Full Version: Patty Murray-Democrat/Anti-America
QUOTE(Roy @ Jan 24 2003, 08:00 PM)
Darcaine, you assume too much. Whatever works into your agenda I guess.
Back to lurking,
Roy
Back to lurking,
Roy
As does your constant predilection for irrelevancy.
Back to lurking,
Darcaine
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Jan 24 2003, 11:13 AM)
Darcaine, it seems obvious by now, you don't use the word "think" for anyone with a liberal viewpoint.
And if a Republican had said it, I for one would be shocked, but in a good way. As much as you might like to believe in some blanket sort of partisanship, there are a number of liberals on this board, as well as a number of conservatives, who don't just tow the party line.
Murray muddled the facts a bit, but there was nothing at all wrong with her intent. Bin Laden is popular in Afghanistan because he came there in the early eighties and used his financial clout to help the Mujaheddin against the Soviet Union. He became a leader of the resistance, and was funded and supplied partly by the U.S. To the Mujaheddin, some of whom later became the Taliban, he was a hero, a wealthy Saudi Arabian who believed in the cause enough to come and put his life on the line. Of course he's a terrorist, and I'm certainly not defending his actions, neither was Senator Murray, however, why would it be traitorous or wrong to want to try and understand how someone like Bin Laden came about? It's not like understanding something means you support it, or love it. It's called seeking a balanced and full perspective, instead of simplistic monomania knee-jerk reaction thinking.
And if a Republican had said it, I for one would be shocked, but in a good way. As much as you might like to believe in some blanket sort of partisanship, there are a number of liberals on this board, as well as a number of conservatives, who don't just tow the party line.
Murray muddled the facts a bit, but there was nothing at all wrong with her intent. Bin Laden is popular in Afghanistan because he came there in the early eighties and used his financial clout to help the Mujaheddin against the Soviet Union. He became a leader of the resistance, and was funded and supplied partly by the U.S. To the Mujaheddin, some of whom later became the Taliban, he was a hero, a wealthy Saudi Arabian who believed in the cause enough to come and put his life on the line. Of course he's a terrorist, and I'm certainly not defending his actions, neither was Senator Murray, however, why would it be traitorous or wrong to want to try and understand how someone like Bin Laden came about? It's not like understanding something means you support it, or love it. It's called seeking a balanced and full perspective, instead of simplistic monomania knee-jerk reaction thinking.
So, what your saying in your "overly simplistic knee-jerk way" is that we should honor Adolf Hitler in the same way. Heck, might as well throw Vlad the Impaler in there too...that one I'm sure many on here would agree with his policies.
You just sat there and basically spun her entire speech...and the worst part is you probably don't even realize it. I see no where in her speech the amount of information you just cited in your explanation. I don't need to understand OBL...I just need to see him in jail or dead.
Darcaine
I'm interested to know what Darcaine and HeatherRob feel are the reasons that Bin Laden is able to recruit so many followers. Are you both saying this is not a valid topic to explore? These people are willing to give their lives for him. Don't you wonder what the attraction is? Discussing the issue is not dangerous but ignoring reality is. It's easy to close your eyes and ears and just hit back but it solves nothing.
QUOTE(Darcaine @ Jan 25 2003, 09:09 AM)
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Jan 24 2003, 11:13 AM)
Darcaine, it seems obvious by now, you don't use the word "think" for anyone with a liberal viewpoint.
And if a Republican had said it, I for one would be shocked, but in a good way. As much as you might like to believe in some blanket sort of partisanship, there are a number of liberals on this board, as well as a number of conservatives, who don't just tow the party line.
Murray muddled the facts a bit, but there was nothing at all wrong with her intent. Bin Laden is popular in Afghanistan because he came there in the early eighties and used his financial clout to help the Mujaheddin against the Soviet Union. He became a leader of the resistance, and was funded and supplied partly by the U.S. To the Mujaheddin, some of whom later became the Taliban, he was a hero, a wealthy Saudi Arabian who believed in the cause enough to come and put his life on the line. Of course he's a terrorist, and I'm certainly not defending his actions, neither was Senator Murray, however, why would it be traitorous or wrong to want to try and understand how someone like Bin Laden came about? It's not like understanding something means you support it, or love it. It's called seeking a balanced and full perspective, instead of simplistic monomania knee-jerk reaction thinking.
