DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: The_Professor on February 27, 2008, 11:59:12 AM
-
McCain's War Policy Called 'Surrender' to Bin Laden
Josiah Ryan
(CNSNews.com) - Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) supports a policy that has "essentially surrendered to Osama bin Laden," the leader of an anti-war veterans' group said on Monday.
Jon Soltz, a veteran of Iraqi Operation Freedom and the Kosovo campaign, is the co-founder and executive director of VoteVets.org. On Monday, as part of a conference call sponsored by anti-war liberals, Soltznoted that "90 percent" of the U.S. Army is in Iraq. "There is not one of our 42 combat brigades that could deploy anywhere in the world in the next 72 hours. What does America do when there is another Hurricane Katrina? What does America do on our border security issues?" Soltz asked.
Soltz noted that most U.S. troops are fighting far from the remote area where al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is rumored to be hiding. "They [the U.S. Army] are stuck in Iraq at a time when Osama bin Laden is on the Afghan-Pakistan border," he said. "We have one tenth the amount of troops there than we have in Iraq, which is not related to the central front on the war on terror," Soltz said.
Soltz's VoteVets, which includes Iraq war critic Gen. Wesley Clark on its board of directors, is leading the liberal charge against decorated war hero John McCain, apparently operating on the theory that it takes a veteran to criticize a veteran. The group presses the point that even "patriotic Americans" and war veterans can and do oppose President Bush's war in Iraq -- and McCain's support for that war.
On Monday, VoteVets.org joined MoveOn.org in an effort to link the high cost of the war in Iraq with economic woes back home. MoveOn.org announced the lobbying and public education campaign on Monday in a conference call with reporters. (See story)
As part of the new effort, VoteVets has released an ad featuring an Iraq veteran with her infant son. The ad blasts Sen. McCain's stance that U.S. troops will remain in Iraq for as long as they're needed there.
"This is my little boy," the veteran says in the VoteVets ad. "He was born a year after I came back from Iraq. What kind of commitment are you making to him? How about a thousand years of affordable health care, or a thousand years of keeping America safe? Can we afford that for my child, Senator McCain? Or have you already promised to spend trillions -- in Baghdad?"
The ad will run on cable TV stations in the Washington, D.C., area.
Sen. John McCain has counseled patience -- and success -- in Iraq, saying the "costs of retreat" would bring chaos in Iraq as well as terrorists to U.S. soil.
On Monday, McCain admitted that the war in Iraq is one element by which his candidacy will be judged. At first he said he'd "lose" the election if the American people think the U.S. is losing the war in Iraq.
Then McCain backed off his "stark" comment about losing: "Let me just put it this way," he said: "Americans will judge my candidacy on how, first and foremost, on how they believe I can lead the country both from our economy and for national security." McCain said there's no doubt that how Americans judge Iraq will have a "direct relation to their judgment of me -- my support of the surge. Clearly I am tied to it to a large degree."
MoveOn.org recently endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president. Obama has promised an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq and a greater military commitment in Afghanistan.
"When we end this war in Iraq, we can finally finish the fight in Afghanistan," Obama said in a policy speech in September. "That is why I propose stepping up our commitment there, with at least two additional combat brigades and a comprehensive program of aid and support to help Afghans help themselves."
Obama supports an immediate withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq, and he stresses diplomacy over a military solution.
However, the Bush administration has long insisted that Iraq is a central focus in the global war on terror. Sen. McCain and other Republican leaders have supported that policy.
Earlier this month, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) addressed the liberal complaint that the Bush administration is fighting the wrong war.
"I am often asked, 'Well, we don't have Osama Bin Laden, do we?" McConnell said. "Well I assure you he is not staying at the Four Seasons in Islamabad. He is in some cold cave somewhere looking over his shoulder, wondering when the final shoe is going to drop. Going on offense is a big part of protecting America."
MoveOn.org has named McConnell as one of the four "top tier" legislators who stands in the way of the ending the Iraq war.
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11569185/
-
Soltznoted that "90 percent" of the U.S. Army is in Iraq. "There is not one of our 42 combat brigades that could deploy anywhere in the world in the next 72 hours. What does America do when there is another Hurricane Katrina? What does America do on our border security issues?" Soltz asked.
I question the quoted figures.
Also, it's not the job of the military to handle either weather emergencies or border security; we have other departments dedicated to handling those.
-
Also, it's not the job of the military to handle either weather emergencies or border security; we have other departments dedicated to handling those.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Such things as natural disasters have been the province of the National Guard for generations. Up to the days of Juniorbush, actually. You are sounding like Rumsfeld.
