Question for the dems

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I think this has more to do with how people perceive things.

I, personally, strive to look things in an upbeat and positive fashion - you know... the glass half full analogy. I started this back in my youth after seeing how successful(defined by their own goals and aspirations) people's attitudes were positioned.

I think alot of people have the glass half-empty mentality and dwell on the negative. I've seen it here, I've seen it at work, I've seen it almost everywhere so why shouldn't this whole "attitude" thing spill over into politics?

I don't think it's so much that they WANT the US to fail - it's just that they take positions that they would benefit from the "bad". No, not a conscience choice, and definitely not a situation where they want or hope for failure - it just happens to be how things sit.

CkG

Do you think more Republicans are glass-half-full types more often than Democrats are? If so, what is your evidence. If I took your post and replaced "they" with "Republicans" in '96 it would still make sense.

Now if you would actually read what I posted instead of assuming - you'd see that I'm was "defending" the left against the accusation that the left "wants" or "tries" - as in consciously making that choice.
As far as "evidence" - it's my opinion and is based on my experience dealing with people and knowing their political affiliation. That doesn't mean that there aren't positive people on the left - if you assumed that I was trying to say that. I know a few optimistic minded democrats but far more who take the half empty approach.
Like I said - it just happens to be how things sit.

Does that mean you are admitting that what I said was true of today? If you want to compare to 1996 or any other year don't you have to agree with my premise?

CkG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Now if you would actually read what I posted instead of assuming - you'd see that I'm was "defending" the left against the accusation that the left "wants" or "tries" - as in consciously making that choice.

I read your post. I asked. I forgot a question mark on my second question. You assumed I assumed.

As far as "evidence" - it's my opinion and is based on my experience dealing with people and knowing their political affiliation.

I'm not convinced. There is a risk that you were projecting or that you live an area where Democrats aren't representative on the whole.

That doesn't mean that there aren't positive people on the left - if you assumed that I was trying to say that.

I didn't assume. I asked.

Does that mean you are admitting that what I said was true of today?

No. Not really.

If you want to compare to 1996 or any other year don't you have to agree with my premise?

I just said it would make sense. I think your assertion makes sense (as opposed to a Crimson-style argument that is based on people being hateful- that doesn't make senes), but I don't agree with it necessarilly.

Finally, I think a lot of people would look at your "defense" of liberals and see it as a form of a put-down. Generally being seen as "negative" (i.e., half empty type of person) is not a good thing.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genesys

Links between Iraq and terrorism are tenuous, at best. And, those frail links were NEVER a threat to the United States.

would you rather wait untill it were a threat, or nip the rose at the bud, so to speak.

Saddam was never going to be a threat to us.

1) He was contained
2) His WMD programs had been dismantled
3) His armed forces lacked training, working equipment, etc.

hate breeds hate. he hated the US, and would have passes it on to his sons. not only that, but you cannot possibly be deluded enough to think that he gave up his WMD pursuit for good? He wanted and acquired them once, he was bound to do it again.

I refer you back to point #1.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Now if you would actually read what I posted instead of assuming - you'd see that I'm was "defending" the left against the accusation that the left "wants" or "tries" - as in consciously making that choice.

I read your post. I asked. I forgot a question mark on my second question. You assumed I assumed.

As far as "evidence" - it's my opinion and is based on my experience dealing with people and knowing their political affiliation.

I'm not convinced. There is a risk that you were projecting or that you live an area where Democrats aren't representative on the whole.

That doesn't mean that there aren't positive people on the left - if you assumed that I was trying to say that.

I didn't assume. I asked.

Does that mean you are admitting that what I said was true of today?

No. Not really.

If you want to compare to 1996 or any other year don't you have to agree with my premise?

I just said it would make sense. I think your assertion makes sense (as opposed to a Crimson-style argument that is based on people being hateful- that doesn't make senes), but I don't agree with it necessarilly.

Finally, I think a lot of people would look at your "defense" of liberals and see it as a form of a put-down. Generally being seen as "negative" (i.e., half empty type of person) is not a good thing.

? I know your second sentence was a question - I responded to your question asking for evidence with how I came to the opinion I have. I didn't assume anything except that you meant your second sentence to be a question.

I didn't expect you to be "convinced" - I stated my opinion based on my experience and what I have been witnessing.

Anyway - You answered "no" to my question of if you think it is true today. Why isn't it?

Ok -so you agree with my premise since you say it makes sense - just not the conclusion. How exactly do you think it would make "sense" in '96?

Also, you or others taking it as a "put-down" would be your(or their) problem not mine. I don't agree with the insinuation that the left "wants" or "tries" - that is what I was "defending" the left against. My explaination of why may not be to your liking but again - your issue - not mine.

CkG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Anyway - You answered "no" to my question of if you think it is true today. Why isn't it?

I don't think it's about people viewing things as half-full or half-empty. I think it's more about people wanting to knock down their opponent and just simply pointing out problems they feel exist without necessarily thinking of the other guy.

