And right there is a clear example of what he was suggesting. Your comments, on an emotional level, come across as, "It is not the fault of these muslim extremists, it is our fault. We deserve what they did and are doing to us."Go after? What is that even supposed to mean? Your point of view assumes that Americans are inherently superior to the rest of the world. Very "us" vs. "them."
Radical religious groups are dangerous, whether they be Islamic, Christian, or anything else. The followers of Islam do not have a monopoly on dangerous radicals. In any case, killing everyone isn't the solution, because, surprise, all that does is breed a whole new generation of radicals that actually have a good reason to hate us. We need to try to identify and address factors that nudge people down this road. And no, that doesn't imply "appeasement."
I appreciate the save pres man
And right there is a clear example of what he was suggesting. Your comments, on an emotional level, come across as, "It is not the fault of these muslim extremists, it is our fault. We deserve what they did and are doing to us."Go after? What is that even supposed to mean? Your point of view assumes that Americans are inherently superior to the rest of the world. Very "us" vs. "them."
Radical religious groups are dangerous, whether they be Islamic, Christian, or anything else. The followers of Islam do not have a monopoly on dangerous radicals. In any case, killing everyone isn't the solution, because, surprise, all that does is breed a whole new generation of radicals that actually have a good reason to hate us. We need to try to identify and address factors that nudge people down this road. And no, that doesn't imply "appeasement."
Then perhaps you should read his comments on a rational level rather than an emotional one.
Then perhaps you should read his comments on a rational level rather than an emotional one.
It doesn't matter how I personally read it, it matters how it comes across to people in general. And as sad as it is to say, most people look at things from an emotional standpoint. Suggesting that someone is too stupid or emotional to understand what is being said just shows the person making that comment is not understanding how people read their comments.
It doesn't matter how I personally read it, it matters how it comes across to people in general.
I'd suggest that in a two-way messageboard/chat setting, as opposed to the one-way world of advertising, there is equal onus on the poster and on the reader. Yes, the comments can easily be construed exactly as pointed out, especially if read from a neocon viewpoint, and they should have been edited accordingly.
Then again, from the poster's viewpoint, they probably meant to express not a hatred of America, but a frustration that when we could have dealt terrorism a powerful blow (by finishing the job in Afghanistan and bringing Bin Laden to justice, thereby showing the world clearly and without question what happens to terrorists and those who harbor them), instead we let Bin Laden and the Taliban regroup, and moved the bulk of our effort to Iraq (sending the message that we strike out more or less blindly). The reader should maybe give the benefit of the doubt, and understand that the oft-repeated question "why do liberals hate America?" is rhetorical, because most of them don't.
To keep the discussion civil, it helps if everyone is willing to meet halfway.
It doesn't matter how I personally read it, it matters how it comes across to people in general.I'd suggest that in a two-way messageboard/chat setting, as opposed to the one-way world of advertising, there is equal onus on the poster and on the reader. Yes, the comments can easily be construed exactly as pointed out, especially if read from a neocon viewpoint, and they should have been edited accordingly.
Then again, from the poster's viewpoint, they probably meant to express not a hatred of America, but a frustration that when we could have dealt terrorism a powerful blow (by finishing the job in Afghanistan and bringing Bin Laden to justice, thereby showing the world clearly and without question what happens to terrorists and those who harbor them), instead we let Bin Laden and the Taliban regroup, and moved the bulk of our effort to Iraq (sending the message that we strike out more or less blindly). The reader should maybe give the benefit of the doubt, and understand that the oft-repeated question "why do liberals hate America?" is rhetorical, because most of them don't.
To keep the discussion civil, it helps if everyone is willing to meet halfway.
As a conservative you might be surprised that I agree with this. We went into Iraq too early and didn't finish the Taliban off before Iraq. I don't mind when liberals bash Bush because of this because they are right. Bush and Rumsfeld screwed the Iraqi war up at the beginning but thank God Petreus seems to getting the violence down.
I don't hate America. Quite the contrary, in fact. Why is why I take such exception to the executive branch's contempt for the law. Seriously: Invoking executive privilege to ignore congressional subpoena? How can anyone think that is acceptable or the path to anything but madness?
I don't think 9/11 was justified. Mass murder is never justified. But it is arrogant to assume that none of those people had legitimate grievances. _Capturing and punishing those responsible while asking ourselves what we might have done to defuse the hatred that motivated them (and millions of others who aren't *yet* willing to commit murder) aren't mutually exclusive activities_.
I think we were justified in attacking Afghanistan. I do not think we were justified in attacking Iraq. I have yet to see any evidence suggesting Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11.
As a conservative you might be surprised that I agree with this.
