Why are you voting for Kerry?

[Douglas]

Nothing like having someone make sweeping generalities based on ill-conceived and barely researched notions. Pretty pathetic' date=' Douglas.

 

I especially like the part where I'm against business in general. Why, because I like it when companies treat their workers fairly? Or when I insist that they are held accountable to stockholders and pension recipients?

 

You forgot the part where we hate the soldiers and hope they get hurt just because we're against the war in Iraq. That's usually part of the conservative rhetoric as well.

 

I don't think anybody is going to give you a dumb, ill-conceived list of fallacies against the conservatives. We'll leave the hate to you and yours.[/quote']

It's interesting that you only picked one (1) of my statements.

they're not sweeping generalities based on ill-conceived and barely researched notions. It's common knowledge....you know....like 2+2=4

 

Your last 2 paragraphs were like...shoving words in my mouth, try not to do that. Then remember, when you run out of arguments, don't resort to flaming

[Phi for All]

Sorry, by the way, I just couldn't resist -- the irony was too rich.

No problem, Pangloss. Most everyone here appreciates those who are thorough. But Thales was giving his own personal opinions of Bush, not trying to tell everyone what all conservatives are for and against. And not everyone realizes that Bush could be just a figurehead for Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz's neo-con agenda. Bush may well be the patsy in all this.

 

Are you familiar with the Fundamental Attribution Error? It states that we all tend to package people up as a set of fundamental attributes, rather than taking each of their actions and beliefs in context of the situations. It's hard to fight against, but I feel we must try if we aren't going to be guilty of Douglas' kind of sweeping generalities.

 

Don't you hate being pigeon-holed? Especially by someone who hasn't listened to a word you've said?

[Pangloss]

Are you familiar with the Fundamental Attribution Error? (etc)

 

No, that's a new one on me. Thanks for the tip.

 

In fact, I see Wikipedia has a good article on it. (I'm really starting to get into that Wikipedia thing....)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

[Phi for All]

It's interesting that you only picked one (1) of my statements.

It was the funniest, but there were others. All the taxation things. You don't believe in taxation? Where would we get the money to pay for things? Doesn't it worry you that the deficit puts us in danger from foreign loans?

they're not sweeping generalities based on ill-conceived and barely researched notions. It's common knowledge....you know....like 2+2=4

"Leniency of sentencing crooks to jail", that's not a sweeping generality that lumps all trials of all crooks in all courts together? Name me one single bill the liberals have voted down that does all that, please.

 

Your last 2 paragraphs were like...shoving words in my mouth, try not to do that.

I'm glad you said it was "like" shoving words in your mouth. Because I said you forgot an argument that was "usually" used against liberals. More like holding it up in front of your face, just short of shoving it in your mouth.

Then remember' date=' when you run out of arguments, don't resort to flaming[/quote']Flames would be calling YOU dumb, Douglas, not your list. Please don't misunderstand. I said your list of things I am for and against was dumb.

[Phi for All]

No' date=' that's a new one on me. Thanks for the tip.

 

In fact, I see Wikipedia has a good article on it. (I'm really starting to get into that Wikipedia thing....)[/quote']Aren't they great? If that article peaks your interest, I highly recommend The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. He touches on it, plus has some very interesting info on several related subjects.

 

FAE has become one of my pet principals. I need to find a much more in-depth book and go to the next level with it.

[Douglas]

No problem' date=' Pangloss. Most everyone here appreciates those who are thorough. But Thales was giving his own personal opinions of Bush, not trying to tell everyone what all conservatives are for and against. And not everyone realizes that Bush could be just a figurehead for Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz's neo-con agenda. Bush may well be the patsy in all this.

 

Are you familiar with the Fundamental Attribution Error? It states that we all tend to package people up as a set of fundamental attributes, rather than taking each of their actions and beliefs in context of the situations. It's hard to fight against, but I feel we must try if we aren't going to be guilty of Douglas' kind of sweeping generalities.

