Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

Palomar · 2004-10-30 18:52:44

If Europe and USA truly joined forces with a spirit of mutual respect and equality towards each other, I believe we could eradicate Islamic-fascism rather easily.

*How can forces be joined against a threat with people who deny the threat exists?

Or who believe the threat is all your fault?

Or who think you're over-reacting and they're not as bothered by it?

If both parties don't SEE/ACKNOWLEDGE the threat equally...

--Cindy ???

Shaun Barrett · 2004-10-30 19:21:18

DonPanic:-

... Nuke them all ! :band:

:laugh: Ha-ha !
I wouldn't want you to think the idea's never crossed my mind! If I could get all the Islamofascists together in the middle of the Arabian desert, sitting on a nuclear bomb, with me holding the remote trigger, you'd have to talk pretty fast to stop me pushing the button!
:;):
But, surprising as it may seem to some people here, the idea of contaminating pristine desert with nuclear fallout would weigh heavily on my mind. It would be a genuinely tough call for me for that reason.

As for me undermining friendship between Australia and France:-

... the less we want to be ally of yours, and friends, less again.

Australia isn't a nuclear power with a penchant for doing its nuclear weapons testing in other people's backyards, as France is fond of doing in the South Pacific.
So, how concerned are you, DonPanic, about cordial relations between our two countries? Apparently, me voicing my opinion about getting tough with our mutual enemy, Islamofascism, is enough to endanger our relationship but your government actually violating the South Pacific environment (my home) with plutonium contamination is what ... not really relevant?

Sorry about that somewhat petulant outburst on my part. I guess I just found your chastising words, implying my political immaturity (the usual fallback position of the morally superior Left), to be more than a little ironic .. coming from a citizen of a more-than-slightly recalcitrant nuclear power!
???

BWhite · 2004-10-30 22:35:54

If Europe and USA truly joined forces with a spirit of mutual respect and equality towards each other, I believe we could eradicate Islamic-fascism rather easily.
*How can forces be joined against a threat with people who deny the threat exists?
Or who believe the threat is all your fault?
Or who think you're over-reacting and they're not as bothered by it?
If both parties don't SEE/ACKNOWLEDGE the threat equally...
--Cindy ???

Cindy, NATO sent plenty of forces to Afghanistan. The whole world was 100% behind us when we whacked the Taliban.

If the 140,000 soldiers now in Iraq had instead been sent to Afghanistan, we could have captured bin Laden and the rest of the world would have cheered and helped us turn Afghanistan into the most prosperous Islamic nation on Earth, even without any oil revenues.

= = =

At the United Nations, Colin Powell showed satellite photos and said these PROVE Saddam had WMD. France and Germany said, "we don't think so"

They were CORRECT and the USA was WRONG.

= = =

France and Spain recently cracked an al Qaeda ring with good POLICE WORK.

= = =

"How can forces be joined against a threat with people who deny the threat exists?*

This is simply WRONG! Europe never denied Islamo-fascism is a threat. They (and I) deny that Saddam has anything to do with that threat, even though Saddam is a brutal MF who deserves whatever happens to him.

PS - NATO offered an Article 5 resolution to wage war on the Taliban and bin Laden and al Qaeda.

First of all, we have reached agreement on the character of the new threats and on the best way that NATO and its members should respond to them. Terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are two of the defining challenges of the 21st century. The NATO Allies acknowledged this by invoking Article 5 in response to the 9/11 attacks. And they did so again by sending forces to Afghanistan to fight al Qaida and the Taliban. As a result, in 2002, we effectively buried the perennial debate on whether NATO could or should go "out-of-area".

http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2003/is … .html]NATO link

Bush said "No thanks - - this is our fight not yours. . ."

Why? Because many in the Bush adminstration wanted to re-structure our relationship with NATO. Put the US in a greater position of dominance - more dominance over EUROPE!

Bush neglected the threat of Islamo-fascism in order to play power politics and improve our position against Europe.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/featur … .html]Link:

NATO offers to help within the existing NATO framework. We say "No" - - that process does not give the US sufficient dominance over the process.

Then, we blast the Europeans for not being submisive to our plans.

DomPanic, is that about right?