Ok -so you agree with my premise since you say it makes sense - just not the conclusion. How exactly do you think it would make "sense" in '96?

Can you clarify what your premise is? I don't want there to be any confusion. I think it makes sense for '96 because I think it can be argued (but I don't agree with it) that Republicans who were negative about Clinton were being half-empty types.

 

[ciba]

Links between Iraq and terrorism are tenuous, at best.

Eh?

As for a direct threat to the US... do you disagree that it is wise to stamp out terrorism worldwide?

And, those frail links were NEVER a threat to the United States

I assume this is much like OBL not being a threat to the US when he was offered as a prisoner during the Clinton administration?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: conjur
Links between Iraq and terrorism are tenuous, at best.

Eh?

Yes, tenuous. Saddam was paying the surviving family members of suicide bombers...he wasn't paying suicide bombers themselves. Is that supporting terrorism or is it supporting the surviving family members? Tenuous.

As for a direct threat to the US... do you disagree that it is wise to stamp out terrorism worldwide?

Of course it's wise to stamp out terrorism worldwide. Saddam didn't commit acts of terrorism. He brutalized his own citizens and killed thousands upon thousands to quell uprisings (the ones in 1991 occurring while the U.S. stood idly by after having encouraged the Kurds and the Shiites to revolt.)

The war on terror is first and foremost w/Al Qaeda. Bush squandered a grand opportunity to cleanse Afghanistan by diverting attention and resources into Iraq.

And, those frail links were NEVER a threat to the United States

I assume this is much like OBL not being a threat to the US when he was offered as a prisoner during the Clinton administration?

bin Laden was never offered to the U.S. You should do better research. Manjoor has been discredited from his claims.


Oh, and, btw, learn how to quote a person's post.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ciba
1) He opposes outsourcing, but his sugar momma pays his bills thanks to Heinz.
2) He doesn't take responsibility for his voting record. Yes, he voted for the war, but he didn't really vote for the war. My expectation of Congress is that they exercise some level of due diligence. Ignorance is not a valid excuse.
3) Kerry's supporters (I believe he intentionally distances himself from this) hammer Bush's war record. Kerry goes from throwing his medals (but they weren't really his) on the white house lawn to trying to be the war-hero candidate. The war-hero president which got a purple heart for a papercut!
4) Taxes. The top 5% of wage earners already pay for most of the government, but that isn't enough! Let's try to cut spending instead (which, coincidentally is the single biggest reason I dislike Bush).
5) He voted for the patriot act. Rallying against it now is simple political convenience.
6) NCLB - He bashes on this education bill, but guess what? Yup, he voted for it.

Sure, some flip-flop is expected. People change their minds and that's acceptable. That is why I didn't include his views on NAFTA, among other bills he voted for, but opposes now. These are simply a handful that he voted for, but won't take responsibility for now.

To top it off, when Kerry does something as simple as fall skiing, he blames it on someone willing to take a bullet for him. I didn't see Bush blaming any secret service agents when he ate it off his mountain bike.

I understand where you are coming from and you make some good points. On the other hand the Dub and his Administration have shown themselves to be untrustworthy at worse and best just plain incompetent, especially in regards to the War in Iraq and the reasons he used to persuade the American Public to support his ordained invasion and occupation of that country.

IMO he jumped the shark there. If he would have finished the job in Afghanistan and put more effort into quashing Al Qaeda and their allies he woulod have been a shoe in for this next election.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genesys

Links between Iraq and terrorism are tenuous, at best. And, those frail links were NEVER a threat to the United States.

would you rather wait untill it were a threat, or nip the rose at the bud, so to speak.

Saddam was never going to be a threat to us.

1) He was contained
2) His WMD programs had been dismantled
3) His armed forces lacked training, working equipment, etc.

hate breeds hate. he hated the US, and would have passes it on to his sons. not only that, but you cannot possibly be deluded enough to think that he gave up his WMD pursuit for good? He wanted and acquired them once, he was bound to do it again.

His desire for them and his attempts to acquire them were never dismatled.

Plus dont forget he was a huge funder of terrorism...especially in Israel

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: ciba
"You really don't understand global economics, do you?"

I'm not referring to global economics. I'm referring to his talking about business leaders with no dedication to america, when he benefits from a company with significant overseas investments. I understand hypocrisy just fine!

If I remember correctly Kerry ain't profitting much from Mrs. Heinz's wealth. Heck, she doesn't even contribute to Kerry's campaign. Interpret that as you like

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Plus dont forget he was a huge funder of terrorism...especially in Israel

Moreso than our great friends and allies Saudi Arabia?

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Plus dont forget he was a huge funder of terrorism...especially in Israel

Moreso than our great friends and allies Saudi Arabia?

Perhaps its time to right that wrong as well?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Plus dont forget he was a huge funder of terrorism...especially in Israel

Moreso than our great friends and allies Saudi Arabia?

