December 24, 2007
For the Ron Paul fans
Let's see how he approaches history. Hint, he thinks Lincoln started the Civil War. Oh, and he would vote against the Civil Rights Act if it were before him today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
65 comments:
I don't have a lot of time, but he doesn't seem to be entirely wrong. I am not some Ron Paul fanatic, but his problem is that most of his positions take a great deal of explaining to get what he is trying to say. I certainly don't agree with everything he has to say, but you can't say he isn't consistent. If he thought the Constitution wouldn't allow the Civil Rights Act, then he wouldn't vote for it, no matter how much he would like the results. That doesn't make him a racist.
I still like him better than any of the other Republican candidates.
Merry Christmas.
Steve- I agree with you on the explaining part. I'm tired of politicians being expected to give sound bite answers to complicated issues. One of the reasons I love Bill Moyers and Charlie Rose is that they actually have a lengthy conversation with people with whom they may or may not agree. Moyers especially is gifted at letting a person explain and clarify. Ron Paul is difficult for me to deal with on several levels, but he does have a long record that anyone can review if they have the time and, from what I've seen, he IS consistent as opposed to others who have recently redone their image for national electability.
He's departed from many of the Libertarian social positions (sexuality, abortion, war on drugs, etc....) that appeal to me while adhering closely to the more classical stands on role of government and economics. For lack of a better term, he seems to drip less political goo than the others.
Later- BB
Civil Rights act, maybe, but his stance on the Civil War is ridiculous.
Well, Streak, at the risk of being run out of the virtual room, I'll suggest that a discussion on alternatives to the civil war would be worthwhile. I'm sure the discussion has taken place. I've been a part of some brief "what if" conversations, mainly with non-Americans. The civil war carries so much emotion with some people it can be difficult to maintain rational discussion, but I think it's a worthwhile topic. Streak- you're the US history expert, not me, so I realize I may be showing my ignorance or naivete. I doubt our american-ness would have allowed anything other than a war, but over 600,000 dead and blowback spanning 150 years should stimulate us to explore the question. Some off the top of my head would be- What alternatives did Lincoln have? Could other pressures have been put in place? Was preservation of the union worth half a million dead? Can we take any lessons from European nations who abolished slavery without war? These questions reflect the benefit of hindsight, but that doesn't negate the potential lessons. I'm not agreeing with Paul's position, just taking it on a tangent:-).
Later- BB
"Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have the right to do and what is the right thing to do."- Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart
I think the problem with Paul's assumption is first that Lincoln caused the war. He took office assuring the South that he would not abolish slavery in the South. He wouldn't let it spread, but he would let it stay there and was willing to do so.
The other part is worth a post later--but it was the mind of the South--already by the time of the war heavy into siege mentality and steeping their kids in the language of "evil Yankees."
We can talk about this more..
Streak, Thanks for the interesting link. I am not sure you know the author of the blog but one was at your venerated university.
It reads perfectly abhorrent to argue that the U.S. should have kept people in bondage for just one more day. Moreover, it seems problematic to argue that civil rights is somehow a property rights issue. It smacks of the Civil War being over state's rights, not slavery.
-- CIL Merry Christmas again.
Streak- I'm with you on the "Lincoln caused the war" part. I agree it's a tangent- something for a post on it's own. - BB
Lincoln could have let the Union dissolve. I am glad he didn't, but that was an option. I guess I find it an annoying question. What is the point of asking his opinion on historical topics? I wonder what he thinks about the actions of Rome during the third Punic War?
If he is interested in what Dr. Paul would do, then ask some questions about policy. Since the South lost, what is the point in rehashing Lincoln?
Steves- I'm sure alot of these type questions are to help paint the "he's a whacko on this topic so dismiss him on all of them" portrait, allow the 5 second sound bytes to be circulated on all the newertainment programs, and eventually montage them in political ads.
Time to overeat
-BB
I beg to differ. The actions of past Presidents is not irrelevant to ask to someone who claims to want to occupy the office. Second, as this blog and others have shown, the Civil War is still being fought by many people in this country. I fear that Dr. Paul was trying to appeal to those--and with all due respect to many of my southern friends, that demographic is not one that is, shall we say, progressive on race.