No surprise at all; I'm extremely conservative on a lot of issues. I just can't undertsand why I'm supposed to hate gays all of the sudden if I want lower taxes, for example. The arbitrary groupings now labelled "liberal" and "conservative" make no sense at all to me.
Two examples: why is freedom of speech called "conservative," if it means being liberal in terms of what to allow? (Never mind whether you're for or against; I'm just questioning the label.) Why is being in favor of retaining habeas corpus labelled "liberal," if it implies a desire to conserve something we've had the West since the Magna Carta?
Bush and Rumsfeld screwed the Iraqi war up at the beginning but thank God Petreus seems to getting the violence down.
Amen. Petraeus, for all the flack he gets, appears to me to be about a hundred times more intelligent than anyone in the White House.
|
Bush and Rumsfeld screwed the Iraqi war up at the beginning but thank God Petreus seems to getting the violence down.
As an interesting exercise, have a look at who was running the war bureaucracy in Washington for the Vietnam War (er... police action?) and who got the US involved in Iraq.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/paths/
A very interesting read.
Oh, and this is a GREAT interview:
|
|
Sometimes I really wish Clinton had a third term and would have led us into this war instead of Bush because we wouldn't be hearing all this garbage from the left(Even if waterboarding was going on you wouldn't be hearing about it). The American press would be gaga over the war instead and would be comparing Clinton to Abraham Lincoln for freeing 20 million people from the tyranny of radical Islam. Don't believe me?
I guess you have (conveniently) forgotten the media raping clinton received about Serbia or Sudan or Somalia? Do the phrases 'wag the dog' or 'black hawk down' ring a bell? Fox News was created as a successful network partly because of the outrage over clinton's 'foreign entanglements' and 'interventionism'. While clinton was president, the republican party sounded isolationist. Amazing how things change when the man in the office switches party, no?
It seems to me, no matter who is president someone will object to their foreign policy. If someone objects to the president's foreign policy, there is a cable news network that will organize the programming around it. I will reiterate my prior point that cable news is evil and only divides people. Hell, its not news when they tell you HOW to feel about things. That's an editorial.
Sometimes I really wish Clinton had a third term and would have led us into this war instead of Bush because we wouldn't be hearing all this garbage from the left(Even if waterboarding was going on you wouldn't be hearing about it). The American press would be gaga over the war instead and would be comparing Clinton to Abraham Lincoln for freeing 20 million people from the tyranny of radical Islam. Don't believe me?I guess you have (conveniently) forgotten the media raping clinton received about Serbia or Sudan or Somalia? Do the phrases 'wag the dog' or 'black hawk down' ring a bell? Fox News was created as a successful network partly because of the outrage over clinton's 'foreign entanglements' and 'interventionism'. While clinton was president, the republican party sounded isolationist. Amazing how things change when the man in the office switches party, no?
It seems to me, no matter who is president someone will object to their foreign policy. If someone objects to the president's foreign policy, there is a cable news network that will organize the programming around it. I will reiterate my prior point that cable news is evil and only divides people. Hell, its not news when they tell you HOW to feel about things. That's an editorial.
The mainstream media was mostly quiet about these wars(Even though many liberals were against these actions). You did find an occassional liberal tee off on Clinton(like wag the dog statements) but it was very little. Not even close to what Bush has endured.
Bush and Rumsfeld screwed the Iraqi war up at the beginning but thank God Petreus seems to getting the violence down.As an interesting exercise, have a look at who was running the war bureaucracy in Washington for the Vietnam War (er... police action?) and who got the US involved in Iraq.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/paths/
A very interesting read.
Oh, and this is a GREAT interview:
Wow... what excellent and informative links Hmarcbower, thank you!
This of course highlights one problem when it comes to politics. Many people love to focus on the top man, i.e., Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, etc. But it is the hordes of Washingtonian bureaucrats that aren't elected who actually run things. Presidents rely on these folks for their policies, and often they come up with more of the same old. It's amazing how many power players in the current administration trace their genesis in politics all the way back to Vietnam. You can't get rid of these people, and they will still be in power positions no matter who ends up in the White House come January.
|
As a conservative you might be surprised that I agree with this.No surprise at all; I'm extremely conservative on a lot of issues. I just can't undertsand why I'm supposed to hate gays all of the sudden if I want lower taxes, for example. The arbitrary groupings now labelled "liberal" and "conservative" make no sense at all to me.
Two examples: why is freedom of speech called "conservative," if it means being liberal in terms of what to allow? (Never mind whether you're for or against; I'm just questioning the label.) Why is being in favor of retaining habeas corpus labelled "liberal," if it implies a desire to conserve something we've had the West since the Magna Carta?
