hm, zat so? But certainly figures like Rush and o'reily haven't helped the words reputation.
Reagan certainly didn't begin the modern demonization of liberalism (McCarthy and Goldwater take the prize for that one), but he was able effectively to equate it with Communism. And commies are, you know, treasonous bastards.
Rush is really to my knowledge something special, and he owes his popularity to the vilification of Clinton more than anything else.
What's going on at the moment is the exhaustion of the Republican playbook, I think. The fractures in the party are beginning to show. For decades it was the rhetoric of oppression--from which we get the idiotic claims about the liberal media, get big government off my back, etc. That played well through the 90s.
Now, however, they can't really claim that the media is liberal, since the emergence of Rush and Faux News managed to push everything to right of center. And so they've gone back to the tried-and-true: if you're a liberal you hate America. If you're a liberal you're with the enemy (and as we have seen over the past two years, the Republicans will invent an enemy if one isn't handy).
Coulter, Hannity, and O'Reilly are, I think, a different breed. It is no mistake that they all either work for or make VERY frequent appearances on Fox. Fox has devoted TREMENDOUS energy into testing the limits of the American public's willingness to watch cruelty/side shows. It's no mistake that they hired bulldogs like Brit Hume (who for 8 years under Clinton referred to him as "the current president"). It no mistake that Fox is the primary pusher of shows where people are either a) subject to ridicule or b) tortured on camera. Their screaming heads are just another manifestation of this side-show impulse. "Let's watch O'Reilly beat up on someone again." "Let's see what kinds of crazy things come our of Coulter's mouth."
The problem, in the end, is that many conservatives ate the hyperbole/showmanship up and actually thought it was for real.
I had a black guy call me "whitey" once, I thought that was just he was stating the obvious. If you were to call me a white conservative, I would have to agree, at least in general.
Question:
"White" is to "Black as "Whitey" is to ... what?
Someone called you, to your face, something really derogatory and insulting. You didn't have the wit to be offended. And for once, I think I agree with you; he was stating the obvious.
Someone called you, to your face, something really derogatory and insulting. You didn't have the wit to be offended. And for once, I think I agree with you; he was stating the obvious.
Offended over what? A word? That's my point.
I was offended for a split second, but I then realized the intellect of the person that would use "whitey" to insult a white guy.
I am not sure that wit has anything to do with getting offended, I think I had enough wit to ignore it and move on.
That would be like me calling you "blondie" if you had blonde hair, derogatory or not. It is not much of an insult if it is true. Who cares if to me by "blondie" I mean "asshole." It is all about how you interpret words.
You can only be offended if you are unprepared and you let yourself be offended. If you hold conservative views, you probably can expect to be called "conservative" in a derogatory way by a liberal person, and vise versa, no?
Why fight over a label? And I am saying just accept what you are, at least what you may appear to others, and move on? If you are left leaning, you are more liberal that conservative or the other way around. The word games that go on here seems to prevent any real, meaningful discussion from taking place.
The funny thing is that it's almost the same conversation over and over and over. I guess it passes the time.
Why are you ashamed of the word liberal? I mean, a lot of you left-leaners seem to shy away from that title.
I had a black guy call me "whitey" once, I thought that was just he was stating the obvious. If you were to call me a white conservative, I would have to agree, at least in general.
Why are you guys so afraid of being labeled liberal. I figure there is room for all types of views here, am I wrong?
I really think that if we just admit who we it would save a lot of typing. No more falsely labeling someone something. I think if we are honest we know where most of the regulars stand here, I know that I could easily, and probably very accurately predict what most of the players here are going to say or where they will side on any given issue.
Why play semantics so much? It seems very incestuous, to me.
Edit: the word probably should be masturbatory.
Why are you ashamed of being called a blind Bush supporter? You, my friend, have claimed time and time again that you don't care about the outcome of this election and that you're not a Bush supporter. Time and time again you've made these statements. So why are you ashamed to be called a Bush supporter?