 

Don't you hate being pigeon-holed? Especially by someone who hasn't listened to a word you've said?[/quote']

Talking about sweeping generalities, seems I read a couple of yours on this thread.

 

When you were talking about Bush's lies, you mistakenly sent me this thread

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/bush_lies.html

 

Sorry, I have listened to everything you've said, including the web sites you posted. I agree with some, certainly not all

 

Lastly, the last people to be neo-cons would be Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz

[Phi for All]

Talking about sweeping generalities, seems I read a couple of yours on this thread.

Seems?

 

When you were talking about Bush's lies, you mistakenly sent me this thread

No mistake. Big businesses own the major media outlets. Part of successful spinning in Washington these days is to leak the right thing at the right time.

 

Sorry, I have listened to everything you've said, including the web sites you posted. I agree with some, certainly not all

As it should be. Forgive me if I seemed to doubt you, but when you lump all liberals into a barrel and start shooting, it makes you seem pig-headed and intractable. I'm glad this is not the case.

 

Lastly, the last people to be neo-cons would be Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz

Check this out, I don't have time for more now, I'm preparing for a business meeting. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html

The PNAC is alive and well and living in the Bush administration.

[budullewraagh]

Lastly, the last people to be neo-cons would be Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz

what about ashcroft and bush?

[Pangloss]

Aren't they great? If that article peaks your interest, I highly recommend The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. He touches on it, plus has some very interesting info on several related subjects.

 

FAE has become one of my pet principals. I need to find a much more in-depth book and go to the next level with it.

 

Thanks again. That looks absolutely fascinating. I've always wondered if there was a name for that, I just never thought to look into it. It makes perfect sense that someone has gone through and reasoned it all out.

[Phi for All]

Thanks again. That looks absolutely fascinating. I've always wondered if there was a name for that, I just never thought to look into it.

You're welcome.

Neo-conservatives and the Project for the New American Century. If you don't know what that's about' date=' you should find out. These guys have stolen the Republican party from mainstream America, and most of mainstream American doesn't even know it.[/quote']Could I persuade you to illuminate us just a bit? Douglas seems to think that:

the last people to be neo-cons would be Cheney' date=' Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz[/quote']

[Pangloss]

Sure. First, some reading material from objective/centrist/moderate/independent sources, just to prove that it's not tin-foil-hat territory:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

 

That site covers it really well, but of course folks unfamiliar with Wiki work have only my word that it is objective/independent (and it sounds like witchery, doesn't it? definitely a tin-foil-hat sort of name!), so I'll just mention briefly that this is a self-proclaimed organization with a public web site (URL just below), whose goals are stated right there on their site. There's nothing secret about any of this.

 

http://newamericancentury.org/

 

Also, Pat Buchanan, one of the most conservative people on the planet, a guy who makes Rush Limbaugh look like Al Franken, has a new book out called "Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency". If Pat Buchanon thinks the neo-cons are a real deal, then I think it's safe to say they're a real deal.

 

More about Pat Buchanan can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan

 

Regarding the membership, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are all members, by their own admission. Cheney and Rumsfeld actually founded the group, along with William Kristol, the editor of Weekly Standard. I believe Richard Perle of AEI (another Heritage Foundation offshoot, as is PNAC) was also a founder. Other prominent members include Elliott Abrams (NSC advisor for mid-east policy), Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby, and a host of other conservative movers and shakers like Gary Bauer, William Bennett, Jeb Bush, Eliot Cohen, Steve Forbes, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, and James Woolsey.

 

What's a little stranger (and this is where the tin foil hat types start to glance skyward) are the membership of folks like Seth Cropsey of Voice of America, or Francis Fukuyama of the President's Council on Bioethics (who obviously advises the president on issues such as embryonic stem cell research).