Bush and Rumsfeld screwed the Iraqi war up at the beginning but thank God Petreus seems to getting the violence down.Amen. Petraeus, for all the flack he gets, appears to me to be about a hundred times more intelligent than anyone in the White House.
the problem comes from the use of the labels themselves. first, "liberal" in the classic sense does not mean "socialist". and "conservative" does not mean "small government". the problem is a lot of our political groups are mislabeled in a classic sense. kirth, i expect that you and i are much alike in our "conservativism", in that we are actually "liberals" in the classic sense: personal liberty, fiscally conservative, unobtrusive government.
gay bashing, wishing to legislate christianity into law, xenophobia, these are NOT parts of a true "conservative" outlook. they are fascist.
on the flip side, unionism, extreme socialism (redistribution of wealth "from each...to each"), political correctness (to a fault) and cradle to grave government coddling are NOT parts of a true "liberal" outlook, they are marxist.
i am a fiscal conservative, a social liberal (in modern terms, i suppose), most people i discuss politics with think, because i do not trust government to EVER make the right choice with my money, that i am some kind of right wing nut, yet, i live in montrose, do not believe in prohibition of any kind, do not believe in discrimination based on ANY criteria (but i also dont believe in special priveldges based on any criteria...) believe that if two people want to get married, they should be allowed to...
but i also think people should be held responsible for their actions (e.g. i went to prison, but i put myself there through my actions, no one else is responsible...), people should earn their own way through life, and no one is entitled to live off the fruits of another's labor if those fruits are taken in a coersive way (i.e. the threat of prison for non-compliance).
anyway, the terms dont mean what they used to, and most people (except, perhaps, the extremists on both sides) cannot be neatly packaged into any group. i know people who consistently vote democrat that are "pro-life" and people who consistently vote republican that are "anti-prohibition", so don't paint too broadly with any brush...
|
|
The mainstream media was mostly quiet about these wars(Even though many liberals were against these actions). You did find an occassional liberal tee off on Clinton(like wag the dog statements) but it was very little. Not even close to what Bush has endured.
Sometimes I really wish Clinton had a third term and would have led us into this war instead of Bush because we wouldn't be hearing all this garbage from the left(Even if waterboarding was going on you wouldn't be hearing about it). The American press would be gaga over the war instead and would be comparing Clinton to Abraham Lincoln for freeing 20 million people from the tyranny of radical Islam. Don't believe me?I guess you have (conveniently) forgotten the media raping clinton received about Serbia or Sudan or Somalia? Do the phrases 'wag the dog' or 'black hawk down' ring a bell? Fox News was created as a successful network partly because of the outrage over clinton's 'foreign entanglements' and 'interventionism'. While clinton was president, the republican party sounded isolationist. Amazing how things change when the man in the office switches party, no?
It seems to me, no matter who is president someone will object to their foreign policy. If someone objects to the president's foreign policy, there is a cable news network that will organize the programming around it. I will reiterate my prior point that cable news is evil and only divides people. Hell, its not news when they tell you HOW to feel about things. That's an editorial.
Perhaps our memory of events differ. I remember it being almost continually covered for the duration of each event, and in a regular rotation on cable news from then on.
Also, these events were on the order of days to months in duration, not years. Casualties and troop commitments were negligible in relation to Iraq. I think there is an obvious scale difference here that accounts for the perceived heavier lambasting Bush has endured. When your war lasts over 5 years, requiring the use of all of the available regular military, plus long term commitments from many Guard members (who traditionally were NOT to engage in oversea service) you open yourself to much greater scrutiny and criticism than a smaller event would.
I was going to Post something here about Politics... But I decided to drink a beer instead.. *Shrugs*
Oh yeah? Well your beer and anyone who drinks it sucks! The brewmaster ought to be impeached!
LESS FILLING! None of this "tastes great" nonsense! Those "tastes great" supporters are nothing but partisan hacks!
|
Your priorities are really screwed up. You'd rather go after your own president during a time of war than go after radical Islam.
If by "go after" you mean hold accountable to the Constitution and Geneva Conventions, then yes. But not just the President- any elected official who feels that these documents are optional or to be waived due to any given situation. That has nothing to do with Bush and should (and I expect would) be applied to anyone elected by the people to guide our country.
Going to war is not a get-out-of-the-law free card. "A time of war" does not grant immunity from scrutiny.
And regarding waterboarding and other forms of torture...
The fact that our enemies might do something reprehensible is not validation for our military to do the same. We are better than that as a nation. Would we really think that nothing done to our troops is torture as long as the Iraqi doing it did not believe it was torture? That's what we are saying here in our country. Would you accept that if it were coming from a country we were fighting? We give up the right to prosecute torture as war crimes when we are willing to bend the definition with such legalese in order to justify our use of it.
