I won't stand for a "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time" Commander in Chief while he's over there.
(He looks like one kick@ss marine)
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Give him our best in your next letter to him.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I will. Keep him in your thoughts and prayers please.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
The look exchanged between your cousin and the little boy is priceless.
Best of luck to him. I hope he returns safely.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
My Aunt was a Marine (Col.) for 40 years. She was the Marine expert on rapid mobilization, adn was active at Quantico for all of Desert Storm....for a total of 5 years total, actually.
She retired last year, and two days after she retired they called to re-activate her again....so she told them to go and FO....lol...
They argued with her, trying to say that she wasn't allowed toretire, but in the end she won.
I don't agree that Bush is the right choice at all...if your cousin pulled the same crap Bush pulled in the guard he would be arrested and court-marchalled.
But I hope your cousin stays as safe as posible, and makes it home healty as soon as he can.
Kwea
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I won't stand for a 'Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time' Commander in Chief while he's over there."
Out of interest, if it were the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, would you still prefer that the Commander in Chief never publicly acknowledge that fact?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
He's a fine-looking man, Chad
(don't let Tom try to turn this into another debate thread -- we all applaud your cousin's service to our country)
FG
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Is this a thread in which we applaud people's service in the military, or a thread in which Chad explains why he voted for Bush?
I suspect the title is highly flawed, if the former.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
That'd be a terrible reason to vote anyone into office. For one thing, any President could get reelected just for starting a war if people voted on those grounds - even someone like Hitler. And for another, if it IS the wrong war then you are voting for a guy who might be needlessly killing your cousin.
I'm also fairly certain it's not your reason for voting for Bush.
[ November 05, 2004, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Xap mentioned Hitler-- the rational portion of this thread is over.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Beat you to it.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
"He's a fine-looking man, Chad."
Does anyone else think he looks like Carry Elwes? Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I think we have plenty of threads where we can vent our (IMO justified) anti-Bush arguments.
It is not everyday a relative shows up on AP photos. Let Chad have his thread in peace. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Xap's law: Any invocation of Godwin's law is an irrational excuse to avoid answering a point being made by the Hitler comparison in question.
The fact of the matter is, by the logic Chad is discussing here, he WOULD vote for Hitler if his cousin were serving in Hitler's army. The suggestion that many people in military families or ex-soldiers DO vote like this would indicate a great danger for the country.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, because Chad's remark was about a specific person in a specific war at a specific time.
Your Hitler scenario only has one of those characteristics in common with it.
Dagonee
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Pfft.
Xap, you took an comment out of Tom's post, and attached it to Chad.
Chad has only said: "I won't stand for a "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time" Commander in Chief while he's over there."
Repent ye-- Chad was making a specific statement, not a general one as you are implying.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
CURSE YOU DAGONEE!
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
As we all learned in gradeschool, guys...
"They are just sore losers; ignore them"
FG
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
It was a specific claim that entails a general idea - that its okay for one to vote against a candidate solely because they claim your family member's job is a "wrong war".
It'd be like if I said it's okay to reelect a president that would take away the rights of Muslims in this one instance. If I am saying that is okay then I am implying the same principle would stand for other instances - like when my own rights were being violated. I can't claim "Well, it's okay just in the instance where we are violating the rights of Muslims, but wrong in all those other instances where we are violating the rights of blacks or jews or even me!" The wrongness of the general idea implies the wrongness of the particular situation.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:"They are just sore losers; ignore them"
Also, that's an extremely low and unfair blow - and another excuse to ignore an important point. This is a critical issue that goes far beyond this one election. If we are going to maintain a democracy in this country, it is critical that we elect our leaders wisely. If we stand by and allow without refutation the idea that its okay to vote just based on whoever supports troops, this won't be America for long.
[ November 05, 2004, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
No, tres. You are obscuring the situation. If you and Tom want to talk about general ideas, that's fine; but don't try to link them to members that make specific statements, okay?
quote:The fact of the matter is, by the logic Chad is discussing here, he WOULD vote for Hitler if his cousin were serving in Hitler's army. The suggestion that many people in military families or ex-soldiers DO vote like this would indicate a great danger for the country.
