[Chuckit]

Right, because I totally have some reason to want to "bullcrap my way around it."

What I'm doing is explaining to you why such disingenuous questioning won't get you any good answers. You can either learn or you can keep repeating the same stupid zingers and thinking, "lol i win at teh intarwebs." Your call, coach.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I held off on using the MacNN ignore list because I thought I could restrain myself from paying attention to him, but I failed. After discovering the actual MacNN/vBulletin ignore list, I found that the subtle "this user is on your ignore list" warnings have been gentle reminders that there is a reason why I'm ignoring him. You might want to join the club

Doesn't explain why you still respond to me.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

No, the question was: "What method of tackling terrorism would be acceptable to liberals?"

And boy are you trying to bullcrap your way around it!

This post pretty much sums up the thread.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

No, the question was: "What method of tackling terrorism would be acceptable to liberals?"

And boy are you trying to bullcrap your way around it!

Crash, I've answered the question, others have too. If our answers need clarification, this sort of treatment is probably not going to inspire us.


Hint: check out page 1, where the original poster asked that I stop answering the original question and talk about the NYT incident

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Crash, I've answered the question, others have too. If our answers need clarification, this sort of treatment is probably not going to inspire us.


Hint: check out page 1, where the original poster asked that I stop answering the original question and talk about the NYT incident

Just as an experiment, I want to see how this would have went if Simey, one of the smartest people in this forum, used just a fraction of that intelligence towards putting a clamp on his inner asshole.

Besson...

This whole banking deal seems inarguably legal. I mean, bank transactions already aren't private, especially so when we leave the confines of the US and take it to the global stage.

Therefore, this NYT article seems to have helped no one but the terrorists.

Of course, the NYT wrote this other article, about something far more shady (NSA wiretaps), and got the exact same reaction from the White House. I must admit, I assumed that the banking deal was equally shady. Though I had to claw through his unrepentantly hostile attitude, I think Simey does have a point. The bank thing just isn't as shady. In fact, AFAICT, it isn't shady at all.

Now lets say for whatever reason I didn't think the NSA thing was particularly shady. From that position, since the "liberals" are now crowing about something where it's obviously not shady, it's a plausible conclusion that the "liberals"must be trying to be difficult or something.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego

Just as an experiment, I want to see how this would have went if Simey, one of the smartest people in this forum, used just a fraction of that intelligence towards putting a clamp on his inner asshole.

Besson...

This whole banking deal seems inarguably legal. I mean, bank transactions already aren't private, especially so when we leave the confines of the US and take it to the global stage.

Therefore, this NYT article seems to have helped no one but the terrorists.

Of course, the NYT wrote this other article, about something far more shady (NSA wiretaps), and got the exact same reaction from the White House. I must admit, I assumed that the banking deal was equally shady. Though I had to claw through his unrepentantly hostile attitude, I think Simey does have a point. The bank thing just isn't as shady. In fact, AFAICT, it isn't shady at all.

Now lets say for whatever reason I didn't think the NSA thing was particularly shady. From that position, since the "liberals" are now crowing about something where it's obviously not shady, it's a plausible conclusion that the "liberals"must be trying to be difficult or something.

Subego,

I'm not a legal expert, but I'll say that if it is legal for the government to monitor bank records without a warrant or whatever, I'm fine with it.

I'm still confused on why it is difficult to get an F-ing warrant though. Maybe this is just my seemingly natural state of distrust in the government (and seeing Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room just the other day sure didn't help).

[Doofy]

Here's some reaction to these events:

Originally Posted by Bank 1

If you live in, or are a citizen of, one of the following countries you cannot open this account: Afghanistan, Albania, Colombia, Cook Islands, Dominica, Egypt, Grenada, Guatemala, Indonesia, Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Nauru, Nigeria, Niue, St. Vincent, The Philippines, USA.

Originally Posted by Bank 2

US clients (either live in the US or US citizens) can now open this account but only if you choose to report the account in the US by way of a W9 form

Originally Posted by Bank 3

USA: You can only watch your account statements. Absolutely no instruction to invest or transfer money can be given by any means, including Internet, fax, phone or email, from the territory of the United States.

Originally Posted by Bank 3

Mail retaining is mandatory for US clients - the bank will not contact you nor accept any instructions sent by you from the territory of the United States.

Originally Posted by Bank 4

If you live in, or are a citizen of, one of the following countries you cannot open this account: Albania, Colombia, Nigeria, USA.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I'm still confused on why it is difficult to get an F-ing warrant though. Maybe this is just my seemingly natural state of distrust in the government (and seeing Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room just the other day sure didn't help).

I'm certainly no expert either, but I imagine a big part of it is that SWIFT is in a foreign country. I assume they'd have to get a Belgian warrant if they need anything.

That it's in a foreign country is also the main reason I realized I shouldn't (or more accurately can't, since it's out of my control) worry about it from a civil liberties point-of-view.

In fact, I think this concept can be expanded in an attempt to answer the question posed in the thread title.

Though I'm not 100% convinced yet, I'm beginning to think (due to both 9/11, and some massive foreign policy ****ups on our part) we need to rethink our "international" civil rights in the US.

For example, we still theoretically have the right to privacy during an international call. I'd be shocked if there is some other country in the world where people have that right. Maybe (sadly) it's time that particular right took one for the team.

I came to this conclusion despite, not because of, the "conservative" element here. In fact, I was so tired of the accusations that dissent is un-American, and that I should not only accept mutilation of our civil rights but accept clandestine mutilation of our civil rights. Hell, it was at least a good month before I was willing to drop my defenses and actually consider the question in terms of "what would you be willing to sacrifice if it was done above-board?"

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by subego

Just as an experiment, I want to see how this would have went if Simey, one of the smartest people in this forum, used just a fraction of that intelligence towards putting a clamp on his inner asshole.

That's funny because never have I assumed Simey was very smart. Somewhere in the average (95-105 IQ), since he can spell and all. More or less anyway.

If by smart you mean 'smart-ass' then yeah. He would be one of the top 5 of this forum, with Captain Obvious, Ca$h et al.

One of the smartest posters I've seen in this forum is Spliffdaddy

V

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by subego

For example, we still theoretically have the right to privacy during an international call. I'd be shocked if there is some other country in the world where people have that right. Maybe (sadly) it's time that particular right took one for the team.

Because…? My civil rights haven't been causing me any undue pain lately. I don't feel inclined to give them up just because "it's time."

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Because…?

As I said, because of 9/11, and a ridiculously bad string of foreign policy ****ups

Originally Posted by Chuckit

My civil rights haven't been causing me any undue pain lately. I don't feel inclined to give them up just because "it's time."

S'cool.

There is plenty of room for disagreement and debate here. To have it any other way would be un-American.

[dcmacdaddy]

Ummm, for everyone complaining there were no legitimate replies to Simey's post, or that the question was framed in such a way as to not permit legitimate replies, I posted this answer seven days ago . . . and didn't get a single reply, even from Simey. So, below is one left-of-center (in the American political spectrum) individual's suggestions on how we could/should tackle terrorism. Anyone care to reply to these suggestions.

For those of you who can't be bothered to read it, I propose we stop trying to wage war againt an idea (terrorism) and instead draw up a list of specific groups/nations that we believe support terrorism, define our military objectives in terms of what parameters we would consider as "winning" the war against these groups/nations, and then going after these groups/nations with these specific goals/parameters for winning in mind.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Yes, let's fight the war on terror as a war.

For starters, let's define the target as a group of actors and/or nations instead of an idea. You can't "fight" an idea with military weapons. So, let's come up with a list of specific groups we wish to fight and nations we wish to attack--I would say any nation harboring and/or supporting significant numbers of these groups that make up our enemies qualifies for designation as an enemy--and then go ahead and invade these countries. I would like to see invasions of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan next; For all their supposed support to the US in the War on Terror these two nations are still the biggest producers/protectors of anti-US [or anti-Western] terrorists.


When we have identified our specific targets let's pursue them relentlessly and not give up half-way. You know, like we did in Afghanistan, allowing the Taleban to remain a vital fighting force--in fact, growing in strength--and providing protection for Al Qaeda.