= = =

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … aq]British poll

BWhite · 2004-10-30 22:59:24

The Democracy Corps has a new poll, conducted Friday night and Saturday morning. While the full survey will be completed on Sunday, the half-sample of 500 interviews conducted after the release of the Bin Laden tape, show the race unchanged compared to a survey completed Thursday night. The partial survey shows Kerry at 48 percent and Bush at 47 percent. Like the survey conducted before, it shows the two parties with equal numbers of party identifiers.
The Saturday respondents (250 interviews) were asked the following question: "I'm going to read you a pair of statements about the release of Bin Laden's videotape. Please tell me which one comes closer to your view.
-- It makes me think that George Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan and diverted resources to Iraq.
-- It underscores the importance of George Bush's approach to the war on terrorism.
By 10 points (46 to 36 percent), voters were more likely to think that Bush took his eye off the ball. (These results will be updated when the full survey is completed on Sunday.)

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelea … 39219]Link

What do you think, people? Eye off the ball or stay the course?

The question will reamin open no matter who wins Tuesday.

DonPanic · 2004-10-31 02:57:48

LO

So, how concerned are you, DonPanic, about cordial relations between our two countries? Apparently, me voicing my opinion about getting tough with our mutual enemy, Islamofascism, is enough to endanger our relationship but your government actually violating the South Pacific environment (my home) with plutonium contamination is what ... not really relevant?
Sorry about that somewhat petulant outburst on my part. I guess I just found your chastising words, implying my political immaturity (the usual fallback position of the morally superior Left), to be more than a little ironic .. coming from a citizen of a more-than-slightly recalcitrant nuclear power!
???

I'm not responsible for french leaders politic of armament.
Thanks, now, there is in southern France an experimental virtual nuclear weapons test lab build with technological exchanges with US Army, mainly in high power lasers. We share the results with US army. Remember that in spite of huge political divergencies with Bush administration, we are USA allies. If we could have really vetoed war at Irak, that would have been the best service made to USA, and to the thousands of US families who's son returned or will return home in a coffin.

I played rugby when I was at university, and had great admiration for the Aussies and the Blacks. After struggle on playground, is the "verre de l'amitié"...
If I was to emigrate, Sidney would be my choice as a place to leave in.
I don't forget the many australian tommies who came and gave their lives on french soil fighting with us against german invasion.

I think that war at terrorists is a shadow and mute war that must be led by efficient secret services that should infiltrate the terrorists networks and silently eliminate their leaders with no "tambours et trompetttes". Nothing spectacular like heavy army offensives with so many civilian casualties that lead more and more people to hate westerners and those people will protect or join the terrorists. This war must be surgical. It can be led only if local populations support it and naturally come to tell where the terrorists are.
You can destroy an ant nest only when you can eliminate the queens. You can measure the "war at terror" inefficiency when OBL still runs years after Aghanistan invasion.
If there was to be a bombing raid over Iranian uranium enrichment plants, I would support it. A direct war at Iran would have as a result a nationalist rise against invaders and millions of people to fight and kill.

DonPanic · 2004-10-31 05:01:05

*How can forces be joined against a threat with people who deny the threat exists?
Cindy

LO
We don't deny any threat, the point is that we live much closer to these terrorists than US average citizens for whom terrorism is a global threat, what we deny.
We have to discriminate and to fight ETA, Corsican, Syria supported terrorists, Lybian terrorism, and so on, we will try to retaliate at and eliminate the right authors of terrorists acts rather than aiming at the first Saddam face guy walking by.
We had blasts in Paris in 1986 in our avenues and metro, and started to fight islamic terrorism much before Bush administration did.
We don't amalgamate and globalise the terrorist threats as you do. When talking about a country, we can point at it on a world map, unlike too many american citizens wich still thought in 2002 that Irak capital was Teheran. Saddam was an ennemy of both talibans and Iranians, he had nothing to see with 9/11.
Talibans were ennemies of Iranians and of the Shiite minority living in Afghanistan and of many other minorities. We did support Massoud instead of talibans as USA did at first. Syrians baathists were ennemy of both Iranian supported terrorists and Iraki Baathists.
There are palestinians spread in all the gulf countries, and with their support, french secret services could play terrorists groups against each other, and their informations about Iraki armament state were acquired on the field, and much more accurate than the US spy satellites photosurvey. We are working with Indian secret services too, unlike USA who supported Pakistan, in which secrets services are infiltrated by what you call islamofacists, so that OBL is warned on pakistanese army offensives before they are set, and where extremist mollahs teach day after day antiUS hate in their madrassas.
Therefore we see Bush administration behaving like a rhinoceros in a glass shop.

