Any more Democrats??

[MJDuncan1982]

There is nothing general about specifically saying that Bush is stubborn and blind. Some call it committed and focused. Talking has been going on for years regarding Saddam. We decided it was time for action. Is it a bad thing when debate leads to action? Debating is to determine which course of ACTION to take, NOT just for the sake of hearing ourselves talk!

Yes I was talking about Bush specifically but about his attitude in a general way. I in no way indicated Iraq. Why must you immediately jump the discussion to Iraq?

You infer too much. As when you assumed I was against taking action. Of course debate leads to action...that's why we debate (unless a philosophy student).

 

[dilloduck]

Yes I was talking about Bush specifically but about his attitude in a general way. I in no way indicated Iraq. Why must you immediately jump the discussion to Iraq?

You infer too much. As when you assumed I was against taking action. Of course debate leads to action...that's why we debate (unless a philosophy student).

Well I'm refuting your claim that Bush is a shoot first kinda guy. Name me a time that he acted without discussing it with the leaders of our government first!

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Well I'm refuting your claim that Bush is a shoot first kinda guy. Name me a time that he acted without discussing it with the leaders of our government first!

Again, infer too much. I did not say he acted without discussing things with the government. It is his attitude in general.

An example of his stubborness: STILL refuses to admit he made any mistakes other than appointing people who bailed out of his Admin.

 

[dilloduck]

Again, infer too much. I did not say he acted without discussing things with the government. It is his attitude in general.

An example of his stubborness: STILL refuses to admit he made any mistakes other than appointing people who bailed out of his Admin.

wow--you can backpeddle pretty fast---now you just don't like his attitude but you can't even define it. Do you hate his dog too. He's WAY to smart to fall for a question like "when did you stop beating your wife". What's this policy that the dems and media have of "if you can't nail the pres, make him naiil himself'??? so obvious so silly

 

[5stringJeff]

STILL refuses to admit he made any mistakes other than appointing people who bailed out of his Admin.

So what would you have had him do? Admit that Iraq was a mistake? The media and the Dems would have jumped all over that. Obviously Bush believes that he's doen the right thing. Is he to be blamed for that?

 

[MJDuncan1982]

wow--you can backpeddle pretty fast---now you just don't like his attitude but you can't even define it. Do you hate his dog too. He's WAY to smart to fall for a question like "when did you stop beating your wife". What's this policy that the dems and media have of "if you can't nail the pres, make him naiil himself'??? so obvious so silly

It appears to you that I am backpeddling because you assumed too much of my statements. Look at what I originally said.

I started at point 0. You assumed I was starting at point 5 and when I correct your mistake, you accuse me of backpeddling.

And I'm not sure what to make of the rest of the quote.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Is he to be blamed for that?

Yes...as I've said before you can never know if you are right. An intelligent person always leaves a back door open in his mind for other opinions.

 

[dilloduck]

Yes...as I've said before you can never know if you are right. An intelligent person always leaves a back door open in his mind for other opinions.

No That would be an indecisive person

 

[MJDuncan1982]

No That would be an indecisive person

No, you can act with an open mind.

I may be 75% sure that an action is proper...plenty of certainty to be confident to act on it. However, the mind should remain open because of that other 25%.

 

[Merlin1047]

Yes...as I've said before you can never know if you are right. An intelligent person always leaves a back door open in his mind for other opinions.

I think you liberals have a bad case of Clintonitis. You see determination as inflexibility and waffling as intelligence.

Doesn't it bother you just the least little bit that you have to support a worthless scum like kerry in order to be considered a good little Democrat?

 

[Bonnie]

Yes...as I've said before you can never know if you are right. An intelligent person always leaves a back door open in his mind for other opinions.

So lets see if Bush admits he wrong...then he's wrong, if he doesn't admit he's wrong...he's wrong? So either way he's wrong?
I guess that's how Kerry arrived at his wrong wrong W stands for Wrong speech.

What if Bush doesn't think he's wrong? I dont' think he's wrong, and many others don't as well........
You make it sound as if the fact that no WMD's were found means all efforts in Iraq were wrong.

Or maybe if Bush just goes ahead and admits he's wrong, even if he's not that makes him more of a man, more of a LEADER???????????

When has Kerry admitted he's been wrong? All I hear Kerry say is how wrong Bush is, not how wrong Kerry is!

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I think you liberals have a bad case of Clintonitis. You see determination as inflexibility and waffling as intelligence.

Doesn't it bother you just the least little bit that you have to support a worthless scum like kerry in order to be considered a good little Democrat?