And when we do engage in war against our specifically identified enemies, lets treat anyone we capture on the battlefield as prisoners of WAR--since you know, we are fighting a war--and not make up some new fancy-schmancy term for those we capture. If we are going to claim to be at war let's act like we are at war and follow the rules of war.


So, I am OK with using our military to fight the war on terror. But let's treat it like a war--with defined enemies and defined geopolitical objectives that allows us to determine when we have won/lost--instead of an amorphous project to fight an idea. My biggest issue with the way the current "war" on terror is run has to do with tactics and procedures and the fact that we are not fighting ALL those who support anti-US terrorism. I would like to see the US military clearly articulate a list of enemies to the US that we will be pursuing in this war and the countries that support those enemies. Finally, I would like to see the US invade Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to ensure that terrorist supporters in those countries are rooted out and eliminated.

[subego]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

A good idea

But...

Wouldn't this realistically involve kicking our oil habit cold turkey?

Even with Eco McTreehugger at the helm wouldn't doing that be an enormously difficult and long term process (i.e. 10 years at least)?

Not that it isn't a good idea, this just seems to be an unmentioned (and biggie-size) hurdle to putting your plan into effect.

[Doofy]

@ dcmacdaddy...


...But what if you actually are fighting an ideology?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by subego

But...

Wouldn't this realistically involve kicking our oil habit cold turkey?

Even with Eco McTreehugger at the helm wouldn't doing that be an enormously difficult and long term process (i.e. 10 years at least)?

Not that it isn't a good idea, this just seems to be an unmentioned (and biggie-size) hurdle to putting your plan into effect.

Certainly we would need to drastically reduce our use of oil if we invaded Saudi Arabia but I think the threat of invasions, or a small-scale invasion, would be sufficient to get them to stop supporting terrorism. And besides, as much as we need Saudi Arabian oil, they need American consumers. If we cut our consumption drastically over a short period of time (say 10-15 years) the demand side of their business would drop rather dramatically. As such, they would not be able to sustain the high prices they currently enjoy. (Even other countries like China and India couldn't consume the sudden excess capacity we would introduce.) And if they can't sustain their high prices that hurts them just as much if not more than if we did a small-scale invasion. But, what we need is a President who tells the Saudi princes that they stop supporting terrorists or WE will stop them from doing so. (And this is NOT a indirect criticism of President Bush. While he is very close to the Saudi's Clinton and Bush I were as well.) Certainly, with Saudi Arabia, I would like to see us engage in long-term covert operations aimed at over-throwing the current Wahhabists in power and replacing them with more moderate Sunnis. It is the Wahhabists that are supporting all the terrorism.

[subego]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I would like to see us engage in long-term covert operations aimed at over-throwing the current Wahhabists in power and replacing them with more moderate Sunnis. It is the Wahhabists that are supporting all the terrorism.

I loves me some realpolitik.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy

@ dcmacdaddy...


...But what if you actually are fighting an ideology?

You CAN'T wage war against an ideology.

Ideology drives actions on the part of individuals/groups/nations. So, you need to fight the actions to effect a change in the ideology. Seriously, I think we should have Special froces troops all over the Northwest Frontier province of Pakistan and Waziristan in Afghanistan killing, not capturing just killing, every anti-Western/anti-US terrorist we encounter. Our troops should have orders to kill, kill, kill until these folks lay down their arms or there are no more left willing to take up the fight. Because, that is just it. The ideas and anti-western sentiments will never go away but the willingess of individuals/groups/nations to act on these ideas can be diminished if they know that the moment they take up arms we are going to come gunning for them.

We CANNOT change their ideologies. Only they can. But, what we can do is act in such a way (killing all those engaged in anti-western/anti-US terrorism) that these individuals/groups/nations work within themselves to change their ideologies.