BWhite · 2004-10-31 07:07:27

You can destroy an ant nest only when you can eliminate the queens. You can measure the "war at terror" inefficiency when OBL still runs years after Aghanistan invasion.

Worth saying again. . .

Palomar · 2004-10-31 13:45:44

*Just in time for Halloween:

Ghost]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041031/ap_on_el_ge/dead_voters]"Ghost" votes...should they count?

In Florida alone, more than 1.8 million people, many of them elderly and sick retirees, have cast absentee ballots or voted early in person in the past two weeks.
How many of those voters won't be alive on Election Day? Considering that an average of 455 voting-age people die in Florida every day, and that the 2000 presidential election was decided by a mere 537 votes, dead votes that slip through the cracks could become a meaningful bloc.
"There are lots of examples of elections being decided by one vote or 300 votes," said Tim Storey, a senior fellow with National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver. "It's the classic policymaking dilemma when you're trying to embark on new methods like early voting."

The problem has arisen as an unintended consequence of laws meant to prevent a repeat of the 2000 presidential election debacle. Unlike traditional mail-in absentee ballots that are stored in labeled envelopes and can be pulled if someone dies, most of the new "in-person" early voting is being done on machines with no paper ballot to tell how those people voted.
So if a person in Florida casts an early ballot, then is run over by a truck right outside the polling place, there's no way to rescind the vote. But the vote of a Florida soldier who mails an absentee ballot from Iraq (news - web sites), then is killed in action, won't — or shouldn't — be counted.
"You've got potentially two people with exactly the same situation being treated differently under the law," said John Green, director of the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at The University of Akron in Ohio. "And on the face of it, that's unfair."

--Cindy ???

John Creighton · 2004-10-31 14:19:21

"You've got potentially two people with exactly the same situation being treated differently under the law," said John Green, director of the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at The University of Akron in Ohio. "And on the face of it, that's unfair."

Not really one person just missed the deadline........ ???

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-01 06:27:57

So I ask - - we can send a man to the Moon. Why can't we find this OBL guy?
Oh yeah, Bush took a detour . . .

Debateable, as is any action not directly focused on bin Laden and al Qaeda, any action outside Afghanistan in the eyes of some. But this isn't about one guy in a cave, if we fixate on bin Laden to the exclusion of other sources of terrorist funding/training/support we can't win. Osama bin Laden is one terrorist leader heading one loose network, he's not the key to all Islamic terrorism.

So, how concerned are you, DonPanic, about cordial relations between our two countries? Apparently, me voicing my opinion about getting tough with our mutual enemy, Islamofascism, is enough to endanger our relationship but your government actually violating the South Pacific environment (my home) with plutonium contamination is what ... not really relevant?

Excellent point.

If the 140,000 soldiers now in Iraq had instead been sent to Afghanistan, we could have captured bin Laden and the rest of the world would have cheered and helped us turn Afghanistan into the most prosperous Islamic nation on Earth, even without any oil revenues.

Grossly oversimplified. If bin Laden stayed in Afghanistan then putting a US soldier behind every rock and ID'ing every nomad and his camel might have caught him. But It seems safe to say that he's not a fool, so it's reasonable to assume that if he didn't get his butt across the Pakistani or Iranian border before we even entered Afghanistan he damn well would have skipped out before we could move those 140,000 troops in. He's a fanatical murdering bastard, but he's not a fool and he's not suicidal.

At the United Nations, Colin Powell showed satellite photos and said these PROVE Saddam had WMD. France and Germany said, "we don't think so"
They were CORRECT and the USA was WRONG.

They were also receiving payoffs from Saddam via the "Oil for Palaces" program. "Saddam Bonds" if you will.

As for who was correct about WMD, we still don't know conclusively. We do know that Saddam's regime had all sorts of nasty stuff after the '91 war, what has yet to be determined is what happened to it. Maybe it really was all destroyed. Maybe it's sitting in sealed canisters under the sand. Maybe it's in a Syrian warehouse. Maybe it's in a truck somewhere in Manhattan. We don't know.

France and Spain recently cracked an al Qaeda ring with good POLICE WORK.

Great. One of many tools we need to use. In the past you've used the military force as a hammer and "not every problem is a nail" analogy, and it applies here too. Sometimes you do have to drive a nail, and a screwdriver isn't going to help much.

think that war at terrorists is a shadow and mute war that must be led by efficient secret services that should infiltrate the terrorists networks and silently eliminate their leaders with no "tambours et trompetttes".

In some cases this is precisely what is required. In others we need a less hands-on approach, and with others we simply need to roll up the entire country with a full military operation. If we choose a pure conventional military approach we'll have to conquer half the world and scare the bejesus out of the other half. If we choose a purely law enforcement approach we'll have a lot of dead people in our own cities. If we go entirely with SpecOps we'll have a never-ending series of limited wars, fought by proxy with regular "hits" on key people. If we want a workable winning strategy, we need soldiers, cops and SpecOps ninjas creeping through the night. None can do it alone.

One more day until the hacks and lawyers ruin the Republic!

DonPanic · 2004-11-01 09:19:52

LO

Quote
So, how concerned are you, DonPanic, about cordial relations between our two countries? Apparently, me voicing my opinion about getting tough with our mutual enemy, Islamofascism, is enough to endanger our relationship but your government actually violating the South Pacific environment (my home) with plutonium contamination is what ... not really relevant?
Excellent point.

I accept these critics from an Aussie, but from you ?
We're helping USA to clean up its nuclear garbages.

The US Department of Energy says the plutonium has to be shipped overseas because there is no plant capable of carrying out the conversion process in the US.

Do you ignore that some hundred kilos of US plutonium just arrived http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3726002.stm]to french Cadarache retreatment plant ?
Or that US nuclear experiments let radioactive pollution over British Isles ?
Focus on http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq76-1.htm]Bikini nuclear experiments before poking nose on other's contaminations

One more day until the hacks and lawyers ruin the Republic!

http://www.costofwar.com/index-pre-school.html]Who ruin the Republic ? hacks and lawyers have pretty large shoulders

BWhite · 2004-11-01 09:59:34

So, how concerned are you, DonPanic, about cordial relations between our two countries? Apparently, me voicing my opinion about getting tough with our mutual enemy, Islamofascism, is enough to endanger our relationship but your government actually violating the South Pacific environment (my home) with plutonium contamination is what ... not really relevant?
Excellent point.

Hmmm. . .

Seems to me the shoe belongs on the other foot, Shaun.

Who refuses to simply "agree to disagree" about the wisdom of Iraq?

Can you accept that the French (and 50%+ of Americans) have a legitimate moral right to disagree about the prudence of invading Iraq without that being deemed weakness in the face of terror?

= = =

The opinion of http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti … 20.cms]Mrs. Tony Blair.

USA versus the entire world? We lose that fight. ???

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-01 10:32:01

I accept these critics from an Aussie, but from you ?
We're helping USA to clean up its nuclear garbages.
Do you ignore that some hundred kilos of US plutonium just arrived to french Cadarache retreatment plant ?
Or that US nuclear experiments let radioactive pollution over British Isles ?

I'm not criticizing French policy in this regard so much as agreeing with Shaun that any problems that arise between France and Australia result from the conduct of both nations, not just the Australians working with the US in Iraq.

At any rate, thanks for the assist on the nuclear garbage. Just because our two nations disagree frequently on policy doesn't mean we're mortal enemies or anything. If Kerry wins the election and starts trying to cozy up to France I won't lose any sleep over it.

USA versus the entire world? We lose that fight.

Sure, if we take 'em all on at once.

