eaglewing505 Wrote:Anybody got a method to measure holiness? ;-)

I think Dick Grayson had a scale of holiness that he used when describing criminal capers....

Fanatical Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:By opposing Israeli tacitics, you are defacto supporting hezbollah, even if you hate hezbollah.

That's just assanine. Its like saying those who disagree with the actions of our government are traitors. The world and especially politics should not be made black and white with no shades of grey.

the first voice of reason ive seen in this thread.

Fanatical Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:By opposing Israeli tacitics, you are defacto supporting hezbollah, even if you hate hezbollah.

That's just assanine. Its like saying those who disagree with the actions of our government are traitors. The world and especially politics should not be made black and white with no shades of grey.

No, it is like saying those who oppose the actions of X (fill in any entity you want for X) are in effect helping Y (fill in any entity that opposeses X for Y).

If you oppose the Democrat in your state because he disagrees with your position on something, aren't you helping the Republicans? If not, who is helped by your opposition, however well founded (in your opinion) ethically? If you vote Green or Libertarian or just stay home as a protest, someone is being helped, and it is probably either a Democrat or a Republican.

If we all get together and protest that the Israelis are using disproportionate force, and force them to scale down their response to whatever we think is proportionate, doesn't that help hezbollah? if we all get together and force hezbollah to stop terrorist attacks, haven't we helped Israel?

niuhuskie84 Wrote:

Fanatical Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:By opposing Israeli tacitics, you are defacto supporting hezbollah, even if you hate hezbollah.

That's just assanine. Its like saying those who disagree with the actions of our government are traitors. The world and especially politics should not be made black and white with no shades of grey.

the first voice of reason ive seen in this thread.

Like I said, you are known by your enemies.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:If you oppose the Democrat in your state because he disagrees with your position on something, aren't you helping the Republicans? If not, who is helped by your opposition, however well founded (in your opinion) ethically? If you vote Green or Libertarian or just stay home as a protest, someone is being helped, and it is probably either a Democrat or a Republican.

If I vote Libertarian, who is helped? Um, the Libertarian.

If the Dem wins, people will say that I hurt the Reps. If a Rep wins, people will say that I hurt the Dems. So in reality, I didn't help either. You are saying that voting for who I want is like not voting at all. I find that absurd and anti-democratic.

The idea that I disapprove of Isreal's actions means that I'm helping terrorists is also absurd. I also disapprove of Hezbolla's actions, so I guess that means that I'm also helping Isreal? So I'm helping them and hurting them at the same time?

I guess that all of you guys better start supporting Isreal's bombing of a UN facility. And if you don't then you are against the UN. And hey the US is in the UN, so I guess that means you are anti-American. And since the US's position is to support Isreal, then I guess you are against Isreal and in effect are supporting terrorism.

You go, girl!

eaglewing505 Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:For those of you that are whining about how Israel is carrying out this campaign against Hezbollah, please tell me a better way to handle the situation. I must ask that your suggestions be realistic to the situation, and not some hippy "give them teddy bears of love" type crap.

Islam needs Xbox. Make their children into lazy video game nerds!!(of which, I am king!)

And Porn!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:If you oppose the Democrat in your state because he disagrees with your position on something, aren't you helping the Republicans? If not, who is helped by your opposition, however well founded (in your opinion) ethically? If you vote Green or Libertarian or just stay home as a protest, someone is being helped, and it is probably either a Democrat or a Republican.

If I vote Libertarian, who is helped? Um, the Libertarian.

If the Dem wins, people will say that I hurt the Reps. If a Rep wins, people will say that I hurt the Dems. So in reality, I didn't help either. You are saying that voting for who I want is like not voting at all. I find that absurd and anti-democratic.

The idea that I disapprove of Isreal's actions means that I'm helping terrorists is also absurd. I also disapprove of Hezbolla's actions, so I guess that means that I'm also helping Isreal? So I'm helping them and hurting them at the same time?