Yet, as I've shown above, Chad's logic was simply that Kerry was the wrong guy for this situation.
Boom-tiddy.
[ November 05, 2004, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Then you agree that it would be wrong to vote anyone into office just on the grounds that he supports a war the troops are in and his opponent does not?
I think Chad was implying a lot more than just that Kerry was the wrong man for the job.
[ November 05, 2004, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It was a specific claim that entails a general idea - that its okay for one to vote against a candidate solely because they claim your family member's job is a "wrong war".
But you don't know th extent of the general idea he was basing the specific statement on, nor the limitations he would impose on that general idea. You generalized his specific statement and attacked him based on you interpretation of it.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:It isn't so much that it's low and unfair. The "sore loser" stuff kind of lost its meaning on Tuesday, when the exit polls came out saying Kerry was ahead and Bush supporters started calling Kerry a sore loser.
Well, it's akin to someone coming out to argue in favor of tax reform, and then a Kerry fan telling folks to write off the entire point as "gloating." Not only is it writing off a point without consideration, it's also just plain untrue.
[ November 05, 2004, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:But you don't know th extent of the general idea he was basing the specific statement on, nor the limitations he would impose on that general idea. You generalized his specific statement and attacked him based on you interpretation of it.
I didn't attack HIM in any way. I attacked only the general idea I said his post was showing. If he didn't mean that general idea that's fine (I said I figured that wasn't really his reason anyway), but the general idea it could be taken to imply is still both wrong and significant enough to point out.
[ November 05, 2004, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Then you really meant to say, "By the logic I'm assigning to Chad here, with no real basis to do so, he WOULD vote for Hitler if his cousin were serving in Hitler's army," right?
quote:by the logic Chad is discussing here, he WOULD vote for Hitler if his cousin were serving in Hitler's army.
If telling someone he would vote for Hitler isn't an attack, then I'm not sure what is.
Dagonee
[ November 05, 2004, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
No, I had good basis to do so. I mean, his title is "Why I voted for Bush" and he did say "I won't stand for a 'Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time' Commander in Chief while he's over there." He may not realize the general logic he is invoking implies it's okay to vote based on personal relationship with soldiers, but I think it's fairly clear that logic is suggested.
And I didn't say he'd vote for Hitler. I said by the logic there, he'd vote for Hitler. By the logic there, I'd vote for Hitler too. That's why neither of us should accept the general idea behind the specific claim.
[ November 05, 2004, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think Chad was implying a lot more than just that Kerry was the wrong man for the job.
I don't understand how you've come to this conclusion. Please use examples from this thread.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
'I won't stand for a "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time" Commander in Chief while he's over there.' is not equivalent to "Kerry is the wrong man for the job." It also implies there's a reason why Kerry is the wrong man for the job, including (a) that Kerry calls the war wrong, and (b)that his cousin is fighting in the war. (This leads to (c)Him calling the war wrong when the cousin is fighting the war implies Chad shouldn't vote for him .)
[ November 05, 2004, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yes it is.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"I won't stand for a 'Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time' Commander in Chief while he's over there."
Not a difficult concept, Xap. He's saying that during the war in Iraq, he won't support a 'Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time' Commander in Chief because his cousin's over there.
You have no basis for expanding the "there" to "any old war." You chose to do so. At least Tom asked it as a question - he didn't assume that the undisclosed reasoning process used to arrive at the conclusion was one that justified supporting Hitler in a war.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, based on Chad's statement, it appears that he thinks having a Commander in Chief who does not believe that the war in which your relatives are currently fighting is a good thing is, in fact, a bad thing.
I responded specifically to clarify whether he would feel this way if the war were, in fact, a bad thing, or whether disapproving of wars while they're ongoing is the general principle to which he objects.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:'I won't stand for a "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time" Commander in Chief while he's over there.' is not equivalent to "Kerry is the wrong man for the job." It also implies there's a reason why Kerry is the wrong man for the job, including (a) that Kerry calls the war wrong, and (b)that his cousin is fighting in the war. (This leads to (c)Him calling the war wrong when the cousin is fighting the war implies Chad shouldn't vote for him .)