And if a Republican had said it, I for one would be shocked, but in a good way. As much as you might like to believe in some blanket sort of partisanship, there are a number of liberals on this board, as well as a number of conservatives, who don't just tow the party line.
Murray muddled the facts a bit, but there was nothing at all wrong with her intent. Bin Laden is popular in Afghanistan because he came there in the early eighties and used his financial clout to help the Mujaheddin against the Soviet Union. He became a leader of the resistance, and was funded and supplied partly by the U.S. To the Mujaheddin, some of whom later became the Taliban, he was a hero, a wealthy Saudi Arabian who believed in the cause enough to come and put his life on the line. Of course he's a terrorist, and I'm certainly not defending his actions, neither was Senator Murray, however, why would it be traitorous or wrong to want to try and understand how someone like Bin Laden came about? It's not like understanding something means you support it, or love it. It's called seeking a balanced and full perspective, instead of simplistic monomania knee-jerk reaction thinking.
So, what your saying in your "overly simplistic knee-jerk way" is that we should honor Adolf Hitler in the same way. Heck, might as well throw Vlad the Impaler in there too...that one I'm sure many on here would agree with his policies.
You just sat there and basically spun her entire speech...and the worst part is you probably don't even realize it. I see no where in her speech the amount of information you just cited in your explanation. I don't need to understand OBL...I just need to see him in jail or dead.
Darcaine
Did I use the word honor? Did I say that I "agree with his policies?" Well, in fact I did not. Those concepts have zilch to do with seeking to understand the context of events. The real question is why do some people feel so adamently about NOT seeking the context? Is it because of the Reagan-era CIA connection? I don't know.
I admitted that she muddled the facts. I then went on to mention Bin Laden's beginnings with the Mujaheddin. I didn't spin her speech because I never even used anything out of it. Thanks, though, for your judgement of my intelligence.
By the way, feeling that you, personally, "don't need to understand OBL," has nothing to do with accusing this woman of being traitorous or un-American. And if you believe seeking to understand the context of events is the equivalent of aiding and abetting the enemy, you will have the most "spun" opinions of all, because they will based on nothing but rhetoric.
Darcaine...
No, I said begging for forgiveness is un-American. Americans do not beg for forgiveness on what we say with conviction in a public forum.
Lott was embrassing to the GOP leadership, ergo, out-he-go.
Private forums are different, as in inter-relationship on your knees begging (oh please please please) to be forgiven for what you said when ticked off. That is very American
BTW, I am independent (unaffiliated in this state) but don't vote Republican. However, I don't always vote Demo either. This is not a Zen paradox. As you know, I am liberal and proud of it. You can speculate from there where my votes land.
QUOTE
Asking for forgiveness is Un-American? Interesting point of view.
No, I said begging for forgiveness is un-American. Americans do not beg for forgiveness on what we say with conviction in a public forum.
Lott was embrassing to the GOP leadership, ergo, out-he-go.Private forums are different, as in inter-relationship on your knees begging (oh please please please) to be forgiven for what you said when ticked off. That is very American
BTW, I am independent (unaffiliated in this state) but don't vote Republican. However, I don't always vote Demo either. This is not a Zen paradox. As you know, I am liberal and proud of it. You can speculate from there where my votes land.
QUOTE
I don't need to understand OBL...I just need to see him in jail or dead.
This statement completely supports my arguement & exemplifies your desire for ignorance regarding this subject. This rational does a world of good. That attitude will CERTAINLY keep people like OBL from rising up time and time again.
Understanding the social conditions, the mentality and the motivation of crimminals like OBL & his followers is EVERYTHING.
You're not lurking, you're shoving your head in the sand.
QUOTE(Roy @ Jan 26 2003, 03:04 PM)
QUOTE
I don't need to understand OBL...I just need to see him in jail or dead.
This statement completely supports my arguement & exemplifies your desire for ignorance regarding this subject. This rational does a world of good. That attitude will CERTAINLY keep people like OBL from rising up time and time again.
Understanding the social conditions, the mentality and the motivation of crimminals like OBL & his followers is EVERYTHING.
You're not lurking, you're shoving your head in the sand.