Perhaps its time to right that wrong as well?

You Volunteering your services? Hell we even supported Terrorist in the 80's (Remember the Contra's?)

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genesys

Links between Iraq and terrorism are tenuous, at best. And, those frail links were NEVER a threat to the United States.

would you rather wait untill it were a threat, or nip the rose at the bud, so to speak.

Saddam was never going to be a threat to us.

1) He was contained
2) His WMD programs had been dismantled
3) His armed forces lacked training, working equipment, etc.

hate breeds hate. he hated the US, and would have passes it on to his sons. not only that, but you cannot possibly be deluded enough to think that he gave up his WMD pursuit for good? He wanted and acquired them once, he was bound to do it again.

His desire for them and his attempts to acquire them were never dismatled.

Plus dont forget he was a huge funder of terrorism...especially in Israel

Saddam gave money to the surviving family members of suicide bombers. That's not quite funding terrorism.

And, containment meant Saddam could not acquire nor use WMDs.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: conjur
I refer you back to point #1.

not very well if he was taking pot shots at our planes patrolling the no fly zones.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: conjur
Saddam gave money to the surviving family members of suicide bombers. That's not quite funding terrorism.

And, containment meant Saddam could not acquire nor use WMDs.

if saddam gave oney to the families of suicide bombers, what do you presume the families did with the money? i havent heard of any more rich palestinean families in the middle east, but i hear all the time about how palestinean terrorist orginizations keep bombing the sh|t out of Israel. those bombings take money ya know.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: conjur
I refer you back to point #1.

not very well if he was taking pot shots at our planes patrolling the no fly zones.

Were any planes hit?

Out of over 100,000 sorties, not one plane was ever hit.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: conjur
Saddam gave money to the surviving family members of suicide bombers. That's not quite funding terrorism.

And, containment meant Saddam could not acquire nor use WMDs.

if saddam gave oney to the families of suicide bombers, what do you presume the families did with the money? i havent heard of any more rich palestinean families in the middle east, but i hear all the time about how palestinean terrorist orginizations keep bombing the sh|t out of Israel. those bombings take money ya know.

So, because *you* "haven't heard of any more rich palestinean [sic] families" means the families didn't keep the money?

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genesys

Links between Iraq and terrorism are tenuous, at best. And, those frail links were NEVER a threat to the United States.

would you rather wait untill it were a threat, or nip the rose at the bud, so to speak.

Saddam was never going to be a threat to us.

1) He was contained
2) His WMD programs had been dismantled
3) His armed forces lacked training, working equipment, etc.

hate breeds hate. he hated the US, and would have passes it on to his sons. not only that, but you cannot possibly be deluded enough to think that he gave up his WMD pursuit for good? He wanted and acquired them once, he was bound to do it again.

His desire for them and his attempts to acquire them were never dismatled.

Plus dont forget he was a huge funder of terrorism...especially in Israel

Saddam gave money to the surviving family members of suicide bombers. That's not quite funding terrorism.

And, containment meant Saddam could not acquire nor use WMDs.

Containment and appeasement are the cowards way

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Plus dont forget he was a huge funder of terrorism...especially in Israel

Moreso than our great friends and allies Saudi Arabia?

Perhaps its time to right that wrong as well?

You Volunteering your services? Hell we even supported Terrorist in the 80's (Remember the Contra's?)

If you remember, which you clearly don't, is that the Contras were fighting The Sandanistas who were a Communist force.

One of the major goals of the Reagans Admin. was to stop the spread of communism.

Oh and yes....If asked I would go.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: conjur
I refer you back to point #1.

not very well if he was taking pot shots at our planes patrolling the no fly zones.

Were any planes hit?

Out of over 100,000 sorties, not one plane was ever hit.

Though some planes were locked on with radar, which is considered an act of aggression/war....

The pilots were well within their rights to reply with a missle or ten....

BTW...there wasnt a missle strike that Clinton ordered/allowed that I didnt support.

The only thing I didn't like was that we didnt get into Yugoslavia sooner.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genesys

Links between Iraq and terrorism are tenuous, at best. And, those frail links were NEVER a threat to the United States.

would you rather wait untill it were a threat, or nip the rose at the bud, so to speak.

Saddam was never going to be a threat to us.

1) He was contained
2) His WMD programs had been dismantled
3) His armed forces lacked training, working equipment, etc.

hate breeds hate. he hated the US, and would have passes it on to his sons. not only that, but you cannot possibly be deluded enough to think that he gave up his WMD pursuit for good? He wanted and acquired them once, he was bound to do it again.

His desire for them and his attempts to acquire them were never dismatled.

Plus dont forget he was a huge funder of terrorism...especially in Israel

Saddam gave money to the surviving family members of suicide bombers. That's not quite funding terrorism.

And, containment meant Saddam could not acquire nor use WMDs.

Containment and appeasement are the cowards way

Gen. Anthony Zinni would disagree with that.