It could also imply that the reason Kerry is the wrong man for the job is precisely because he called the war wrong when it's not, depriving him of the moral authority to prosecute the war correctly.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Dag, I believe that in order to ensure your beliefs about specific situations are truthful you must compare those to beliefs about other similar situations. Treating every specific situation as a totally different case isolated from all logic surrounding all other situations makes refining beliefs impossible.
For instance, if I say "It's okay to discriminate against blacks" I should first compare that to my beliefs about discriminating against other races - such as my own.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But we also know that Chad thinks this war is not wrong. And again, you didn't bother to ask. You guessed at his underlying logic and stated that he would vote for Hitler.
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not to you maybe, but I bet that is what he was saying it meant to him.
Why do I feel that I have had this conversation before....
Chad was saying that in this instance he felt that his version of supporting the troops was a valid reason to pck Bush, as he felt that Kerry would not do the same, possibly putting his cousin at risk.
I don't agree with him about Kerry, and I do think it was the wrong time and place...but I see why it would matter to him...Obvoously if he felt the war was unjustified he would feel diferently, at leat a bit.
There were many people he questioned Kerry's ability to lead in wartime. Why they chose a deserter (that IS what he did, BTW...it's Absent Without Leave, and he didn't have leave) on place of Kerry I don't know, but it is over and done with..for now.
Extrapolate at you own risk, Xap.
Kwea
[ November 05, 2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
This is another example of the infuriating tendancy of telling other people what their words mean.
And it's infurating.
Duh.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Chad's cousin is hot!
I stated elsewhere that overwhelming support of the military for George Bush is a major factor for me as well.
If those guys are out there putting themselves on the line for me and my children, then I think I would have to have a darn good reason NOT to give them the leader they want.
Edit: cousin, not brother
[ November 05, 2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
Yeah, vwiggin, I can see where you think he looks a bit like Cary Elwes...
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Yes! I still have a good eye for men. Well, you know what I mean. Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Good point Adam.
Remember the story of the boy who place his finger in the dam to save the city?
Bush is the boy who broke the dam, and the election was to decide which candidate would place his finger in the dam.
[ November 05, 2004, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:But we also know that Chad thinks this war is not wrong. And again, you didn't bother to ask. You guessed at his underlying logic and stated that he would vote for Hitler.
No, I stated that IF he followed that logic THEN he'd vote for Hitler, which is entirely different. As I said in my first post, I didn't think that was the actual reason he was voting the way he did. I just said that what he seemed to be saying implied something I didn't think was right.
quote:This is another example of the infuriating tendancy of telling other people what their words mean.
Actually, this is an example of OTHER FOLKS telling ME what CHAD's words mean (and what I meant when I responded to Chad.) And, as I've said previously, there's nothing wrong with you doing that.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
@ Xap.
Yes, that did occur.
I guess then, that we'll have to wait for Chad to post whether or not he meant Kerry specifically, or whether he meant in general.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Xap, you said, "The fact of the matter is, by the logic Chad is discussing here, he WOULD vote for Hitler if his cousin were serving in Hitler's army."
Where's the if statement, exactly?
And I haven't said what Chad is saying. At most I've argued that what he said is insufficient to support the conclusions you've drawn.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
"By logic X, Y" means "If X then Y".
As in "The matter of the fact is, by the logic that the Iraq War is good, I'd vote for Bush." It doesn't mean I'd vote for Bush. It means IF I accepted that logic I'd vote for Bush.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Why is it that al the (ex)Kerry supporters seem to think they are smarter than everyone else? Just drop it, it doesn't matter.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Xap, sometimes I wonder if you do this on purpose. If you do, please let me know so I can simply ignore you.
You said, "by the logic Chad is discussing here." Not "the logic X."
My complaint is that you've defined X in a way that at most can only be inferred from Chad's statements.