So, Roy your ignorance on people is so bad you try and rationalize a lunatic eh? It's not shoving your head in the sand...quite the contrary it's realizing who and what he is and dealing with it. We get home grown lunatics and bad guys all the time, I don't need to understand Jeffry Dalmer to understand how he needs to be dealt with. But, alas you wouldn't understand this so I am wasting my typing.
Darcaine
You may find no value in dissecting the brains of people like Dahmer but there is an entire FBI unit that understands the importance. Profiling is taken very seriously. But those who refuse to learn from the past are destined to repeat it. It is so easy to be reduced to cliches when responding to anything you say Darcaine. It's almost as if you enjoy ignoring the obvious.
QUOTE
So, Roy your ignorance on people is so bad you try and rationalize a lunatic eh? It's not shoving your head in the sand...quite the contrary it's realizing who and what he is and dealing with it.
Realizing who and what someone is? What occurs in this process and where do you stop? You simply draw a line "He's bad, kill him" and don't bother to understand how our world produced such a person? Yet you somehow accuse ME of being ignorant.
Once again you've been proven wrong and you resort to semantics.
QUOTE(Roy @ Jan 26 2003, 04:37 PM)
QUOTE
So, Roy your ignorance on people is so bad you try and rationalize a lunatic eh? It's not shoving your head in the sand...quite the contrary it's realizing who and what he is and dealing with it.
Realizing who and what someone is? What occurs in this process and where do you stop? You simply draw a line "He's bad, kill him" and don't bother to understand how our world produced such a person? Yet you somehow accuse ME of being ignorant.
Once again you've been proven wrong and you resort to semantics.
Proven wrong about what Roy? I am a simple citizen..if I were a criminal psycologist that would be another thing all together. I, unlike many on this board, don't need to rationalize someone being nuts. What occurs in this process is that when someone admits to doing something bad like blowing up the world trade towers...I pretty much can come to the conclusion he is a bad guy. Tell me you can at least reason that much? N'est pas? I leave it up to the experts to understand what he is...I don't need to know that much. I know how to delegate authority...do you? The funny thing is this is why most people think Bush is ignorant too.
Darcaine
"There are people that think they know everything and try and do it all, they are my best employees."
QUOTE(Danya @ Jan 26 2003, 03:56 PM)
You may find no value in dissecting the brains of people like Dahmer but there is an entire FBI unit that understands the importance. Profiling is taken very seriously. But those who refuse to learn from the past are destined to repeat it. It is so easy to be reduced to cliches when responding to anything you say Darcaine. It's almost as if you enjoy ignoring the obvious.
Danya, yeah and after he is dead. How can you miss the apparent? Besides I thought all you libs were against profiling..
Darcaine
Darcaine,
It is not your job to delegate the authority. It's your job to understand the issues well enough to decide who the best person for that job would be. Willfull ignorance is worse than any other kind.
It is not your job to delegate the authority. It's your job to understand the issues well enough to decide who the best person for that job would be. Willfull ignorance is worse than any other kind.
Need a third party opinion? Both sides are correct, yet you're both arguing over semantics.
To simplify my opinion:
1) Yes, we do need to understand OBL in order to figure out his appeal to his followers, and how he evolved into the figure he is (or was).
2) Understanding him does not negate the need to find him and kill him without compassion. We can "profile" him after he's gone (if he isn't already).
To simplify my opinion:
1) Yes, we do need to understand OBL in order to figure out his appeal to his followers, and how he evolved into the figure he is (or was).
2) Understanding him does not negate the need to find him and kill him without compassion. We can "profile" him after he's gone (if he isn't already).
QUOTE(LFTHNDTHRDS @ Jan 26 2003, 08:13 PM)
Need a third party opinion? Both sides are correct, yet you're both arguing over semantics.
To simplify my opinion:
1) Yes, we do need to understand OBL in order to figure out his appeal to his followers, and how he evolved into the figure he is (or was).
2) Understanding him does not negate the need to find him and kill him without compassion. We can "profile" him after he's gone (if he isn't already).
To simplify my opinion:
1) Yes, we do need to understand OBL in order to figure out his appeal to his followers, and how he evolved into the figure he is (or was).
