Jump to content


Photo

WAR ON IRAQ <- All Posts, POLLS, Question, and


  • Please log in to reply
308 replies to this topic

Poll: WAR ON IRAQ <- All Posts, POLLS, Question, and

WAR ON IRAQ <- All Posts, POLLS, Question, and

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#301 TheGreatVirus

TheGreatVirus

    X-S Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,930 posts
  • Location:666 Feet Under
  • Interests:I am TheGreatVirus
  • Xbox Version:v1.1

Posted 19 June 2003 - 06:45 AM

QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Jun 18 2003, 08:57 PM)
You're preaching to the choir here. And thanks. TGV did an exceptional job, for no other reason than having spare time.

Hey man I did it because ur a cool guy 2! laugh.gif

#302 The unProfessional

The unProfessional

    X-S Expert

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 516 posts
  • Location:Southern California, USA
  • Interests:See website....
  • Xbox Version:v1.0

Posted 21 June 2003 - 04:51 AM

About the cold hard facts...

It's not a perfect world. Many things, especially historical events (as Lizard said) leave only some evidence for us to analyze. Why do you think historical scholars exist? Because things ARE ambigious... there are always theories -- because things can't always be proven in such a 1/0 Yes/No fashion.

it's reality, my friend... people disagree. not everything is quite so black and white. Hell, some people aren't even sure if they're gay or straight!

Debating is always a healthy thing. Basically, those of us lucky enough to enjoy a free country are welcome to express our opinions. Have you ever wondered why schools have debate programs? Because it's a great intellectual exercise to debate. It tests our critical thinking skills and teaches us how to control our temper while expressing our ideas and opinions. It's a GOOD thing... never take it for granted, because some people just simply aren't ALLOWED to do it.

Edited by The unProfessional, 21 June 2003 - 04:52 AM.


#303 fletch_dev

fletch_dev

    X-S Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 65 posts

Posted 23 June 2003 - 03:05 PM

QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Jun 19 2003, 11:57 AM)
That makes one of us. I don't want a democratic government; I agree with the guys that came up with the term that it is tantamount to mob rule. There is no such things as true representation in any government; the proper role of representation in government like America's small r republic is not to do exactly as 51% of the people want but to moderate the most extreme impulses of the masses and the influence of demagogues.

So to get back to your question, I don't think that's ever happened, anywhere, and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on it, either.

I disagree. A democratic government must strive to do what a well informed majority wants. Thomas Jefferson said, "A well informed democracy will act responsibly" and he was right.

You're getting carried away with the charisma of leaders even though you state demagogues should be moderated.

You're also trying to rail-road the argument Lizard, because the method of governance is not the real issue. The issue is, can the people please have some information? That is my number 1 complaint.

The other concern I have is when you talk about ambiguity in historical events as being a reason to accept ambiguity in every day life. I'll have to remember that if I ever cause a car accident. "Don't worry about it now, in a few days the events of the accident will be so mysterious that everyone will agree it cannot be explained". This is unacceptable in governance. We are here right now (well we were, of course it is too late now) so please explain right now what is going on and why? It's not actually history yet!

Now I have a query. I am very much detached from the U.S. system of election but what I see from the outside is a leader who has surrounded himself with powerful CEO's (or ex-CEO's, it's your call). Now in his current campaign Bush looks like he will raise an enermous amount of election funds, far more than his opponents. To me this a grave concern because I feel it is a bad way to present a leader. More money, more marketing. Is marketing the best way to sell a leader? If government selection boils down to the election process then should goverments be forced to sign contracts? Like a contract of employment. The best candidate for the job. Is money and profile the best way to choose a leader.

You could say, "well at least people know who they are voting for". I would say, if representing the candidates is an issue then the govt should fund all campaigns equally and no external funds should be accepted. You could have 3 or 30 or 50 registered parties who all received the same amount of campaign funding.

I am very suspicious of people who are motivated by fund raising and when you surround yourself with business men I assume it is not for the moral insight. smile.gif

#304 The unProfessional

The unProfessional

    X-S Expert

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 516 posts
  • Location:Southern California, USA
  • Interests:See website....
  • Xbox Version:v1.0

Posted 23 June 2003 - 05:16 PM

I like your arguments regarding marketing and the way it can easily poison an election -- as it has in the past, i'm sure. Never is marketing the best way to judge a "product", however, it is usually the best way to sell it. So, as marketing succeeds in selling us B.S. products, it will probably succeed in selling the people their leader. It always has.