Dagonee
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Why is it that al the (ex)Kerry supporters seem to think they are smarter than everyone else?
Because look at who everyone else supported!
Oh, I'm kidding. But really, give me an opening like that, and I gotta take it. It's like, law.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I won't stand for a "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time" Commander in Chief while he's over there.
Xap, the contextual ambiguity of the "there" term in Chad's original post has been pointed out to you. He might be talking about wars in general, or he might be talking only about Iraq. What follows logically from the post depends upon how that term is interpreted, so it's disingenuous to say that "by his logic" he would support Hitler. Why don't we wait for Chad to tell us what his logic is?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Yes, and I inferred it. I don't see what's all that wrong with that. The worst that happens if I'm wrong is that my point about wrong reasons to vote a given way still stands (and I think it's an important point) but Chad points out that's not what he meant to say.
quote:But really, give me an opening like that, and I gotta take it. It's like, law.
Now, see, forget Godwin's law. This is a real law I can agree with.
[ November 05, 2004, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Why is it that al the (ex)Kerry supporters seem to think they are smarter than everyone else?"
Hey, Boris, remember your "philosophy of wisdom" thread? Not all of us are as stupid as you think.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You inferred it, and in the face of other inferences stated it as a definite.
Dagonee
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Why is it that al the (ex)Kerry supporters seem to think they are smarter than everyone else?
There's the rub. If the only reason we support the war is because we are in the war, and its disrespectful to the troops not to support the war because they are risking their lives, then we aren't much better than cheerleaders on either side of this war.
Now, whether this "matters,"(read: morally relevant) is the great issue. By saying it doesn't matter, you've already assumed moral superiority without even understanding the claim, and that's the gulf between us.
Granted, we could be better by not abstracting to Hitler and X and Y, but it would be nice if you finished out the argument before deciding that it doesn't matter.
[ November 05, 2004, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: Hey, Boris, remember your "philosophy of wisdom" thread? [Smile] Not all of us are as stupid as you think.
I'm not saying anyone is stupid. I'm just asking a serious question, do people actually think they are more intelligent than others because of the way they voted? I mean, that kind of thing just doesn't make sense to me. It's just rash, generalized assumption, no matter who does it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"do people actually think they are more intelligent than others because of the way they voted"
No. But I do believe that I am more intelligent than the majority of the electorate on either side, frankly. The reason that I'm more intelligent than they are has nothing to do with my vote, but I like to think that the fact that I am more intelligent informed my vote in some way.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:You inferred it, and in the face of other inferences stated it as a definite.
As did you with your inferrences about what I meant.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
That's good. I'm glad for that, but it seems, with all the arguing that is going on, that people tend to start arguments on the basis of "whoever said this is just stupid, I need to correct them". My first comment said what it says, in general, because I see more Kerry supporters doing this than anyone else. I really wish people would just stop it, cause it's ANNOYING!!! (Not to mention a contradiction of any supposed *wisdom* (Heh, just commenting on my own wisdom post, which is probably just rambling anyway))
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Wanting to correct something does not imply the person you are correcting is stupid. I think people do want to correct things, but don't intend to imply those who disagree are stupid.
[ November 05, 2004, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Boris, is it really your contention that Bush supporters do not desire to correct the opinions and behaviors of their political opponents? Do you not think that was your intention behind bringing up the point in the first place?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As did you with your inferrences about what I meant.
I didn't infer what you meant. I quoted it - that's what the words mean.
Sheesh.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
You inferred, among other things, that I had said Chad would vote for Hitler. You stated it as fact and it wasn't true.
[ November 05, 2004, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"by the logic Chad is discussing here, he WOULD vote for Hitler if his cousin were serving in Hitler's army."
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
'Why I voted for Bush' 'I won't stand for a "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time" Commander in Chief while he's over there.'
We can both back up our inferences with quotes.... It doesn't make them not inferences...
[ November 05, 2004, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
"Just because everyone gets tired of arguing with you doesn't mean they think you're not ridiculous!"