I guess that all of you guys better start supporting Isreal's bombing of a UN facility. And if you don't then you are against the UN. And hey the US is in the UN, so I guess that means you are anti-American. And since the US's position is to support Isreal, then I guess you are against Isreal and in effect are supporting terrorism.

You go, girl!

If 3/4 of the people who vote Libetarian in a given race would have otherwise voted Republican, yes, the Republican is hurt, and the Libertarian is not helped in any meaningful way. The democrat who wins a close race is. Anyone remember Clinton's first election? Who was helped by all those votes for Perot? Not Perot. I wonder if 600 democrats stayed home as a protest in Florida 2000? If so, who did they help?

If your disapproval of israel's actions, combined with other people disapproval, causes Israel to change, to back off, to stop, then hezbollah is the benefactor. It doesn't matter if that was your intent, and it doesn't matter what you think of either of them. That is the result. Your opinion of hezbollah means zip to them, so your attitudes, even if supported by the entire nonmuslim world, has no effect. They don't even care about the opinions of many Muslims - they know in their hearts they are right, and that is all that matters. They have done without the world's apporval for a long time now.

One doesn't have to approve of every action by a given side to take that side. Of course I don't support the bombing of the UN post. I don't support the kidnapping of the israeli soldiers. I can tell which one was on purpose and which one wasn't. That does make a difference to ME. I don't support the platform in toto of either party, but i vote for one side or the other anyway. It is silly to assume that support for the Israelis implies a blanket approval of every action. But if i chose between supporting israel and the terrorists, it is an easy choice. Hezbollah are the same people who bombed our barracks in Lebanon, who send death and destruction across the border, who chant Death to America, who danced in the streets on 9/11, and they are ones who, if they achieve victory in Israel, will say "Who's next" and I think the answer will be America. So i hope they never achieve that victory. I guess, in my case, i am less pro-israel than anti-hezbollah, but to me it is the same.

Quote:If 3/4 of the people who vote Libetarian in a given race would have otherwise voted Republican, yes, the Republican is hurt, and the Libertarian is not helped in any meaningful way. The democrat who wins a close race is. Anyone remember Clinton's first election? Who was helped by all those votes for Perot? Not Perot. I wonder if 600 democrats stayed home as a protest in Florida 2000? If so, who did they help?

Yeah, but the next time around the republicans may adopt some of the Libertarian ideas that may have lost them some votes the last time around in order to attract some of the republicans turned libertarian.

Unfortunately in Perot's case his party went to the loonies. If he had some political savvy his party could have become a viable third party for at least a few more election cycles than they did. Infighting led to a general turn off for most of the people that did vote for him. Plus Perot couldn't stay in the election the next time around long enough (the old In-Out In-Out) and turned what was something with some real potential into a circus. Also, If you recall, Perot also received federal election funding in 96. So your statement that Perot wasn't helped by his strong showing is incorrect. But Perot squandered what he got out of it.

Quote:If your disapproval of israel's actions, combined with other people disapproval, causes Israel to change, to back off, to stop, then hezbollah is the benefactor. It doesn't matter if that was your intent, and it doesn't matter what you think of either of them. That is the result. Your opinion of hezbollah means zip to them, so your attitudes, even if supported by the entire nonmuslim world, has no effect. They don't even care about the opinions of many Muslims - they know in their hearts they are right, and that is all that matters. They have done without the world's apporval for a long time now.

That implies that Israel cares about my opinion. Seems to me that they have pretty much done whatever they have wanted without worldwide approval up to now.

Quote:I guess, in my case, i am less pro-israel than anti-hezbollah, but to me it is the same.

I'm probably in the same camp. I'm not really all that pro-Israel (not anti-Israel, either), and I am anti-Hezbollah. But I don't view it as the same thing. It seems to me that there is a very realpolitik attitue that is running around many people. Let Israel do what they want if it means that we don't have to deal with one other problem in the mid-east. I don't envvy Israel's position and I can certainly understand why they are attacking Hezbollah. I support that Israel needs to defend it self and they can't allow the kidnappings to go unpunished. But they sure seem to be trying to pick a bigger fight at the same time, calling out Syria and Iran. All I'm saying is "Whoa, slow down, don't bite off more than you can chew." Apparently that means I want the terrorists to win, in your eyes.