I'm a semi-support of Bush. I'm a republican, however, I disagree with quite a few of his "behaviors". But, unless I see a more promising leader in the 04 elections, I'm sure i'll cast my vote his direction. As of now, the left has proposed nothing promising, giving Bush a HUGE advantage.

As for my references on ambiguity.... I may have come across incorrectly. My intention was not to say that ambiguity should be accepted in all situations. But, ignorantly, someone said they want black and white facts right here and now. Let's be a little reasonable here... a little over 2 months after a war, he wants all the details? Give me a break. Things are still very tense and by all means still underway. So, how can anyone expect all the details right now?

You want a detailed analysis of the war, why it took place, etc. Well, you must wait until everything's on the table. The Bush administration will soon be under investigation as to whether or not things were exaggerated, and to what degree. He will lose most of his credibility if things are proven against him. Then you'll have your cold hard facts. But, for right now, no one's going to give them to you. Also, don't just accept what the media throws at you... try to come up with some thoughts, then you can see the obvious holes in what the media tells you.

#305 Lizard_King

Lizard_King

    X-S Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,702 posts

Posted 24 June 2003 - 12:31 AM

QUOTE
fletch
I disagree. A democratic government must strive to do what a well informed majority wants. Thomas Jefferson said, "A well informed democracy will act responsibly" and he was right.

You're getting carried away with the charisma of leaders even though you state demagogues should be moderated.

Thomas Jefferson said a lot of crazy shit. Some brilliant, some not so much, and some that is in between. "A well informed democracy...", however, I have never heard as his words. I would be very interested to see your source for that, as well as the context, as it doesn't jibe with what I know of his style or substance. For instance, here are some quotes I know to be his:
QUOTE
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

or for instance from his first inaugural address in 1801
QUOTE
"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

which sounds to me like pretty clear definition of small r republicanism, which is in political science terms the logical opposite of democracy in the representative government field. And since you brought him up, here's a quote I'm sure you'll love:
QUOTE

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not


ANYWAY, A well informed majority is an oxymoron by its very nature. The majority of people either lack the capacity or the interest to fully engage themselves in political matters, although many take action under the impression that something someone intelligent said once is sufficient grounds.

I am not getting carried away; if anything, the remarkable thing about our century is precisely how uncharismatic so many of our demagogues are. Intelligent people have the same tendencies, albeit they tend to choose intelligent but no less dangerous people to follow blindly, out of laziness, mainly.

QUOTE
Fletch
You're also trying to rail-road the argument Lizard, because the method of governance is not the real issue. The issue is, can the people please have some information? That is my number 1 complaint.


Railroad? Please. Get a grip. You want to talk about sidetracking, it is folks like yourself that demand 100% transparency when it is convenient to your arguments, knowing full well that were the shoe on your ideological foot you would not mind, and then pretend it is a principled stand rather than a maneuver like any other. The method of governance is precisely what is at issue.

You seem to think that the mobocracy would lean in your direction, ergo you wish that decisions were left to a majority criterion alone. I think that is a dangerous course whether or not the masses would agree with my preferred course of action, and therefore I could give two shits whether Joe Blow on the street is adequately equipped to judge our foreign policy. The nice thing about a republican government (small r) is that it functions in layers and checks and balances, rather than simply expecting everybody to be capable of judging everything in plebiscites.

QUOTE
Fletch
The other concern I have is when you talk about ambiguity in historical events as being a reason to accept ambiguity in every day life. I'll have to remember that if I ever cause a car accident. "Don't worry about it now, in a few days the events of the accident will be so mysterious that everyone will agree it cannot be explained". This is unacceptable in governance. We are here right now (well we were, of course it is too late now) so please explain right now what is going on and why? It's not actually history yet!


