| Subject: More post |
Author:
Duane
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/ 5/04 3:10am
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "But you should." on 10/ 4/04 7:01pm
>The majority were for the war in Iraq? Not as I
>remember it.
Then you remember it incorrectly. The majority *were* for the war when it began (in some polls, as high a margin a 2-to-1). But that's the key - WHEN IT BEGAN. Now, you'll notice that the armchair quarterback syndrome has set in, and less people seem to think the war was such a good idea.
But, even now, the *majority* of people believe that the war in Iraq was, and is, a good cause. The majority of people believe that Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda. The majority of people belive that the war was justified. Of course, it doesn't matter that I've managed to find a bunch of polls that say these things - I'm sure there are also polls that say the opposite.
But the point is that, yes, Ben, we WERE in support of the war by a large majority at first.
>So you understand what I’m saying, I do
>not think that Bush makes big, bold movements
>+because+ the common man can get behind them… rather,
>I think the common man has an easier time getting
>behind such movements rather than following the more
>tedious aspects of politics.
Uhm - who, exactly, are you talking about when you say, "common man?" This still sounds like an argument based on intellectual superiority.
Not that you've said this, but it seems that most Democrats I meet have been misled as to the majority demographic of the Republican constituency. They seem to think that most Republicans are Yee-haw white-boy uneducated jingoist yokels.
But I'm not sure why...
Republicans, on average:
1) Are significantly more educated than Democrats
2) Are more affluent than Democrats
3) Are more likely to be employed than Democrats
4) Are more likely to own their own homes than Democrats
(I could go on...)
I'm not saying that Republicans are somehow "better" than Democrats because of these things. The point is that Republicans are our moms, our dads, our aunts and uncles - the people we respect as intelligent, rational, and compassionate.
Ben, the "common man" who supports Bush does so in the same manner as you support Kerry - they're not dumb, they're not simple, and they're not being fooled or duped - they just don't agree with you.
>>Are you trying to say that, "Even if Kerry
>>never sets out a clear plan, or we can't figure out
>>just how in the world he's going to manage to make it
>>work, we should accept it because we couldn't possibly
>>understand the subtleties and intricacies of
>>international politics"?
>No, I’m not saying that. But I am saying that Kerry’s
>idea of what should be done may not be as exciting as
>Bush’s, but still might be better.
Well, I don't know what "exciting" has to do with it. As I said above, Republican voters are not likely, on average, to be swayed by "excitement." They come to their conclusions the same way you and I do - through rational determination.
And I think Kerry's plan is not better.
>What I’m saying is that +if+ Kerry has a good plan or
>is in the process of developing a good plan, it could
>be both better and less accessible to the American
>public at the same time.
Less accessible how? Because we don't "get" it? I don't think so. It's not a matter of "excitement," or "accessibility." Some people, like myself, have assessed Kerry's plan and found it inferior. Simple as that. You can't possibly be trying to argue that, "If you disagree, then it's because you don't understand it." are you?
>your comments have
>sounded a bit like, “Don’t trust your own intellect
>about the candidate that seems to best reflect your
>values – vote Bush.”
Look - if the only issue that's really of prime importance to you in this election is the war, you have almost no hope of making a rational decision (either way you come out)
As you've said repeatedly, you "trust" Kerry. You "trust" that he knows more about international politics than Bush... None of these things are rational assessments. I'm not saying that they're bad, but they're hardly clearly reasoned statements.
Now, let's be clear: I do believe (in the same way you believe in Kerry) that Bush will do a better job. I believe that Bush knows better how the world of nations works. But that's just it - aside from my criticisms of Democrats in office and their egregious mismanagement of foreign policy, I can't REALLY say those things about Kerry with certainty, so it still comes down to my personal belief, too.
But, for me, the war in Iraq isn't the most important issue - For me, Iraq is trumped by the conclusions I've drawn about the horribly damaging socialist economic policies of the Democrats. Want to talk about rolling back your rights and freedoms? Let's take a look at the ideological basis of Liberal Democratic Socialism sometime... Their policies are an affront to every industrious, productive, compassionate, intelligent person in this country. And I just can't vote for the party that espouses them. So for me, it's not about the war.
>I don’t
>remember things being so bad when Clinton was in
>office.
See above...
>I could just as easily say that every
>Republican I remember has gotten us into some war or
>other, spending billions of dollars and many lives in
>the process without any noticeable benefit.
Yeah, but you'd be wrong. The difference is that my claim is true, whereas yours is not. I'm not being argumentative, or a jerk about this - those are just the facts.
>Being
>well liked isn’t a bad thing, you know.
Sure, if you're an individual person. As far as nations are concerned, being liked isn't a bad thing either - but it's also not a RELEVANT thing...
>Kerry will still have a
>Republican Congress to contend with, which I think
>will be a nice balance. Aren’t they ultimately the
>main ones who decide economic policy?
To justify the potential damage to our long-term economic growth that Democrats bring with them to office, you'd have to give me a LOT more assurance than the fact that his efforts will be hampered by Congress. And, yeah, they both have a big part in it, but the president has a lot of extra powers to influence Congress (like, "I'll veto this unless you attach this totally unrelated, but completely communist, bill to it...") Happens all the time.
>So what? Take the Republican party to its ultimate
>development, and you’ll find the Ten Commandments in
>every courtroom and Intelligent Design theory in every
>textbook.
Would you rather live in a Communist country?
>>Bush has done
>>it, and done it well, for 4 years. I haven't seen
>>Kerry run anything except for his mouth...
>This begs the question, since I think Bush has done a
>terrible job of running the country.
And I haven't seen Kerry run anything but his mouth. And what's coming out of it, I don't agree with. So we differ in opinion.
>I often wonder
>if in four more years, he might be able to destroy it
>completely.
Well, remember - it's the Democrats who are in the business of cannibalizing productive economies.
By the way, what, exactly, is Bush doing to "destroy" this country? Has he socialized medicine? Sunk more money into a dying, fundamentally flawed public education system? Has he stolen from the productive members of society and blunted their successes to feed the unproductive?
Oh wait... Those are things that Democrats do...
>It’s not fair to say that just because Bush
>has experience as President that he is necessarily a
>better person for the job. For all we know, Kerry
>might be far better.
Point taken. But I don't think so.
Duane
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 