Uh... I guess my main contention was that your analogy of elections doesn't really hold. But that probably leads to us viewing elections as something quite different. You view elections as something where you are trying to keep someone you really disagree with out of office, so you say vote for the lesser of two evils. Or so I perceive.
I say, vote for the candidate that most represents you even if he has little chance of winning. Third parties in the country had traditionally driven changes in the major parties. I view the election as a time o express my opinion. And if my opinion is that I don't care for either party, I'm not going to bow to them.

Finally, I think we can be critical of decisions of a country that we live in, or are allied with without automatically being anti-that country. Sure there are some people who really are anti-that country, but to lump in anyone who expresses disapproval with some aspect of the current conflict with the fringe is absurd.

[not proofread]

apparently, zawahiri made one of his cute, little home videos threatening Israel and calling all muslims. How cute, i can't wait till Israel wipes his smg face off the earth.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

Quote:If 3/4 of the people who vote Libetarian in a given race would have otherwise voted Republican, yes, the Republican is hurt, and the Libertarian is not helped in any meaningful way. The democrat who wins a close race is. Anyone remember Clinton's first election? Who was helped by all those votes for Perot? Not Perot. I wonder if 600 democrats stayed home as a protest in Florida 2000? If so, who did they help?

Yeah, but the next time around the republicans may adopt some of the Libertarian ideas that may have lost them some votes the last time around in order to attract some of the republicans turned libertarian.

Unfortunately in Perot's case his party went to the loonies. If he had some political savvy his party could have become a viable third party for at least a few more election cycles than they did. Infighting led to a general turn off for most of the people that did vote for him. Plus Perot couldn't stay in the election the next time around long enough (the old In-Out In-Out) and turned what was something with some real potential into a circus. Also, If you recall, Perot also received federal election funding in 96. So your statement that Perot wasn't helped by his strong showing is incorrect. But Perot squandered what he got out of it.

Quote:If your disapproval of israel's actions, combined with other people disapproval, causes Israel to change, to back off, to stop, then hezbollah is the benefactor. It doesn't matter if that was your intent, and it doesn't matter what you think of either of them. That is the result. Your opinion of hezbollah means zip to them, so your attitudes, even if supported by the entire nonmuslim world, has no effect. They don't even care about the opinions of many Muslims - they know in their hearts they are right, and that is all that matters. They have done without the world's apporval for a long time now.

That implies that Israel cares about my opinion. Seems to me that they have pretty much done whatever they have wanted without worldwide approval up to now.

Quote:I guess, in my case, i am less pro-israel than anti-hezbollah, but to me it is the same.

I'm probably in the same camp. I'm not really all that pro-Israel (not anti-Israel, either), and I am anti-Hezbollah. But I don't view it as the same thing. It seems to me that there is a very realpolitik attitue that is running around many people. Let Israel do what they want if it means that we don't have to deal with one other problem in the mid-east. I don't envvy Israel's position and I can certainly understand why they are attacking Hezbollah. I support that Israel needs to defend it self and they can't allow the kidnappings to go unpunished. But they sure seem to be trying to pick a bigger fight at the same time, calling out Syria and Iran. All I'm saying is "Whoa, slow down, don't bite off more than you can chew." Apparently that means I want the terrorists to win, in your eyes.


Uh... I guess my main contention was that your analogy of elections doesn't really hold. But that probably leads to us viewing elections as something quite different. You view elections as something where you are trying to keep someone you really disagree with out of office, so you say vote for the lesser of two evils. Or so I perceive.
I say, vote for the candidate that most represents you even if he has little chance of winning. Third parties in the country had traditionally driven changes in the major parties. I view the election as a time o express my opinion. And if my opinion is that I don't care for either party, I'm not going to bow to them.