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I infer that's a complement.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: Wanting to correct something does not imply the person you are correcting is stupid. I think people do want to correct things, but don't intend to imply those who disagree are stupid.
This is true, but more often than not, the way people correct others tends to be somewhat arrogant. After thoroughly re-reading this, I notice that wasn't how you started this out, but that's how it's turned into a big nasty furball that is going to end up with people only being ticked off. Basically what I'm saying is that people need to start taking the heat out of their arguments. When they start getting heated, like this thread seems to have done, the argument falls into a pit of stupidity and serves no logical purpose.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's not an inference - you stated it. You didn't state that the logic was your interpretation - you stated the logic was what he was discussing.
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
Y'know, Xap/Tres, as I see these conversations progress on various threads, it's becoming increasingly obvious to me that you didn't vote for cactus. Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I mean specifically this war in Iraq alone. I mean that Kerry's "opinion" of "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" (because it's an opinion from start to finish which has evidence for and against it) is telling him that what he is doing is wrong, where he is is wrong and that his laying down his life for others, is wrong....but you better keep doing it.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I only stated what you are saying as much as Chad stated what I said. If you're going to complain that I'm putting words into Chad's mouth you can't turn around and put words into mine. You may think my inference wasn't stated by Chad and that mine was, but I think your inference was not at all what I said and my inference is what Chad said.
I know I was making an inference, but I don't normally mention that fact everytime I interpret somethign someone says on this forum. People say too much stuff to interpret - it would become excessive to keep mentioning that I might be wrong about what you are saying in every single post. Even now I am interpretting your last post and you are interpretting mine - and we might both get it wrong. I don't think this needs to be stated each time - I think it should just be implied.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Y'know, Xap/Tres, as I see these conversations progress on various threads, it's becoming increasingly obvious to me that you didn't vote for cactus.
Actually, I didn't. I think the Democrats forced Cactus off the ballot in my state!
But, if I did, I don't think these conversations would progress any differently. Even if I voted for Bush, I still wouldn't agree with people voting against Kerry just because he speaks his mind and the troops will hear - any more than I currently agree with Kerry folk who voted against Bush because they think he scowls too much.
quote:I mean that Kerry's "opinion" of "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" (because it's an opinion from start to finish which has evidence for and against it) is telling him that what he is doing is wrong, where he is is wrong and that his laying down his life for others, is wrong....but you better keep doing it.
But if it WERE the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, would you still not want any President to say it? Even if it were very wrong, like Germany's World War II efforts?
The question is, is the problem just the saying that the war is wrong, or is it that Kerry says it is wrong when you think it is not?
[ November 05, 2004, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I only stated what you are saying as much as Chad stated what I said. If you're going to complain that I'm putting words into Chad's mouth you can't turn around and put words into mine. You may think my inference wasn't stated by Chad and that mine was, but I think your inference was not at all what I said and my inference is what Chad said.
I know I was making an inference, but I don't normally mention that fact everytime I interpret somethign someone says on this forum. People say too much stuff to interpret - it would become excessive to keep mentioning that I might be wrong about what you are saying in every single post. Even now I am interpretting your last post and you are interpretting mine - and we might both get it wrong. I don't think this needs to be stated each time - I think it should just be implied.
Good God, Xap. Just admit you overreached in the post I've been quoting. You didn't say "the logic I think Chad is discussing." You said "the logic Chad is discussing."
I haven't inferred anything from your post - I've directly quoted it.
If you want to play the "all language is inference" game please announce it beforehand.
Dagonee
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I like cookies. :runs around his padded cell:
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
well this thread was totally different than I expected it to be from the title. Well below, from my livejournal, is the reason why I voted for Bush. Do with it what you will.
quote: ...Other than the fact I'm straight, I'm in an unmarried long term multiracial consensual relationship. Partner benefits for me were eliminated as well in a couple of the so-called "gay marriage" ammendments.
