sevastopol wrote
You may find it interesting to know that what you wrote here is how I view a good many of my left-leaning SD brethern and sistern: smart people who’ve chosen a (very left) view for life and have no interest in seeing both sides. Those that don’t share their view are sub-human and not worthy of holding discussions with or exploring the views of.
Bill, are you ever going to answer my question?
On the other hand, you cannot get away from the fact that these people made accurate predictions about:
Don’t mistake me, it’s not that they are stupid, on the right.
For thousands of generations mammals survived, by following instinctive and reflexive responses from the older, reptilian parts of the brain. No wonder those parts are still there. Cognition is a Johnny come lately. Negotiated settlements are not famously effectve when the opposing parties are crocodiles and leopards.
Seeming Stong, Crushing an Enemy: these are appeals aimed nowhere near the reasoning parts of the brain. The very good reason being that at the instinctive level people are automatons. Put them under stress of an attack and they *must * respond affirmatively to a leader who fits the ancient mold.
Never mind, that in the world, laid end to end as a sequence of rational propositions the policy makes no sense. So where does cognition come into this? It is right there in the inventiveness people display in coming up with rationalisations for the instinctive and visceral response. Pretty rationalisations.
Stoid wrote
Funny you should ask; you’re up.
Stoid wrote
Actually, your post forced a bit of introspect on my part. The fact is that I hold these last three values quite highly. And these are pretty Republican-ish ideals.
In the scope of things, I’d much rather have a pro-business government. Others here may disagree, but my assessment is that when business thrives, the economy thrives, jobs thrive, basically everything thrives. And that’s core to society’s well-being. Sure, I place civil-liberties above the rights of business, but as far as I’m concerned, our society is doing pretty damn good there. Yeah, there is some racism, sexism, other isms, but in general it’s illegal, and in general it’s scarce. It isn’t the sort of serious problem it was 100 years ago, or even 40 years ago. When our biggest civil problem is that people in love can’t marry each other, well that’s a pretty good problem to have. A hell of a lot better than worrying about being unjustly jailed or denied access to the upper levels of society or being hung in a tree just because. And I know there are horrific exceptions, and even those need to be squelched. But in general things really aren’t that bad from a civil-liberties point of view.
But you asked about green. Actually, I’m in favor of green stuff. When it’s free. But it’s never free. And in the scope of things, I rarely find the value worth the price. There are exceptions of course. It’s not like I actually want smoggy skies or littered beaches. You can’t just let industry completely trample things. But for my money, there’s currently too much restrictive legislation in place, not too little.
By the way, this was the biggest reason I was against Gore; he clung so tightly to his green thoughts, there was just no way I could ever support him.
I don’t understand how you can even consider “leadership” an issue. Bush is pro-gun, anti-gay and anti-abortion. He’ll be working directly against your wishes. He’ll be doing the exact opposite of what you want. Why is this “leadership” quality more important than actually doing good stuff instead of bad?
Mapache wrote
I know I said I wouldn’t respond to idiots, but I’ll respond to this one.
First off, you’re a idiot.
Second, anyone who uses the terms pro-choice and pro-life are implicitly lying.
The argument “I’m not in favor of abortion; I just think it should be a woman’s choice” is idiotic. By that logic, being in favor of selling assault weapons isn’t pro-guns, it’s pro-choice. “I’m not in favor of assualt weapons; I just think people should be able to choose to own them”. Bull shit! You’re in favor of assault weapons; be a man and say it.
The term “pro-life” is equally offensive. First off, who is to say if a few cells is life anyway? And where does the life of the mother fit into it? And what about all the lives that will be lost by the delay of medical research with stem-cells for example?
So, I choose pro-truth. I’m pro-abortion and I’ll say it.
Priceguy wrote
Well, there are other issues where I do concur with Bush, and as it turns out these are higher priority for me than the three you (and I mentioned). Specifically, a strong hand with terrorism and pro-business supercede these.
How well is Bush’s 'strong hand with terrorism" doing?
I guess you can say that there have been no attacks on US soil since 2001. But with the situation in Iraq and Afganistan, which are getting out of control and will likely become breeding grounds for future terrorists, can you say that Bush has made the world safer for Americans?
If not, what good is a “strong hand” if it is used in a counter-productive way?
Also, about pro-business, what exactly has Bush proposed or signed into law that you consider pro-business?
Maybe the simple solution is that Bill H.'s ideal for a leader in the War on Terror™ is someone who ignoring the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks, starts unprovoked wars with uninvolved nations on false pretenses, then cynically exploits said wars for the benefit of himself and his cronies.