2) Understanding him does not negate the need to find him and kill him without compassion. We can "profile" him after he's gone (if he isn't already).
Bingo!
Darcaine
QUOTE(Danya @ Jan 26 2003, 08:00 PM)
Darcaine,
It is not your job to delegate the authority. It's your job to understand the issues well enough to decide who the best person for that job would be. Willfull ignorance is worse than any other kind.
It is not your job to delegate the authority. It's your job to understand the issues well enough to decide who the best person for that job would be. Willfull ignorance is worse than any other kind.
Danya,
Actually it IS my job to delegate authority...we all do by voting. This Senators job is to hunt this guy down and get rid of him. Not generate sympathy for his cause. Willful dereliction of duty is far worse.
Darcaine
O.K., this is my first post, so please be kind... 
There's this guy. He breaks into my house and attacks my wife. He is holding us hostage, running off at the mouth about how oppressed he is, and what a horrible childhood he had. Now, should I:
A. Hold a discussion with him, trying to understand his point of view and seek a peaceful resolution
OR
B. Get my gun, and blow his lice ridden head off so I can ensure he won't bother my (or anyone else's) family again?
The way I see it, I would have to be nuts to even CONSIDER the first option. When attacked, you don't have the luxury of pondering the why of the issue. You respond.
After choosing option B, I'll have all the time in the world to ponder what made the poor fellow the way he was. And you know what?...
I STILL wouldn't care.
There's this guy. He breaks into my house and attacks my wife. He is holding us hostage, running off at the mouth about how oppressed he is, and what a horrible childhood he had. Now, should I:
A. Hold a discussion with him, trying to understand his point of view and seek a peaceful resolution
OR
B. Get my gun, and blow his lice ridden head off so I can ensure he won't bother my (or anyone else's) family again?
The way I see it, I would have to be nuts to even CONSIDER the first option. When attacked, you don't have the luxury of pondering the why of the issue. You respond.
After choosing option B, I'll have all the time in the world to ponder what made the poor fellow the way he was. And you know what?...
I STILL wouldn't care.
Now, suppose the guy that broke in to your house has an entire gang waiting in the wings planning continued attacks? Wouldn't it be a good idea to understand why you were targeted by this gang while you were trying to seek them out and stop them?
How will you know where to find them if you don't know where they came from, who their friends are, how they planned their attack, and who would give them the supplies to do it? Of course you need to know the basic motive so that you can be sure another gang doesn't crop up and start doing the same thing once you rid yourself of this particular gang.
At least that's how I would handle it.
How will you know where to find them if you don't know where they came from, who their friends are, how they planned their attack, and who would give them the supplies to do it? Of course you need to know the basic motive so that you can be sure another gang doesn't crop up and start doing the same thing once you rid yourself of this particular gang.
At least that's how I would handle it.
QUOTE(richpoorman @ Jan 27 2003, 02:16 AM)
O.K., this is my first post, so please be kind...
There's this guy. He breaks into my house and attacks my wife. He is holding us hostage, running off at the mouth about how oppressed he is, and what a horrible childhood he had. Now, should I:
A. Hold a discussion with him, trying to understand his point of view and seek a peaceful resolution
OR
B. Get my gun, and blow his lice ridden head off so I can ensure he won't bother my (or anyone else's) family again?
The way I see it, I would have to be nuts to even CONSIDER the first option. When attacked, you don't have the luxury of pondering the why of the issue. You respond.
After choosing option B, I'll have all the time in the world to ponder what made the poor fellow the way he was. And you know what?...
I STILL wouldn't care.
There's this guy. He breaks into my house and attacks my wife. He is holding us hostage, running off at the mouth about how oppressed he is, and what a horrible childhood he had. Now, should I:
A. Hold a discussion with him, trying to understand his point of view and seek a peaceful resolution
OR
B. Get my gun, and blow his lice ridden head off so I can ensure he won't bother my (or anyone else's) family again?
The way I see it, I would have to be nuts to even CONSIDER the first option. When attacked, you don't have the luxury of pondering the why of the issue. You respond.
After choosing option B, I'll have all the time in the world to ponder what made the poor fellow the way he was. And you know what?...
I STILL wouldn't care.
Welcome to the forum, richpoorman!
