Another blue-dog liberal turns traitor!

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

Postby jamiebk » Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:54 pm

One thing I could always count on with you Shap,whether I agreed with your point or not, was a well thought out and logical airing of facts. However your editorial here makes no sense to me at all...you are seeing connections that don't exist. You lost me on this one.
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Postby OperaTenor » Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:20 pm

That's because it's becoming increasingly difficult to stay atop the ivory tower - it takes increasing amounts of whole cloth fantasizing to continue to think GWB is on the side of right.
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby barfle » Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:01 am

Shapley wrote:I was browsing through old threads earlier, and stumbled on this one. I reread it, and was thinking about how it was hijacked into a thread on abortion when, suddenly, it hit me. It was no hijack. The war and abortion are direct parallels. It can even be noted in looking at who supports "a woman's right to choose abortion" and the Democrats desire to abort this war, they are almost parallel, as well. Even the arguments are the same:

He lied to get us into bed with him.
We were caught up in the passion of the moment, and didn't consider the consequences.
It's illigitimate.
In another two years, he'll be gone, and we'll ge left to care for the bastard without him.

I find it a bit remarkable that anyone can attempt to join two entirely different topics like this. I've always been skeptical of those who say "Have you ever noticed that the same people who (your favorite antisocial activity here) are the ones who (your second favorite antisocial activity here)."

Shapley wrote:I think it is telling that those of us believe in commitments, who believe in responsibility for one's actions, and who believe in responsibility, are generally the ones who favour restrictions on abortion and completing the mission in Iraq.

I'm not sure if I should be taking this personally or not. But it appears you are accusing me of things for which you have no valid reason to do so.

Shapley wrote:There is a remarkable similarity between the two. The Democrats who voted to authorize the war prefer to pretend that they were misled, caught up in the passion of 9/11, and didn't really consider the consequences of going to war in Iraq, and they want to abort the war, hoping that it will abort the responsibility for their vote.

What about those who have opposed the war from the beginning? What about those who practice contraception or abstinence? You're making very broad accusations.

Shapley wrote:It is interesting that, three years ago, when it was Mr. Bush Vs. Mr. Kerry, both Democrats and Republicans agreed that, regardless of whether the war was ill-concieved or not, it had to be fought to a successful conclusion, and the majority of the people agreed. Now, a relatively short time later, the consensus of the Democrats has moved to one of aborting the war effort, and they seem to have led the majority of the people with them.

Perhaps it is because some of us have determined that this pile of crap we've created is unfixable, unwinnable, and a mistake from the git-go.

Shapley wrote:As I've said all along, we have lost our sense of duty, our sense of commitment, and our sense of honour. We'll abandon a whole nation as readily as we'll abandon an unwanted child, allowing both to be torn apart and sucked into the vacuum of anarchy.

As I've said all along, granting war powers is the act of a cowardly congresss, and asking for them is the act of a corrupt President.
--I know what I like--
barfle
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6144
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Springfield, Vahjinyah, USA

Postby OperaTenor » Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:18 pm

I predict, intense, wiggly backpedaling by tomorrow morning.
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby Shapley » Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:47 am

Jamie,

I think the parallel is quite valid. Let me reiterate:

We penetrated deep into that country and planted the seed of democracy. That seed has brough forth a child, the fledgling government of the new democratic republic. Having thus fathered this child, whether it is illegitimate or not, we have a resposibility to support that child until it is self-sufficient. There is, however, a movement afoot to abort that child, to deny our responsibility. I find it telling that support for aborting the child comes primarily from the same political party that supports the right to abort human children. I think the parallel is valid because it reflects an attitude toward responsibility for ones actions, and a sense of obligation. Once conceived, the obligation is created, and cannot be casually cast aside.

Barfle,

I single out no one person. Collectively, according to the polls, 69% - 75% of the people of this country supported the war in Iraq at the outset, swept up in the passion of the moment, supposedly. The Resolution authorizing the action was supported by a similar percentage of the Congress, about 65% of the House and about 75% of the Senate. Now that the consequences of that vote are coming to fruition, and I will acknowledge that it has been a difficult pregnancy, many of those swept up in the passion of the moment are having second thoughts, and the desire to abort is growing in popularity. As I said to Jamie, I find it telling that the move to abort the war comes largely from the same political party that supports the 'right' to abort fetii.

OT,

Nowhere in my post did I say that President Bush was on the side of right. I have said that he and, for the most part his party, recognizes a sense of responsibility for what they have conceived, and a duty to support it to self-sufficiency. Many democrats were in bed at the time of conception but they (speaking now about the party in general and the Congress as a collective) now seek to abort their responsibility and ignore the sense of duty that was created by popular choice.

Just as in the case of abortion, the decision that led to becoming pregnant may have been right or wrong, or seemed right at the moment and was proven wrong later, but ultimately the decision was made and the die were cast. Having conceived, one develops a responsibility for the product of ones decision, and has a duty to it. That duty cannot lightly be dismissed.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby Marye » Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:28 am

Shapley, could one say this as a parallel then? the party that readily supports the right to carry a gun, is the same party that readily supports going to war? Or no...
Marye
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1662
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Postby Haggis@wk » Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:22 am

Marye wrote:Shapley, could one say this as a parallel then? the party that readily supports the right to carry a gun, is the same party that readily supports going to war? Or no...


Absolutely, oh wait, you think the right to carry a gun is a negative thing?

While somewhat befuddled by Shapley's somewhat tortourous logic I do agree that we have a responsibility to establish security in Iraq and leave the citizens there with the ability to defend themselves. Look, it's completely obvious that the Democrats are using this war to advance their own political agendas to the detriment of just about eveyone else.