I didn't say I was ashamed to ba called a liberal. I've been called one here a couple of times because I disagree with the 5 or 6 people who think they are conservatives simply because they found religion and support Bush. I've been called a liberal a couple of times and not retorted simply because whether or not you label me a liberal affects my life in no way shape or form. What I said was that because I disagree with the 5 or 6 I am immediatly labeled a liberal which amuses me. I find that funny because as time has progressed a more radical wing of my party has been allowed to alter the definition of various words like conservative. Conservative 'now' means neo-con to many which simply isn't the case for most conservatives. Most conservatives believe in fiscal responsability, smaller government, states rights, resist drastic political change, and believe in prudent foreign affair policies. How does the Bush admin's cards fall on those issues? Not on my side of the conservative line.
Bush is far, far from a conservative, so if you are a supporter of Bush, you probably aren't a real conservative.
I don't see why faust9 should have to explain to make-believe conservatives what it really means. How hard is it to understand that conservative != bush supporter?
Why are you ashamed of being called a blind Bush supporter? You, my friend, have claimed time and time again that you don't care about the outcome of this election and that you're not a Bush supporter. Time and time again you've made these statements. So why are you ashamed to be called a Bush supporter?
I didn't say I was ashamed to ba called a liberal. I've been called one here a couple of times because I disagree with the 5 or 6 people who think they are conservatives simply because they found religion and support Bush. I've been called a liberal a couple of times and not retorted simply because whether or not you label me a liberal affects my life in no way shape or form. What I said was that because I disagree with the 5 or 6 I am immediatly labeled a liberal which amuses me. I find that funny because as time has progressed a more radical wing of my party has been allowed to alter the definition of various words like conservative. Conservative 'now' means neo-con to many which simply isn't the case for most conservatives. Most conservatives believe in fiscal responsability, smaller government, states rights, resist drastic political change, and believe in prudent foreign affair policies. How does the Bush admin's cards fall on those issues? Not on my side of the conservative line.
Thank you come again.
Well, like you, I have explained my position on different matters, and been completely ignored.
I agree that you calling me a "blind bush supporter" does not apply and effects me in no way, but it does put a roadblock up to impede a conversation. First, because it is not a true statement and second, it is typed specifically to derail the conversation. If you inserted "conservative" in it's place, that is something that could be digested and ignored.
I asked you about the "liberal" word because that describes a lot of your positions. I did not say "crazy anti-war communist", did I?
You do see the difference between the word "liberal" and the words "blind bush supperter" right?
Bush is far, far from a conservative, so if you are a supporter of Bush, you probably aren't a real conservative.
I don't see why faust9 should have to explain to make-believe conservatives what it really means. How hard is it to understand that conservative != bush supporter?
You may well be right about bush.
But when I put forth a conservative view, I am not labeled a conservative, rather a neo-con, or blind bush supporter or worse. I am willing to accept people will label me conservative, because in general that is true. But to assert from that, that I or anyone is blindly following bush's lead is too big a leap, considering that I have openly debunked that notion.
But when I put forth a conservative view, I am not labeled a conservative, rather a neo-con, or blind bush supporter or worse. I am willing to accept people will label me conservative, because in general that is true. But to assert from that, that I or anyone is blindly following bush's lead is too big a leap, considering that I have openly debunked that notion.
Show us where you have debunked the idea that you are a true believer. Show us where you have decried Bush policies. Show us where you have not defended Bush. You have never openly debunked the notion because in most (if not all) instances you have defended any and all policies or US actions. Face it you are a blind Bush follower. Don't be ashamed.
Show us where you have debunked the idea that you are a true believer. Show us where you have decried Bush policies. Show us where you have not defended Bush. You have never openly debunked the notion because in most (if not all) instances you have defended any and all policies or US actions. Face it you are a blind Bush follower. Don't be ashamed.
I have also explained why in many cases I defend bush or his policies, and it is not necessarily because I agree with them blindly.
But if you want to just adopt that opinion of me despite my own words to the contrary, I may be wrong about your intellect.
He was referring to the use of port 9000 on my server for my personal website. As opposed to port 80.