We do have a border patrol, but they are spread rather thin.
It is also true that McCain does nopt appear to have any plan for nabbing Bin Laden, just as Juniorbush has none.
I think it would be a good idea to nab Bin Laden. Do you disagree?
-
Such things as natural disasters have been the province of the National Guard for generations. Up to the days of Juniorbush, actually. You are sounding like Rumsfeld.
Of course. However, what we were talking about was the US Army, not the National Guard.
I think it would be a good idea to nab Bin Laden. Do you disagree?
I disagree that it should be the job of the US Army. Personally, I think a bounty of US$1 billion could be offered, and all the troops brought home - from Iraq and everywhere else. Once the troops are brought home, that bounty money could be saved in short order by the reduction in costs.
-
Umm. Why would we send troops to Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden if he is in Pakistan?
-
Umm. Why would we send troops to Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden if he is in Pakistan?
Because we have a retard as CIC.
-
Of course. However, what we were talking about was the US Army, not the National Guard.
=================================================================
Had you used the words "US Army", I would have duly noted that. But you said "military", which I presume most people ( including me) would assume meant the Guard as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
\A billion dollar bounty and a twenty-million dollar bounty will produce the same results. Perhaps offering the bounty clandestinely to the Pakistani Army might get results, since apparently Bin Laden hangs out more there than in Afghanistan. People who think they are doing God's will against evil are quite difficult to bribe. The rulers of Saudi Arabia claim to be doing God's work, but nonetheless can be bribed, which is why the Juniorbushies love Prince Bandar so very much.
McCain will, if elected, produce more war, longer wars,and piss away even more on 'defense', but without actually making us any more secure as I see it.
The two emotions that get votes are Hope and Fear. I see McCain peddling Fear, because Obama has already monopolized Hope.
There are three issues in American politics in ever election:
Rich vs poor
War vs peace
Black vs White
It is pretty clear that Obama is on one side of each issue and McCain is on the other.
Immigration is an issue as well, but being as Obama and McCain do not disagree much on it, I don't see this entering the debate so far. I could be wrong about this, though.
-
McCain will, if elected, produce more war, longer wars,and piss away even more on 'defense', bit without actually making us any more secure as I see it.
I seem to recall that as you "see it", Bush stole the election as well. Kinda puts what you "see" in better perspective
-
Umm. Why would we send troops to Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden if he is in Pakistan?
Because we have a retard as CIC.
I see.
So Obama and the antiwar vets are retarded also?
-
I seem to recall that as you "see it", Bush stole the election as well. Kinda puts what you "see" in better perspective
----------------------------------------------
You recall incorrectly. I said that Juniorbush got the Supremes to steal the election for him in 2000. He got half a million fewer votes, after all.
But my opinion on one issue that has no relationship to my opinion of another issue should have no bearing on the validity of the issue.\
McCain was caught on camera singing "Bomb, bomb bomb, bomb Iran" He wants war, and he has said that we could be in Iraq for as much as 1000 years.
This is what I base my opinion on.
------------------------------------
Do you disagree? If so, please explain why you think McCain won't create more war.
I think that is the purpose of a debate, rather than gainsaying one another with no reason.
-
I seem to recall that as you "see it", Bush stole the election as well. Kinda puts what you "see" in better perspective
----------------------------------------------
I said that Juniorbush got the Supremes to steal the election for him in 2000. He got half a million fewer votes, after all.
Pretty much the same thing. Thanks for validating what you obviously see
McCain was caught on camera singing "Bomb, bomb bomb, bomb Iran" He wants war, and he has said that we could be in Iraq for as much as 1000 years. Do you disagree? If so, please explain why you think McCain won't create more war.
Because, despite what the rabid left would want us to believe, no one WANTS war. Neither Bush, nor Cheney. Neither McCain, nor whomever his running mate ends up being. No one WANTS to send our military into arenas that may get them killed. So saying McCain wants war is ludicrous, at its foundation. The difference being that a President must be aware he may NEED to send troops in, based on current information, intel, and if it has a bearing on the security of the U.S. So, as events unfold, the president may NEED to deal with Iran, from a military standpoint, and since he's the only one demonstrating the cajones to consider it, says far more for him than what you "see"
-
Had you used the words "US Army", I would have duly noted that. But you said "military", which I presume most people ( including me) would assume meant the Guard as well.
Perhaps you should also read the section that I quoted. Conversations happen in series, where comments are based on previous comments.
-
Umm. Why would we send troops to Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden if he is in Pakistan?
Because we have a retard as CIC.
I see.
So Obama and the antiwar vets are retarded also?