I don't think anyone would argue about defending one's family. But I don't think it's a fair comparison. After all, we should remember that what we've been doing is making war on nations, not on Bin Laden. Sure, he may have been the goal, but it was a goal that has certainly been sidetracked by full-on war against people who had nothing to do with any crime against the US.
We've done enough reactive thinking when it comes to Middle East policies, it would be nice if we did some proactive thinking for a change, and understanding the situations and policies that give someone like Bin Laden any kind of legitimacy would be a good place to start.
What happened in New York in 2001 was a horrible atrocity, something none of us want to see repeated. But I still feel that what we are doing now, with this "war on terror," is merely continuing the reactive, iron-fist policies that garnered so much antiamericanism in the first place.
Darcaine, you said this:
QUOTE
I am a simple citizen..if I were a criminal psycologist that would be another thing all together. I, unlike many on this board, don't need to rationalize someone being nuts. What occurs in this process is that when someone admits to doing something bad like blowing up the world trade towers...I pretty much can come to the conclusion he is a bad guy. Tell me you can at least reason that much? N'est pas? I leave it up to the experts to understand what he is...I don't need to know that much.
Yes. He is a bad guy. But when you say "leave it up to the experts," and you don't think that our elected representatives ought to either BE those experts, or listen to them, then who exactly are you referring to? Historians? Doesn't do much good. You can't compare this to delegating power. Do you not seek knowledge? Do you not seek understanding? Do you trust experts? What makes someone an expert? Do you choose an "expert" who is saying what you already think is true?
You may not need to know. You may not want to know. But, then, why denigrate those who do want to know? Makes no sense, n'est pas?
Quarkhead,
Does a person have to be an expert to be agreed with? If an imbecile who was barely coherent said "Duh....We should remove Osama Bin Laden from the face of the earth for claiming responsibility in taking the lives of thousands of undeserving innocent people....Duh.", I would wholeheartedly agree.
Why would a person choose an "expert" who says the opposite of what you already think is true? Wouldn't that defeat your purpose? (or at least nullify the justification you are seeking?)
QUOTE
Yes. He is a bad guy. But when you say "leave it up to the experts," and you don't think that our elected representatives ought to either BE those experts, or listen to them, then who exactly are you referring to? Historians? Doesn't do much good. You can't compare this to delegating power. Do you not seek knowledge? Do you not seek understanding? Do you trust experts? What makes someone an expert?
Does a person have to be an expert to be agreed with? If an imbecile who was barely coherent said "Duh....We should remove Osama Bin Laden from the face of the earth for claiming responsibility in taking the lives of thousands of undeserving innocent people....Duh.", I would wholeheartedly agree.
QUOTE
Do you choose an "expert" who is saying what you already think is true?
Why would a person choose an "expert" who says the opposite of what you already think is true? Wouldn't that defeat your purpose? (or at least nullify the justification you are seeking?)
QUOTE(LFTHNDTHRDS @ Jan 27 2003, 06:29 PM)
Why would a person choose an "expert" who says the opposite of what you already think is true? Wouldn't that defeat your purpose? (or at least nullify the justification you are seeking?)
I would listen to both because that way you see an issue from all sides. It's good not to get stuck on dogma and close yourself off to other views. If the facts don't pan out you need to reconsider your stance.
I'll agree with that, Danya.
If I we're to form an opinion, yet a majority of people (including some so called "experts") contradicted it, I would question my viewpoint.
I believe the majority of people will stick to their preconcieved opinions though. Even in the face of proof. I have been guilty of this myself sometimes.
If I we're to form an opinion, yet a majority of people (including some so called "experts") contradicted it, I would question my viewpoint.
I believe the majority of people will stick to their preconcieved opinions though. Even in the face of proof. I have been guilty of this myself sometimes.
QUOTE
You may not need to know. You may not want to know. But, then, why denigrate those who do want to know? Makes no sense, n'est pas?
Wanting to know is one thing. Paralyzed from taking action because you want to become an armchair phychologist is stupid. Why do you think experts are brought in so that our elected leaders can make an educated decision? If this Senator wants to understand OBL that is well within her rights. It's also within OUR rights to look at her stupidity in not knowing what she is talking about and vote her out of office.
Darcaine
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.