I tend to think that Russert's motives were closer to BB's point than Streaks. I don't think it is completely irrelevant, but I also think most in the media don't like him. Bill Maher and Jon Stewart are the exceptions and have been fairly decent to him.
I don't know if Dr. Paul is trying to appeal to the southern vote. It is more likely that he believes that it was Constitutional to secede. Do you think he is racist?
I have no clue about Russert's motives. I don't respect the man, but the interview appeared to draw on previous Paul statements--which is hardly out of bounds.
Is he a racist? I think he is a white southerner who believes they have the luxury to speak about slavery in a theoretical tone. CIL's comment is pretty much on the mark--abhorrent that slavery would last one more day, and equally abhorrent that civil rights was simply a property rights issue.
Let me just say that I think Paul has gotten a lot of mileage out of opposing the war and wanting to restore his vision of the constitution. What is missing is the wackier side that his fans want to simply ignore. I am by no means convinced that a President Paul would actually be a good thing.
Streak- I, too, don't think he'd be my choice for president. Regarding the abhorence of slavery continuing another day, I agree completely. However, and here I'm in your territory so please correct me where I'm off, my understanding is that while it's wrong to say the civil war and Lincoln's motivation had nothing to do with slavery, it's also incomplete to say that it was all due to slavery. It's been a long time since I've read Oates' biography of Lincoln, but that's my recollection from that particular work. I am 100% in agreement that slavery needed to be ended. My question is one of methodology- could this goal have been reached by other means and could additional goals have been accomplished as well (economic stability, economic opportunity for freed slaves, avoidance of some of the ills caused by the sledgehammer approach of civil war). I think this is particularly applicable to current events as US policymakers draft short and long-term plans. Moral imperatives (e.g. slavery) too often result in short-term actions (war) that actually hinder the overall long term goals (freedom, economic prosperity, racial healing, liberty, etc...). In my opinion you can replace other moral imperatives such as genocide, political oppression, evil dictators, etc... This latter part is completely off topic - sorry about that. I have too much time on my hands for the first time in years during the holidays:-)
Later- BB
No, these are good questions. I still think the mind of the south would not allow some kind of peaceful solution. The response during reconstruction rather proves that in my mind. With slavery over and the war a done-deal, the south was still completely resistant to any kind of land reform and resisted every possible step in racial integration.
I don't want to blame the south for everything. As i tell my classes, the North was more anti-South than anti-slavery, and was certainly anti-black--but the south was completely resistant to any kind of racial reconciliation.
Could we have done this without war? I don't know. The secession statements of each state and the complete antagonism toward the north suggests otherwise. Add to that the post-war (to this day) romanticism of the Southern Confederacy, and you have a very difficult time convincing me that the South would have given up slavery peacefully.
To be fair, perhaps we have to push our "if" back further. Perhaps had the movement started earlier (Revolution, or earlier) then the South might have been an easier nut to crack.
Hope the inlaws are treating you well. My best to all there.
"To be fair, perhaps we have to push our "if" back further. Perhaps had the movement started earlier (Revolution, or earlier) then the South might have been an easier nut to crack."
Another (gasp) aside- I have had interesting conversations with a some Ausie and Indian friends concerning the US revolution. They, of course, point to the US and our apparent need to solve all of our issues with war. They point to their independence from Britain through nonviolent means. I, of course, point out the fact that each independence takes place at a different time and under a different British regime. I haven't been too convincing. They're opinion is that its just how we (Americans) do things. I had trouble coming up with evidence to the contrary.
Back to the war of northern aggression- I see your point on the southern hostility. Still, so much blood.
The in-laws are wonderful. I'm lucky. The only concern is the volume of delicious, hi cal food.
Later- BB
BB, that's an intriguing (and disturbing) observation from your Aussie and Indian acquaintances. I also don't really have a good comeback for that one. We're a culture that likes to fight, pretty much hands down, and codified it into our consitution. Please, keep your guns to fight the Brits, and also to hunt, and if you need it, to shoot your neighbors down in the streets. It's inescapable.
