The Dems ARE Euros

[Annie]

Another clip from Best of the Web:

BEST OF THE WEB

Return of the San Francisco Democrats
The Associated Press reports that a new Pew poll, conducted for the Council on Foreign Relations, finds that "concern about national security is dominating public attention in the final months of the presidential campaign"--as well it should in a time of war. But there's a troubling finding on page 7 of the poll results (link in PDF): Asked, "Might U.S. wrongdoing have motivated [the] 9/11 attacks?" more than half of Democrats, 51%, said yes. (So did 17% of Republicans and 45% of independents.)

"Somehow, they always blame America first," Jeane Kirkpatrick said in her celebrated 1984 speech about the "San Francisco Democrats." If John Kerry becomes president next January, we will be led by a man who belongs to a party in which the majority view is that Osama bin Laden's terrorism is America's fault.

 

[phadras]

mine that the "journalists" take their little trips to Europe, listen to the Anti-American left wing euro-media, and feel they must adopt the Euro-mindset so they may feel "accepted" by those they consider their intellectual and cultural superiors... Muck headed morons then return to the States and pontificate on how backward America is compared to the Euros.. When in reality since WWII it is the United States on the leading edge of intellectual and cultural change not the moldy Euros...

 

[Annie]

mine that the "journalists" take their little trips to Europe, listen to the Anti-American left wing euro-media, and feel they must adopt the Euro-mindset so they may feel "accepted" by those they consider their intellectual and cultural superiors... Muck headed morons then return to the States and pontificate on how backward America is compared to the Euros.. When in reality since WWII it is the United States on the leading edge of intellectual and cultural change not the moldy Euros...

Welcome Phadras, I think we're going to get along!

 

[tpahl]

Another clip from Best of the Web:

BEST OF THE WEB

Sayinig that US actions motivated the attacks does not mean the same thing as saying that the US is to blame.

Lets say you have a young 20 something beatuiful girl walking down some dark alley and finds some young thugs. She then proceeds to take off her clothes and dance for them. The young thugs then decide to rape her.

Is the girl to blame? No. Did her actions motivate the rape? yes.

When 51% of democrats, 17% of republicans and probably something close to 70-80% of libertarians say that US actions motivated the attack, all they are saying is that the US could act in a way that would not provoke attacks. It is not saying that the US is to blame.

If that young girl went and did the same thing the next night, and got raped again, we would still feel sorry for her, the rapists would still be wrong and should be punished, but we would also explain to the girl that it is not a good idea to dance naked in front of thugs in an alley.

Unfortunately the US foriegn policy is equivalent to dancing naked in an alley. It may not be wrong, but it is provoking attacks. We should at the very least question it. it should be a topic discussed in the presidential debates. unfortunately both Kerry and Bush support nearly the same foriegn policy and the CPD is opposed to other candidates entering the debates.

Travis

 

[Annie]

Travis, we are seriously at a point of disagreement. The US has not been able to 'stay out of conflicts' since WWI, though they tried to hold it prior to WWII, but even then, felt the need to help out 'allies' through Lend/Lease and such. Not possible anymore.

 

[tpahl]

Travis, we are seriously at a point of disagreement. The US has not been able to 'stay out of conflicts' since WWI, though they tried to hold it prior to WWII, but even then, felt the need to help out 'allies' through Lend/Lease and such. Not possible anymore.

I understand that you disagree, but do you at the very least recognize that my view is a legitimate view that deserves to be heard in the presidential debates?

And do you agree that saying that the US actions motivated that attacks is not the same as saying the US is to blame for the attacks?

 

[Annie]

I understand that you disagree, but do you at the very least recognize that my view is a legitimate view that deserves to be heard in the presidential debates?

And do you agree that saying that the US actions motivated that attacks is not the same as saying the US is to blame for the attacks?

No to both. Actually I think I've said before, I do not think any candidate polling at less than 10-15% should be in debates.

I do not think semantics will keep our country safe. The take you espouse is isolationism, I DO NOT think that would keep us safe, even IF possible.

 

[tpahl]

No to both. Actually I think I've said before, I do not think any candidate polling at less than 10-15% should be in debates.

I do not think semantics will keep our country safe. The take you espouse is isolationism, I DO NOT think that would keep us safe, even IF possible.

The fact that he is not polling at 10-15% has largely to do with the fact that the polls the CPD uses often does not even include third parties, yet the CPD pretends to be non partisan.

I am not sure why you are talking about semantics. It is not semantics that i am argueing. I am argueing that the article you posted and appearantly you too, are making a huge logically leap from 'motivating their actions' to 'being responsible for the attacks' If you think that is just a matter of semantics, so be it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I am argueing that the article you posted and appearantly you too, are making a huge logically leap from 'motivating their actions' to 'being responsible for the attacks' If you think that is just a matter of semantics, so be it.

It is. They're basically the same.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

I understand that you disagree, but do you at the very least recognize that my view is a legitimate view that deserves to be heard in the presidential debates?

And do you agree that saying that the US actions motivated that attacks is not the same as saying the US is to blame for the attacks?

No.

If you want to try and change my mind, tell me what the U.S. did to motivate people to fly planes into our buildings, attack our ships, and attack our embassies. I don't recall anyone dancing naked in an ally to start any of that.

 

[tpahl]

It is. They're basically the same.

So is the girl that goes naked into an alley and dances for some thugs to blame for being raped?

 

[tpahl]

No.

If you want to try and change my mind, tell me what the U.S. did to motivate people to fly planes into our buildings, attack our ships, and attack our embassies. I don't recall anyone dancing naked in an ally to start any of that.

It is called an analogy. That means that not everything is the same (the US did not dance naked in an ally) but they did do things that motivated the terrorists. The terrorists have already told us what those things are. Unfortunately neither party is willing to discuss whether we should continue doing those things. Right or wrong, it should be at the very least discussed.

Travis

 

[Annie]

It is called an analogy. That means that not everything is the same (the US did not dance naked in an ally) but they did do things that motivated the terrorists. The terrorists have already told us what those things are. Unfortunately neither party is willing to discuss whether we should continue doing those things. Right or wrong, it should be at the very least discussed.

Travis

Discussion Contribution: "We, meaning the US, are 'all over the globe". That pisses some people off. If we brought them home, they, meaning the legions of the pissed off, would forget we exist. Then all would be peace and harmony."

How's that?

 

[tpahl]

Discussion Contribution: "We, meaning the US, are 'all over the globe". That pisses some people off. If we brought them home, they, meaning the legions of the pissed off, would forget we exist. Then all would be peace and harmony."

How's that?

AN oversimplfiled misreprepsentation. And the discussion i was saying it should be was the presidential debates.

 

[Annie]

AN oversimplfiled misreprepsentation. And the discussion i was saying it should be was the presidential debates.

Not much of an oversimplification. Well, we'll see if he gets in the debates. LOL :scratch:

 

[tpahl]

Not much of an oversimplification. Well, we'll see if he gets in the debates. LOL :scratch:

He probably will not since it the commision is run by a bipartisan commision that is bent on keeping third parties out of the debates and have never willfully invited a third party candidate to the debates. This is a major problem since their interest is keeping their two parties in power while the rest of america is more intersted in making sure all ideas (or at least ones supported by a large portion of americans is being discussed).

AS your article pointed out, 51% of democrats, and 17% of republicans, and probably an even larger portion of independants and libertarians think that the legislature and white house should be discussing and at least defending the actions that have motivated the terrorists. The CPD wants to keep such topics out of the debates.

Travis