Also, these events were on the order of days to months in duration, not years. Casualties and troop commitments were negligible in relation to Iraq.
People can handle a war, or a bad economy, but get really ticked off at both. The so-called conservatives that dominated in Bush's first term bankrupted the nation and put us in China's pocket, economically speaking. To my mind, all real conservatives should be furious about that.
Meanwhile, some liberals are angry about the wars in general, and conservatives are angry that the bulk of our effort is being spent in Iraq, due to poor planning and recklessness, rather than in Afghanistan where it should have been.
Compare that with Clinton; even as the figurative Moral Majority shouted to impeach Clinton for his personal peccadiloes, fiscal conservatives like me were somewhat more willing to forgive him, solely because of the state of the economy.
So, Clinton: Social conservatives hate, fiscal conservatives willing to let some of his social stuff slide. Liberals across the board liked him. Bush, Jr.: Social conservatives like him (except the anti-immigration isolationist crowd), fiscal conservatives like me can never forgive him, and liberals of course can't stand him.
It's no wonder the press was a lot easier on Clinton.
...People can handle a war, or a bad economy, but get really ticked off at both. The so-called conservatives that dominated in Bush's first term bankrupted the nation and put us in China's pocket, economically speaking. To my mind, all real conservatives should be furious about that.
I know I am. Bunch of morality-spouting crypto tax-and-spenders. Faugh! It's getting so they should just call their party the Republicrats and get it over with.
EDIT: Didn't mean to offend the Democrats out there, by saying 'Republicrat' to describe the ignorant moral-conservative fiscal liberals in power at the moment. Just a convenient handle like the old descriptor of 'Dixiecrat' for the final old-school moral-conservative Democrats from the Deep South.
|
|
And right there is a clear example of what he was suggesting. Your comments, on an emotional level, come across as, "It is not the fault of these muslim extremists, it is our fault. We deserve what they did and are doing to us."
That is really an incredible stretch. It is delusional to believe that our global actions don't have repercussions. Sometimes military action is the right course of action. But it is only common sense to understand that where ever you go, you leave a footprint. Thus it is impossible to kill all of the extremist who hate us, because for each one killed there are now cousins, brothers, children, who are inflamed against us. It's just a fact of military confrontation. This is why when you visit a military base you will likely see a list of countries whose nationals are prohibited from entering the base. The list is around 60 countries long which is everywhere we've had military involvement or general animosity in the last 40-50 years where people might still be bearing a grudge. The military recognizes our lingering footprint even if you do not.
Setting up semi-permanent military bases in a region whose prime hostility with us was originally based on our military ambition in the region will serve to help them attract more fanatics to their cause. Maybe in the long run new found stability will outweigh this; we will see. But to write off someone who is pointing out the obvious as "We deserve what they did and are doing to us" is absurd and willfully missing the point.
|
|
The so-called conservatives that dominated in Bush's first term bankrupted the nation and put us in China's pocket, economically speaking. To my mind, all real conservatives should be furious about that.
You make a good point, but everyone should be upset about that, not just conservatives. Someone (I forget who right now) made a good point about the war bonds earlier in this thread. I can't understand why our government would prefer to rack up debt to China and Japan without trying to offset some of it with war bonds. Does anyone know if they couldn't issue war bonds because it's not an official war? I don't really understand why they wouldn't have done this otherwise. Incredibly irresponsible...
...
You make a good point, but everyone should be upset about that, not just conservatives...
I think what Kith is saying is that this type of action is being prepetrated in the name of Conservatism, while being totally against the core principals of Conservatism.
Conservatism has gotten a black eye lately, thanks to the current administration. But the root word of Conservative is 'conserve'. The core value is to use resources wisely, don't spend like you have an infinite credit card, and don't expect government to solve all of society's ills. Lately it has shifted to mean a 'moral' conservative, which means aspiring to some mythical moral benchmark from the past remembered fondly through rose-colored glasses.
It strikes me as funny that Conservationists are OK, but Conservatives aren't in liberal circles. They are both out to conserve resources, just in different areas. I personally count myself as both a Conservationist and a Conservative. There is only so much of any resource, I believe we should invest our resources wisely.
|
|
But the root word of Conservative is 'conserve'. The core value is to use resources wisely, don't spend like you have an infinite credit card, and don't expect government to solve all of society's ills.
And those are all very respectable values. Though I am liberal on most social issues I agree with all three, though we would have differing opinions on the implementation. I do feel that we, using the government as an organizing force, have some responsibility to help those who are incapable of helping themselves. The alternative ("Not my problem, they can take care of themselves") seems very selfish and short-sighted to me. If we are a great nation then we should certainly be capable of taking care of children, the elderly, the mentally ill and providing college scholarships, loans, and money for the arts to help advance ourselves.
