Shout Box

Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 10 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 7 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#49916 - 12/03/09 04:09 PM Re: letter to the Red States :-) [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5973
Loc: 212 land
Originally Posted By: Daniel
Originally Posted By: oenophore
If enough people agreed that voting for Nader was the right thing to do and had acted accordingly, Nader would be president -- after all, that's what one wishes for in voting for a candidate. It is better, in my opinion, not to be intimidated into voting for a so-called lesser evil by the specter of indirectly voting in the greater one.


Yeah, but he's got to build a greater platform first if he's going to be anything but a spoiler. In my opinion, such candidates cause more harm than good unless they have a reasonable shot to begin with, and one can create a reasonable basis for success without running for office and making things worse for everyone. I mean, 8 years of Bush? That wasn't just the worse of two evils; that was an unmitigated disaster that endangered the very constitutional basis of our government.

Nader said that he ran because he wanted to move the Democratic party to the left. But if you move the party to the left without moving the public to the left, you're just ceding territory to the opposition (much like the Republican party may be doing in reverse today). If Nader had used his considerable skills and resources to move public opinion first, maybe he would have had more support. But I think he harmed himself by taking the approach he did.
I won't comment on what Daniel wrote above other than to say it's not inconsistent with my position -- to vote for the candidate of one's first choice.
_________________________

Top
#49925 - 12/04/09 04:10 PM Re: letter to the Red States :-) [Re: talus]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Originally Posted By: talus
Then if they don't want live under Taliban let them fight their own civil war. No need for the US to go over.

Obama really has you mesmerized that everything he does is right, kind of scary.


I think that last comment is unfair. There's no evidence that I think that "everything" Obama does is right. I've criticized him elsewhere on several issues. Nor have I stated that his Afghanistan plan is necessarily right; I've only argued that it's not so easily dismissed as necessarily wrong. I think that in the face of so many unknowns, a little humility in our own opinions is probably a good idea.

As for the Afghans fighting their own war, they can probably do so right now in the cities. But there's no way for a small village in a rural area to stand up to a concentrated number of opponents, especially in rugged terrain. And it's these areas which some people claim would be the "safe havens" for those who would endanger the security of the US. Now, one may disagree with the claim that eliminating these "safe havens" is really necessary or even possible. But I think to say "let them fight their own war" is too easily dismissive of arguments that should be taken seriously. (In addition, I think it's worth considering the potential effects that a Taliban enclave would have on Pakistan, which would lead to a whole host of concerns. This is not an Afghanistan-only issue.)

And, by the way, the plan is to let them fight their own war: with the timeline for a drawdown to start in 2011, the idea is to expand and train local forces so they can do just that. If responsibility doesn't start to transition to Afghan forces, either because the task is just too difficult or the national or local governments prove to be too corrupt, then I think it's useless to stay because no more help can be given unless we stay indefinitely, which we simply couldn't do even if we wanted to (which I don't).

I just don't think it's so clear yet that this plan will fail, which is why I'm willing to give it some time--and one shot. But I understand given the history why others are less willing to do so.

Top
#49927 - 12/04/09 04:24 PM Re: letter to the Red States :-) [Re: oenophore]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Originally Posted By: oenophore
I won't comment on what Daniel wrote above other than to say it's not inconsistent with my position -- to vote for the candidate of one's first choice.


I don't know about that. My argument is that candidates should build a larger base of support and show viability before running, otherwise that candidate is just being a spoiler. I don't see why that doesn't apply to voting too. Once a candidate has a critical mass of people willing to vote for that candidate as long as the others in that critical mass do as well, then that candidate becomes viable and it makes sense for those voters to jump in together. But where a small number of votes may decide an election, then I don't see how a vote that creates a worse outcome makes sense except as a protest vote (which is not necessarily a bad justification).

It would be interesting to see how many Nader voters in Florida 2000 were happy with their decision in retrospect. And instant runoff voting would resolve some of the problems, though it has problems of its own.

Top
#49928 - 12/04/09 04:52 PM Re: letter to the Red States :-) [Re: talus]
Leemouse2 Offline
addict

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 459
Loc: Rosendale, NY
Our pulling out of Afghanistan all of a sudden would have larger repercussions than Afghani's having to choose either to live under the Taliban or to fight their own civil war. While in power, the Taliban, among other things banned all employment, education, or sports activities for women - many of whom were widows supporting children (after years of war) for whom complying with such a ban would literally be a death sentence. Instead they worked in secret and would regularly receive beatings from the religious police for it.
_________________________
It's hard to be brave when you're a chicken.

Top
#49930 - 12/04/09 06:55 PM Re: letter to the Red States :-) [Re: Daniel]
yorick Offline
old hand

Registered: 11/15/02
Posts: 1041
Loc: hamlet\'s hand
Originally Posted By: Daniel
It would be interesting to see how many Nader voters in Florida 2000 were happy with their decision in retrospect. And instant runoff voting would resolve some of the problems, though it has problems of its own.