Reckless disregard for less-than-reliable allies isn't sound policy, but neither is putting that alliance above the security of one's own nation. In other words, alliances are agreements between powers with shared interests, not friendships. To expect an alliance to hold when the interests of its members diverge significantly is unrealistic.

clark · 2004-11-01 10:37:02

Less than reliable? :laugh:

Gulf War 1?
Balkins?
Afghanistan?
Haiti?
The entire length and breadth of the Cold War?

Who was there?

What planet are you from?

Reckless disregard for staunch allies is dangerous and unwise.

If this is a fight between Western Civilization, and those who oppose it, you think more of Western Civilization might be on board.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-01 11:12:31

Less than reliable?
Gulf War 1?
Balkins?
Afghanistan?
Haiti?
The entire length and breadth of the Cold War?
Who was there?

The French generally stand with us in the end, that's why I used the word "allies". They tend to be quite critical beforehand and somewhat difficult generally, hence "unreliable" as compared to the British, for example.

If this is a fight between Western Civilization, and those who oppose it, you think more of Western Civilization might be on board.

I suspect they will be in time.

BWhite · 2004-11-01 11:28:39

Republican Lincoln Chaffee (who has publically stated he CANNOT vote for Bush) and Republican Susan Collins (especially if Maine goes for Kerry) may become the center of a firestorm of political pressure.

= = =

On a purely selfish note, if Bush seeks to horse-trade with the Senate, I know of a caucus that might have some ideas on what they may wish to trade for. Although I would greatly prefer to be forced re-write that story.

= = =

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/1 … 606]Senate predictions - - calling Lincoln Chafee, calling Susan Collins.

DonPanic · 2004-11-01 13:15:36

LO

The French generally stand with us in the end, that's why I used the word "allies". They tend to be quite critical beforehand and somewhat difficult generally, hence "unreliable" as compared to the British, for example.

Should know froggies better, it's quite anarchist a people, a french assembly is a whole mess, arguing and disagreeing at each other...
They act more emotionally than the Englishes, placing friendship higher than interests.
I think US ultraconservatives didn't realise the dammage done in french public opinion by the exaggerated french bashing that followed the UNO confrontation on Irak. For a people so attached to history, the hate at republicans will be very long to vanish

Shaun Barrett · 2004-11-02 01:15:51

Hi Bill!
Your suggestion that I'm unable to agree to disagree when it comes to the wisdom or otherwise of the Iraq war, is not really accurate. As it happens, I'm cursed with the ability to see both sides of an argument all too clearly and this has often tended to blunt my debating skills by causing me to dilute my own argument!
This is one of the main reasons I admire CC's clear and direct line of thought; unlike me, he doesn't allow confusion born of equivocation to 'muddy the waters' and, as a result, his political posts are much sharper than my own. (Not suggesting, by the way, that CC can't see the other side of the argument - he just handles it better than I do, I guess.)

No, the truth is that I see very clearly the case against the Iraq war; how much simpler and easier it would have been never to have ventured there. And don't think there haven't been many times when even I have weakened in my resolve in the face of the apparent chaos and confusion in Iraq today. I confess I'm only human and just as prone to despairing exasperation as the next person. (Following one of Clark's posts recently, my exasperation at the flaws in the basic democratic system came to light. Some people took me at my word, took me literally without regard to my track record, and took me to task for it, too! At least Cindy gave me the benefit of the doubt and expressed the opinion that rumours of nazis here at New Mars were just exaggerations! I thank God, and Cindy, for small mercies in that regard.)

Believe me, I do understand the case against Iraq. When you see Arabs deliberately blowing up their own kind in an attempt to deny them a democratic election, you get to thinking: "These people aren't worth the trouble." I think it's only human to have lapses like that.
However, I happen to think a democratic Iraq is a good idea; but only if it's a second step (Afghanistan was the first) on the way to a democratic Middle East. It's my opinion that the only way, in the long term, to defeat terrorism, is to eliminate Muslim theocratic dictatorships where this disgusting terrorist mindset festers and breeds. If nothing else, the defeat of these theocracies would free millions of human females from an existence we in the West wouldn't tolerate for our animals.

Even if I see the other point of view, mind you, and even if I can agree to differ, that doesn't mean I shouldn't express my own opinion anyway, does it?
???
You obviously don't think you're showing "weakness in the face of terror" when you condemn the liberation of Iraq or, I presume, you wouldn't do it!
I certainly see your point of view and I can only hope you try to see mine.

