Ok. Now that I've responded to the silliness factor in this thread, let's look at some good debate. :)
Meadros wrote:
Quote:
I believe that the way they did it was entrapment and that it was a ridiculous thing to do in the first place (not the sex, the questioning him about it and making it an issue when it shouldn't have been).
Agree and would add that the GOP and Bush took a dangerous position when they claimed to be the party of responsibilty and intergity. All of us are fallible.
Yeah. I kinda cringe myself when that sort of stuff gets tossed around. However, I see that as a "null point" that every politician tries to employ when (s)he can. We do live under the unfortunate onus of having a representative system. And we do have a goodly amount of our population that thinks that things like affairs by elected officials are bad things. Politicians, whether Dem or Rep will always try to appear to be good citizens. What a "good citizen" is depends on the people who vote. As much as I might like to live in a hedonistic society, that's just not where we're at. You're tilting at windmills if you think that you or I can change that...
Meadros wrote:
Quote:
If someone talks about Iraq and weighs the potential for a good outcome versus a bad outcome, long term, as a result of actions we've done and possible future actions we may take, then and only then will I take their statements seriously.
We are no seers. Who knows what the future holds? I have heard the Bush teams sunny forecast for the middle east. I can't see it based in reality any more than these sunny deficit forcasts. Even the conservatives are sweating this. Deficit spending to pay for a war is expected from the right. We are way way beyond that.
Agreed. However, that doesn't stop everyone from trying. Everytime someone argues that the "cost" of US servicemens lives in Iraq is "too high", aren't they playing the role of the seer? "To high" for what? You can't make that judgement unless you know what the final outcome will be. If we knew for certain that a thousand US military lives would prevent 10k civilian deaths down the line, is the cost still "too high"? I'd think not. However, if we knew for certain that the lost of a thousand US servicemen would change absolutely nothing in the long run, then we could.
Both of those are forward looking. You can't critisize the actions in Iraq right now without at least to some extent guessing about whether it'll all be worth it in the end. When you critisize those "sunny forecasts", you are guilty of looking into the future and guessing just as much as those making the forecasts. Thus, it's beholden to you to make some kind of case as to why you believe they are wrong and you are right. After all, like it or not, they were presumably elected into office (and appointees of those elected). Presumably, there was something about their abilities that qualifies them for that position. Thus, whether true in reality or not, they are by defacto grant from the people of the USA the "right people" to make those choices for us. That's the whole point of a representive system.
Note, that this does not in any way suggest that you can't question or critisize. It does, however, put the burden of proof in your court. Unless you (I'm not meaning you singly by this of course) can come up with really compelling and unimpeachable proof as to why the current path of the current administration is absolutely doomed to failure, we have to at least give them the opportunity to try. If they fail, then that's great. The people will vote in someone with a different plan the next time around. But if they succeed, it's a bit like sour grapes to sit around trying desperately to come up with some reason why that success is actually a failure. That's what I've seen the Dems doing recently. No amount of "success" in Iraq or against terrorism, will ever be acknowledge by the Dems, not because those actions aren't successful (And I'm happy to debate the success or lack of success there since even I'm not convinced that we've been that successful), but rather purely because the actions are being taken by the Reps.
That's the sort of partisanship that I'm seeing. I guess I expect it in an election year, but I still call it like I see it.
Meadros wrote:
Quote:
He had every legal right to do so (given that we were technically only in a state of cease fire with Iraq to begin with and Iraq, no matter how much rhetoric you throw in there, very very clearly never met the requirements for that cease fire agreemment). Finally, our Congress approved the action. End of story folks.
Touche. Very good point. Like I said earlier, the Iraq War is moot at this point. But I still believe that the preemptive doctrine is seriously flawed, and I am concerned that Bush will readily weild that power again when it suits his advisors.
Well... Yes and no. The preemptive doctine was required in order to go into Afghanistan. Regardless of how successful you feel that action was, I don't think there's a whole lot of people living in the US at this moment who don't think that invading Afghanistan and removing the Taliban from power wasn't absolutely necessary and "right". Heck. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the world who would say we didn't have the right to do that.
The problem is that, just like laws, you can't take actions like that willy-nilly. People can, but governments really can't (not responsible ones anyway). Thus, we have to have a doctrine that defines why we are taking an action, and under what conditions that action is being taken. Where it gets scary is that the doctrine that was required in order to deal with the Taliban did make other invasions "legal" (under that doctrine anyway).
Was the doctrine too broad? That's hard to say. The problem is that the relationship between terrorist organizations and governments is extremely hard to define. No two cases are exactly alike. If you write the doctrine to be too narrow, then you've potentially shot yourself in the foot, as it makes it easy for governments to avoid falling under it. If you want a doctrine that will force many of these questionable leaders to stop and look long and hard about what they're doing, and maybe change it without us having to write a special doctrine just for them, a broad doctrine is the way to go. You don't have to follow through on it. You just have to show a willingness to do so if you have to.
Iraq just happened to be the example of that willingness. There's more reasons as well, but what they really are is an example. While you (and I to a degree) may be kinda concerned that the doctrine sets a horrible precident and gives justification for any of a number of wars for any of a number of reasons, that's actually exactly the point. If you are concerned, then you can bet that the leaders of those nations that might be next on the "list" are concerned as well. That was the whole point of the excersize as far as I can tell...
Meadros wrote:
Quote:
There actually is a difference. I like how you use the word "narcotics" which implies drugs like weed, coke, and heroin. Nice spin btw, and way to prove the "Dem spin" point for me.
Oxycordone is a very powerful narcotic.