You might be right about viability and building support, but it's bullshit that Nader lost the election for Gore. Gore won Florida. He didn't have the political savvy or chutzpah or guts to figure out how to hold onto it. Not to mention, Gore couldn't carry his own fuc*ing state. You can't pin that on Nader. Like Kerry after him, who never challenged the abuses in Ohio, he didn't want it. Gore and Kerry didn't want it badly enough, and the Democratic party couldn't muster it up to defend them.

What we have in there now is Clinton III. Another disgrace, and boy am I sorry I swallowed that snakeoil.

The only objective in Afghanistan is to get Bin Laden. The rest is garbage face-saving, as we go deeper and deeper into the pockets of China to pay for it. Can't wait to see what happens when the bill for most expensive facial in history comes due.
_________________________
Shongum ain\'t Indian,
it\'s Shawank-unk.

Top
#49931 - 12/04/09 07:22 PM Re: letter to the Red States :-) [Re: Leemouse2]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
Originally Posted By: Leemouse2
Our pulling out of Afghanistan all of a sudden would have larger repercussions than Afghani's having to choose either to live under the Taliban or to fight their own civil war. While in power, the Taliban, among other things banned all employment, education, or sports activities for women - many of whom were widows supporting children (after years of war) for whom complying with such a ban would literally be a death sentence. Instead they worked in secret and would regularly receive beatings from the religious police for it.


Sorry Lee I don't buy that same old larger repercussions argument. Please tell me how it is the US responsibility to invade Afghan, so US troops can be trapped like a rat while Taliban surround our troops.

Funny during Bush all Donkey's were against Iraq, yet now are supporting Afghan.
Peace
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#49932 - 12/04/09 07:39 PM Re: letter to the Red States :-) [Re: Daniel]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
Originally Posted By: Daniel
And, by the way, the plan is to let them fight their own war: with the timeline for a drawdown to start in 2011, the idea is to expand and train local forces so they can do just that. If responsibility doesn't start to transition to Afghan forces, either because the task is just too difficult or the national or local governments prove to be too corrupt, then I think it's useless to stay because no more help can be given unless we stay indefinitely, which we simply couldn't do even if we wanted to (which I don't).

I just don't think it's so clear yet that this plan will fail, which is why I'm willing to give it some time--and one shot. But I understand given the history why others are less willing to do so.


To put a time line on this is just plan dumb. There is no way you can tell how long this will take. Plus with Obama saying let's go in there in see what happens is a lousy attitude! If you go in you go in to win not pussy foot around.

Also why the hell does Obama think NY should put the terrorists on trial? so the terrorists can say how horrible the US is and open NY up for another attack?
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#49934 - 12/04/09 10:04 PM Re: letter to the Red States :-) [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5973
Loc: 212 land
Originally Posted By: Daniel
Originally Posted By: oenophore
I won't comment on what Daniel wrote above other than to say it's not inconsistent with my position -- to vote for the candidate of one's first choice.


I don't know about that. My argument is that candidates should build a larger base of support and show viability before running, otherwise that candidate is just being a spoiler. I don't see why that doesn't apply to voting too. Once a candidate has a critical mass of people willing to vote for that candidate as long as the others in that critical mass do as well, then that candidate becomes viable and it makes sense for those voters to jump in together. But where a small number of votes may decide an election, then I don't see how a vote that creates a worse outcome makes sense except as a protest vote (which is not necessarily a bad justification).

It would be interesting to see how many Nader voters in Florida 2000 were happy with their decision in retrospect. And instant runoff voting would resolve some of the problems, though it has problems of its own.
Shall one who ardently agrees with a candidate's platform restrain voting for that candidate if there is no visible "critical mass" for him? Note that no "third party" has ever risen to nationwide major status since the Republican Party in the 1850s. Many a voter, no just me, feels that both major parties need a serious colon cleansing and that it won't take place until they are strongly challenged. Viability be damned; I'm willing to leave the mainstream on this even if few follow.
I'll agree that instant runoff voting may be a good idea. Perhaps this might require amendments of state constitutions (I'm rather ignorant here) and that would take considerable time and effort.
.................................................................

Also why the hell does Obama think NY should put the terrorists on trial? so the terrorists can say how horrible the US is and open NY up for another attack?

You can't be serious, Talus.
_________________________

Top
#49935 - 12/04/09 10:18 PM Re: letter to the Red States :-) [Re: oenophore]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
Originally Posted By: oenophore

You can't be serious, Talus.


dead serious! you think this is a good idea? this is a matter for the military to handle!
what's your real name anyway oeno?
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#49937 - 12/04/09 10:56 PM Re: letter to the Red States :-) [Re: talus]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5973
Loc: 212 land
you think this is a good idea?

Criminal suspects are to be tried in accordance with law.

US Constitution
Article III
...
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.



And not to disappoint my fans (if any) here's a relevant strip.


Top
Page 7 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored