Paintball Guns and Gear forums banner

1 - 20 of 83 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
898 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Well folks, with a lot of the political threads arising lately, many of which turn into useless flame battles, I have decided to make a thread consisting of real questions about the candidates, facts, 9/11, etc. to be answered by knowledgable people. No more of this "I heard it on the campaign commercial!" trash. For the past two months, few people on this board seem to know what they're talking about. Having been reading about politics and the current race for the past two months, I have learned quite a lot about the actual truth of the situation. Few people have shown intelligence in this category so I'm asking only knowledgable people to answer questions. People I wish to join me in answering questions are:

Shytkicker
Javaman
HP_Lovecraft
Spudchucker

If you have knowledge about this subject and are not on the list, I have yet to see it.

So, to recap, this is a thread where knowledgable people will answer political questions. Please, serious questions only.

Thank you and good day. thumup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
898 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
bob005 said:
ok, here's a question:

who will pull the economy out of the ****ter more thoroughly than the other?
While Kerry has outlined some plans for the economy (bringing jobs back from foreign places, etc.), Bush has yet to outline his plans. He will unveil them at the Republican National Convention. So, when this does happen, we shall see who seems more effective.

Note: The economy is shown to be on the rise at the moment. However, the study that showed this was very short-sighted and did not take the future into account very well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
917 Posts
Why do liberals have such an intense hatred of Dubya? Why did they him before the Iraqi War?

And can people who actually know about a certain subject answer a question about it? [I'm not very well-informed, politically, but I have good bit of connections with economists, government officials who work in budget, and college professors (some of whom aren't full of hot air.) :)]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
898 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
HippoMaster said:
Why do liberals have such an intense hatred of Dubya? Why did they him before the Iraqi War?

And can people who actually know about a certain subject answer a question about it? [I'm not very well-informed, politically, but I have good bit of connections with economists, government officials who work in budget, and college professors (some of whom aren't full of hot air.) :)]
To the second question, yes. Just plase be sure to know what you're talking about and represent it with facts.

To the first question: liberals and the political left dislike George W. because he represents everything they are against. The first time he aggravated liberals was in one of his first speeches after 9/11 when he called the terrorist acts "evil". Liberals hate to bring spirituality into government and consider it a folly to do so. Since George is a strict Catholic and feels free to share his beliefs, this further enrages them. Strike number 1. Besides the fact that he is a republican (their "enemy"; strike number 2), they dislike him for his stance on the war. Throughout history, liberal and the Left have subscribed to a policy known un-officially as "appeasement", which is to say, trying to complete all possible non-violent methods of problem-solving before anything is done. George strongly disagrees with this policy, as does most of the political Right. He believes that evil people cannot be appeased and that action must be taken immediatley to stop people seen as "evil". Strike number 3.

To sum it up in a nutshell, George stands for everything they don't. They believe he is irrational and impulsive when it comes to descision making and disagree with the way he has handled the economy and the country.

Liberals are seen to conservatives as cowards and appeasers. Conservatives are seen to liberals as war-mongers and impulsive.

As to why he was disliked before he became president, it's more or less the same thing. He stands for what they don't. Simple, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
917 Posts
That would describe why they disagree with him. I know liberals who would "throw a brick at Bush if [they] saw him walking down the street."* It's very scary, and from what I've heard, it's widespread. I don't really want Kerry as president, but I would want to attack him!

*That was after the "Clean Air Act."
 

·
Wheeeeee!
Joined
·
1,366 Posts
I don't think the term 'hatred' applied so much before the war in Iraq.

In fact, many liberals applauded Al Gore for being 'the better man,' and conceding the ellection squabbles to Bush. Liberals were further annoyed when Bush squandered much of the surplus in his 'tax rebate' stimulation plan. Mostly, because the money may have been better used within the government. Which shouldn't really be a partisan issue. We certianly could have used it going into the Iraq war, for instance.

Beyond that, liberals tend to see Bush as overbearing and arrogant. That is, for the longest time, America was a beacon of democracy and free thought to the world. Naturally, it was counter-productive, I think, for Bush to enter into the Iraq war without the full support of several key UN nations, who believed there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq. Now that it turns out they were ultimately right, (some debate this still, but when you change the question to "did the U.S. have any real proof of nukes in Iraq," the answer has to be a resounding "no") America's credibility in matters of international intelegence and world leadership is forever injured.

Furthermore, Bush outright lied in making this assumption. And nobody likes a liar. Conservative, OR liberal.

But again, the liberal perspective towards Bush pre-9/11 was the same as any individual towards their opposite politician. I suppose it's the same as asking "why did conservatives hate Clinton so much?" A resounding "go figure." :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
898 Posts
Discussion Starter #8 (Edited)
Shytkicker said:
I don't think the term 'hatred' applied so much before the war in Iraq.

In fact, many liberals applauded Al Gore for being 'the better man,' and conceding the ellection squabbles to Bush. Liberals were further annoyed when Bush squandered much of the surplus in his 'tax rebate' stimulation plan. Mostly, because the money may have been better used within the government. Which shouldn't really be a partisan issue. We certianly could have used it going into the Iraq war, for instance.