Maybe, but not as retarded as the current CIC who attacked TWO wrong countries and wasted our treasure & blood for his own stubborn stupidity.
-
Seems to me Osama was in Afghanistan when Bush went in.
Obama and the anti war vet advocate invading the wrong country. What's up with that?
-
<<Because, despite what the rabid left would want us to believe, no one WANTS war. Neither Bush, nor Cheney. Neither McCain, nor whomever his running mate ends up being. No one WANTS to send our military into arenas that may get them killed. >>
Hilarious. They were dragged into the war kicking and screaming all the way. Reminds me of that cartoon of Hitler watching fleets of bombers flying off and bombing the world to shit, saying (according to the caption) "See what the wicked Chamberlain is making me do?"
<<So saying McCain wants war is ludicrous, at its foundation. >>
Actually the guy defines himself as a "war hero" at every turn. Brags of his "service" (killing Third World peasants for Amerikkka) and his "suffering" (although he sure looks to me like he got out all in one piece. Maybe he was only waterboarded.) Basically for a self-referential "war hero" like McCain, the equation is pretty simple: No war, no McCain.
<<The difference being that a President must be aware he may NEED to send troops in, based on current information, intel, and if it has a bearing on the security of the U.S. >>
Yep, that made a LOT of sense. The security of the United States of Amerikkka was threatened by the nation of Iraq, all 23 million of them. A close call, that. If Gore had been President (God forbid!) you'd all be speaking Arabic today and going to mosque on Friday.
<<So, as events unfold, the president may NEED to deal with Iran, from a military standpoint . . . >>
Yeah a "military standpoint" like "What's the price of oil today?"
<< . . . and since he's the only one demonstrating the cajones to consider it, says far more for him than what you "see">>
Well, from what I can see, this "President" is a guy who had a great chance to demonstrate what kind of cojones he really had in Viet Nam, but just like his Vice President, had apparently developed "other priorities." I wou'dn't really want to mention Bush and cojones in the same sentence if I were you.
-
Boy, it just wouldn't be the saloon, without Tee's perseveration of calling anyone that doesn't adopt his warped vision of what is, is, comparable to Hitler :D
-
I just thought it was funny that your version of Bush's take on war is pretty much like Low's caricature of Hitler's. The resemblance was remarkable.
-
Some people say good morning, others say bush=hitler. After a while it is an automatic reflex and is meaningless.
-
It's like Tourette's syndrome. They just can't help it. Everything they say is meaningless. How could Bush possibly be like Hitler. He's an American, isn't he? (Not Hitler, Bush!)
-
It's like Tourette's syndrome.
Exactly. And once you understand it is an illness, the shock value dissipates.
-
Yeah and then you can go back to ignoring all the similarities.
-
Yeah and then you can go back to ignoring all the similarities.
Precisely.
It's like the constant misuse of the charge of racism. It loses its sting. Means nothing . As innocuous as calling someone a doo-doo head.
-
It's like the constant misuse of the charge of racism. It loses its sting. Means nothing . As innocuous as calling someone a doo-doo head.
Or the constant and consistent misuse of the word "war".
War on Drugs
War on Poverty
War on Crime
War on Terror
War on Obesity
After awhile you just get desensitized to it.
-
Amen, Fatman. Preach it brother!
-
Yeah and then you can go back to ignoring all the similarities.
Precisely. It's like the constant misuse of the charge of racism. It loses its sting. Means nothing . As innocuous as calling someone a doo-doo head.
BINGO ;)
-
<<It's [pointing out the similarities between Bush & Hitler] like the constant misuse of the charge of racism. It loses its sting. Means nothing . As innocuous as calling someone a doo-doo head.>>
You guys have a positive genius for avoiding facts that are unpalatable but undeniable. I stand in awe. Literally. You have absolutely no equals in the art of self-deception.
Pointing out the manifold Bush-Hitler similarities noted by dozens if not hundreds of liberal commentators is an "illness." Pointing out obvious and unmistakeable signs of racism as have literally thousands and probably tens of thousands of ordinary citizens who know when they are being insulted is "misuse" [according to no less an authority than yourselves] of the charge of racism. In either case, the accusation loses its "sting."
It's actually kind of funny. You twist and turn in every way you can to avoid the simple recognition of obvious facts, all the while maintaining that YOU represent some kind of mainstream of moderate, reasonable thought, while the rest of the world sees through every subterfuge (most of them actually pretty lame and pathetic) that your squirming little minds can squeeze out. Well, far be it from me to throw cold water on your endless efforts to turn reality around 180 degrees and have it march off to the beat of your discordant drums. Follow that dream, fellas. The funniest part of it all would be if Bush and Cheney ever stumbled upon this NG - - they'd read your valiant but pathetic defence of their morals and ethics, probably doubled up in laughter at the very thought that anyone could actually believe the kind of drivel they have to put out for public consumption.