Having said all that, I voted for Bush. Some of you might accuse me of cognitave dissonance, now knowing who I voted for (though I voted for Obama in our Senate race.) The fact is I was equally apathetic about both canidates. I didn't LIKE either of them, but I DISLIKED them about equally for a bunch of reasons and I couldn't weight the reasons of disliking one heavier than disliking the other. For a while it was going to be a coin toss or I was going to leave the box blank.
Here's how I came to my decision, and yeah some of you may consider it shallow but it is my reasoning: I am in the state of IL. I wish to protest the dismalness of both canididates. Writing in someone is a "throwaway" vote. I will vote for the person (in this case Bush) that I *know* will lose in this state. If I had lived in TX, I would have voted for Kerry. If I had actually been in a swing state like Ohio, I don't know who I would have voted for. I would have gone through even more agony in trying to decide. But on this rationale, further mental and emotional agony was avoided because I *wasn't* in a state where it mattered. I'm all about not going through mental anguish if it is provably unecessary.
This is also why I felt equally apathetic after the election as I did before I guess. I do think that the Gay Marriage issue is one that is going to be a longer civil-rights type struggle, and unfortunately people on both sides thought it was going to be easier than it has turned out to be. Like a sinusoidal decay curve. The first few cycles its gonna swing wildly and unevenly back and forth, but it's gradually going to come to equillibrium, in the realm of sanity somewhere. Maybe it is the Chem E in me, but I guess I do have faith in the correct equilibrium state being attained eventually, though turbulent mixing can and does occur upstream.
AJ
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Chad, I found out a little while ago a kid who grew up down the street from me and went to the same grade and high school that I did (some years younger than me and I never actually knew him, but I sort of know the family) got a large part of his liver (among other things) blown away while patrolling over in Iraq. He wasn't outfitted with the best body armor, which to be honest may or may not protected him, but would have given him a better chance. Can you see how I would consider criticizing the person most directly responsible for sending him there without the best protection as supporting the troops?
In my mind, there is a big difference between supporting the troops as people, as trying to make their difficult job as easy as possible and supporting the President. This difference is especially pronounced when people more or less give the President a blank check in terms of uncritically supporting whatever decisions he makes with regard to the troops. In this case, I'd say that supporting the troops and supporting the President are usually opposing concerns.
I supported the war based on the overwhelming case the government made for WMDs. Time has shown that at least some parts of where intended to deceive and that many other parts were the result of poor analysis and planning. The conduct of the war has shown to me many other cases where at the very least there was both poor analysis and planning. And during all this, the Bush administration has been unwilling to be held accountable for their mistakes. I am trying to influence the public to apply pressure on the administration to accept the responsibility for the course they've put us on, the decisions that they've made, and perhaps most importantly the way they've gone about making these decisions. One of my major motivations in this is concern for the safety of our troops, so it makes me sad to see that one of the biggest forces opposing me are people who I feel have conflated supporting the troops with supporting the President.
It is possible to think that the decision to do something was a mistake and yet support the effort to get as much good out of the situation that has developed because of that mistake as possible. I still think that the U.S. had the legal right to invade Iraq, but I don't necessarily think that it was a good idea to do so. It has polarized the country and squandered a large part of the goodwill of the world on something that hasn't significantly improved America's security and may have even harmed it. It has also taken the focus off of hunting down the terrorists and, by fostering opposition and distrust of our foreign policy, lost us useful international tools and alliances.
I don't think that the choice to invade was a good one or at least te best one that could have been at that time. I don't think that the analysis and planning both pre-war and post-war have been sufficiently responsible. I wish that our troops weren't there, but, as they are there, I want them to do their best in making Iraq a good place to be and I want them to be as safe as possible while doing it. I don't believe that President and his staff have shown that they should be trusted to achieve these ends and so I criticize them in the hopes that they will be foreced to the accountabilty that they have so far dodged.
I think "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time" was a pretty stupid way to express this and I don't think I ever supported John Kerry as a candidate, but I agree with what I think was the underlying message of this, which I believe matches up pretty well with what I said above. Do you consider me someone who doesn't fully support your cousin as well as the many people I've got on the ground over there?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Your comments about the write-in vote are interesting to me.