What is been left out of my suggestions has been the carrot in the carrot-and-stick metaphor to get them to change their ideologies. We've got the stick with US troops killing everyone but we also need the carrot of enticements that would cause these groups--I am thinking this carrot would apply more on a national level than on a regional or individual level--to want to change their ideologies. We need to do more things like humanitarian aid (especially in the field of early-childhood diseases and female/maternal wellness) before some calamity strikes (like the earthquakes that are prone to occur on Pakistan and Afghanistan). We need to proactively engage nations with support that benefits them--imagine if we helped develop a low-cost, sturdy construction technique that would help them build more structures that withstood earthquakes, and then built for them the factories needed to build these construction components. Granted, these are long-term projects that don't provide immediate benefit, or a change in attitude, but that is the approach we need to take.

We need to think about killing those who are taking up arms against us now but changing the attitudes of those just being born such that they will never want to take up arms against us.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Crash, I've answered the question, others have too. If our answers need clarification, this sort of treatment is probably not going to inspire us.


Hint: check out page 1, where the original poster asked that I stop answering the original question and talk about the NYT incident

Let's see- Simey's very first post asked specifically about the NYT incident- you waited several posts before revealing you hadn't even read it, and therefore didn't even understand the question. Your only genuine answer was when you admited you didn't know what should be done- personally I think you should have left it at that, it was at least honest, and probably true for most people.

Sorry the question was so hard for others, or *sniffle sniffle* asked in such a way that hurt fragile widdle feelings. Oh well.

In general- so now we're back to military is the solution? Mmmmmokay. Sure.

But that does wreak of the original idea -yes Virginia, floated mainly by liberals- that terrorism being a law enforcement issue was nothing but bullcrap.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Ummm, for everyone complaining there were no legitimate replies to Simey's post, or that the question was framed in such a way as to not permit legitimate replies, I posted this answer seven days ago . . .

Eh, I pretty much stopped reading after the fifth or sixth time Simey derailed his own thread, so sorry I missed it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Let's see- Simey's very first post asked specifically about the NYT incident

Oh, come on. You told me very specifically that the only question was "What method of tackling terrorism would be acceptable to liberals?" Were you in fact bullshitting me?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Oh, come on. You told me very specifically that the only question was "What method of tackling terrorism would be acceptable to liberals?" Were you in fact bullshitting me?

Are you like, 8 or something?
Did you happen to read the thread title?
Did you happen to read the first post?
Is this my thread?

Knock off the tap dancing already. You couldn't answer the original question, so you made up your own bullcrap to smokescreen your way past answering the original question, then whined that having the question repeated to you was too insensitive for you to answer.

[Chuckit]

Yes, yes, yes and no. My point is, the question is not as simple as you were trying to make it sound. When somebody's saying the thread is less simple than it sounds, you tell us that "What method of tackling terrorism would be acceptable to liberals?" is the sum of this thread and any claim otherwise is just a "smokescreen." Then, when somebody says he's already answered that question, you tell him there's more to the thread than that — thus proving my original point!

By the way, you haven't answered the original question either.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Yes, yes, yes and no. My point is, the question is not as simple as you were trying to make it sound. When somebody's saying the thread is less simple than it sounds, you tell us that "What method of tackling terrorism would be acceptable to liberals?" is the sum of this thread and any claim otherwise is just a "smokescreen." Then, when somebody says he's already answered that question, you tell him there's more to the thread than that — thus proving my original point!

By the way, you haven't answered the original question either.

I don't think he does want an answer, because that would take wind out of his sails. The question has been answered Crash, it's not my fault that it was more complicated than you would have liked. I couldn't have been more clear expressing my opinion on what the best method is, so I won't even try unless I have reason to believe you are looking for an actual discussion here.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I don't think he does want an answer, because that would take wind out of his sails. The question has been answered Crash, it's not my fault that it was more complicated than you would have liked. I couldn't have been more clear expressing my opinion on what the best method is, so I won't even try unless I have reason to believe you are looking for an actual discussion here.

The answer is only complicated if you're obfuscating, because Simey's original question was very to the point, and dead on. Go back and read post 1, then actually address that post, not ask for links and tap-dance.

Personally, I think the original question posed by Simey is so hard to answer for some, because just a few years ago they were crowing incessantly about terrorism being a law enforcement issue, yet clearly they've been willing to allow the NYT to sell out a law enforcement method of fighting terror that even they admit was neither illegal nor ineffective. That hardly shows that the law-enforcement argument was legit.

