wrong, but some was absoultely correct and I think we had ample reason to attack Iraq. Hell its my view that Saddams violating of the 1991 UN Resolution 13+ times was reason enough to go in and use military force. The world community was all talk, no action. They said "we know you have weapons, get rid of them" he never did. The U.S finally did something about it. Thats one of the most fundamental problems with the UN and international law in general: Enforcement.
What would you like him to do? He's got to go one way or the other, unless he'd rather constantly change his stance like say, John Kerry. It makes the most sense to go with the majority. I definately don't agree with some of Bush's policies, but his decision to go to Iraq is one I do agree with. The whole debate really boils down to intelligence, and whether you feel their was enough to go to Iraq, or that their wasn't and Bush manipulated it to his liking. I think it was some of both. I think he definately pushed for the info to be made public. Yes, some of our intelligence, along with European intelligence ended up being wrong, but some was absoultely correct and I think we had ample reason to attack Iraq. Hell its my view that Saddams violating of the 1991 UN Resolution 13+ times was reason enough to go in and use military force. The world community was all talk, no action. They said "we know you have weapons, get rid of them" he never did. The U.S finally did something about it. Thats one of the most fundamental problems with the UN and international law in general: Enforcement.
First of all, Bush did change his mind numerous times. Did you see the link I posted earlier about some of Bush's flip-flops? Yeah, read it.
Secondly, and this is a point I can't stress enough, we were duped into believing that the war was justified. He didn't go with the majority, he created the majority by taking advantage of our patriotism post-9/11 and by showing us "proof" that really wasn't there. I even saw some of the evidence first-hand only to find out later that it had been "fabricated" (and by that I mean blown out of proportion, exagerated, and it was mostly speculation stated as fact). I don't blame Bush as I don't think it was he himself who really pushed for this. I believe Rumsfeld and Cheney were the ring leaders here and Bush was just pulled along for the ride. Why do you think Bush didn't allow Rumsfeld to resign after the Abu Ghraib fvck up? Because this was his mess and he needed to stick around to see it out (that is almost a quote, by the way). I, too, backed the war to begin with but now that I see how we were lied to I really resent the administration. I don't like being lied to. If you pet me and tell me, "we're going to poke this huge (ock up your butt" then I'm more likely to say, OK. But, if you say you're going to look at a mole and end up poking me, then we'll have a problem. That's what the administration did and I really don't like them for it.
Thirdly, when a U.N. resolution si violated, it is up to the U.N., and not up to any individual nations, to take action. That's the whole basis of the organization.
If you pet me and tell me, "we're going to poke this huge (ock up your butt" then I'm more likely to say, OK. But, if you say you're going to look at a mole and end up poking me, then we'll have a problem. That's what the administration did and I really don't like them for it.
HAHA! I don't have anything intelligent to add, really. Just that these 2 sentences cracked me up.
Keep the debate going, guys. I'm enjoying the read.
If there's a division, then clearly he's only going against SOME peoples wishes, while the other group supports him. If by "going against our wishes" you mean going into Iraq, then don't blame bush for that, blame your DEMOCRATIC congressmen who voted for the Iraq resolution.....unless of course you're into John Kerry and his BS "I was for the war and against it" 