All of these are social programs where I'm sure some of you might not agree with me. But you need an organizing force to coordinate things of this magnitude and the federal government has that capacity. I would agree that they probably aren't the most efficient, but they are open to scrutiny on these projects. Guarding against abuse of social programs is worthwhile and Republicans fill a vital role in trying to trim them when they bloat. But the programs themselves are invaluable and a mark of an enlightened society. So the Democrats serve a vital role in trying to preserve them.
It's a shame about the 'moral conservative' trend dominating the party. If Republicans were primarily based around the economic values they are supposed to represent, they would be much more accessible. As I understand it this was part of Rove's strategy to lock in a "permanent" majority. But man it's hard to listen to an educated politician deny evolution and stir up homophobia to court votes.
Actually we are closer than you think, Ithuriel. I do think that government has a role to fufill in providing programs such as you illustrated. This falls in my opinion under investing resources wisely. Denying that we as a society have a certain responsibility towards those less fortunate is as silly to me as those Conservationists who hamstring any use of natural resources out of some Luddite notion of 'hands off' in the wilderness.
What I decry is the blatant waste and mismanagement that government as a whole is known for when it comes to spending our tax dollars. I posted in another one of these political threads that reputable charities aim for a 90/10 split of funds ..i.e. 90% to the people in need and 10% for administrative costs to get the charitable contributions where they need to go. Government flips these numbers. To me this is as wasteful as the building contractors who level a housing lot with 100-year-old trees to the ground and then plant a few 3-year-old trees on the lot when the house is done simply because it's easier than working around a few trees while they build. I am a firm believer in managing our resources, but that doesn't mean throwing them in a bank. That means investing in long-term goals: Space exploration, education, new technologies and the like.
|
|
This is why when you visit a military base you will likely see a list of countries whose nationals are prohibited from entering the base. The list is around 60 countries long which is everywhere we've had military involvement or general animosity in the last 40-50 years where people might still be bearing a grudge. The military recognizes our lingering footprint even if you do not.
Whoa..... Where do you get that idea?... There is no such list...
Your priorities are really screwed up. You'd rather go after your own president during a time of war than go after radical Islam.If by "go after" you mean hold accountable to the Constitution and Geneva Conventions, then yes. But not just the President- any elected official who feels that these documents are optional or to be waived due to any given situation. That has nothing to do with Bush and should (and I expect would) be applied to anyone elected by the people to guide our country.
Going to war is not a get-out-of-the-law free card. "A time of war" does not grant immunity from scrutiny.
And regarding waterboarding and other forms of torture...
The fact that our enemies might do something reprehensible is not validation for our military to do the same. We are better than that as a nation. Would we really think that nothing done to our troops is torture as long as the Iraqi doing it did not believe it was torture? That's what we are saying here in our country. Would you accept that if it were coming from a country we were fighting? We give up the right to prosecute torture as war crimes when we are willing to bend the definition with such legalese in order to justify our use of it.
Well,I believe that waterboarding is not torture and you believe that it is. We're never going to come to an agreement on that. Everybody that I have talked to that has been waterboarded(including my own brother, btw) do not believe it to be torture. As I said before in an earlier post I'll take their word over what the left thinks. I would be the first to take a stand against the use of putting hot pokers into people or putting prisoners into iron maidens. That of course is not happening. Yes, you are right. Being in war doesn't excuse the president from criticism. The criticism should be done in more of a positive nature than what is being done now. As far as stepping on the constitution, that's just an opinion, not a fact. Maybe in the future it will be determined that Bush has stepped over the boundries and I'll be wrong. Of course I could be right as well.
Patrick, it was conservative values like yours that made me happy to register as a Republican in the '80's. It was when the party got self-righteous, smug, wasteful, and grounded more in superstition than in reality (no offense, David, but listing your "values" like Commandments doesn't help) that I was driven to vote as a Democrat this year.
|
|
Whoa..... Where do you get that idea?... There is no such list...My family is in the Air Force and I have been visiting them at bases around the world every year for years. There most certainly is a list.
I am in the Air Force... There most certainly is not...
Certain nationalities may have problems getting a clearance..and with out a clearance they can't get to certain areas But if I want to bring my friend on base who say is..Iranian.. or Russian... No problems..
Edit: Though no matter what nationality, even American, I would have to escort them every where.
Edit Edit: Though If I had an Iranian friend.. I may have problems with my Clearance.. ;-), depending on that person, if he/she had a suspect background, then I would be screwed!!!
|
|
Well I don't know what to tell you. I have seen with my own eyes printed lists of nationals who will be denied admission at the security checkpoints. I understand that in some bases gate security is run by the host country and it's possible that what I saw was set by a local government.