If that's too insensitive to point out, then tough.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

The answer is only complicated if you're obfuscating, because Simey's original question was very to the point, and dead on. Go back and read post 1, then actually address that post, not ask for links and tap-dance.

Personally, I think the original question posed by Simey is so hard to answer for some, because just a few years ago they were crowing incessantly about terrorism being a law enforcement issue, yet clearly they've been willing to allow the NYT to sell out a law enforcement method of fighting terror that even they admit was neither illegal nor ineffective. That hardly shows that the law-enforcement argument was legit.

If that's too insensitive to point out, then tough.

Who is "they", and why have you lumped me in with "them"?

[BRussell]

Well, I think the title of the post was a rhetorical question, and the main point was to discuss the revelation of this bank spying program, not liberal ideas for fighting terrorism in general.

But this idea that liberals view the fight against Islamic radicalism as "law enforcement" is nonsense. The vast majority of liberals supported the military action in Afghanistan. What most liberals opposed is the war in Iraq, which we argue is a distraction from the war on terrorism. We don't oppose it because we don't like the use of military to fight terrorism. And a solid majority of Americans now believe that liberals were right in their opposition to the Iraq war.

How would liberals fight terrorism? With the military, with (legal) intelligence gathering, with strong international alliances, with a long-term strategy for energy independence, and as a war of liberal values (e.g., in our handling of detainees) in opposition to the values of the religious fundie whacko jihadists.

We all now know what conservatives would do to fight terrorism. But the question is whether it's effective or not. Well it certainly doesn't seem to be, according to the experts:

Despite today’s highly politicized national security environment, the index results show striking consensus across political party lines. A bipartisan majority (84 percent) of the index’s experts say the United States is not winning the war on terror.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Well, I think the title of the post was a rhetorical question, and the main point was to discuss the revelation of this bank spying program, not liberal ideas for fighting terrorism in general.

But this idea that liberals view the fight against Islamic radicalism as "law enforcement" is nonsense. The vast majority of liberals supported the military action in Afghanistan. What most liberals opposed is the war in Iraq, which we argue is a distraction from the war on terrorism. We don't oppose it because we don't like the use of military to fight terrorism. And a solid majority of Americans now believe that liberals were right in their opposition to the Iraq war.

How would liberals fight terrorism? With the military, with (legal) intelligence gathering, with strong international alliances, with a long-term strategy for energy independence, and as a war of liberal values (e.g., in our handling of detainees) in opposition to the values of the religious fundie whacko jihadists.

We all now know what conservatives would do to fight terrorism. But the question is whether it's effective or not. Well it certainly doesn't seem to be, according to the experts:

Which is essentially what I said (although I didn't address international alliances, because I figured that it would be pretty implicit), but it apparently wasn't specific.

Where it becomes exposed that this is a leading question is when you'd ask a Republican the exact same thing and they'd respond in similar non-specific language. Exactly *how* we build international alliances is not a question that they would be prepared to answer either - at least those of us in here, if you'll pardon my generalization and assumptions.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

The answer is only complicated if you're obfuscating, because Simey's original question was very to the point, and dead on. Go back and read post 1, then actually address that post, not ask for links and tap-dance.

Personally, I think the original question posed by Simey is so hard to answer for some, because just a few years ago they were crowing incessantly about terrorism being a law enforcement issue, yet clearly they've been willing to allow the NYT to sell out a law enforcement method of fighting terror that even they admit was neither illegal nor ineffective. That hardly shows that the law-enforcement argument was legit.

If that's too insensitive to point out, then tough.

You still haven't answered the original question. Stop tapdancing.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

You still haven't answered the original question. Stop tapdancing.

You mean how would conservatives fight terrorism? We already know that:

• Stop hunting for bin Laden
• Invade and occupy Iraq
• Appoint completely inexperienced campaign donors to lead major divisions of the Homeland Security Department
• Cut taxes on the wealthy
• Run for reelection

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell

You mean how would conservatives fight terrorism?