That is a lovely example of hyperbole and ad absurdum logical fallacy, but it does little to prove your point. If we were discussing an event anywhere near as simple as a car accident, and as insignificant, then it is both efficient and logical to judge on the available evidence as soon as possible to get it out of the way. When dealing with complex political questions, decisive action is crucial, but final summation of the worth of that action takes a damned long time to figure out. At the moment, it is far more important to weigh the visible consequences of the action, and project future action accordingly. When we have the luxury of time and investigation would not be directly perilous to national security, I am sure we will be able to wallow in facts and sound opinions, armageddon permitting.
You have to use your reason and knowledge of the past to create a reasonable picture of the present, but craving certainty is folly.
QUOTE (fletch)

Now I have a query. I am very much detached from the U.S. system of election but what I see from the outside is a leader who has surrounded himself with powerful CEO's (or ex-CEO's, it's your call). Now in his current campaign Bush looks like he will raise an enermous amount of election funds, far more than his opponents. To me this a grave concern because I feel it is a bad way to present a leader. More money, more marketing. Is marketing the best way to sell a leader? If government selection boils down to the election process then should goverments be forced to sign contracts? Like a contract of employment. The best candidate for the job. Is money and profile the best way to choose a leader.

Well, that is almost a sound criticism of the direction our polity is headed, but it ultimately fails due to your partisan focus. Is the Democratic machine somehow less intimidating in that respect because it is the big hollywood figures and and cartels like the RIAA that line its pockets? Remember when Bush challenged Gore, in the midst of his histrionics about how the fat cats were taking over, to release the relative donation sizes/donor wealth figures for the Dem rolls? Yeah, he predictably refused, because it's hard to run on a populist ticket when it is the rich kids backing you by and large.
Either way, it is not the big money behind the candidates that is ultimately at issue, whatever form it may take. It is whether you find the aims that they will surely promote acceptable or not. Me, I'll take the kind of lobbyist that knows how to run an oilfield over one that puts out the latest hollywood shit fest any day, but that's just a matter of taste: it is when I examine their separate agendas that one (I'll let you guess) becomes exponentially more unacceptable.
My desire when I see a president surround himself with people is focused on competence, not on where they come from per se. I think we are better off with businessmen with concrete successes in their pasts than, say, public servants with far more nebulous achievements in their background.

QUOTE

You could say, "well at least people know who they are voting for". I would say, if representing the candidates is an issue then the govt should fund all campaigns equally and no external funds should be accepted. You could have 3 or 30 or 50 registered parties who all received the same amount of campaign funding.

I think your cure is worse than the disease. What you do then is create yet another government bureaucracy, which will allow for a virtual welfare system of political parties with no grounding on whether anybody actually wants to vote for them or not. Aside from the inefficiency, I think it is fundamentally immoral to assume that egalitarian redistribution is somehow superior to people deciding who they want to give their money to.

QUOTE

I am very suspicious of people who are motivated by fund raising and when you surround yourself with business men I assume it is not for the moral insight. smile.gif


Har har har. Because business is naughty, huh? All that "being productive and materially useful" is just evil by its very nature? Like I said, all other things being equal, I'll take a businessman over a professional bureaucrat any day. At least he's operated on merit once in his life before.

So, are we sidetracked enough yet?

laugh.gif

#306 George "dubya" W. Bush

George "dubya" W. Bush

    X-S Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 24 June 2003 - 02:27 AM

Your check is in the mail.



#307 Lizard_King

Lizard_King

    X-S Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,702 posts

Posted 24 June 2003 - 04:32 PM

Clever. Is that all you've got?

#308 The unProfessional

The unProfessional

    X-S Expert

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 516 posts
  • Location:Southern California, USA
  • Interests:See website....
  • Xbox Version:v1.0

Posted 24 June 2003 - 05:09 PM

Wow... you took the time to do that but failed to actually assemble an argument?


Maybe I should create a fake Hillary Clinton account and toss a check your way...

that could work...

Nick: The one and only Mrs. Hillary Clinton
Signature: I love Me, you should love me too
Image: 2 smiley pictures of me, 2 pictures of me kicking over kids' bikes.

#309 flagg

flagg

    X-S Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 286 posts

Posted 24 June 2003 - 09:58 PM

QUOTE
like your arguments regarding marketing and the way it can easily poison an election -- as it has in the past, i'm sure. Never is marketing the best way to judge a "product", however, it is usually the best way to sell it. So, as marketing succeeds in selling us B.S. products, it will probably succeed in selling the people their leader. It always has


Well said. Damn I should have taken more poly science classes so I could come up with something original respond with smile.gif Again, well said.

Edited by flagg, 24 June 2003 - 09:59 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users