Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:30:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
989 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > Yes. I can't think of a plausible reason to think that we are more concerned
> > with doing good than _everyone_ else. I think that all people are motivated
> > by their own interests which means that any country or society will have
> > "good" and "bad" people.
>
> Pretty cynical. And un-American, I might add.
It's unamerican to think that people are self interested? Or to think that
nations are made up of good and bad people? Or to think that America is
largely like many other countries?
> Rigged??? Come on. How did those who "rigged" the election know
> it would be so close in popular vote? The idea is nuts.
Well, they couldn't know _how_ close it would be until very near the election.
If the planning started far in advance of things, then they were just planning
for contingencies. Though, it might have been put together pretty quickly too.
Bear in mind that Florida was almost certain to be a narrow margin either way.
It was a place where some extra-legal influence could be exerted because of
the relationship of the governors. Also remember that with 25 votes in the
Electoral College, it represents over 9% of the TOTAL votes needed to win (270)
the election. If you had to plan for a close race, it would be a great place
to be able to fix things. There are only three states with more influence.
Texas couldn't be lost and New York couldn't be won. California would be close
and was thus hard to plan for, but Bush didn't have an in there like he did in
Florida, so he went with what he had. It was just a tremendous opportunity to
hedge the bet. And it worked.
> There was a lot political
> maneuvering, but Gore was certainly doing his own as well.
If you mean invoking courts and doing recounts and all that, I don't care about
any of it. There wasn't anything done by either side along those lines that I
really objected to. The problems were all carried out in advance of the
election to deny the vote to a big chunk of people who would have vastly voted
for Gore over Bush.
> I think Gore is at peace with the outcome
I couldn't care less. I don't like or respect Gore. The fact that he's at
peace with it is also a disgrace, but that's on him.
> If he can accept it, why can't you and the rest of the Left accept it?
I'm not the left. I can't accept it because there is greatness in America that
has been spurned by alleged Americans. How can we hold ourselves up as the
shining example to rest of the world of a good capitalist democracy when we
stand for politicians rigging the elections? I mean, what's next?
> > My impression of Palestinian claims
> > is that they will be much happier if Israel would assert sovreignty over the
> > land assigned to them by UN mandate and start treating Palestinian Israelis • as
> > equals. Do we have reason (other than the Macho Flash of these groups) to
> > believe that nothing less than the dissolution of the state of Israel would
> > satisfy and significant number of them? I have specifically hearn mainstream
> > Arab politicians claim that that isn't so.
>
> The problem is that there are many terrorist organizations that *do* want the
> destruction of the state of Israel-- until *that* issued is addressed, nothing
> positive can happen WRT the Palestinians and their nationalistic aspirations.
But how can a bunch of people who aren't even a nation expel the bad among
them? So let's imagine that 95% of the Palestinians don't want the end of
Israel. You say they should eschew violence, but how? Do they even have the
infrastructure to stand against their crazies?
> > > > And anyway, what do you figure they would do if we made
> > > > our donations to them contingent on pursuing the peace process?
> > >
> > > To possibly use nukes as a last resort to defend themselves? *That* • wouldn't
> > > be good...
> >
> > So we're paying extortian?
>
> So you are saying we should be the extortionists by dangling our support?
It's not extortion to put conditions on gifts. We would not be threatening
them with violence, we would just be refusing to continue to fund their
campaign of oppression.
> > > Depends what you mean by "us". The obliteration of Washington D.C. and all
> > > of our leaders would instantly create 50 "countries" of some sort.
> >
> > I'm not convinced that:
> >
> > a) this would really happen
> > b) if it did happen it would last longer than a day or two
> > c) this would be a bad thing
>
> Dude, you are sick!
To which of these do you object? I'd prefer our republic be a bit looser,
that's all. Since when if having a different political opinion a sign of
mental illness?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
164 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