I'm not sure if we have a bloodier past than any other empire in history, but we've got a pretty awesome habit of fetishizing armed conflict into an item of beauty.
I think that a Civil War had to happen. If it wasn't over slavery, it would've been over something else. We like to fight, it was inevitable. In case you haven't noticed (and as astute students of the American Experience, I know you all have), we also like being aggrieved. We're specialists at being wronged. For better or ill.
mr paul is strictly laissez-faire in his econimic views. if you think that we're heading towards an oligarcy or corporatocracy, just let paul have the reins and we'll be there in spades. we need a return to both roosevelt's clamp-down on corporate power, not more unfettering of it as paul advocates. regulations are a good thing if the protect the common man.
As I thought (with the exception of 2) it appears that no matter what happens war is never acceptable. I guess if we fail to peacably talk Iran out of a nuclear weapons program that we should just send them flowers and be done with it? I am amazed by the idiotic romantic notion of some on the left!
As far as commenting on the the two countries who left in peace...hmmm...of course this is an over simplified answer but it is worth looking at. What natural resources do either of those countries offer? How much of the British Military resources were necessarily to overwatch those two countries in comparision to the US? When you begin looking at the decision to go to war there are several things that must be considered...distance, location, amount of time needed to resupply, etc.
Quite simply America was much closer therefore easier to fight against and had more resources and value to fight for and I believe (this is a guess) is a bigger landmass. So militarily it makes perfect sense why to let the other 2 go without conflict while fighting to keep the US
Rickdog, why would we want to interfer with corporate america?
Why would we take money from those who earn it and give it too those who dont?
Streak, I would love to hear how you think there are many people who are still fighting the Civil War?
I have a question to everyone. What if they used the property thing simply to get it overturned without believing that slaves were property?
How many of you have ever used an issue that you might not have agreed with in order to win something bigger?
Have you ever even given those people the benefit of a doubt that they used property rights because they knew if they used it (whether they agreed with it or not) to defeat slavery.
Streak, you are correct when you say maybe we should back up the IF.
If the framers had struck down slavery then and there it would of made a huge difference...then there is too consider if the south would of supported the revolution then...
I am amazed by the idiotic romantic notion of some on the left!
I guess this is you demonstrating that grace you claim?
As for the civil war still being fought, just read about those who defend the Confederacy to this day, or those who battle to keep the confederate flag on their capital. I wasn't being literal.
Not sure what you mean about property rights. Unfortunately, our belief in property rights is selective (like so much else). Perfectly willing to deny certainly groups property rights (Indians) but completely unwilling to give up white property rights in any kind of post CW land reform.
The grace was demonstrated by taking the time to read the all of these posts.
"it appears that no matter what happens war is never acceptable. I guess if we fail to peacably talk Iran out of a nuclear weapons program that we should just send them flowers and be done with it? I am amazed by the idiotic romantic notion of some on the left!"
Not sure where this came from. I'm certainly not advocating flowers. I do think there's a wide array of options between attempting to "peacably talk Iran out of a nuclear weapons program" and "send(ing) them flowers." I agree that the flowers notion would be idiotic but as far as I can read, you were the only one to suggest it. The historians that contribute here can correct me if I'm wrong, but negotiations, sanctions, war, and other tools of conflict resolution don't necessarily carry "left" vs "right" distinctions. I'm not clear how these kinds of statements contribute to the conversation.
Later-BB
I have to agree with the BB here. It seems like a false opposition--that the only choices are between war and giving flowers.
I think you project a lot of weird ideas on the left. Yeah, many of us value peace. Is that such a bad thing? That doesn't mean that most of us don't understand that sometimes violence will happen and may be the only choice.
But for some on the right, violence appears the only choice you like. Neo cons, for example, seem to embrace some kind of American Empire that will (and should) overpower such regions as the Middle East with their military might and simply force them into submission. I am not as comfortable outside American history, but it seems to me that the history of empires usually turns out badly.