I dunno. Whatever he keeps getting on me for not answering. Doesn't seem that he's answered it either.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by BRussell

You mean how would conservatives fight terrorism? We already know that:

• Stop hunting for bin Laden
• Invade and occupy Iraq
• Appoint completely inexperienced campaign donors to lead major divisions of the Homeland Security Department
• Cut taxes on the wealthy
• Run for reelection

They also won the re-election. Their incompentence is their own fault, but the majority of American voters voted for the re-election of Dubya.

Americans only have themselves to blame if they don't like the current way terrorism is being fought or their country is being run.

If four years of the most crappy administration in recent history of the Western World only convinced people to re-elect W, then hey. He must be doing a good job, whatever it is, no?

V

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by voodoo

They also won the re-election. Their incompentence is their own fault, but the majority of American voters voted for the re-election of Dubya.

Americans only have themselves to blame if they don't like the current way terrorism is being fought or their country is being run.

If four years of the most crappy administration in recent history of the Western World only convinced people to re-elect W, then hey. He must be doing a good job, whatever it is, no?

V

Or, the Democrats couldn't field a candidate that was appealing enough to those outside of Bush's base of voters he could count on voting for him.

Why is this the fault of ordinary Americans?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Or, the Democrats couldn't field a candidate that was appealing enough to those outside of Bush's base of voters he could count on voting for him.

Why is this the fault of ordinary Americans?

Because it seems (according to the election results) that the ordinary American is a Bush voter?

V

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Because it seems (according to the election results) that the ordinary American is a Bush voter?

V

No, the ordinary American is apolitical. In general, there are more swing voters (i.e. not loyal to a party) than there are ideologues devoted to their party. In other words, a candidate can win simply by attracting some ideologues and enough swing voters who prefer the candidate over his/her opponent, and this could quite easily be a winning formula for a won election.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by voodoo

They also won the re-election. Their incompentence is their own fault, but the majority of American voters voted for the re-election of Dubya.

Americans only have themselves to blame if they don't like the current way terrorism is being fought or their country is being run.

Yup. And it's doubly annoying that, for the past year or so, he's consistently been one of the most unpopular presidents in American history (approval ratings of around 35%). It's not like we didn't know what he was about when we reelected him.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by besson3c

No, the ordinary American is apolitical. In general, there are more swing voters (i.e. not loyal to a party) than there are ideologues devoted to their party. In other words, a candidate can win simply by attracting some ideologues and enough swing voters who prefer the candidate over his/her opponent, and this could quite easily be a winning formula for a won election.

Yes, but there are more conservatives than liberals in the US. About 1/3 of the country calls themselves conservative, liberals are only about 1/5. Since only half the country votes, all conservatives need to do is rev up that 1/3 to win. Democrats need to appeal to independents - and they always do have a lot more independents, just not enough to overcome that initial disadvantage. Sucks for liberals, but that's the reality.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by besson3c

No, the ordinary American is apolitical. In general, there are more swing voters (i.e. not loyal to a party) than there are ideologues devoted to their party. In other words, a candidate can win simply by attracting some ideologues and enough swing voters who prefer the candidate over his/her opponent, and this could quite easily be a winning formula for a won election.

So the worst president in modern history won the swing voters. Then they are truly stupid. Nothing wrong with that, but that's the way democracy works.

That's the way the ordinary American works. Vote for crap, get crap - but if crap is what you want then W is your man. So.. the average American voted for him.

Big mistake, but he'll be out in two years or so. I wonder what the average American will vote for then.. (not)

V

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Yes, but there are more conservatives than liberals in the US. About 1/3 of the country calls themselves conservative, liberals are only about 1/5. Since only half the country votes, all conservatives need to do is rev up that 1/3 to win. Democrats need to appeal to independents - and they always do have a lot more independents, just not enough to overcome that initial disadvantage. Sucks for liberals, but that's the reality.

What do you base those numbers on? People's political compasses are somewhere in between Liberal and Conservative, and where this sits is a slow moving pendulum swinging back and forth, but it is never stationary according to basic Political Science theory.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by besson3c

What do you base those numbers on? People's political compasses are somewhere in between Liberal and Conservative, and where this sits is a slow moving pendulum swinging back and forth, but it is never stationary according to basic Political Science theory.