In any case, I'm quite sure that your Iranian and Russian friend would require full documentation sent in ahead of time enabling background checks as my Greek girlfriend was required to do.
|
|
Well I don't know what to tell you. I have seen with my own eyes printed lists of nationals who will be denied admission at the security checkpoints. I understand that in some bases gate security is run by the host country and it's possible that what I saw was set by a local government.
In any case, I'm quite sure that your Iranian and Russian friend would require full documentation sent in ahead of time enabling background checks as my Greek girlfriend was required to do.
That is the issue there.. In most foreign countries we run by their rules.. if they have a list it is because of them not us.
In Turkey for example.. there is a short background check done to check to make sure they do not have a criminal background.. but if they get passed that they can get on.
But in the US on US run bases.. there is no such US list..
In other words..It is not a US Military Procedure..
Now If I was to get married to a Foreign National, they need to also go through a background check.. that is a US policy.. But I would not have to get her a Background check to get her on base in the US. I just need to sign her in as her escort.
|
|
Yes- I'm referring exclusively to foreign bases. I have never seen the list in a stateside base where I assumed there would be much less need for one. Adana, Turkey was actually the last one we went to and it took more than two months to get clearance.
So it sounds like you are right. I've mistaken the security list of the host countries for our own, but I have to say would be an easy mistake considering it is on the base at the security check.
But as far as my argument above was concerned it's a tangent.
|
|
Yes- I'm referring exclusively to foreign bases. I have never seen the list in a stateside base where I assumed there would be much less need for one. Adana, Turkey was actually the last one we went to and it took more than two months to get clearance.
So it sounds like you are right. I've mistaken the security list of the host countries for our own, but I have to say would be an easy mistake considering it is on the base at the security check.
But as far as my argument above was concerned it's a tangent.
Yeah.. I can see you have problem getting a Greek girlfriend onto a Turkish base..
They have very strict rules on the bases, There more then many other countries we are renting the use of a Turkish base..Not given a base all to our own.
We are not even allowed to show are flags on a Turkish base.
I was in Turkey for 3 years... Other then the difficulty of getting people on base because of the strict rules set by Turkey... It is a wonderful country!!.. Met my wife there, she is Turkish.
anyway I have brought this talk way off subject.. Back to my beer!!!
|
Whoa..... Where do you get that idea?... There is no such list...My family is in the Air Force and I have been visiting them at bases around the world every year for years. There most certainly is a list.I am in the Air Force... There most certainly is not...
Certain nationalities may have problems getting a clearance..and with out a clearance they can't get to certain areas But if I want to bring my friend on base who say is..Iranian.. or Russian... No problems..
Edit: Though no matter what nationality, even American, I would have to escort them every where.
Edit Edit: Though If I had an Iranian friend.. I may have problems with my Clearance.. ;-), depending on that person, if he/she had a suspect background, then I would be screwed!!!
I do have an Iranian friend who can never return home and see his family. The reason is that while he was in medical school he chose to convert to Christianity. He recieved a letter from his father informing him that because of that decision his name is now on the Iranian watch list and he will be arrested and summarily executed if he ever returns home. Becoming a Christian has made him one of the most dangerous types of criminal in Iran.And still some people want us to believe that they have legitimate grievences and we can sit down and talk things out with people like that.
|
|
(no offense, David, but listing your "values" like Commandments doesn't help)
If you read the Bill of Rights, that's also how the ammendments are listed. Sorry if the Founding Faters make you uncomfortable.
Edit: Is it only that they were list like commandments that is off putting to you, or do you find other thing about them disagreeable also?|
|
And still some people want us to believe that they have legitimate grievences and we can sit down and talk things out with people like that.
Yes, we can. Talk is always possible and often productive. Besides, no one said we have to talk nicely.
Seriously, many of our most effective moments of cold war diplomacy involved quiet talks, where the offending nation was informed that their current course of action would result in a grade 'A' ass whupping. But when the talks are conducted quietly, the other nation has the chance to save face and back down. Declaring a nation part of the 'Axis of Evil' really doesn't leave them a lot of room to maneuver. remember, that the regimes in control here often need the image of strength to maintain their hold on their people. While we may want them to fall, they will do their utmost to survive. If we back them into a corner you get the situation we have today. I think Reagan, Clinton or George H.W. would have all handled this situation better. Their foreign policy teams were just a lot more... professional.
|
|
The time has come for me to say goodbye to this thread. A part of me is saddened that I even started this discussion. I find it deeply troubling that people would and will think lesser of me because of the fact that I am a conservative. It is as distressing as the fact that some people will look down on me because I am LDS (Mormon). This is the very same bias and intolerance that so many on the other side of the aisle says is destroying this country.