As for the Civil War, I reject the idea of inevitability in history. There are many, many variables that go into something like this. Western expansion, ideas about labor and commerce, economic development at the regional level, etc. But slavery had become this intractable "deal breaker." As I said in my earlier comment, I am also very critical of northerners after the war, because I think forcing the issue of some kind of land reform could have gone a long way toward some kind of racial reconciliation. But the same northerners who didn't mind taking land from the Cherokee weren't going to take land away from people who had rebelled against the union.
That, in my mind, was a huge mistake.
BB...I will tell you where my comment came from. Here is streak with a good amount of historical information and he talks about how he thinks there was not really a possibility of that happening without war. Yet many of you besides Steves and Streak are bashing the war part of it.
So it seems to me that you guys have no ability to justify any war!
Should we work to a peaceful conclusion? Absolutely...where possible. Should we want peace and the reign of peace? Absolutely...where possible.
The problem is that we have a bunch inpotent governments i.e. UN that couldnt ensure or enforce peace if it was given to them.
If we want peace we must prepare for war.
"Yet many of you besides Steves and Streak are bashing the war part of it." Still don't see what you are talking about. Discussing possible alternatives isn't bashing. Thanks for the clarification, though. -BB
BB said "I doubt our american-ness would have allowed anything other than a war...What alternatives did Lincoln have? Could other pressures have been put in place? Was preservation of the union worth half a million dead? Can we take any lessons from European nations who abolished slavery without war?"
rob said "We're a culture that likes to fight, pretty much hands down, and codified it into our consitution. Please, keep your guns to fight the Brits, and also to hunt, and if you need it, to shoot your neighbors down in the streets. It's inescapable."
There was a comment awhile back and I cant remember who, but had to do with teh Supreme Court Ruling about the vote count in Florida.
Whoever brought that up...wasnt there like a majority of liberals on that case?
Whoever brought that up...wasnt there like a majority of liberals on that case?
No.
Not that it matters that much. No one here has suggested that liberals are inherently smarter or wiser than conservatives. I know a lot of conservatives who I respect a lot for their intellect and judgement. We disagree on the role of government (in places) but I respect their views. Likewise I know people who share my political beliefs but are pinheads.
This isn't nor has ever been a "liberals are great, conservatives are evil" discussion. I think conservatives who have enabled this administration have erred greatly, and I look forward to the day when we can truly engage on the role of government in a meaningful way. Until then, I will remember that Republicans have, in almost lock step (in Congress, I mean) voted for torture and war.
Not the point I was making. The comment was some how Bush (even before he got elected) was influencing the Supreme Court.
You know streak it is possible you are on teh wrong side of this issue. If you are I wonder if you will have the humility necessary to admit you were wrong.
I am often wrong. I am not sure what you are talking about here, though.
When I mentioned the Supreme Court it was in two different contexts: 1) the possibility of a bad decision occurring. That wasn't Bush's fault--it was the Court, and 2) that the same candidate Bush who ran on respecting state's rights, used the Supreme Court to overturn the Florida judicial process when it pleased him.
Now which issue do you think I am wrong about?
Ok...misunderstood your statement.
Though I disagree that the Supreme Court made a mistake.
Fine. That is your prerogative. But do you agree with the court because you wanted Bush elected, or because you think it was a proper role for the court. I suspect that most people who agreed with the court did so because of their opposition to Gore more than their stance on the court's role--or on any perceived or real election problems in Florida.
And it looks like during my drive back from my in-laws I've been branded a no-goodnik pacifist. Huh. Go figure.
FP, you're putting your bizarre conclusions about what mythical "liberals" believe into other people's mouths again, and it's inaccurate and plain wrong. I've never once said that war "is never acceptable." I do believe that going to war is one of the most serious acts a nation can undertake, and as such, should be under the utmost scrutiny. But you know what? Some wars are absolutely warranted.
Calling whatever you think I believe an "idiotic romantic notion," though, really doesn't do much for the quality of our discourse. So I'll out myself: I'm a liberal. Every time you want to use that term as equivalent of "pansy" or "wuss" or "commie" or "traitor" you're addressing me directly and personally.
So here's the deal. We're both Americans, FP, and we both love our country and we both want it to succeed. We may disagree on the way to do it, but we're looking at common goals. Let's find another word that means "traitor," or "unamerican," and that way we can both use it together, and hey, maybe even find common ground to agree on.