Finally, I think we can be critical of decisions of a country that we live in, or are allied with without automatically being anti-that country. Sure there are some people who really are anti-that country, but to lump in anyone who expresses disapproval with some aspect of the current conflict with the fringe is absurd.

[not proofread]

First, thanks for a reasoned and polite reply.

You have fallen in the same mistake as many of the other posters here. Saying "whoa, slow down", etc, doesn't imply you WANT the terrorists to win. It may have that result without it being your intended result, if say, the combined voices of you and many others influence our politicians to bring pressure on Israel to back off, and Israel will listen to the U.S., even if they don't give a fig about your opinion individually. if Israel backs off when they have hezbollah on the ropes, foregoing the KO punch, Hezbollah benefits. This is why I used the words de facto. You can end up benefitting someone you do not support, by just hindering or failing to support their enemies.

An example of this is Florida 2000. I think a vast majority of those voting for Nader would have preferred Gore over Bush, and if they have voted their preference between those two, President Gore would now be making these decisions. But for whatever reason, they chose not to support the antiBush (Gore), and in doing so allowed Bush to win. Bush benefitted from every Nader vote.

I have no problem with you voting your preference. It just tells me that you are a man of principle, who might, in some case, value that principle over practicality. I think, with regard to the hezbollah/Israel conflict, that holding too tightly to certain principles (especially principles not shared by Hezbollah) may have the practical effect of bringing more terrorism to us. Opposing Israel lends legitimacy to these ... what would they be called if they were in the US? Militia? Vigilantes? Brigands? Outlaws? Or just terrorists? In any case, I see no need for me to help them out in any way, even by giving them a semblence of legitimacy.That is my choice.

Quote:It just tells me that you are a man of principle, who might, in some case, value that principle over practicality.

I try to be (a man of principal), thanks.

Interesting. I think that we differ over which practice is practical. I think only in hindsight can we see which is more practical.
If you vote for candidate A and he wins in a landslide, then you might think that you wasted your vote and could have sent a protest vote or a vote for a candidate that matches your views better.
If you vote for 3rd party candidate and Candidate A (who you would have been happy with) ends up losing by a few hundred, then you may look back and think that you could have made a difference if you had voted for Candidate A.
The trick is to figure out which time you are throwing a vote away and which time you are casting the tiebreaker. I think in close races, people are more likely to vote for a major candidate and only those who can't choose between the two (or vote strictly 3rd party) will pick a 3rd party.
In landslides, people may feel more comfortable voting for 3rd parties, when they may have normally voted for a major party.
This is speculation, I wonder if there has ever been a study done on it. I'll look into it, if I get a chance.

As for my opinion affecting policy. If I dissent against a policy and I make my views known. I can't do anything other make my views known. I can't go and turn off the Army, or stop world leaders. But my elected officials can hear me and they can in turn, try to talk to world leaders or stop the Army. I would hope that my elected leader would make the right decision and weight the evidence they have vs. public opinion. Our leaders have much more knowledge about what is really happening than us. until I get whatever information they have, then I can only speculate on what the situation really is. Up to that point, I feel that I have the right to dissent, and the right to be dead wrong. In the greater scheme, it doesn't change much. I don't think we need to fall in line lockstep with the rest of the country. Dissent is what made this country, and dissent is what makes this country great.

I have taken advantage of my location in Texas to occasionally cast symbolic "message" votes, which of course nobody pays any attention to, but they make me feel better. But if I lived in a state where the elections are close, say like Ohio 2004, I certainly would abandon my symbolic voting and vote for the one I wanted to win among those who have a chance to win. Of course, sometimes it is only in hindsight that you know that your vote is going to matter, e.g., Florida 2000.

As for the rest of it, I hope my elected leaders hear me supporting Isreal rather than me opposing their tactics. I don't want them getting the mistaken impression that it is OK by me if they abandon them, or worse, support hezbollah.