Of coarse, he is obviously smart enough to realize that is because my server is assigned a semi-dynamic IP address which forces me to use an alternate port for incoming http requests in conjunction with a virtual dns server.
Giant seems to think that since he can't influence me with his condescending politico-speak he can then attack other parts of my life and background, namely my web development ability and knowledge.
That is his new tack, these days, since his debate style has been all but banned here now.
He was referring to the use of port 9000 on my server for my personal website. As opposed to port 80.
Of coarse, he is obviously smart enough to realize that is because my server is assigned a semi-dynamic IP address which forces me to use an alternate port for incoming http requests in conjunction with a virtual dns server.
Giant seems to think that since he can't influence me with his condescending politico-speak he can then attack other parts of my life and background, namely my web development ability and knowledge.
That is his new tack, these days, since his debate style has been all but banned here now.
I know that. port 9K is used by MS as well for Asheron's Call.
Anyway, it really is amazing pfflam. Are there any former centcom generals or NSC-types who haven't come out against this administration?
I am amazed you would actually believe that Al Qaeda truly wants to see Bush get re-elected. It flies in the face of everything they have done. I am sure they are just saying that as a scare tactic in the hope that some Americans will read this and be scared into voting for somebody else. The Madrid train bombing was designed to punish Aznar and his decision to align Spain with the U.S. when it came to Iraq and the war on terrorism as a whole. I think there is a good chance that they will try to do likewise in this country before our election. You don't think for a minute that if they had the opportunity to kill him they would not take it? Give me a break...
Al Qaeda will always be able to recruit new people because the Madrasas are designed to turn out people who are only suited for one thing: to kill their fellow man. These are not schools designed to educate people and give them skills to use in the real world. They are designed to breed hate for Israel and the United States. This is where Al Qaeda gets their recruits and that training makes them ideal candidates or their organization. Israel's crackdown on Palestinian terror groups is no doubt helping recruitment as well. But you don't refrain from doing the right thing because you fear more people will hate you for it. You simply have to continue pursuing the goal of wiping out these people because hoping they will go away just will not work.
Just to get this back on topic... Three questions:
1) Is it possible that Zinni, like Franks, is another one of the Clinton generals who are slowly/quickly (depending upon how one looks at it) being cleared out? My understanding is that lots and lots of the generals promoted under Clinton were less than popular choices--and given Clinton's relationship with the Pentagon, I suspect that he could've recommended Jesus Christ to do something and caught flak for it.
2) Since so many of these military guys are popping up, and since these scandals have effectively positioned the Pentagon against the DOD (i.e. Rummy's policy was apparently to sit on bad news in hopes of something else arising to deflect attention), what kind of fallout can we expect in the military vote? Gore never stood a chance with the military vote. Kerry does. Now that there's this major issue going on with the military/DOD/Pentagon, with former generals speaking out LOUDLY can we expect there to be an effect in the military vote?
3) I'm curious about the conservatives (Faust9, Fellows, I'm looking at you guys) who are jumping ship. Everyone's assuming, I think, that you're going to vote for Kerry. But when I think about the broader picture, I suspect that conservatives who can't bring themselves to vote for Bush might simply stay home--which in this political climate certainly plays in Kerry's favor, since the liberals are so unbelievably pissed off that not only are they going to vote, their started their own friggin' radio network to get the word out. Anyway. So which is it? Vote for someone you don't necessarily agree with or abstain entirely?
Cheers
Scott
I think most conservatives are smart enough to know that if they stay home Kerry will win this election. Not pulling a lever I think is not an option for them. I don't know if there has ever been a study of this but I think people who identify themselves as conservatives vote more often than those who identify themselves as liberal. I am pretty sure there are more registered Democrats in this country than registered Republicans and if they all voted in the same proportion the Republicans would have a hard time winning any of the contests.