Streak and others: apologies for the ranting.
I've been branded a no-goodnik pacifist. Huh. Go figure.
And don't forget "wuss." :)
I was thinking about war today. Our President has suggested that war is justifiable because of reasons inside his head. Yet those same justifications would excuse India or Pakistan for attacking each other. After all, each has WMD and each is clearly a threat. Actually, compared to our justification with Iraq, they have a real case.
Of course, under GWB's justification, so many nations can attack other nations on the pretext of threat. That is the part that amazes me. Haven't we created the justification for Iran to attack Israel? Or vice versa?
Wars happen, I know. But they should be hard to achieve, and especially in our system. Bush seems to have created the situation where the weakest justification triggers war, and then wonders why other countries are starting to act hostile.
I am at my Brother-in-laws, so I can't get to this as often as I would while home.
Streak, you analysis of the Civil War is probably more correct than that of Ron Paul, though I still don't think he is necessarily a racist. I have followed him to some degree for a number of years and he doesn't seem to try to pander to voters. If anything, he could stand to be more subtle and compromising.
"mr paul is strictly laissez-faire in his econimic views. if you think that we're heading towards an oligarcy or corporatocracy, just let paul have the reins and we'll be there in spades. we need a return to both roosevelt's clamp-down on corporate power, not more unfettering of it as paul advocates. regulations are a good thing if the protect the common man."
Huh, we have a much larger regulatory mechanism today than under Roosevelt. Ron Paul would probably be happy to return to those days.
Regarding India and Australia. I don't think it is easy to make comparisons, as they achieved independence at different points in history and under different circumstances. In the case of Australia, it was over a long period of time. In the case of India, there was massive non-violent civil disobedience. I don't see how Great Britain could have prevented them from leaving, considering their other issues from the early 20th century. The Irish achieved their independence through war and I wouldn't call them a warlike or violent people.
I don't think Great Britain would have let us leave peacefully, nor did there seem to be many other peaceful revolutions from that period in history.
"BB said "I doubt our american-ness would have allowed anything other than a war...What alternatives did Lincoln have? Could other pressures have been put in place? Was preservation of the union worth half a million dead? Can we take any lessons from European nations who abolished slavery without war?"
Yep, but that's still not "war bashing". It's certainly not a novel idea to discuss alternatives to war. They're somewhat eternal questions, I think. Also, the civil war is a done deal- long time over. I'm not sure what "bashing" it would look like. I'm a fan of history. I think our current lives benefit from evaluating it and learning from achievements and mistakes and challenging sacred cows.
I think those who advocate pacifism or nonviolence are often the best among us, frequently suffering intensely for their devotion to these principles. Some of them have also been responsible for some of the most sweeping changes in the world, all accomplished without killing anyone. Very few, if any, could be rationally labeled "wussies". Quite the opposite. So, I don't apologize one bit for wanting to discuss alternatives for war.
Regarding Bush v. Gore. I was in law school when this was decided and we spent a great deal of time discussing the case. It is unfortunate that it reached that point, but I do believe they reached the correct conclusion (from a purely Constitutional standpoint).
Hmmm...look forward to seeing Streaks response to that.
I am not convinced, but respect Steve's take. I certainly don't respect the Bushies "state's rights-until we need a strong federal stance" take.
But we can agree to disagree.
I think those who advocate pacifism or nonviolence are often the best among us, frequently suffering intensely for their devotion to these principles. Some of them have also been responsible for some of the most sweeping changes in the world, all accomplished without killing anyone. Very few, if any, could be rationally labeled "wussies". Quite the opposite. So, I don't apologize one bit for wanting to discuss alternatives for war.
It sure seems that it is easier in this culture (despite all the bs about political correctness) to espouse war than peace. Just as it is easier to support capital punishment despite the race and class bias. Americans seem to rally to their John Wayne vision of war--forgetting, of course, that John Wayne never went to war.
I would of loved to see Ghandi talk with Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, or Osama.
I would of loved to see Ghandi talk with Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, or Osama.