Yes. I'm aware of the textbook definition of narcotic. I wasn't questioning the technical correctness of the statement. I was pointing out how easily opinion is swayed based on whether you call something a 'narcotic', or a 'prescription drug'. Right or wrong, when the public sees the word narcotic, they think of illegal drugs. As in ones that are always illegal to possess and use. If you use the also correct term "prescription drug" (which Oxycordone is), then the context changes to "something that can be purchased and used legally". One conjures up images of someone wandering into a back-ally crack house to get their fix, the other conjures up images of housewives over-using their valium prescriptions.
If you think there isn't a very deliberate spin involved based on which term you use, you're being naive IMO. Heh. Not that I'm going to claim both sides don't use spin here, but "presciption drug" is a more "correct" and narrow description of what he was addicted too. "Narcotic" is a very wide definition. One is more accurate then the other if you're actually trying to tell someone what exactly was going on. Why would you be deliberately vague unless you intended for the possiblity of some of your audience to assume the worst of the set that you've used?
Meadros wrote:
I think the dems win across the board on issues. I don't back them because I hate Bush, I am currently backing them because their platform matches my platform better. For example, I am an advocate of Canadien style health care, paid for by taxing legalized marijuana, booze and smokes. While the NDC is nowhere near that stance, I think that the left is the direction to go to achieve this. I would like to see the feds create a Eurorail type system across the continemtal US, build by Americans payed with tax dollars.
Certainly. And you have every right to support your party because of the issues. However, very rarely have I seen arguments on those issues. I brought it up in this thread simply because the "issue" of Iraq has been argued mostly on strawman issues. That's not real debate. That's just finger pointing.
Heh. As to your platform. I can respect that. However, I happen to respectfully disagree on nearly every point (which is why I'm a Republican). I agree with the legalizing of some currently illegal drugs (or narcotics if you prefer...). I don't agree with the socialized health care system though. Why not use the money we gain through taxation and sales of those products to generate more jobs and better benefits for workers? Sure. I have no problem with keeping some level of wellfare in place for the truely needy, but that should always be a last resort. Leave that money in the private sector, and it will be used to generate more jobs and higher wages for workers. Thus, your health care is defined by the quality of your work instead of by the mere fact that your parents were physically capable of generating offspring.
I think your Eurorail idea is a perfect example of why over socialization of some services is a really bad thing. Why exactly do you think a tax-payer supported rail system is a great idea? Because it works in Europe? Hate to point something out, but the US people don't have the same culture as those in Europe. The difference between private ventures and public works is that private ventures ultimately end up being focused very well at what the public actually wants and needs. Public works end up being whatever some relatively small group of people think are needed. The fact is that if the US people wanted to move around the country via train, Amtrak and others would have already built a rail system 10 times bigger and better then the systems in Europe. They haven't exactly because the American people as a group, don't want it. Trains are used mostly for freight that can take a few days to get to its destination. Not for people.
Spending public funds for the sake of spending them won't make things better. It'll just make us all more poor. All government spending ultimately fails from that problem, hence it should be used only in the cases where private enterprise fails to produce the desired result (what's called a market failure in economic terms). The lack of a public rail system in the US is not a market failure. It's just a result of the market. We aren't missing anything by not having one.
Heh. Although I am amused (and bothered in fact) the the specific need to point out that the rail system would be "paid with tax dollars". That's something I just have a huge problem with. Why is that "better"? Why not have it "paid for by those who use the system"? The very fact that you felt the need to add that assumes that the rail system would not be able to collect enough revenue in a free market to support itself. To my way of thinking, that is the absolute best reason not to have one anyone could ever make. It tells me that those who have money, who are presumably those who actually generate GNP within the nation (and pay those taxes) don't desire to have a rail system like that. Why on earth would we build one then? Just to do it? That's kinda silly, don't you agree?
Heh. But that's why I'm a Republican and you're a Democrat. And it has nothing to do with whether Rush Limbaugh should get off on his drug charges or not. And it's not even about who has the most integrity, or is the most "good". For me, and I feel most Republican voters, it's purely about how public funds are allocated. To us, taking money away from our future to pay for our today is a bad investment. Interestingly, you mention deficit spending. However to Reps, it's about whether the result down the line is worth the debt of today. See, we're more then happy to spend money today to make tomorrow better. The Dems tend to see it the exact opposite. I suppose we'll never agree on which is correct though...
Meadros wrote:
That said, I sincerely believe the George W. Bush is a very dangerous man. My magic 8ball tells me four more years of his innept fiscal policies will seriously bankrupt this country. I assume some of you have played Risk. You know what happens when you overextend yourself.
Again. It's a matter of what you spend your money on. Should we spend money today on a war that may result in a more secure oil source in the future (and other less tangible beneifits), and on economic changes that will result in a stronger economy tomorrow? Or should we spend that money on building a rail system for the people that by definition will never be profitable?
Those "inept fiscal policies" of Bush and co don't seem that inept from where I'm sitting. Let's see. Dow reached a high point in 2000. Sunk pretty low over the next two and a half years (about 20%). Is now back up nearly to 2000 levels. Heck. It's up almost a whole point just today. Are you suggesting that Bush's economic policies were so bad that they went back in time and started a downfall timed just as he took office? Or could it possibly be that we're just seeing a natural ebb and flow of an economy? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the over investment into tech stocks (dot com bubble) during the late 90s, and the over-expectant computer orders in the industry based on inflated values related to the y2k bug could it? Yeah. I think that's more likely.
What exactly is "inept". You made the claim. I'd like to hear exactly what Bush has done that has hurt the economy since he took office? Again. Is it because of something his administration did? Or is it just because he's a Rep and you're a Dem, so you'll blame him for the economy? I'm not accusing you of anything (except making an accusation with no substance behind it). You said you like debate, so feel free to debate this. What exactly qualifies Bush's handling of the economy as "inept"?
Edited, Fri Feb 6 21:25:01 2004 by gbaji