 

Let me follow up in a separate post about what it is that makes PNAC and the neo-cons that gives guys like me pause, and a gives guys like Michael Moore and Al Franken great big heaping pile of "AIEE!" This message is getting kinda long and I'm not sure if there's a size limit on this board.

[Pangloss]

Actually, before I get to that, I should point out, that many members of the administration are notably absent from that list, such as Karl Rove. I've read that he's a mover and shaker within the neo-cons, but apparently he's never been pinned down on the subject, so he's not on the "known" list.

 

But there are others who are clearly not on the list because they do not agree with PNAC/neo-con politics. Obvious entries on this list would include, of course, Colin Powell, and I would say also Condoleeza Rice is not likely a PNAC/neo-con. Also I looked into former HUD Secretary Mel Martinez recently, because he's running for senate here in Florida, and upon finding that he does not appear to be a member (in spite of being asked to run by Karl Rove himself), I voted for him in the August 30 Republican primary.

 

And, of course, Bush himself is not a member.

 

 

Getting back to the question at hand, what makes PNAC and the neo-cons a little scary is primarily their position on foreign policy matters. You see, simply put, the neo-cons believe that it IS the job of the United States to be the world's policemen.

 

Now I'm in the States, so if you guys overseas are getting a sense of "of course, don't all Americans feel that way?" from that statement, let me assure you -- we do not. Most of us are sick and tired of being stuck with that job, in fact, and many of us feel that we are placed between a rock and a hard place by international opinion. Damned if we do something, damned if we do nothing.

 

Which is why you generally don't hear members of PNAC talking about PNAC. It's not a SECRET, but at the same time, it's not something they're going to trumpet either. It just doesn't "play in Peoria", so to speak.

 

PNAC *says*:

- American leadership is good both for America and for the world;

- Such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy, and commitment to moral principle;

- Too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership;

 

Which sounds harmless until you read on to see such phrases as "military action is an acceptable and necessary resort". Of course they would say that if you don't back up your position with strength, then you're not going to get anywhere in international politics, because there simply isn't enough (any?) international law to base anything on.

 

PNAC is also in favor of creating an American "Global Constabulary" -- a police force of American soldiers, enforcing compliance around the world.

 

No, really.

 

It was PNAC that got the ABM treaty discarded from American compliance. They've been on the top of the political food chain for a while now -- this stuff predates Bush, and really began with the Reagan administration.

 

But it's important to keep in mind -- they are NOT the only voice in the Republican party. They're simply the strongest voice at the moment.

 

The PNAC/neo-cons generally make up what people usually hear referred to as the "hawks" in the administration. That's how I feel most Americans know them -- as the hawks. When I speak with my conservative friends, they're generally surprised to learn about PNAC/neo-conservatism. They generally start fitting me for a tin foil hat at that point, which is why this argument is just rolling off my keyboard -- I've had this conversation at least half a dozen times this summer.

 

That's it, in a rather largish nutshell. Apologies for the length. (Maybe I should have started a separate topic, eh? I can see I didn't even get into why I don't think these guys are really all that scary in the final analysis.)

[Phi for All]

How are they getting past some of the obvious Republican hurdles like smaller government? With the Patriot Act behind them they can increase government intrusion into the lives of millions as long as they can prove National Security concerns, however flimsy. It seems to me that these guys want to BE Big Brother.

[Pangloss]

How are they getting past some of the obvious Republican hurdles like smaller government?

 

I think they just plain aren't. This is also the branch of the party that's most closely tied with the military-industrial complex.

 

The defense budget has gone from $250 billion to almost $500 billion in only ten years. Obviously part of that started with Clinton (we deferred a lot of spending, I believe), and there's certainly an inflation component, but $500 billion?! It's crazy. No other country in the world spends more than (I think -- don't quote me on this) $65 billion.

 

I don't think most conservatives and Bush supporters are even aware that that's the case. People view the Democrats as the party that *decreased* spending on defense (incredible!), and the massive increases have somehow stayed beneath the public radar.

