|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 85 responses total. |
jaklumen
|
|
response 14 of 85:
| 
Jul 5 09:52 UTC 2003 |
re:12 and re:13 probably somewhat extremist views. But I've always
taken the middle road and shaken my head and both sides. Figures.
There's a grain of truth to both statements, and I think Eric's is
probably closer to being accurate because it wasn't so sweeping in its
generalizations. What seems to be often masked is that there are
moderates in both major parties. Whether people mean to or not, it
seems to me that discussions are often polarized-- liberals must be
Democrat, and conservatives must be Republican. Choose and get with
the program; to be moderate is to be wishy-washy.
I'm still unsure what to think. Hussein was definitely a terrible
despot, and hopefully, some good will come out of the toppling of his
regime. I agree, though, that a $25 mil bounty seems rather
desperate. If the world wants to be rid of him, he'll eventually be
flushed out.
|
lk
|
|
response 15 of 85:
|
Jul 5 13:43 UTC 2003 |
People in the US manage to go underground and evade police for years.
Eventually some turn up. Now consider how much more difficult it is
to find a person who not only knows the terrain, but is actively
protected by a small segment of the population which remains loyal.
I don't think it's embarrassing that we haven't got him (yet).
I think others are much more embarrassed that the stupid Bush called
Saddam's bluffs, that the war was swift, and that a new administration
is being built.
I also feel embarrassed by the people who expect this to take days
instead of years.
|
klg
|
|
response 16 of 85:
|
Jul 5 17:45 UTC 2003 |
Actually, our statements were substantiated by the results of a poll
(Gallup??) that we heard on the radio last Thursday.
Liberals tend to look at America and see flaws. Conservatives tend to
see a great country. Maybe that's why liberals tend to be less happy
than conservatives (also based on poll results).
|
jazz
|
|
response 17 of 85:
|
Jul 5 17:53 UTC 2003 |
There's also a strong correlation between igorance and bliss, though.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 18 of 85:
|
Jul 5 18:07 UTC 2003 |
It could also have a lot to do with the fact that, at present, Conservatives
control all three branches of government. That would tend to make them think
things are great, and Liberals think otherwise.
|
other
|
|
response 19 of 85:
|
Jul 5 18:16 UTC 2003 |
#16 points out exactly why the conservative community is comprised mostly
of the most mainstream elements of society, and why the more unlike those
in power you are, the more likely you are to be dissatisfied with the
status quo.
#16 effectively says that anyone who is conservative will tend to
overlook the flaws of America, and the reason behind that is that the
flaws disproportionately affect those who are not white, typically male,
and typically solidly middle class or better off. These are the people
who have no reason to be concerned with the flaws of our society, so of
course they're going to be happier and more focused on their own sense of
of how great our contry is for them.
The difference is that liberals tend to base their assessment of how
great our country is on how great it is for ALL of its citizens, not just
those who comprise the majority. And most conservatives are too unable
or unwilling to see beyond the ends of their noses (or their wallets) to
even appreciate why that is.
#18 slipped in
|
lk
|
|
response 20 of 85:
|
Jul 5 18:57 UTC 2003 |
Let's not forget that "conservative" comes from "conserve" -- to keep
the good we've got, or think we have, or some such.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 21 of 85:
|
Jul 5 19:20 UTC 2003 |
Then why do conservatives want to destroy some of the "good" we have, such
as individual rights, the enviroment, and world peace?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 22 of 85:
|
Jul 5 19:51 UTC 2003 |
Supposedly, the last thing conservatives would want to do is destroy
individual rights. American conservatives are special, though.
|
klg
|
|
response 23 of 85:
|
Jul 5 20:13 UTC 2003 |
(We have "world peace"????
Did I miss the memo?)
re: "#19 (other): ... The difference is that liberals tend to base
their assessment of how great our country is on how great it is for ALL
of its citizens, ...."
Thank you, Mr. other. We appreciate your apt identification of one of
the great faults with liberals. They believe they are endowed with the
ability to determine how everyone else feels (or ought to feel). Quite
obviously, this is not possible - as least so far as we know.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 24 of 85:
|
Jul 5 20:39 UTC 2003 |
To the contrary, it is easy to judge how many citizens feel because they
state their feeling, and march, and protest. Anyone with half an eye can
observe this. The problem with many conservatives is they cannot see, they
are so blinded by their self-serving obsessions.
|
klg
|
|
response 25 of 85:
|
Jul 5 20:51 UTC 2003 |
Mr. rcurl,
Are you familiar with the concepts of "many" and "all"? They are not
the same. Perhaps you need to be enlightened. We presume you have
access to a dictionary.
Regards,
klg
|
bru
|
|
response 26 of 85:
|
Jul 5 21:30 UTC 2003 |
the thing is that the liberals tend to go out and make noise, conservatives
tend to sit back and do what they need to do to live. they don't have time
to protest.
|
russ
|
|
response 27 of 85:
|
Jul 5 23:27 UTC 2003 |
Re #16: Regardless of what's great about your house, one leak in
the roof is cause for immediate repairs. So with the country.
|
jazz
|
|
response 28 of 85:
|
Jul 6 00:38 UTC 2003 |
I don't know that I'd take either party's label literally. I think
"conservative" as it applies to politics is the same sort of "conservative"
that applies to dress, not necessarily the sort of conservation that aims at
protecting the status quo, and certainly not the sort of conservation that
aims at protecting wildlife.