On many occasions conservative groups convey (often quite publicly) that they are not satisfied with the policies of various politicians in an effort to change their views or actions. But in the end they will almost always support that candidate in the end because politically they support more of their positions than not. They would like the person to completely align with their views but they realize that in the end they will have to vote for that person despite some disagreements because the alternative will undoubtedly be worse for them. So don't be fooled by all these people who claim to be dissatisfied with Bush. In any case, there is still a lot of time between now and the election for things to improve in Iraq. The economy is already growing at an acceptable rate and there has been new job growth as well so all is not lost. It will all pretty much hinge on Iraq as Bush clearly staked his job on it. Time will tell.
I am amazed you would actually believe that Al Qaeda truly wants to see Bush get re-elected.
I'm sure they don't see much of a difference, and in fact there probably isn't much of one as far as they're concerned. But I do believe this: They wanted us to respond in exactly the way we did, by invading a Muslim country. With the instability in Iraq, there's at least a chance they can have some kind of Islamist takeover there. It certainly wasn't going to happen with Saddam the dictator in power. Their goal is a radical Islamic takeover of the Middle East. They want chaos and disruption of the status quo. They want the Great Satan to polarize the Islamic world. They want a holy war between Christians/Jews and Muslims. They want Muslims radicalized. What better way to do it then to get the US military to start invading the Middle East?
Let me ask you: What do you think al Qaeda's ultimate goal is? Just to pick off Americans here and there? What is their long-term game plan, if any? And what would be the best way to counter their plans?
Of coarse, he is obviously smart enough to realize that is because my server is assigned a semi-dynamic IP address which forces me to use an alternate port for incoming http requests in conjunction with a virtual dns server.
Only the truly 'misguided' try to solve a Rubik's Cube by beating it with a hammer.
Comments
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
hm, zat so? But certainly figures like Rush and o'reily haven't helped the words reputation.
Reagan certainly didn't begin the modern demonization of liberalism (McCarthy and Goldwater take the prize for that one), but he was able effectively to equate it with Communism. And commies are, you know, treasonous bastards.
Rush is really to my knowledge something special, and he owes his popularity to the vilification of Clinton more than anything else.
What's going on at the moment is the exhaustion of the Republican playbook, I think. The fractures in the party are beginning to show. For decades it was the rhetoric of oppression--from which we get the idiotic claims about the liberal media, get big government off my back, etc. That played well through the 90s.
Now, however, they can't really claim that the media is liberal, since the emergence of Rush and Faux News managed to push everything to right of center. And so they've gone back to the tried-and-true: if you're a liberal you hate America. If you're a liberal you're with the enemy (and as we have seen over the past two years, the Republicans will invent an enemy if one isn't handy).
Coulter, Hannity, and O'Reilly are, I think, a different breed. It is no mistake that they all either work for or make VERY frequent appearances on Fox. Fox has devoted TREMENDOUS energy into testing the limits of the American public's willingness to watch cruelty/side shows. It's no mistake that they hired bulldogs like Brit Hume (who for 8 years under Clinton referred to him as "the current president"). It no mistake that Fox is the primary pusher of shows where people are either a) subject to ridicule or b) tortured on camera. Their screaming heads are just another manifestation of this side-show impulse. "Let's watch O'Reilly beat up on someone again." "Let's see what kinds of crazy things come our of Coulter's mouth."
The problem, in the end, is that many conservatives ate the hyperbole/showmanship up and actually thought it was for real.
And now it is.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by NaplesX
I had a black guy call me "whitey" once, I thought that was just he was stating the obvious. If you were to call me a white conservative, I would have to agree, at least in general.
Question:
"White" is to "Black as "Whitey" is to ... what?
Someone called you, to your face, something really derogatory and insulting. You didn't have the wit to be offended. And for once, I think I agree with you; he was stating the obvious.
Originally posted by Harald
Question:
"White" is to "Black as "Whitey" is to ... what?
Someone called you, to your face, something really derogatory and insulting. You didn't have the wit to be offended. And for once, I think I agree with you; he was stating the obvious.
Offended over what? A word? That's my point.
I was offended for a split second, but I then realized the intellect of the person that would use "whitey" to insult a white guy.
I am not sure that wit has anything to do with getting offended, I think I had enough wit to ignore it and move on.