It's been very stable over the years, and, I believe, widely recognized as a basic fact of American politics. Here's one example, but they all show basically the same thing:

Conservatives = 35%
Moderates = 40%
Liberals = 20%

That's been rock-solid for decades. It explains why Democrats are mealy-mouthed flip-floppers and Republicans are loud-mouthed extremists. As long as only half the country votes, Democrats know they need independents and Republicans know all they need is their base.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BRussell

It's been very stable over the years, and, I believe, widely recognized as a basic fact of American politics. Here's one example, but they all show basically the same thing:

Conservatives = 35%
Moderates = 40%
Liberals = 20%

That's been rock-solid for decades. It explains why Democrats are mealy-mouthed flip-floppers and Republicans are loud-mouthed extremists. As long as only half the country votes, Democrats know they need independents and Republicans know all they need is their base.

There is some contradicting on this page... The numbers you are quoting deal with political philosophy, but party affiliation tells us something else. Political philosophy sounds like a pretty relative and strange poll. Are my ideas liberal or conservative? Compared to what?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by voodoo

They also won the re-election. Their incompentence is their own fault, but the majority of American voters voted for the re-election of Dubya.

Americans only have themselves to blame if they don't like the current way terrorism is being fought or their country is being run.

We didn't really have any option, did we?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

We didn't really have any option, did we?

Nobody was running against Bush?

V

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Nobody was running against Bush?

Nobody better — or even with a real alternative.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell

But this idea that liberals view the fight against Islamic radicalism as "law enforcement" is nonsense.

Originally Posted by BRussell

from this thread, March 2004:
How do you win this war? It seems to me that, at the least, it's a very very different kind of war, one that doesn't involve much in the way of troops taking land and all those other traditional war concepts. It really is much more like law enforcement and intelligence gathering and special operations. Are people who believe that softer on terrorism?

Answer: YES, when they don't follow up with the law enforcement end, and make excuses for those who undermine law enforcement.

There wouldn't be much of a problem with any liberal's position here, except the glaring inconsistancy with defending the NYT's actions- as has been said before, even they've admited nothing was illegal, and the program had been working- so all those non-arguments otherwise are smokescreens.

It casts doubts that liberals really are serious in what they offer up as solutions, when you're inconsistant even in supporting the methods you once touted (seems to be get Bush takes priority over EVERYTHING)- if people can't see that, or think it's unfair to point it out, tough.

Now, by all means go back to blaming conservatives and trying desperately to change the subject. I have yet to see conservatives excuse the outing of any anti-terror military or law enforcement actions by newspaper editors.

[Chuckit]

Wow, conservatives support the operations of our almost entirely conservative government? I am shocked to discover this.

[BRussell]

Damn you and your post searches crash harddrive!

[Kerrigan]

Cash is the smartest person on MacNN

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Damn you and your post searches crash harddrive!

You got owned pretty bad I'd have to say.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Certainly we would need to drastically reduce our use of oil if we invaded Saudi Arabia but I think the threat of invasions, or a small-scale invasion, would be sufficient to get them to stop supporting terrorism. And besides, as much as we need Saudi Arabian oil, they need American consumers. If we cut our consumption drastically over a short period of time (say 10-15 years) the demand side of their business would drop rather dramatically. As such, they would not be able to sustain the high prices they currently enjoy. (Even other countries like China and India couldn't consume the sudden excess capacity we would introduce.) And if they can't sustain their high prices that hurts them just as much if not more than if we did a small-scale invasion. But, what we need is a President who tells the Saudi princes that they stop supporting terrorists or WE will stop them from doing so. (And this is NOT a indirect criticism of President Bush. While he is very close to the Saudi's Clinton and Bush I were as well.) Certainly, with Saudi Arabia, I would like to see us engage in long-term covert operations aimed at over-throwing the current Wahhabists in power and replacing them with more moderate Sunnis. It is the Wahhabists that are supporting all the terrorism.