Beyond that, liberals tend to see Bush as overbearing and arrogant. That is, for the longest time, America was a beacon of democracy and free thought to the world. Naturally, it was counter-productive, I think, for Bush to enter into the Iraq war without the full support of several key UN nations, who believed there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq. Now that it turns out they were ultimately right, (some debate this still, but when you change the question to "did the U.S. have any real proof of nukes in Iraq," the answer has to be a resounding "no") America's credibility in matters of international intelegence and world leadership is forever injured.

Furthermore, Bush outright lied in making this assumption. And nobody likes a liar. Conservative, OR liberal.

But again, the liberal perspective towards Bush pre-9/11 was the same as any individual towards their opposite politician. I suppose it's the same as asking "why did conservatives hate Clinton so much?" A resounding "go figure." :D
Glad to have you with me Shytkicker. The more knowledge the better. thumup:

However, there is documented evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, prior to entering. CIA reports dating back to 1993 showed that Saddam was indeed planning to build nuclear weapons and was planning in hiding them in other nations.

Also, there was evidence of an Al-Qaeda link to Saddam. Stephen F. Hayes revealed that Saddam's lieutenants held regular mettings with bin Laden and his emisasaries from 1990 through te period immediatley before the American invasion in 2003. Other CIA reports reveal that "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq" and that Saddam's vice president and other intelligence officials met with Al Queda leaders in Baghdad, Sudan, and Afghanistan. (PM me for the scource if you like.)

thumup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
898 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Shytkicker said:
Yo, Dante. :D Let the red hot [rational discussion] begin!
Let's just hope it stays that way. thumup:
 

·
don't drop the soap
Joined
·
3,895 Posts
One question I have to the liberals against the Iraqi war. Even if there were supposedly no WMD in iraq, it is was made loud and clear that they were harboring terrorist. Now I recall Bush saying when he declared war on terrorism that any country harboring terrorist would be considered the enemy. Wouldn't that be falling back on our word if we did not go to war with them anyways?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
898 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Gabriot said:
One question I have to the liberals against the Iraqi war. Even if there were supposedly no WMD in iraq, it is was made loud and clear that they were harboring terrorist. Now I recall Bush saying when he declared war on terrorism that any country harboring terrorist would be considered the enemy. Wouldn't that be falling back on our word if we did not go to war with them anyways?
Well, it's not the liberals word at stake. Bush is the one who declared that doctrine and the liberals have always disagreed with it. Therefore, that doctrine is moot to the political left.
 

·
Wheeeeee!
Joined
·
1,366 Posts
Gabriot said:
One question I have to the liberals against the Iraqi war. Even if there were supposedly no WMD in iraq, it is was made loud and clear that they were harboring terrorist. Now I recall Bush saying when he declared war on terrorism that any country harboring terrorist would be considered the enemy. Wouldn't that be falling back on our word if we did not go to war with them anyways?
Good question, but you're making some bold assumptions in how you're phrasing it.

First of all, every country has terrorists. This is factual.

So the question is: was Iraq "harboring" terrorists, or was Iraq simply their place of residence?

The 9/11 commission has made it clear that there was, evidentally, "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaida. On the other hand, there are, or were, clear and evident monetary relationships between the Saudi royals and several terrorist organizations, including Al Qaida.

So no, it was not made 'loud and clear' that Iraq was harboring terrorists. In fact, they really weren't.

And then, the egregiousness of 'going back on the president's word' relies heavily on weather or not you agree with the president's stance. Also, in hindsight, we've escalated Iraq's terrorist population simply with our presence there. So if our goal is eliminating terrorism, the entire war is easily a full step backwards. All of which was predicted before hand by many liberal writers and politicians, alike.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
187 Posts
Shytkicker said:
Yo, Dante. :D Let the red hot [rational discussion] begin!
Whats the red hot begin supposed to mean. if you put something in brackets you are supposed to be able to read it without that part and also it should be in parenthases(i don't know how to spell that word and am to lazy to spell check but you can not read this part and still understand the statement) not brackets. And you claim that you are informed. go back to grade school. Sorry for flaming but sometimes liberals make me cranky. Sorry thumup:
 

·
Wheeeeee!
Joined
·
1,366 Posts
AwpDaWhales said:
Whats the red hot begin supposed to mean. if you put something in brackets you are supposed to be able to read it without that part and also it should be in parenthases(i don't know how to spell that word and am to lazy to spell check but you can not read this part and still understand the statement) not brackets. And you claim that you are informed. go back to grade school. Sorry for flaming but sometimes liberals make me cranky. Sorry thumup:
This post speaks for itself. :D You have a PM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
912 Posts
Gay marriage

I have 2 questions about gay marriage. Do you think it is ok? And how much affect do you think it will have on the presidential race?

I personally think that it is wrong and unconstitutional.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
917 Posts
Why is it unconstitutional? It will be if that admendment is passed, but as of now, it's debatable. I personally think it's immoral and am against it, but I can't find any solid evidence to back up my position.

As of now, I am forced to use this stance: I think marriage should be outlawed, but we should create a new "marriage" that doesn't carry the same connotations, but carries the same legal privileges. That way, both sides win, and the s will shut up.
 