That would be like me calling you "blondie" if you had blonde hair, derogatory or not. It is not much of an insult if it is true. Who cares if to me by "blondie" I mean "asshole." It is all about how you interpret words.
You can only be offended if you are unprepared and you let yourself be offended. If you hold conservative views, you probably can expect to be called "conservative" in a derogatory way by a liberal person, and vise versa, no?
Why fight over a label? And I am saying just accept what you are, at least what you may appear to others, and move on? If you are left leaning, you are more liberal that conservative or the other way around. The word games that go on here seems to prevent any real, meaningful discussion from taking place.
The funny thing is that it's almost the same conversation over and over and over. I guess it passes the time.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Why are you ashamed of the word liberal? I mean, a lot of you left-leaners seem to shy away from that title.
I had a black guy call me "whitey" once, I thought that was just he was stating the obvious. If you were to call me a white conservative, I would have to agree, at least in general.
Why are you guys so afraid of being labeled liberal. I figure there is room for all types of views here, am I wrong?
I really think that if we just admit who we it would save a lot of typing. No more falsely labeling someone something. I think if we are honest we know where most of the regulars stand here, I know that I could easily, and probably very accurately predict what most of the players here are going to say or where they will side on any given issue.
Why play semantics so much? It seems very incestuous, to me.
Edit: the word probably should be masturbatory.
Why are you ashamed of being called a blind Bush supporter? You, my friend, have claimed time and time again that you don't care about the outcome of this election and that you're not a Bush supporter. Time and time again you've made these statements. So why are you ashamed to be called a Bush supporter?
I didn't say I was ashamed to ba called a liberal. I've been called one here a couple of times because I disagree with the 5 or 6 people who think they are conservatives simply because they found religion and support Bush. I've been called a liberal a couple of times and not retorted simply because whether or not you label me a liberal affects my life in no way shape or form. What I said was that because I disagree with the 5 or 6 I am immediatly labeled a liberal which amuses me. I find that funny because as time has progressed a more radical wing of my party has been allowed to alter the definition of various words like conservative. Conservative 'now' means neo-con to many which simply isn't the case for most conservatives. Most conservatives believe in fiscal responsability, smaller government, states rights, resist drastic political change, and believe in prudent foreign affair policies. How does the Bush admin's cards fall on those issues? Not on my side of the conservative line.
Thank you come again.
I don't see why faust9 should have to explain to make-believe conservatives what it really means. How hard is it to understand that conservative != bush supporter?
Originally posted by faust9
Why are you ashamed of being called a blind Bush supporter? You, my friend, have claimed time and time again that you don't care about the outcome of this election and that you're not a Bush supporter. Time and time again you've made these statements. So why are you ashamed to be called a Bush supporter?
I didn't say I was ashamed to ba called a liberal. I've been called one here a couple of times because I disagree with the 5 or 6 people who think they are conservatives simply because they found religion and support Bush. I've been called a liberal a couple of times and not retorted simply because whether or not you label me a liberal affects my life in no way shape or form. What I said was that because I disagree with the 5 or 6 I am immediatly labeled a liberal which amuses me. I find that funny because as time has progressed a more radical wing of my party has been allowed to alter the definition of various words like conservative. Conservative 'now' means neo-con to many which simply isn't the case for most conservatives. Most conservatives believe in fiscal responsability, smaller government, states rights, resist drastic political change, and believe in prudent foreign affair policies. How does the Bush admin's cards fall on those issues? Not on my side of the conservative line.
Thank you come again.
Well, like you, I have explained my position on different matters, and been completely ignored.
I agree that you calling me a "blind bush supporter" does not apply and effects me in no way, but it does put a roadblock up to impede a conversation. First, because it is not a true statement and second, it is typed specifically to derail the conversation. If you inserted "conservative" in it's place, that is something that could be digested and ignored.
I asked you about the "liberal" word because that describes a lot of your positions. I did not say "crazy anti-war communist", did I?
You do see the difference between the word "liberal" and the words "blind bush supperter" right?
He used to yell at the top of his lungs . . hatred and vile political reaction . . . but, he paved the way for Limbaugh.