Euler · 2004-11-02 02:26:54

It's my opinion that the only way, in the long term, to defeat terrorism, is to eliminate Muslim theocratic dictatorships where this disgusting terrorist mindset festers and breeds. If nothing else, the defeat of these theocracies would free millions of human females from an existence we in the West wouldn't tolerate for our animals.

There are a lot of theocratic dictatorships in the middle east, but Iraq was not one of them. It was the most secular government in the region until we overthrew it. However, it is likely that is will end up as a theocratic government if the Iraqis are allowed to elect their own government.

DonPanic · 2004-11-02 02:36:06

Hi Shaun
It's so easy to amalgamate Irakis which take arms against foreigners who invade them with real faithless and lawless terrorists.
I think you don't realise the real bravery of an Ikarki insurgee rising against the power of the US army, that has nothing in common with the odious cowardry of the terrorists.
Not any american citizen would deny the right of anybody in the world to rise up against a foreign invasion.
It's so comfortable to say that any dead Iraki is a terrorist.
Democracy is indeed a better idea than dictatorship.
I suppose that you a are a better man than these terrorists.
That your values are much higher than the terrorists' ones.
So, if democracy settlement should be paved with so many innocent's corpses, which kind of democracy are you talking about ? Wich kind of values are you defending ?
Is it up to you to determine which price the Irakis should pay for democracy ?
If you think that only one iraki child killed to set democracy there is acceptable, then, I'm not at your side, I don't share the same values as you. Definitively not.
Same for CC.
There are other means to set democracy in countries ready for democracy and people willing to get rid of tyrans have done velvet revolutions as in Eastern Germany, against the communist regime, against Milosevic in Serbia, against Chevardnadze in Georgia... without any blood pouring.
If a mass revolt had rose against Saddam's regime, then, any foreign expeditionnary corp would have really been welcome as liberators and supported by local populations, and the international community. USA would have been supported and helped by many more countries and would have been the leader of a larger coalition than for Gulf War One.
Therefore, I regret to claim that this war is a war at Irak and Irakis, has nothing to see with a liberation war, nor a war at terrorism, it's just a death and oil stinking war.

clark · 2004-11-02 12:06:42

I’m going to take my time and try not to sound illiterate here, and reveal how I tend to color the world through my eyes.

I am of the firm belief and disposition, given my experience and general meandering thoughts, to understand the world through the context and limitations of language. To quote Bill’s recent signature, “An imperialism of poets? Yes, of poets. The phrase sounds ridiculous only to those who defend the old and ridiculous kind of imperialism. The imperialism of poets endures and wins out; that of politicians passes on and is forgotten, unless the poet remembers it in his songs.” Words themselves, language itself, provide a coherency by which we filter and understand the chaotic whole of reality.

Esoteric babble, I know. But there is a firmness that underlies this concept that allows for certain realizations when you listen to another speak, or more immediately, when you engage the language of those who transmit their understanding to another.

We each define good/bad, creating oppositions of definitions, marginalizing the other, and elevating the center. This is how we establish a coherent perspective that defines meaning, which has relevance to ourselves. These centers of language create the chains by which we imprison our thoughts and our ability to think beyond the terms imposed by the oppositions we accept.

A case in point: Democracy/Theocracy, or Democracy/tyranny, or Democracy/Monarchy, etc. What we create with this institution of centering Democracy as the good, and all other forms as the bad, is limit our perspective and relegate the oppositions into perpetual conflict.

With this realization, it is a small exercise to take any statement of thought or belief and undermine it from within through a reversal upon itself. Exchange the center for the other, and we can begin to move beyond the limitations of our own perspective and understand how meaningless either opposition within a center is. Yes, there is no answer here as the entire act merely destroys the edifice upon which we naturally rely. It invites chaos.

An example then, “However, I happen to think a democratic Iraq is a good idea; but only if it's a second step (Afghanistan was the first) on the way to a democratic Middle East. It's my opinion that the only way, in the long term, to defeat terrorism, is to eliminate Muslim theocratic dictatorships where this disgusting terrorist mindset festers and breeds. If nothing else, the defeat of these theocracies would free millions of human females from an existence we in the West wouldn't tolerate for our animals.’