Politics is perhaps the only place where intolerance is defined as "you think different than I do." So that you understand where I am coming from, I once proudly identified myself as a Democrat. I cried for several hours on election day in 1980 when I learned that Jimmy Carter had been voted out of office. I became suicidally depressed when Mondale only won one state. I worked as a volunteer for the Hart campaign in 1988 and then went on to volunter for the Dukakis campaign when Hart dropped out. I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 when I was finally able to vote.
However, I began to realize that the Democrats of my day were not the same ones that my grandmother had taught me to admire and respect. I realized that FDR and JFK were not representative of the "new" Democrats like Bill Clinton. This epiphany came when my girlfriend had to give up a college scholarship because it would mean that her family would then have too much income to qualify for the government assisstance that they desperately needed at the time under new laws passed by the Democrats in Congress.
I realized that the Democrats no longer represented my views and so I turned to the Republican party. Now the Republicans are also turning away from the conservitive princiuples that I have found through years of study to be the foundation of this country. I feel that I am a man without a home, yet a third party candidate will not win and I will not vote for someone who cannot change the direction of my party or this country.
Saddly I see many reactionaries in my party who want to rush too far the other way. I have met and conversed with many people who say they are conservative who are exactly as the stereotype portrays us all. Saddly some are members of my own family. However when someone like H.M. or chucky says that they can never again listen to or consider my ideas because I am conservative, I realize that they are intolerant people on both side. I mean no disrespect by this statement, I wish simply to offer an outsiders opinion.
I personally would love to sit down with anyone of you and game. I feel that if we were to meet in person we would be friends because the things we have in common more than out way the political differences we have. I like most people, I even liked Bill Clinton and enjoyed listening to him during candid moments when I had the privilige to serve as one of his palace chasers (That's staff on Air Force One for those who don't know). However, I can no longer continue to be be involved in this discussion because of the lack of civility and compromise. I can't tell you how many times I have canceled posts in the last few days when I stepped back and saw myself engaging in the exact same behavior I was condemning in others.
I will check back and lurk from time to time, hoping for the day when we can have valid disagrements while maintaining a civil dialouge. Until that time my friends, konichi wa.
Edit: Hey Dragon, where are you stationed? If you can tell us that is. ;)
|
|
The time has come for me to say goodbye to this thread. A part of me is saddened that I even started this discussion. I find it deeply troubling that people would and will think lesser of me because of the fact that I am a conservative. It is as distressing as the fact that some people will look down on me because I am LDS (Mormon). This is the very same bias and intolerance that so many on the other side of the aisle says is destroying this country.
Politics is perhaps the only place where intolerance is defined as "you think different than I do." So that you understand where I am coming from, I once proudly identified myself as a Democrat. I cried for several hours on election day in 1980 when I learned that Jimmy Carter had been voted out of office. I became suicidally depressed when Mondale only won one state. I worked as a volunteer for the Hart campaign in 1988 and then went on to volunter for the Dukakis campaign when Hart dropped out. I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 when I was finally able to vote.
However, I began to realize that the Democrats of my day were not the same ones that my grandmother had taught me to admire and respect. I realized that FDR and JFK were not representative of the "new" Democrats like Bill Clinton. This epiphany came when my girlfriend had to give up a college scholarship because it would mean that her family would then have too much income to qualify for the government assisstance that they desperately needed at the time under new laws passed by the Democrats in Congress.
I realized that the Democrats no longer represented my views and so I turned to the Republican party. Now the Republicans are also turning away from the conservitive princiuples that I have found through years of study to be the foundation of this country. I feel that I am a man without a home, yet a third party candidate will not win and I will not vote for someone who cannot change the direction of my party or this country.
Saddly I see many reactionaries in my party who want to rush too far the...
I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope nothing I posted pushed you in that direction. While I disagree with some of the things you have said in this thread, I found your posts to be the ones that most often drew me back into the conversation.
Be good.
Have a good one Dave! I wish there were more teachers like you in our school systems.
|
|
Have a good one Dave! I wish there were more teachers like you in our school systems.
Just for the record, I myself am one of these "teachers" that you have disparaged several times in this thread. I am not some liberal wackjob who teaches our kids to hate the country and sell secrets to the Chinese. In fact, if a teacher like that actually has a job, and stated those beliefs, their ass would be out the door before the day was done. And i teach in one of the most liberal states in the country. Personal political opinions have no place in the classroom - even in a history class.