-
So bush=hitler, you say? And that is because thousands of liberals agree with you?
Millions agreed with hitler. did that make his statements correct?
-
*snicker*
-
<<So bush=hitler, you say? >>
NOPE. Wrong. As you probably realize yourself. Bush, as I have pointed out numerous times, is nowhere near the equal of Hitler in intellect, writing, oratorical skills, courage in battle, organizational skills or even artistic skill. Bush is a vastly inferior being to Hitler even as an evil-doer, which they both obviously are.
Furthermore, the "equal" sign is a deliberate misrepresentation of my statement, another way you have ingeniously devised of avoiding any unpalatable truth - - just misrepresent it to the point where it's virtually unrecognizable and then ridicule it as if your comments were in any way remotely applicable to what I had said. Bush did not advocate for racial laws distinguishing amongst people by racial origin, he did not establish concentration camps and torture chambers, at least not for his own citizens and has so far not provoked a world war.
No, what I said - - and please don't pretend this is too subtle a distinction for you to grasp, is that there are many SIMILARITIES between Bush and Hitler - - in his militarism, fascism, tolerance of torture, demonization of his "enemies," who are probably better described as scapegoats, monstrous lies, war-mongering and assumptions of national entitlement contrary to all settled notions of international law and a general contempt for the rule of law. Those are plenty of similarities, which you choose to ignore by the facile dismissal of the idea that "Bush = Hitler," and sirs of course, with his little echoes ("BINGO!" "SNICKER" and similar essays of more or less similar intellectual depth.
<<And that is because thousands of liberals agree with you?>>
No, it's because the similarities are inescapable to anyone who has the faintest idea of who Hitler was, how he gained power and what he did with the power he gained. The thousands of liberals is also a misrepresentation of what I said. Hundreds of millions of liberals around the world would probably agree with me, but what I actually said was that thousands of liberal COMMENTATORS agreed with me, which I felt obliged to point out since you were attempting to marginalize my views as meaningless ravings, as if I were a party of one.
<<Millions agreed with hitler. did that make his statements correct?>>
You should check this out with Ami first. According to Ami, none of them agreed with Hitler, they were all just terrorized by him. Even the cheering crowds, the weeping, hysterical women, the shouting men and boys were all trucked in by Nazi goons and ORDERED to appear enthusiastic in front of the newsreel cameras. They really hated the whole thing. They all had Jews hidden in their basements. Hitler really was a party of one also, but somehow managed to have everyone scared shitless.
OK, OK, I'll answer your question. The agreement of millions certifies to the power of the idea, not its correctness, obviously. The number of supporters is irrelevant to the truth of the idea, but that's why it's not a good idea to try to marginalize somebody's idea by depicting it as a form of insanity, as "losing its sting" as if it had no logical value but was only created for shock value, etc. If you review the history of this thread, or even the arguments we have in this group, it is always the crypto-fascist elements who raise the numbers game, only in a subtle way by trying to depict liberal ideas as "loony" or ridiculous, something that only a tiny minority of the population could possibly hold, whereas in reality most people would probably agree with the liberal position and reject almost any crypto-fascist ideas once the sugar-coating has worn off. Witness Al Gore/Nader vote totals in 2000, versus the fascist vote, or witness the public rejection (roughly two-thirds according to polls) of the Bush-McCain war.
-
The agreement of millions certifies to the power of the idea, not its correctness, obviously.
Then why use the "thousands of liberals" as proof of your thesis?
-
<<Then why use the "thousands of liberals" as proof of your thesis?>>
As I said already, it was NOT as proof of my thesis, it was as a counter to your attempts and sirs' to margnialize my ideas by comparing them to a mental illness or to empty ideas conceived merely for shock value. The ideas of a lunatic or a shock jock would not be expected to have a lot of followers. The numbers game was something that you and sirs like to play a lot (to cover the essential bankruptcy of your own ideas) and not only in this thread. I felt that a healthy reminder from time to time that the mainstream is actually liberal, and that it is fascism that is the marginal idea, not the other way round, would be in order.
-
You should check this out with Ami first. According to Ami, none of them agreed with Hitler, they were all just terrorized by him.
Nothing like saying I said something I never said.
-
Both Howard Stern and Don Imus have quite a following. So i am not sure where you are taking this argument.