·
We The People
Joined
·
5,925 Posts
Wow...What idiot left out HP_Lovecraft from this thread?

As for the whole hating Bush thing, I don't think you guys have really answered anything. Why? Because I don't believe there is an answer to it, which is what saddens me so. Most of the people who 'hate' Bush are not even true liberals, they are just democrats or people who go with the crowd. It is honestly the popular thing to do (hating Bush). There is no reason for it. I did not agree with Clinton's politics, but I did not hate him. The thing with Bush is some unknown personal hatred. They don't just hate his politics, they hate him. If you ask me it's irrational and doesn't really speak well for the American public or the people of the world in general. How can they so hate a man they have never met? I'm sure he's a nice guy, yet with the way people are they would prefer a murderer to Bush.

-Jin
 

·
Wheeeeee!
Joined
·
1,366 Posts
You think gay marriage is unconstitutional? Please explain.

Honestly? The gay rights movement is just like every other movement. Inevetable. It is likely to meet up with much resistance, as did the black rights movement, and the woman's right's movement, and even the smaller off-shoots like inter-racial marriage. No matter what, eventually it will become law that two men can marry. And eventually, it will become common-place, and we'll find another, more trivial social minority to concentrate on. And by that time, it'll simply be common-place. The same way that members of today's conservative movements wouldn't dare publicly speak out against minorities or women in the work place, even if there are lingering stereotypes and prejudices.

Do I think it is okay? I dunno, I've never tried it! :D J/K. I certianly don't think that it's 'wrong,' if that's what your're asking, except that I have no inclination to ever try it myself. As far as I can tell, the only 'reason' people have to hate it is because some passage in Leviticus, the same biblical book that discusses all kinds of capital punnishment for such offenses as "witch-craft," and adultery. I think that the same passage is refferenced in some parts of the Apistles also, but it's merely a re-itteration of the Old Testament beliefs.

If it is your belief that homosexual intimacy is simply wrong, the Supreme Court has already stricken down Texas's so-called "anti-sodomy" legislation. So what are we saying, honestly, if we tell America that it is permissable for gays to have sex, but not to marry? Doesn't that just seem like a self-enforcing stereotype? For so many years, people were biased against gays because they were viewed as promiscuous. Now, they come out and ask for a legally sanctioned monogamous relationship, and suddenly that's not an option?

And really, this should be a non-issue. I suppose I'm just not seeing the victim, here. With a nearly 50% divorce rate, I can't believe people are trying to say that gays are the ones trying to ruin the sanctity of marriage, when half the straights can't even get it right to begin with.

I think its effect on the presidential ellection may be limited to certian reigions. For the records, John Kerry has not endorsed gay marriage, Bush is proposing a very trivial ammendment to the constitution based on it, and he has lost a swing-vote portion of voters in doing so. Believe it or not, there ARE gay conservatives, such as the self-proclaimed "log house republicans." I don't think Bush will gain a whole lot of votes on this issue. As I see it, anyone who sees the abolishment of gay marriage rights as such a priority is probably already voting conservative. On the other hand, Bush already stands to lose votes, simply for being so vocal on the issue.

All the while, Kerry has kept a pretty tight lip about it. And after all, like I said, it really SHOULD be a non-issue. Marital policy takes a back seat to issues like war, economy, and terrorism.

Jinjiro said:
As for the whole hating Bush thing, I don't think you guys have really answered anything. Why? Because I don't believe there is an answer to it, which is what saddens me so. Most of the people who 'hate' Bush are not even true liberals, they are just democrats or people who go with the crowd.
Democrats... ARE liberals.

Jinjiro said:
It is honestly the popular thing to do (hating Bush). There is no reason for it. I did not agree with Clinton's politics, but I did not hate him. The thing with Bush is some unknown personal hatred. They don't just hate his politics, they hate him. If you ask me it's irrational and doesn't really speak well for the American public or the people of the world in general. How can they so hate a man they have never met? I'm sure he's a nice guy, yet with the way people are they would prefer a murderer to Bush.

-Jin
But aren't you also talking about a group of people you've generally never met also? :)

As far as distinguishing between hating a person and hating their actions... what is the distinction there? ("Is evil something you are, or something you do?") Someone commits a murder in cold blood- would you say you hate the murderer, or the murder itself? The murderer, of course. And a lot of people, world around, see the War in Iraq the same way. Wether or not you agree, it seems that the majority of Europe, and a significant fraction of our own country, sees Bush as a murder.

Not simply because he went to war. But because he waged an unnessecary one. Because war was a first resort, and took a back seat to checking our facts. And it turns out, we were wrong. Bush made a huge gamble on the credibility of his information, which was suspect to begin with- and when you go to war for the wrong reasons, and with bad information- people don't like that. Because it demonstrates that you're willing to do whatever you want, whenever you want, without any accountability for the facts behind your motivation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
757 Posts
:yum

Forget the election, is anarchy feasible? If not why have such great minds as Noam Chomsky and Sartre gravitated to the system of no system? Discuss.
 
1 - 20 of 83 Posts
Top