I don't think the generalization that the better-off middle classes
and the rich make up the bulk of American conservatives. There just aren't
enough of them. There are plenty of working-class conservatives, who seem
to back political decisions that are just plain bad for them. Inosfar as I
can tell, that's because of a shared way of looking at the world, even though
I don't think either party necessarily acts according to the way of looking
at the world that they propose.
I'm still in awe about how much the halo effect applies to people of
similar political standing. I know few liberals who were truly angry at
Clinton's misuse of federal resources to thwart an investigation into his
affairs, and few conservatives who're angry at Rumsfeld's granting no-bid
contracts to corporations he owns a substantial interest in.
|
senna
|
|
response 29 of 85:
|
Jul 6 04:46 UTC 2003 |
It's the Republicrat effect. The enemy is the embodiment of many or all the
things my side find distasteful and/or evil, and my side, in fighting the
enemy, must therefore embody that which is decent and good.
Villainizing the other side is a political constant. It's also inaccurate
and counter-productive, and makes the country a much less pleasant place to
live in. Want proof? Extensive polls have taken place, often called
"elections," and a majority of the citizens of the United States have votes
with their, well, disinterest in voting. People on the whole don't put energy
into caring about politics. It's not worth their time.
It's like sewage treatment. People generally understand the need for it, but
they really don't want to have to watch it too closely.
|
sj2
|
|
response 30 of 85:
|
Jul 6 07:11 UTC 2003 |
Hehehehe ... from here (in the context of this thread), Bush looks
like that cross between a dog and Saddam Hussein in the movie
hotshots. He seems to have the evil of the both, the republicans and
democrats.
|
pvn
|
|
response 31 of 85:
|
Jul 6 08:18 UTC 2003 |
Go eat some curry.
|
klg
|
|
response 32 of 85:
|
Jul 6 12:20 UTC 2003 |
(Why is Mr. senna typically so cynical? Distinctions are a fact of
life. It is not necessary to consider them so odious.)
|
russ
|
|
response 33 of 85:
|
Jul 6 17:32 UTC 2003 |
Re #29: People don't put energy into caring about politics because
they mostly wish it would go away and let them get on with living;
the issues by and large are too esoteric to be easily understood and
too far away to feel real. (Who had any idea that the DMCA was
coming, and what it would do? Even today how many people are directly
affected, or even know enough to care?)
Re #32: Distinction and demonization are not synonymous.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 34 of 85:
|
Jul 6 18:34 UTC 2003 |
(That's "uninterest", carson; "disinterest" does not mean "lack of care".
A disinterested observer is one not affected by the outcome.)
|
jazz
|
|
response 35 of 85:
|
Jul 6 20:41 UTC 2003 |
Both parties use rhetoric and illusion to their benefit, though. A
good example is sloganeering - neither "family values" nor "freedom of choice"
is a very accurate representation of the issue of government intrusion into
private morality or the abortion debate, but both touch on key words that
inspire an emotional, not logical, response.
|
janc
|
|
response 36 of 85:
|
Jul 6 21:39 UTC 2003 |
I'm not embarrassed that Sadam has not been caught or proved dead. My problem
with the bounty is that it seems to put way too much importance on Sadam.
Yes, if he's alive he's a potential focal point for people who want to undo
whatever good America may do in Iraq. However, those forces will find a focal
point even if he's dead. Catching Sadam should be fairly low on our priority
list. We have a couple generations of hard work to do to encourage the growth
of a healthy government in Iraq. I'd like to see some sign that our
government knows that. This big reward for Sadam makes it look like this is
some kind of personal feud with Sadam.
OK, I admit. I don't really want America to take on the job of turning Iraq
into a sane country. That's a nightmare of a job, expensive, thankless, and
probably futile. Doing it would make some retroactive sense out of this
stupid war, but it probably can't be done, so why bother? Probably we should
hand the job over to the UN, so we can blame them when it doesn't work. I
guess that's the plan anyway, and we just want to kill Sadam so that the same
face doesn't pop back up in charge when we leave, because that would make us
obviously laughable. A different face who behaves identically would be so
much less embarrassing, and more plausibly blameable on the UN.
|
jazz
|
|
response 37 of 85:
|
Jul 6 21:43 UTC 2003 |
Politically the best thing that we can do is allow the UN - and
especially those allies critical of the war effort - to do the restructuring,
and provide unconditional humanitarian aid. People don't forget being fed.
When they grow bitter over the new regime and resent foriegn intervention,
the finger will be pointed elsewhere.
Unfortunately, this doesn't give us much control over Iraq in the
meantime, so it probably won't happen.
|
mary
|
|
response 38 of 85:
|
Jul 6 21:54 UTC 2003 |
A bounty, at this point, is an obsessive use of power.
How much better it would be in preventing either Saddam's
return or the installation of a Saddam-like leader if we'd
instead put that $25 million into building two or three
schools.
|