-
<<Nothing like saying I said something I never said.>>
Well, I WAS going to put in a "grin" icon or something to indicate that I was deliberately exaggerating your position with humorous intent, but then I thought, that's insulting. Apparently not. I'll spell it out for you. That was a JOKE, Ami.
-
<<Both Howard Stern and Don Imus have quite a following. So i am not sure where you are taking this argument.>>
It was an aside, not an argument. You needed a reminder that you weren't talking to a party of one and you got it. Not sure where YOU are taking this, at this point. MY point is made.
-
<<Then why use the "thousands of liberals" as proof of your thesis?>>
...I felt that a healthy reminder from time to time that the mainstream is actually liberal, and that it is fascism that is the marginal idea, not the other way round, would be in order.
Ahhh, that explains why the country has consistently voted down UHC, nearly ever time it was tried, why the country has universally voted for Marriage amendments in their respective states, that clarify marriage is between a man & a woman, & why the country has consistently opposed amnesty acts by the Fed. Because the mainstream is actually Liberal. Where tax cuts are supported by tax payers, and School choice/vouchers, in the most liberal urban areas of the city are supported by the parents. Yea, that's it
In Tee's alternate reality, where up is down, down is up, where the MSM is a bunch of RW corporate hacks, where socialism is the all the successful rage, and Bush is a moronic version of Hitler, that kind of garbage can fly. Here on this planet, and in particular, this country, the facts clearly state otherwise
-
Ah, but UHC is coming, it's inevitable. It will be one of the factors in the coming Democratic victory in November. Even the homophobic gay marriage votes probably are more representative of those who voted on the initiatives, a small portion of the general public at large, most of whom did not vote on those initiatives. If you really want a measure of popular attitudes liberalizing on gay issues, look at the decriminalization of homosexual acts and the support for civil unions - - not ideal liberal positions but a far cry from the institutional homophobia just one generation before. The trend is clearly towards liberalization of gay rights.
-
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide."
-- Jerry Pournelle, Ph.D
It has appeared to me for some time that this great naton of ours is slowly but steadily heading in the direction of the god of socialism. If you give the populace an increasing array of social services and incentives, their expectation levels will increase and be thirsty for even more.
-
<<"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide.">>
Whereas conservatism is a philosophy of active destruction of the social fabric and international relations of western civilization so that its internal and external enemies can destroy it before it HAS to commit suicide.
Michael Tee
-
<<It has appeared to me for some time that this great naton of ours is slowly but steadily heading in the direction of the god of socialism. If you give the populace an increasing array of social services and incentives, their expectation levels will increase and be thirsty for even more.>>
Well, you better watch it. If you're not careful, you could end up like the EU, whose economy just surpassed yours this year. (Just kidding, you guys will NEVER end up like the Europeans. They're civilized.)
-
>>Whereas conservatism is a philosophy of active destruction of the social fabric ... <<
Now that's interesting. I've always heard leftist chiming away about how Conservatives aren't progressive enough when it comes to American culture. We're the old stick in the mud. Sorry Mike, but thisis just more make it up as you go along bullshit.
>> ... and international relations of western civilization so that its internal and external enemies can destroy it before it HAS to commit suicide.<<
Once again an odd conclusion considering it's the Conservative position to fight against external enemies. Conservatives have one reply to America's external enemies, Nuts! As for any of Conservatisms internal enemies, those are Americas enemies also. It's they who want to destroy Americas social fabric and turn into something more like .... (gasp) ... Canada. So again, you're bizarro world scenario's don't hold water.
As for UHC, not gonna happen. Americans rejected Hillarycare, and when we get details on Obama's plan,we'll reject it for the Marxism it is.
-
<<Now that's interesting. I've always heard leftist chiming away about how Conservatives aren't progressive enough when it comes to American culture. We're the old stick in the mud. Sorry Mike, but thisis just more make it up as you go along bullshit.>>
Maybe you confused the social fabric with American culture, in which case you need to re-read my post. Otherwise, I can't figure out what point you are trying to make and so can't comment on it at all.
<< . . . it's the Conservative position to fight against external enemies. Conservatives have one reply to America's external enemies, Nuts! >>
My point or part of it was that conservatives CREATE many of America's external enemies out of nothing. They then blow humungous amounts of money fighting people they never should have had to fight in the first place, which means less spent on infrastructure, especially human infrastructure, resulting in a less productive country, a pathetic foreign exchange rate and the slow decline into Third World status that we see the beginning stages of today.
<<As for any of Conservatisms internal enemies, those are Americas enemies also.>>
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Sure they are, Rich, sure they are. They're all part of a big Commie plot.