I mean, if that’s the kind of leadership Bill wants, no wonder Kerry’s not his guy!
Wow. I have seen some serious craniorectal issues on this board before, but never, I think (well, OK; never this side of Scylla, that is) have I seen one so intractable.
It’s pretty clear to me that this guy is a died-in-the-wool, reactionary rightwing nutjob. But he’s taking a page from O’Reilly’s book: while spouting cliche rightwing rhetoric and dishonestly twisting any information from a source anywhere to the left of Antonin Scalia, he’s holding up flashcards with “no spin”-type catchphrases on them. “Well, I’m really more of a democrat on this issue, except for [the standard rightwing objections to it].” What kind of bullshit is that?
“Well, I’m really Napoleon, except for the fact that I’ve never been to France and was born 150 years after he died, and I’m about a foot shorter than he was. Still, but for those few things, I’m Napoleon Bonaparte.”
I think Bill H is simply someone confined to a narrow and unrepresentative set of news sources. And happy with it.
Nothing unusual about that. Tragic yes, unusual no.
Gailbraith had a terrific article recently on this demographic. Summary: Kerry cannot reach them and shouldn’t bother.
You’re probly right: he considers himself liberalish because, in the context of his narrow worldview, he probly is.
Bill, FYI, there’s a much greater context to be had: you really should expand your reading.
Careful! He might come back to call you a idiot 
[QUOTE=Bill H.]
Sorry about the delays. Some responses for serious points/questions:
mrunlucky wrote
I’m pro-gay. I support gay rights, including gay marriage. I’m public in these beliefs, and in general I vote these beliefs. But… In the scope of things, I consider the right of gay marriage to be of considerable lesser importance than a safe and strong country. It’s not a gay thing; I’d happily give up the rights to hetero marriages as fast. To me, the two are not even comparable on the priority list. And in my mind, Bush wins hands down on the safe country front.
Well, thank you for telling me that my marriage rights come second to your neurotic fears of terrorism. Because it will be a cold day in Hell before you have to give up your rights to marriage for any reason at all.
Unlike you, I’m not neurotically afraid of terrorism (your fear of terrorism is what gives it strength, and what suggests that the terrorists have already won) – I’m far more afraid of Bush and his cronies, selling this country to the highest, holiest, corporate bidders at the expense of the environment, and the majority of the population.
It usually boils down to this, doesn’t it? <sigh>
Clean air, clean water, a planet whose climate isn’t going a vast uncontrolled experiment…Who needs it when there’s a buck to be made!?!
The hope of the person dismissing the above is usually that by ignoring the consequences of environmental disaster, they’ll have enough money to be able to afford to buy clean air and water and climate control.
What Bush does is not, by any means, good leadership. It’s easy to lead people who agree with you; a good leader is distinguished by how he deals with opposing viewpoints.
A good leader does not respond with derision (as with the countries that did not support us in the war), dismissal (as with the staffer who was threatened with firing if he did not obscure the cost of the Medicare prescription bill), or blowing one’s undercover status (Valerie Plame).
A good leader would have found a way to support his bill without covering up information. A good leader would have reiterated our respectful disagreement with countries such as France and would have nipped the constant French jokes in the bud. A good leader would have had the person responsible for outing Valerie Plame marched out of the White House in handcuffs months ago.
A leader admits his mistakes, and corrects his course based on them. He takes responsibility when things go wrong, and gives credit where it’s due when things go right. He doesn’t oppose an idea until it becomes inevitable or popular and then embrace it as his own, as he did with the Dept. of Homeland Security or the 9/11 commission.
Bush speaks and acts with conviction, and that can look like leadership. But that conviction is more often than not completely unfounded. Acting with certainty in the face of uncertainty is not good leadership–it is dangerous leadership.
Gotta disagree with the principle of this one. What is certain? When is anything certain?
I’m not a big advocate of paralysis and indecision in the face of uncertainty.
[rant]Well, while clean air and clean water would be nice, sometimes the green party (around here at least) goes way over the top. I get the impression that they try to make things worse for the environment, so that they can point a finger and say “See! We told you so.”
What makes me think that? Well, it’s just one example out of many, but when you put in huge bicycle lanes on a 4 way road, making it a 2 way road, effectively clogging traffic and then crying about pollution due to cars, such ideas spring to mind.
I value the green party as opposition: They need to be a threat to all other parties, so that those other parties develop and ecological conscience. However, those guys should never ever be at the helm, otherwise they’ll try to cripple the economy, which is going to have a negative backlash on the environment as well.[/rant]