Yes, of course, that is the point. Thanks for following along. We get it. Pacifism is weak and unpatriotic. Anyone advocating peace or something called "negotiation" are probably idiots or commies.
Aren't you and Brad Stine due for a "board breaking exhibition?"
"I would of loved to see Ghandi talk with Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, or Osama."
I have no doubt that you would. Thanks for the thought provoking response. I think I get it- you prefer the violent solution, don't want to discuss alternatives. Who would have guessed?
Not at all. What the point that you guys missed was this. Pacifism and negotiation are great if one is willing to acknowledge or recieve either! In the case of all of the examples I used both pacifism and negotiation were used to no avail. Ask the great historian Streak he should be able to tell you. Did people try the pacifist route with Hitler? Look at all the negotiations that took place with Saddam.
Here is why I made that comment. Where will BB and Streak be when pacifism and negotiation fail? What then is your answer? It must be war.
My point is this. You act as though war is evil and rarely necessary, but when in reality it is not evil and actually more necessary than either of you would like to admit.
The problem is you have thrown the baby out with the bathwater because of the supposed abuses of this adminstration
But it is you who have missed the point. We recognize that war sometimes happens. We just don't celebrate it like you.
And Saddam is still a terrible example for your point. We didn't have to go to invade. History will, I suspect, make that point. Of course, the Bush people won't care.
I think you are wrong. I dont think Bush will go down as the greatest, but surely will go down as the one with the greatest challenge of any president ever. In light of his term...I think he could of done better, but history will show him favor.
What other president has had
1. Huge natural disaster +
2. Huge act of war 9/11 +
3. Facing huge deficit +
Who else?
FP- you like to skip alot of discussion and proceed to false conclusions. I might go so far as to say war is evil. Sometimes it may serve as the necessary lesser of two evils. Sad to hear so much death and destruction appeals to you.
BB...now who makes the false conclusions
"Sad to hear so much death and destruction appeals to you"
What other president has had
1. Huge natural disaster +
2. Huge act of war 9/11 +
3. Facing huge deficit +
Well, on points one and two, most Presidents have had to deal with some kind of natural disaster. FDR had both--and he responded to both much better than Bush has. Bush took 9-11 and used it to invade the wrong country, and completely booted Katrina. As I pointed out to you, Hoover was able to supply people living on river levies in much shorter time in 1927 with far less technology, than Bush was able to respond to Katrina. Of course, Bush had to do a photo-op or two first, where he joked about getting drunk in New Orleans.
And Bush came into office with a Budget surplus, btw. He has spent all of that on his wars and tax cuts. Can't raise taxes even to pay for his wars.
Yeah, he has had some bad things happen under his presidency. But he hasn't handled any of them well.
On the other hand, can you name a successfully implemented policy for this man?
So streak one other president? I didnt say Bush did a great job. So maybe FDR did a better job.
But I think all things considered Bush hasnt done the best, but definitely has done better than Gore would of done in the same position.
Streak I would like to thank you for challenging me on several issues. It is because of you that I began to do more research on Islam. Specifically I would like to thank you for the challenge on moderate muslim. It is becuase of your challenge I found this information.
American Moderate Muslim Leader Kamal Nawash said that "50 percent of muslims worldwide supported the jihad"
During terrorism finance trial in New York, in February 2005, Bernard Haykel an associate professor of Islamic studies at New York University said "There are a billion plus Muslims in the Arab world, 90% of whom support Hamas"
May 2005 Dr. Imran Waheed the London spokesman for the international "peaceful" jihadist group Hizb ut-Tahrir declared "I believe that 99% of Muslim people anywhere want teh samething, a caliphate to rule them."
According to a survey conducted in Pakistan in 2004 by the Pew Research Center, "65% favoured Osama and pluralities of 47% believed Palestinian suicide attacks on Israelis were justified. 46% thought attacks on westerners in Iraq were justified."
So lets look at that...50% being the most conservative estimate...lets cut that in half. So 25% of just under 2 billion comes up too 437,500,000 radical islamics ( i am not great at math so I could be wrong)
Seems to me a much bigger problem than the small 60,000 that are convicted wrongly.