<<As for UHC, not gonna happen. Americans rejected Hillarycare, and when we get details on Obama's plan,we'll reject it for the Marxism it is.>>
Keep on dreaming, brother. It's practically here now. All you can hope to do now is cripple it from birth so that it won't ever work properly.
-
>>Maybe you confused the social fabric with American culture, in which case you need to re-read my post.<<
Would you care to explain the difference?
Oh, and please don't call me brother. It sickens me.
-
Ah, but UHC is coming, it's inevitable. It will be one of the factors in the coming Democratic victory in November. Even the homophobic gay marriage votes probably are more representative of those who voted on the initiatives, a small portion of the general public at large, most of whom did not vote on those initiatives.
So, your position now is the mainstream is liberal, they just didn't vote enough to validate your claim. How convenient ::)
If you really want a measure of popular attitudes liberalizing on gay issues, look at the decriminalization of homosexual acts and the support for civil unions - - not ideal liberal positions but a far cry from the institutional homophobia just one generation before. The trend is clearly towards liberalization of gay rights.
The trend is towards greater tolerance & compromise. Civil unions are a compromise between the hard left and hard right positions, and one that this conservative supports as well. So sorry to keep blowing these theories of yours, out of the water.
-
>>Maybe you confused the social fabric with American culture, in which case you need to re-read my post.<<
<<Would you care to explain the difference?>>
The social fabric is what holds the classes and races of the society together - - fair wages and working conditions keep the wage slaves happy enough to report for work every workday morning, medical care however provided keeps the workforce healthy enough to produce, fair and reasonable property laws keep capital in the country productively employed, racial equity stops race rioting and general mayhem, old age security keeps the elderly from sleeping on the sidewalks, etc.
American culture is how Americans entertain or define themselves, music, film, rock & roll, art, vacations, language, clothing, fashion, grooming, recreation, lifestyle, etc.
-
<<So, your position now is the mainstream is liberal, they just didn't vote enough to validate your claim. >>
Well, I kept it short for convenience. They were liberal enough to initially show that UHC might fly, then when Hillary began to push for it, a massive and sophisticated PR campaign scared the shit out of the American people and turned them off the idea. As always, what the sheeple were pushed into by conservative lies and deception turned out to be a very very bad thing and the sheeple eventually came to their senses and my OPINION at this point is that they DO want UHC of some kind, which is why both Obama and Hillary are promoting it. If I'm wrong, they are wrong too, but I don't think we are all wrong. I think UHC is an idea whose time has finally come. It does have enough public support to be a decisive factor in the campaigns of both leading Democrats and hopefully (if the Republicans don't steal THIS election too) will be voted in by a good-sized majority.
<<The trend is towards greater tolerance & compromise. >>
Well, of course. But the fact that a society which just one generation ago had no problem with the criminalization of homosexuality is now able not only to abandon all criminalization of it but as well to compromise on the gay marriage issue shows a huge movement towards tolerance and liberalization, not towards conservatism. The initial liberal position (decriminalization) has already been reached and surpassed. Now opinion is moving towards the ultimate liberal position, gay marriage and got stopped halfway on the road there, at a point which wasn't even on the horizon in my parents' generation.
-
<<So, your position now is the mainstream is liberal, they just didn't vote enough to validate your claim. >>
Well, I kept it short for convenience. They were liberal enough to initially show that UHC might fly, then when Hillary began to push for it, a massive and sophisticated PR campaign scared the shit out of the American people and turned them off the idea.
Ahhh, again, Tee-leaf conclusion based on zip hard evidence, just convenient twisted opinionated "circumstantial evidence" Kinda like how the government is great at torture, validated by how well they keep it secret. Yea, it didn't work then, either
<<The trend is towards greater tolerance & compromise. >>
Well, of course. But the fact that a society which just one generation ago had no problem with the criminalization of homosexuality is now able not only to abandon all criminalization of it but as well to compromise on the gay marriage issue shows a huge movement towards tolerance and liberalization, not towards conservatism. The initial liberal position (decriminalization) has already been reached and surpassed. Now opinion is moving towards the ultimate liberal position, gay marriage and got stopped halfway on the road there, at a point which wasn't even on the horizon in my parents' generation.
The only concession here was there was no other direction regarding supposed "gay rights" could go. The point remains unrefuted however, civil unions are a COMPROMISE between staunch liberal & staunch conservative positions. One that has MAJORITY support, unlike gay "marriage", which is a liberal position, NOT held by the mainstream of any state
-
If the right wants civil unions legalized, why doesn't they co-sponsor a bill saying so?
Mitch McConnell should do this tomorrow. I never agreed with a thing this clown said before they made hi some sort of leader, and he seems to be an ever-bigger smartass now. This could save his besmirched reputation with me.
-
<<Ahhh, again, Tee-leaf conclusion based on zip hard evidence, just convenient twisted opinionated "circumstantial evidence" >>
No, actually, based on my memory of the debates and of the massive TV ad campaign featuring a married couple, Harry and Marge? Madge? appearing in all the ads. Very clever, very sophisticated and very effective. Some of the most effective political TV advertising I've ever seen.
<<Kinda like how the government is great at torture, validated by how well they keep it secret. Yea, it didn't work then, either>>
No, THAT was based on newspaper reports of waterboarding and the government's destruction of the waterboarding torture tapes. And the renditions and secrecy surrounding them, plus reports of prisoners released from those prisons, like Canada's Maher Arar, make it very clear that the only purpose of rendition is torture.
But by all means, continue to deny the evidence if it makes you feel better. Keep your head stuck up your own ass for as long as you like. Must be pretty comfortable inside there, where you're still No. 1 and you're still the good guys.
-
Sirs, to you, is there any substantive difference between "civil unions" and "gay marriage" other than the name? I've made it clear before that I don't care what the name is, that it's the benefits of the union that are important.
I'm not looking for a war, just trying to see where you and some other conservatives are at on this.
-
Sirs, to you, is there any substantive difference between "civil unions" and "gay marriage" other than the name? I've made it clear before that I don't care what the name is, that it's the benefits of the union that are important.
Every time I use that argument, I get the same response - "separate is inherently not equal" and the name apparently makes them "separate."
-
Speaking solely for myself Ami, that's a BS way to go about it (on their part, not yours). It's probably one of the reasons that compromise on the issue is so hard to reach, extremes on both sides see it as an all or nothing endeavor. 20 years ago the idea of even a "civil union" was inconceivable. I was lucky to come of age in a time when things like these are occurring, that have a direct benefit to me and others like me.
Sometimes I think that the gay rights movement don't really realize how good we've got it right now.
-
My view, as you surmise, is based upon, I believe you called him, some quaint Abrahamic view. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman and homosexuality is a sin. I can argue Scripture with you if you want, but the Scriptural references are there for anyone to see, at least in my opinion. Of course, if you do not believe that the Word of God is Inspired as XO and MT believe, then that argument is irrelevant.
Doesn't make homosexuals anymore evil than thieves or liars. To God, sin is sin and people are flawed.This is why Jesus died on the Cross, for ALL sin.
-
I've never called Abrahamic faith "quaint", though I can see how you may have taken that impression. And if I may, I respect your belief though I don't necessarily agree with it. Why are some portions of the Bible "inspired" but others aren't? How many Christians follow the Levitican Law (or modern Jews for that matter?) What I don't understand is why some things (especially in the OT) that are prohibited by Biblical injunction are "okay" with modern Christian religious, and some things aren't?
I'm more of a mind to follow Christ's teachings, which had nothing to do with homosexuality, but which had a lot to do with marriage in general, and how we treat and deal with our fellow man, than I am to adhere to dogma.
-
Sometimes I think that the gay rights movement don't really realize how good we've got it right now.
And if they would get off their high horse and accept "civil unions," in 20 or 30 years, everyone will call them "marriages" anyway. Putting up the "BS" fight over the name will just make it take longer to get what they want.
Unless, of course, what they're really looking for is an argument...
-
I've never called Abrahamic faith "quaint", though I can see how you may have taken that impression. And if I may, I respect your belief though I don't necessarily agree with it. Why are some portions of the Bible "inspired" but others aren't? How many Christians follow the Levitican Law (or modern Jews for that matter?) What I don't understand is why some things (especially in the OT) that are prohibited by Biblical injunction are "okay" with modern Christian religious, and some things aren't?
I'm more of a mind to follow Christ's teachings, which had nothing to do with homosexuality, but which had a lot to do with marriage in general, and how we treat and deal with our fellow man, than I am to adhere to dogma.
What about Paul's prohibitions in this arena? And, if you do not want to discuss this, I completely understand.
-
Sirs, to you, is there any substantive difference between "civil unions" and "gay marriage" other than the name? I've made it clear before that I don't care what the name is, that it's the benefits of the union that are important. I'm not looking for a war, just trying to see where you and some other conservatives are at on this.
Sorry for the tardiness Fat. I've made it clear that for this staunch partisan conservative, civil unions are a compromise....between those that want to be hardnosed and call anyone that "marries" anything else, a "marriage", with those who call homosexuality a sin, right up there with adultery. The compromise includes the reference to the name, "marriage", keeping it between a man a woman, while providing all the "benefits" you'd be referring to, for the gay couple. Simple as that. Hope that helped
-
Sorry for the tardiness Fat. I've made it clear that for this staunch partisan conservative, civil unions are a compromise....between those that want to be hardnosed and call anyone that "marries" anything else, a "marriage", with those who call homosexuality a sin, right up there with adultery. The compromise includes the reference to the name, "marriage", keeping it between a man a woman, while providing all the "benefits" you'd be referring to, for the gay couple. Simple as that. Hope that helped
It did sirs, thank you. As I understand it, you're okay with a civil union having the same benefits as a straight marriage, so long as the gay union is not called "marriage", thus preserving the term "marriage" for straight unions? If so, then we are in agreement with this.
What about Paul's prohibitions in this arena? And, if you do not want to discuss this, I completely understand.
I do want to discuss this Professor, but I need to have some time to talk to my priest and do some research myself, so that I can form an objective opinion and some facts to back up that opinion. So, if it's alright with you, I'd like to revisit this in a couple of weeks or so, and hopefully I won't come across as ignorant of at least the basics. I know a bit about St. Paul's reasoning as to why circumcision and dietary laws aren't mandated, but I'd like the chance to look into it further.
And if they would get off their high horse and accept "civil unions," in 20 or 30 years, everyone will call them "marriages" anyway. Putting up the "BS" fight over the name will just make it take longer to get what they want.
We're in complete agreement Ami. It might surprise a lot of people how many gays feel like I do on this, the ones you see suing and screaming over the word "marriage" are a minority, but extremely vocal. There's actually a split developing in the gay community over exactly this issue.
Unless, of course, what they're really looking for is an argument...
I'm not sure it's an argument they seek so much as they believe that if they can call themselves "married", that they will be legitimized in society. The fact is, there are elements in society that will always oppose homosexuality, whether for legitimate reasons (faith) or illegitimate reasons (homophobia, ignorance). I don't need to call it marriage to legitimize my relationship with my partner, but it is important to me that he is able to inherit my property and make my medical decisions in the case that I'm incapacitated without the interference of my family.
-
Sorry for the tardiness Fat. I've made it clear that for this staunch partisan conservative, civil unions are a compromise....between those that want to be hardnosed and call anyone that "marries" anything else, a "marriage", with those who call homosexuality a sin, right up there with adultery. The compromise includes the reference to the name, "marriage", keeping it between a man a woman, while providing all the "benefits" you'd be referring to, for the gay couple. Simple as that. Hope that helped
It did sirs, thank you. As I understand it, you're okay with a civil union having the same benefits as a straight marriage, so long as the gay union is not called "marriage", thus preserving the term "marriage" for straight unions? If so, then we are in agreement with this.....It might surprise a lot of people how many gays feel like I do on this, the ones you see suing and screaming over the word "marriage" are a minority, but extremely vocal. There's actually a split developing in the gay community over exactly this issue.
Excellent.......just be prepared to be labeled a bigot for daring to advocate seperate lines. :-\
-
I don't need to call it marriage to legitimize my relationship with my partner, but it is important to me that he is able to inherit my property and make my medical decisions in the case that I'm incapacitated without the interference of my family.
Visit a lawyer. All of that can be done within the current legal scene, although it's not as simple as a marriage or civil union. In other words, it can be done, but it costs more money...
-
If the right wants civil unions legalized, why doesn't they co-sponsor a bill saying so?
There is a difference between advocating a solution and being OK with it.
Could you point to any civil union legislation present by the dems at the federal level? That would help with the point you are attempting to make.
It is also helpful to point out that marriage and civil union laws presently are handled at the state level.
-
Visit a lawyer. All of that can be done within the current legal scene, although it's not as simple as a marriage or civil union. In other words, it can be done, but it costs more money...
Actually Ami, before the domestic partnership law was passed here in WA 2 years ago, that's exactly what I did. With the law in place now, he is also covered by my health coverage (which is excellent btw, thank god for a union plan) and pension if I die early. Those things couldn't happen before the partnership law.
While you're right that going to a lawyer can get a person some of these benefits, they are open to challenge as well. That challenge also costs money to defend against. I realize that marriage doesn't pre-empt the right of the family to challenge the advocate (see the Schiavo case), but I think that it is generally more rare.
Excellent.......just be prepared to be labeled a bigot for daring to advocate seperate lines.
Been there, done that.