Originally posted by giant
Bush is far, far from a conservative, so if you are a supporter of Bush, you probably aren't a real conservative.
I don't see why faust9 should have to explain to make-believe conservatives what it really means. How hard is it to understand that conservative != bush supporter?
You may well be right about bush.
But when I put forth a conservative view, I am not labeled a conservative, rather a neo-con, or blind bush supporter or worse. I am willing to accept people will label me conservative, because in general that is true. But to assert from that, that I or anyone is blindly following bush's lead is too big a leap, considering that I have openly debunked that notion.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You may well be right about bush.
But when I put forth a conservative view, I am not labeled a conservative, rather a neo-con, or blind bush supporter or worse. I am willing to accept people will label me conservative, because in general that is true. But to assert from that, that I or anyone is blindly following bush's lead is too big a leap, considering that I have openly debunked that notion.
Show us where you have debunked the idea that you are a true believer. Show us where you have decried Bush policies. Show us where you have not defended Bush. You have never openly debunked the notion because in most (if not all) instances you have defended any and all policies or US actions. Face it you are a blind Bush follower. Don't be ashamed.
Originally posted by faust9
Show us where you have debunked the idea that you are a true believer. Show us where you have decried Bush policies. Show us where you have not defended Bush. You have never openly debunked the notion because in most (if not all) instances you have defended any and all policies or US actions. Face it you are a blind Bush follower. Don't be ashamed.
I have also explained why in many cases I defend bush or his policies, and it is not necessarily because I agree with them blindly.
But if you want to just adopt that opinion of me despite my own words to the contrary, I may be wrong about your intellect.
You are wrong on this one, I am sorry.
Originally posted by NaplesX
But if you want to just adopt that opinion of me despite my own words to the contrary, I may be wrong about your intellect.
Speaking of intellect: Port 80, not 9000.
Originally posted by giant
Speaking of intellect: Port 80, not 9000.
9000 the game port. Stupid M$
Originally posted by faust9
9000 the game port. Stupid M$
He was referring to the use of port 9000 on my server for my personal website. As opposed to port 80.
Of coarse, he is obviously smart enough to realize that is because my server is assigned a semi-dynamic IP address which forces me to use an alternate port for incoming http requests in conjunction with a virtual dns server.
Giant seems to think that since he can't influence me with his condescending politico-speak he can then attack other parts of my life and background, namely my web development ability and knowledge.
That is his new tack, these days, since his debate style has been all but banned here now.
Originally posted by NaplesX
He was referring to the use of port 9000 on my server for my personal website. As opposed to port 80.
Of coarse, he is obviously smart enough to realize that is because my server is assigned a semi-dynamic IP address which forces me to use an alternate port for incoming http requests in conjunction with a virtual dns server.
Giant seems to think that since he can't influence me with his condescending politico-speak he can then attack other parts of my life and background, namely my web development ability and knowledge.
That is his new tack, these days, since his debate style has been all but banned here now.
I know that. port 9K is used by MS as well for Asheron's Call.
Originally posted by giant
Speaking of intellect: Port 80, not 9000.
You want to start on this, do you? really?
Originally posted by BRussell
Actually al Qaeda endorsed Bush for reelection. I believe it too. His invasion of Iraq has been the dream come true for terrorists.
Anyway, it really is amazing pfflam. Are there any former centcom generals or NSC-types who haven't come out against this administration?
I am amazed you would actually believe that Al Qaeda truly wants to see Bush get re-elected. It flies in the face of everything they have done. I am sure they are just saying that as a scare tactic in the hope that some Americans will read this and be scared into voting for somebody else. The Madrid train bombing was designed to punish Aznar and his decision to align Spain with the U.S. when it came to Iraq and the war on terrorism as a whole. I think there is a good chance that they will try to do likewise in this country before our election. You don't think for a minute that if they had the opportunity to kill him they would not take it? Give me a break...