I both agree and disagree with this post. The Wahhabis need to be neutralised in Saudi Arabia. They are the biggest producers of extremism within the Muslim community and because of their money (that they get from us in the West) they are able to fund mosques and Imams in the West. This in turn creates more extremism within the Western Muslim community. This all needs to be stopped if we are ever to stop "Islamic" terrorism.

On the other hand any US hand in overturning the Wahhabi control of Saudi Arabia would result in an even worse situation. Saudi Arabia (due to Mecca and Medinah) is sort of the heart of the Islamic world. Any US attack on that would have an disastrous outcome.

The revolution needs to come from within or from other Muslim nations. That's the only way to change the rulers of Saudi Arabia. There's a rather easy way to do that but mentioning that in this thread will derail it completely so I'll just let you guess it. A hint though, there is a very easy way to get SA's neighbours to be friendly enough to do something about SA.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Answer: YES, when they don't follow up with the law enforcement end, and make excuses for those who undermine law enforcement.

There wouldn't be much of a problem with any liberal's position here, except the glaring inconsistancy with defending the NYT's actions- as has been said before, even they've admited nothing was illegal, and the program had been working- so all those non-arguments otherwise are smokescreens.

It casts doubts that liberals really are serious in what they offer up as solutions, when you're inconsistant even in supporting the methods you once touted (seems to be get Bush takes priority over EVERYTHING)- if people can't see that, or think it's unfair to point it out, tough.

Right. One Liberal thinks different, therefore, the group is incoherent.

Now, by all means go back to blaming conservatives and trying desperately to change the subject.

Especially if the subject is irrelevant to reality. The Press is the usual scapegoat for government incompetence.

I have yet to see conservatives excuse the outing of any anti-terror military or law enforcement actions by newspaper editors.

This argumentation of politicizing what was a lack of respect of policy from the 20 or so people who decided that talkng with the Press is a safe thing, as long as the Press keeps shut is ludicrous.

If you want the Press to align with government, then raid the editorial office and put a political officer.

If it is fine that the Law representatives can talk of their work to anyone, as long as those who heard won't repeat it makes me I wonder how close we get from a police State.

But heck; if the whistle blowing is deafening, denial is certainly more damageable.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I both agree and disagree with this post. The Wahhabis need to be neutralised in Saudi Arabia. They are the biggest producers of extremism within the Muslim community and because of their money (that they get from us in the West) they are able to fund mosques and Imams in the West. This in turn creates more extremism within the Western Muslim community. This all needs to be stopped if we are ever to stop "Islamic" terrorism.

On the other hand any US hand in overturning the Wahhabi control of Saudi Arabia would result in an even worse situation. Saudi Arabia (due to Mecca and Medinah) is sort of the heart of the Islamic world. Any US attack on that would have an disastrous outcome.

The revolution needs to come from within or from other Muslim nations. That's the only way to change the rulers of Saudi Arabia. There's a rather easy way to do that but mentioning that in this thread will derail it completely so I'll just let you guess it. A hint though, there is a very easy way to get SA's neighbours to be friendly enough to do something about SA.

The need for secrecy is why I suggested long-term covert operations. We need to get people on the ground and infilitrated into whatever anti-Wahhabi resistance groups there are in Saudi Arabia. To avoide a complete invasion (and world-wide Muslim hostility towards the US as a result) this needs to be a generational solution. We need to work with the next generation of princes just entering their prime now so that when they take the throne they are more amenable to ratcheting down the Wahabbi fundamentalist rhetoric.

So, we have our leaders go to the Saudi leaders and tell them to start reigning in their terrorist supporting activities.
We also have our leaders instituting dramatic policy changes within the US such that within 10-15 years we could cut our usage of Saudi oil by 25% (minimum).
We also have our leaders run an ongoing covert inflitration program in Saudi Arabia so we can get the scoop on who is doing what within the House of Saud related to funding terrorists. And we allow them to act on this intelligence, perhaps even with extreme prejudice, when certain individuals are identified as being responsible for certain funding campaigns.
Finally, we use our special operations troops for select operations within Saudi Arabia targeting terror training camps.


PS: I am not interested in your coy guessing games. If you have something to say, then say it.