I chose to write in my own pick because I didn't feel I could choose any candidate on the ballot and have a clear conscience.
To me, it wasn't a throwaway vote-- it was the only good alternative.
Then again-- if I lived in a swing state, I may have voted for Bush. I think then, it would have come down to whom I thought could more effectively handle the war on terror, and who lined up better with my own social agenda.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Hey Scott, I'm not condemning you for writing in a canidate. It was just my own thought processes in how I got to who I voted for. I'm not even arguing or defending my thought processes, cause it isn't worth it.
If I had been in a swing state I suspect I would have held my nose and voted for Kerry. I held my nose and voted for Bush as it was.
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Basically what I'm saying is that people need to start taking the heat out of their arguments."
Boris, I agree completely. However, if you think only Kerry supporters -- or even primarily Kerry supporters -- have been making heated arguments, I would suggest that you have perhaps neglected for whatever reason to cast a critical eye over their opposition.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Gotcha, BanananananaaOJ. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Good God, Xap. Just admit you overreached in the post I've been quoting. You didn't say "the logic I think Chad is discussing." You said "the logic Chad is discussing."
I haven't inferred anything from your post - I've directly quoted it.
And yet your statement (a.k.a. inference) about what the direct quote means is (in my opinion) wrong. "By the logic Chad is discussing here, he WOULD vote for Hitler if his cousin were serving in Hitler's army" does not directly state "Chad would vote for Hitler" any more than "If he sends suicide bombers to Iraq, Bush is a terrorist" directly states "Bush is a terrorist."
Come on... this is getting a bit unneccessary. We've both made inferences, and we've both done so without explicitly stating they are inferences, and I don't think there's much wrong with that.
Other inferences: "You generalized his specific statement and attacked him based on you interpretation of it." "He's saying that during the war in Iraq, he won't support a 'Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time' Commander in Chief because his cousin's over there." "At least Tom asked it as a question - he didn't assume that the undisclosed reasoning process used to arrive at the conclusion was one that justified supporting Hitler in a war." "You inferred it, and in the face of other inferences stated it as a definite."
All of these are inferences about what other people meant when they said things. All of them could be wrong. All of them are stated as fact.
[ November 05, 2004, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Squick -- you have had some stellar posts of late. The one above is one such.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I support the troops. I believe every soldier there should have all the resources they need to do as good a job as possible and to be as safe as possible. And when they return I believe they should have as many resources as they need to return to civilian life. But do I believe in this war? No. I do not agree with it. I believe it was poorly planned and executed from the beginning. What sort of president claims the war is about WMDs and allows 400 metric tons of dangerous weapons to disapear right under his nose? Or claims the war is about bringing democracy to Iraq when that doesn't seem to be what it's really about. I over heard an interesting conversation. This guy stated that the war was really about putting bases 200 miles away from Iran. That made perfect sense to me. Finally an argument for the war that made some sort of tactical sense. But does it make it right? No. Not to the victims at Abu Gharib or the thousands that have lost their love one on both sides. War can be like surgery. Painful and nessasary at times. If people are going to fight a war can't they do it in a way that is responsible? I know that no one is perfect, but this is the fate of millions in their hands. MILLIONS. I am simply tired of the corruption and people dying because of it. This does not make me anti-American, but it sure does make me bitter about my country, especially if I voice this and get pounced on people for it..
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Hm. *My* cousin spent March 2003 to February 2004 in Iraq, then came home and said that he would vote for whomever the Democrats nominated because the experience of his division led him to believe that the Administration misjudged the size of the task and grossly underestimated the material and human demands of war, thus making the Army's job harder. So does my cousin cancel out Chad's cousin?
Posted by Altįriėl of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
to original post: You mean that if your cousin were not there, but everything else was still going on, would have still voted for Bush?
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Depends. What does your cousin look like?
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Eh, 5'10", 175. Dark hair, winning smile, real smooth with the ladies.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
@ Xap.![[Frown]](frown.gif)