Educators consistently take this BS from conservatives, often with evidence no better than that Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or one of the other talking head told them it was true. Its sad, really.
OK, I am going to try to calm down here. I respectfully ask that you refrain from groundless attacks against education system. We do a difficult job with little support, and its sure as hell not for the pay. We do it, because it is important.
disgusted,
The 'Ling
Have a good one Dave! I wish there were more teachers like you in our school systems.Just for the record, I myself am one of these "teachers" that you have disparaged several times in this thread. I am not some liberal wackjob who teaches our kids to hate the country and sell secrets to the Chinese. In fact, if a teacher like that actually has a job, and stated those beliefs, their ass would be out the door before the day was done. And i teach in one of the most liberal states in the country. Personal political opinions have no place in the classroom - even in a history class.
Educators consistently take this BS from conservatives, often with evidence no better than that Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or one of the other talking head told them it was true. Its sad, really.
OK, I am going to try to calm down here. I respectfully ask that you refrain from groundless attacks against education system. We do a difficult job with little support, and its sure as hell not for the pay. We do it, because it is important.
disgusted,
The 'Ling
Dude, I wasn't even talking about the conservative/liberal thing. Geez!
I think he's a good man and I appreciate the work he does. I also appreciate the work that you do as well. I do wish there were more like you as well.|
|
Personal political opinions have no place in the classroom - even in a history class.
I'm not American, but I wish there were more teachers like you everywhere because of that statement above. :)
When teachers start bringing their personal biases into the classroom, the kids have no frame of reference or ability to distinguish it from objective information. At that point it becomes indoctrination rather than teaching.
Keep up the good work.
|
|
Personal political opinions have no place in the classroom - even in a history class.I'm not American, but I wish there were more teachers like you everywhere because of that statement above. :)
When teachers start bringing their personal biases into the classroom, the kids have no frame of reference or ability to distinguish it from objective information. At that point it becomes indoctrination rather than teaching.
Keep up the good work.
Agreed, Teachers Should leave there personal Bias out of the classroom, The education system in itself needs to. Unless it has something to do with academia *As in how different sides feel*.
I could go deeper in that line of thought... but I will just start foaming at the mouth... hmmm maybe I should just have a Beer instead..;-)
It is kind of funny to hear democrats and "liberals" complain about the religious "conservatives" in the republican party, when it was they who drove those people there. It is a reaction to the socially liberal policies on the other side.
It is a reaction to the socially liberal policies on the other side.
That's why I used to be a Republican, because the zealots were all Democrats. Now they've moved, and so have I.
It is a reaction to the socially liberal policies on the other side.That's why I used to be a Republican, because the zealots were all Democrats. Now they've moved, and so have I.
I used to be a Republican, then I moved slowly into the Libertarian camp, now I have nothing since the Libertarians have chosen one of the LEAST Libertarian-minded congressmen for a candidate this year. Probably have to vote Green Party since that's all that will be left on the ballot.
I am continually dismayed at the polarization I see in politics, where I can't even discuss topics of the day with anyone without being dismissed as either a "right-wing nutjob" or a "leftist moonbat" depending on what topic is being discussed. When did it become acceptable in American society to vilify people for their ideals? I mean, it's a little unrealistic to assume everyone agrees with you, and it is equally unrealistic to believe that your views are the Alpha and Omega on things. I am more than willing to adjust my thoughts based on new data, why is this becoming harder and harder for people to do?
|
|
It is kind of funny to hear democrats and "liberals" complain about the religious "conservatives" in the republican party, when it was they who drove those people there. It is a reaction to the socially liberal policies on the other side.
This is false, PM. they were actively recruited by the Republicans, and given a much louder voice in the party during the Gingrich years. Ever hear of Richard Reed and the Christian Coalition?
But I'm sure you don't see it that way. Strange how two people can see the same event and come to two different (often equally valid) conclusions.
I am more than willing to adjust my thoughts based on new data, why is this becoming harder and harder for people to do?
I think it's because the Age of Reason that ushered in the American revolution is coming to an end. Superstition now trumps reason once again. Many people now view the Constitution not as the work of the most intelligent men of their day, using the lessons learned from centuries of strife in Europe and from the same among the natives in the Americas, but instead as something essentially written by God. As a result, many people no longer even think about what it means, but merely use it as a collection of inviolable slogans, taken only at face value ("What is the law? Not to eat meat! Not to drink blood! Are we not men?"). The worst insult in American politics is "flip-flopper," because it implies a person who might allow reality to change their views. Instead, it's important to cling to views that have been shown to be erroneous -- that means you have "values." Do I sound somewhat bitter? I probably do. I've been honored to live in a nation founded on the notion that the power of government derives from the consent of the governed, not from divine fiat.