Al Qaeda will always be able to recruit new people because the Madrasas are designed to turn out people who are only suited for one thing: to kill their fellow man. These are not schools designed to educate people and give them skills to use in the real world. They are designed to breed hate for Israel and the United States. This is where Al Qaeda gets their recruits and that training makes them ideal candidates or their organization. Israel's crackdown on Palestinian terror groups is no doubt helping recruitment as well. But you don't refrain from doing the right thing because you fear more people will hate you for it. You simply have to continue pursuing the goal of wiping out these people because hoping they will go away just will not work.
Originally posted by midwinter
Just to get this back on topic... Three questions:
1) Is it possible that Zinni, like Franks, is another one of the Clinton generals who are slowly/quickly (depending upon how one looks at it) being cleared out? My understanding is that lots and lots of the generals promoted under Clinton were less than popular choices--and given Clinton's relationship with the Pentagon, I suspect that he could've recommended Jesus Christ to do something and caught flak for it.
2) Since so many of these military guys are popping up, and since these scandals have effectively positioned the Pentagon against the DOD (i.e. Rummy's policy was apparently to sit on bad news in hopes of something else arising to deflect attention), what kind of fallout can we expect in the military vote? Gore never stood a chance with the military vote. Kerry does. Now that there's this major issue going on with the military/DOD/Pentagon, with former generals speaking out LOUDLY can we expect there to be an effect in the military vote?
3) I'm curious about the conservatives (Faust9, Fellows, I'm looking at you guys) who are jumping ship. Everyone's assuming, I think, that you're going to vote for Kerry. But when I think about the broader picture, I suspect that conservatives who can't bring themselves to vote for Bush might simply stay home--which in this political climate certainly plays in Kerry's favor, since the liberals are so unbelievably pissed off that not only are they going to vote, their started their own friggin' radio network to get the word out. Anyway. So which is it? Vote for someone you don't necessarily agree with or abstain entirely?
Cheers
Scott
I think most conservatives are smart enough to know that if they stay home Kerry will win this election. Not pulling a lever I think is not an option for them. I don't know if there has ever been a study of this but I think people who identify themselves as conservatives vote more often than those who identify themselves as liberal. I am pretty sure there are more registered Democrats in this country than registered Republicans and if they all voted in the same proportion the Republicans would have a hard time winning any of the contests.
On many occasions conservative groups convey (often quite publicly) that they are not satisfied with the policies of various politicians in an effort to change their views or actions. But in the end they will almost always support that candidate in the end because politically they support more of their positions than not. They would like the person to completely align with their views but they realize that in the end they will have to vote for that person despite some disagreements because the alternative will undoubtedly be worse for them. So don't be fooled by all these people who claim to be dissatisfied with Bush. In any case, there is still a lot of time between now and the election for things to improve in Iraq. The economy is already growing at an acceptable rate and there has been new job growth as well so all is not lost. It will all pretty much hinge on Iraq as Bush clearly staked his job on it. Time will tell.
Originally posted by 7E7
I am amazed you would actually believe that Al Qaeda truly wants to see Bush get re-elected.
I'm sure they don't see much of a difference, and in fact there probably isn't much of one as far as they're concerned. But I do believe this: They wanted us to respond in exactly the way we did, by invading a Muslim country. With the instability in Iraq, there's at least a chance they can have some kind of Islamist takeover there. It certainly wasn't going to happen with Saddam the dictator in power. Their goal is a radical Islamic takeover of the Middle East. They want chaos and disruption of the status quo. They want the Great Satan to polarize the Islamic world. They want a holy war between Christians/Jews and Muslims. They want Muslims radicalized. What better way to do it then to get the US military to start invading the Middle East?
Let me ask you: What do you think al Qaeda's ultimate goal is? Just to pick off Americans here and there? What is their long-term game plan, if any? And what would be the best way to counter their plans?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Of coarse, he is obviously smart enough to realize that is because my server is assigned a semi-dynamic IP address which forces me to use an alternate port for incoming http requests in conjunction with a virtual dns server.
Only the truly 'misguided' try to solve a Rubik's Cube by beating it with a hammer.
Referring to the situation in Iraq, of coarse.