For the record, I am not a Democrat. I was indifferent as to Bush and Gore (voted Nader) and loved Bush after 9/11. However, after 3 years, I have grown to greatly question his ability to be the type of President I think this country needs.

And I don't think Kerry is worthless scum.

 

[dilloduck]

It appears to you that I am backpeddling because you assumed too much of my statements. Look at what I originally said.

I started at point 0. You assumed I was starting at point 5 and when I correct your mistake, you accuse me of backpeddling.

And I'm not sure what to make of the rest of the quote.[/QUOTE

You've run out of ammo--a political stand based on hatred uses it up fast and you end up standing there buck naked and looking like an idiot. Don't ever let your party pick a candidate JUST BECAUSE HE"S NOT BUSH again and perhaps you'll do better !

 

[MJDuncan1982]

You've run out of ammo--a political stand based on hatred uses it up fast and you end up standing there buck naked and looking like an idiot. Don't ever let your party pick a candidate JUST BECAUSE HE"S NOT BUSH again and perhaps you'll do better !

What? Who's political stand is based on hatred? Mine? How did I run out of ammo? You've just declared yourself the winner of an argument that you made up.

And again, it's not my party.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

My political maturity has gone through the idealism of liberalism and the practicality of conservatism and I'm now at a different stage.

It seems naive now to hold on to a principle to the end. Moderation is the key and a person with capable rational abilities views the situation and blends the aspirations of idealism with the down-to-earth understanding of practicality.

Holding on to either one is, in my opinion, foolish. I respect the man/woman who strives for principles but does it in a way that is realistic.

Principles are not "moderate". They are what they are.

Relativism is the mark of a liberal when it comes to Principles. Unfortunately you seem to be still in the liberal stage, trying to pull the "superior" thinkset. (another mark of a liberal)

If anybody is "realistic" in this world, take a realistic look at most conservatives. I think you will find realism.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Principles are not "moderate". They are what they are.

Relativism is the mark of a liberal when it comes to Principles. Unfortunately you seem to be still in the liberal stage, trying to pull the "superior" thinkset. (another mark of a liberal)

If anybody is "realistic" in this world, take a realistic look at most conservatives. I think you will find realism.

I didn't say principles were moderate. But would you support Democracy so much that you would allow it to destory the world?

I don't understand a blind allegiance to principles, even at the extremes.

I don't see why relativism is such a bad thing. Punching someone in the face is bad if it is an old lady who is walking too slow but punching someone in the face is good if they are trying to attack an old lady. It depends on the situation...is relative to the facts. Why is that hard to accept?

And no I am way past the liberal stage. You barely know me much less what goes on in my head. I agree with White Knight from another post. Towing the party/ideology line is ridiculous in many circumstances.

 

[dilloduck]

I didn't say principles were moderate. But would you support Democracy so much that you would allow it to destory the world?

I don't understand a blind allegiance to principles, even at the extremes.

I don't see why relativism is such a bad thing. Punching someone in the face is bad if it is an old lady who is walking too slow but punching someone in the face is good if they are trying to attack an old lady. It depends on the situation...is relative to the facts. Why is that hard to accept?

And no I am way past the liberal stage. You barely know me much less what goes on in my head. I agree with White Knight from another post. Towing the party/ideology line is ridiculous in many circumstances.

You barely know us too---what makes you think all conservatives think the same on every issue?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I didn't say principles were moderate. But would you support Democracy so much that you would allow it to destory the world?

I don't understand a blind allegiance to principles, even at the extremes.

I don't see why relativism is such a bad thing. Punching someone in the face is bad if it is an old lady who is walking too slow but punching someone in the face is good if they are trying to attack an old lady. It depends on the situation...is relative to the facts. Why is that hard to accept?

And no I am way past the liberal stage. You barely know me much less what goes on in my head. I agree with White Knight from another post. Towing the party/ideology line is ridiculous in many circumstances.

I see. You're into situational ethics. But if you have no principles/ethics/values that you live by, what exactly guides you when making your decisions in various situations?

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I see. You're into situational ethics. But if you have no principles/ethics/values that you live by, what exactly guides you when making your decisions in various situations?

My rational ability.

I am fine with trading predictability for truth.

My view may be Ad Hoc but I believe that every situation deserves its own deliberation.

 

[NATO AIR]

mj, the problem with that line of thinking is that people usually use it to justify bad deeds

"its normally not okay to cheat on my spouse, but in this occasion,(insert excuse/situation here)"

"genocide is normally terrible, but in this case (insert excuse/situation here)"

"murder is wrong, but in this case (insert excuse/situation here)"