Radical Islamic assassin kills Benazir Bhutto. In recent poll the current president has a 14% approval rating where Al Qaeda is at 47%...
man that minority of Radical Islamic Muslims
Your poll numbers don't tell us why those people support Osama and they don't tell us why they hate America. The opinions of the others are just that, opinions.
Ok, Bush against the rest of the presidents. I think I have said this before, but we have had incompetence and we have had destructive before. Harding was incompetent, Grant was incompetent and so was Andrew Johnson. And we have had the destructive types--Nixon being the best example, since Bush seems to have copied much of the "unitary executive" nonsense from Nixon. But I don't know of an incompetent destructive President on par with Bush. I can't remember a President who has been so incompetent in administering his office AND attempting to undermine the Constitution.
Here is a hint for you...Radical Islam hated America before Bush was president, before Clinton was president, before Bush senior was president, before Reagan was president.
Thanks. I need more hints to follow stupidity.
One of the things we learned during the cold war was that people act and believe in different ways than it appears from one angle. Just because, for example, a person called themselves a communist in China, did not mean that they meant the same thing as the communist in the USSR. We erred often in assuming that communism ameliorated ethnic and national lines.
Likewise, I would suggest that just because you believe that all of Islam is radical and hates the west, you don't actually know that. You have bits of data that suggest that kind of feeling, but you have lumped them all together because it supports what you already believe.
That kind of thinking would probably get you hired in the Bush administration, but it doesn't help you here.
None of that is to say that there aren't elements of Islam that hate us and actually do want a caliphate. But most don't, or only like it as a theoretical idea. Most people in Iran, for example, have a very positive view of America. In the leadership? Not so much. Talking to my female students from Syria and Kuwait, I learn that many muslim states are not nearly the picture you present. But then again, you are already sure that Islam is evil.
How about we return to the worst President debate. I like how you posit that Gore would have been worse--as if you have anything to back that up. It is hard to imagine any person handling all of this worse than Bush, but I guess anything is possible. Perhaps Gore could have invaded Germany in response to 9-11 (since one of the hijackers spent time there) or might have invaded Venezuela (just because). Of course, he might have acted rationally, and in that case, we might have Osama by now.
Well lets start with that Gore isnt attached to reality. Hence the consistent and constant lying and making stuff up. Next, he would of some how been more concerned with Global Warming than the response to terrorism and even to this day he has an inability to actually speak about the events of terrorism. Finally, while in the role of vice president he did virtually nothing concerning the 4 attacks against America while serving.
Except Gore didn't say half the stuff that the right claims he did. Boy, the right does hate Al Gore. What did he do to merit that hatred? Win a Nobel prize? Actually bring attention to climate change while the administration muzzled their own scientists?
Funny the latest from the Scientific Community from abroad (meaning the world, not the US) is saying it is false.
Further what was that terrorist in Palestine who got the award?
Sounds like a pretigious thing to me.
Funny the latest from the Scientific Community from abroad (meaning the world, not the US) is saying it is false.
Yeah right. Only in Jim Inhofe's brain. The consensus on global warming is pretty convincing. And even if they are off--what is wrong with reducing emissions? Nothing, unless you are an Oil company exec.
Sounds like a pretigious thing to me.
What?
Nobel Peace Prize was also awarded to the the Arafat. That is very prestigious! Wow I wish I could get something the world thought that a terrorist deserved.
Next, nothing wrong with lowering emissions. We have the technology to make it where you should mandate improved gas mileage. You know like by 2015 every car produced must make a 100 miles per gallon on the highway and 75 in the city.
Then you let captialism take its course and allow us to come up with a free enterprise solution.
Ok, once again, ignore the issue. You guys want to dismiss the Nobel peace prize because Al Gore and Jimmy Carter have won it--that is fine. I really don't care (though I suspect had Bush won, the tone would be different). But the issue of climate change is real and something that will impact the poorest in the world the worst.
As I have remarked several times, I don't understand why Christians who claim that Creationism is the only way to understand the world--seem to have very little concern about mankind destroying or dramatically altering God's creation.
Post a Comment