 

But again, there are counter-arguments to these points, and other factors to consider in a two-party election. You'll note that I'm still considering voting for Bush in spite of these factors. There is a reason for that.

[Guest yourmom123]

Let me give it to you straight up. There are 3 things that attract me to Kerry, and that is why he's getting my vote. 1. He knows the difference between Iraq and Al Quieda 2. Hello, the constitution is what founded our country let's try not to nullify it, and 3. Anybody can live their life the way they want to, same-sex or not. I could go on but you guys just make me sick. Bush is ridiculous. He's ****ed our country over enough in the 4 yrs he's gotten, let's not give 'em any more. As a friend of mine and me joke: G.W. can stand for two things: Genital Warts and George W., one's cured by a cream, and the other by a vote. Get 'er done! Get the U.S. of A. back on the right track. KERRY/EDWARDS '04

[Sayonara]

You know, that kind of help probably doesn't.

[Mokele]

Why am I voting for Kerry? Well, I try to avoid saying I'm voting for him; I really don't like him. But I detest Bush. So I say "I'm not voting for Kerry, I'm voting against Bush."

 

That aside, most of it boils down to 3 things: a) How Bush has violated the separation of church and state blatantly, b) Bush's silly stem-cell problems, and worst of all c) Bush's position that I and many of my friends are inferior, less-than-human beings who don't deserve to have basic human rights, like getting married.

 

There's other reason, but those are the ones that really send me into fits of apoplectic rage.

 

Mokele

[Pangloss]

ABB at its most transparent.

[Mokele]

ABB at its most transparent.

 

Well, not *anyone*. I can see lots of people who would do lots worse than even Bush. That homeless guy in the park who accuses squirrels of conspiring against him, for one...

 

Then again, at least the War on Squirrels would be more entertaining than the War on Terror...

 

Mokele

[Pangloss]

[atinymonkey]

That homeless guy in the park who accuses squirrels of conspiring against him' date=' for one...

 

[/quote']

 

 

Oh God, he noticed them? I'm going to get in trouble now, they were supposed to be covert. I've wasted over 12 million on those little vermin, and this is how they repay me?

 

I'll give them nuts, you wait and see. More nut's that they can handle.

 

Oh my, yes.

[-Demosthenes-]

Indeed, I would like to have more nuts...

[Mad Mardigan]

Why am I voting for Kerry? Well' date=' I try to avoid saying I'm voting for him; I really don't like him. But I detest Bush. So I say "I'm not voting for Kerry, I'm voting against Bush."

 

That aside, most of it boils down to 3 things: a) How Bush has violated the separation of church and state blatantly, b) Bush's silly stem-cell problems, and worst of all c) Bush's position that I and many of my friends are inferior, less-than-human beings who don't deserve to have basic human rights, like getting married.

 

There's other reason, but those are the ones that really send me into fits of apoplectic rage.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

Why not vote for Micheal Badnarik then, If you are only voting for Kerry cause you dont like Bush.

[blike]

c) Bush's position that I and many of my friends are inferior, less-than-human beings who don't deserve to have basic human rights, like getting married.

 

Apparently you missed the debates. Chalk "a" and "c" off your list.

[Mad Mardigan]

Let me give it to you straight up. There are 3 things that attract me to Kerry, and that is why he's getting my vote. 1. He knows the difference between Iraq and Al Quieda 2. Hello, the constitution is what founded our country let's try not to nullify it, and 3. Anybody can live their life the way they want to, same-sex or not. I could go on but you guys just make me sick. Bush is ridiculous. He's ****ed our country over enough in the 4 yrs he's gotten, let's not give 'em any more. As a friend of mine and me joke: G.W. can stand for two things: Genital Warts and George W., one's cured by a cream, and the other by a vote. Get 'er done! Get the U.S. of A. back on the right track. KERRY/EDWARDS '04

 

So much crap there, it takes 2 Johns to flush.