A well spoken ideal, and the meaning is grasped immediately by those who can understand the context in which it is given, if they share the same understanding and value of the centers which define the language. Yet if we inverse this… “However, I happen to think a theocratic Iraq is a good idea; but only if it’s a second step (Afghanistan was the first) on the way to a Theocratic Middle East. It’s my opinion that the only way, in the long term, to defeat infidels, is to eliminate Western democratic society’s where the disgusting infidel mindset festers and breeds. If nothing else, the defeat of these democracies would free millions of human females from an existence we in Islam wouldn’t tolerate for our own animals.”

The point I try to convey is not to support either stance, but to demonstrate how the establishment of these oppositions leads to direct conflict, yet at the very heart, share the same fundamental underpinnings for their action.

The way I see it, our true enemy is the one who would force their perspective upon another, yet we are inevitably allowing ourselves to fall into the situation where we become our own enemy by striving to force our perspective on others.

In essence, we are being drawn into a struggle of our own making, and in this type of game, you can’t win.

Democracy is not a solution in and of itself, as all democracies know the scourge of terrorism- a signifier designating a signified enmeshed in context. Yet language is used to impose an understanding of context that creates the conditions by which we establish the opposition necessary for action. Both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. In the end, we become what we oppose, and we lose everything.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-02 12:13:47

Well, so far in Michigan we've had numerous complaints from election officials of MoveOn.org goons harassing people at polling places. Union goons ("blueshirts", if you prefer) are reportedly making matters difficult for poll workers in Republican districts. Several complaints of missing names from voter rolls, both here and even more so in Ohio.

Donkey's flippin' out. There's going to be a few "incidents" before the day's over.

Palomar · 2004-11-02 12:17:24

*Frankly, I think most folks here are doing a very good job of "disagreeing agreeably" (unless there are instances of high blood pressure and grinding teeth going on behind the monitor the rest of us can never know about unless admitted to).

--Cindy

::edit::

Well, so far in Michigan we've had numerous complaints from election officials of MoveOn.org goons harassing people at polling places.

Well I hope the harrassers are being escorted out. The freedom of the vote means freedom for everyone to make their own choice without being hassled. Jerks.

clark · 2004-11-02 12:18:30

I beat my head against a padded wall. Daily.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-02 12:33:40

Well I hope the harrassers are being escorted out.

From everything I'm hearing, the more docile ones have to be escorted out by poll workers every couple hours. As for the more aggressive individuals, there have reportedly been a few arrests. I'm just getting bits and pieces from radio and the occasional phone call, so I don't have a complete picture as of yet but the problems are clearly stemming overwhelmingly from one end of the spectrum. Rather pontless, the state is almost certainly going to go Democrat anyway. Not exactly the place to pull this stuff. But reason has since taken a back seat it seems.

I'm surrounded by angry jackasses!

I beat my head against a padded wall. Daily.

We'll get through to you sooner or later.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#226 2004-10-30 18:52:44

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#227 2004-10-30 19:21:18

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#228 2004-10-30 22:35:54

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#229 2004-10-30 22:59:24

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#230 2004-10-31 02:57:48

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#231 2004-10-31 05:01:05

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#232 2004-10-31 07:07:27

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#233 2004-10-31 13:45:44

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#234 2004-10-31 14:19:21

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#235 2004-11-01 06:27:57

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#236 2004-11-01 09:19:52

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#237 2004-11-01 09:59:34

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#238 2004-11-01 10:32:01

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#239 2004-11-01 10:37:02

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#240 2004-11-01 11:12:31

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#241 2004-11-01 11:28:39

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#242 2004-11-01 13:15:36

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#243 2004-11-02 01:15:51

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#244 2004-11-02 02:26:54

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#245 2004-11-02 02:36:06

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#246 2004-11-02 12:06:42

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#247 2004-11-02 12:13:47

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#248 2004-11-02 12:17:24

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#249 2004-11-02 12:18:30

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#250 2004-11-02 12:33:40

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

Board footer