They wouldn't even meet with the General they sent there to try and fix this.

They can stop this war anytime they want but they are too afraid of what the backlash might be, so they whine.

What cowards
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Postby Shapley » Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:30 am

Mary,

It would seem to be a logical parallel, but I don't really think so. Our Democrat presidents have typically been as willing to send troops into combat as have the Republican ones, even though the Democrat party is typically the party associated with gon control (if it can be called a party issue at all). President Johnson was a big fan of gun control, but was also responsible for escalating the war in Vietnam. Clinton sent troops to Bosnia-Herzagovena.

Keep in mind that most gun control advocates, at least here in America, support a well-armed government. They simply oppose firearms in private hands. In addition, gun control seems to be more of a regional issue than a party issue, with lawmakers, Democrat and Republican, from rural areas opposing it and lawmakers from urban areas favouring it. Some Democrats, such as my own representative, are some of the strongest supporters of 2nd amendment rights, and some Republicans, particularly from the Northeast, are the strongest advocates of gun control. However, as an issue written into the official party platform, the Republican Party officials opposes gun control and the Democrats favour it.

V/R
Shapley

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby Shapley » Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:46 am

Haggis,

I'm sorry you find my logic torturous but, after all, being right can often be torture!. :)

I think the problem with understanding my point is that people look at abortion, the war, etc., as a seperate issues rather than as symptoms of a single issue - a national attitude toward responsibility, duty, and life in general.

Witness, for example, the number of recruits who joined the military, taking advantage of the free college tuition assistance they offer. When the call came to go to war, however, some of them resisted, declaring that they would not fight in an 'unjust' war or a 'war for oil', etc. In the more conservative era of the '50s, such people would have been thrown under the brig. Even in the '60s and '70s, they would have been dishonourably discharged, perhaps done a little brig time, and then forced to repay the tuition payments they had received. Nowadays, they are administratively discharged without penalty and go on the talk show circuit. The American attitude to responsibility is changed and, IMHO, not for the better. We've lost our soul, our sense of obligation. It's all about what is convenient to us. We are not bound by duty. We ask not what we can do for our country, but what our country can do for us.

I see it all around us. But then, I'm looking at a forest, not just a bunch of trees.

V/R
Shapley

BTW, I should point out that it was Jamie, not I, who brought the subject of abortion into a thread about the war...
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby jamiebk » Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:53 am

Shapley wrote:Jamie,

I think the parallel is quite valid. Let me reiterate:

We penetrated deep into that country and planted the seed of democracy. That seed has brough forth a child, the fledgling government of the new democratic republic. Having thus fathered this child, whether it is illegitimate or not, we have a resposibility to support that child until it is self-sufficient. There is, however, a movement afoot to abort that child, to deny our responsibility. I find it telling that support for aborting the child comes primarily from the same political party that supports the right to abort human children. I think the parallel is valid because it reflects an attitude toward responsibility for ones actions, and a sense of obligation. Once conceived, the obligation is created, and cannot be casually cast aside.


That is total bunk. You are WAY off base even referring to "the seed of democracy" as a "child". Inferring that thrusting troops into Iraq on a bogus mission to overthrow a bad guy (because he had WMD's) is tantamount to a conceiving a human child is ludicris.
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Postby Shapley » Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:01 am

Actually, we overthrew a dictator for failure to comply with the terms of the ceasation of hostilities reached ten years earlier, and installed a democratically-elected government. What part is bunk?

I will grant that our failure to invade immediately after the dictator violated the terms of ceasation (during the presidency of Bill Clinton) weakens our position. It does not, however, negate it. Nor does continued utterance of the lie that WMD's were the sole reason for invasion make it true. The lack of WMD's also weakens our justification for war, but does not negate it.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby jamiebk » Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:07 am

Shapley wrote:Actually, we overthrew a dictator for failure to comply with the terms of the ceasation of hostilities reached ten years earlier, and installed a democratically-elected government. What part is bunk?

I will grant that our failure to invade immediately after the dictator violated the terms of ceasation (during the presidency of Bill Clinton) weakens our position. It does not, however, negate it. Nor does continued utterance of the lie that WMD's were the sole reason for invasion make it true. The lack of WMD's also weakens our justification for war, but does not negate it.

V/R
Shapley


You are sidestepping the point of my response......the "planting seeds of democracry" is hardly tantamount to conceiving a child
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Postby Shapley » Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:34 am

You are sidestepping the point of my response......the "planting seeds of democracry" is hardly tantamount to conceiving a child.


I disagree.

Besides, that point is immaterial. The point I'm trying to make is that we have a national attitude about responsibility for the choices we make that says we can 'abort' the consequences if we don't like the direction our choices take us. We have no sense of commitment. If we don't like our 'life partner', we can divorce them (if we even bothered to marry them). If we don't want the baby we've conceived baby, we can kill it in the womb. If we get tired of fighting a war, we can call it off. Consequences be damned, it's what we feel like doing at the moment that counts. There is no big picture; no forest, only individual trees.

That's the point I'm making, not whether a baby and government are similar or not. It's about attitude, it's about duty, it's about responsibility.
It's about following through on commitments and obligations. It's about consequences for our decisions, our actions, our choices.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby jamiebk » Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:59 am

Shapley wrote:
You are sidestepping the point of my response......the "planting seeds of democracry" is hardly tantamount to conceiving a child.


I disagree.

Besides, that point is immaterial. The point I'm trying to make is that we have a national attitude about responsibility for the choices we make that says we can 'abort' the consequences if we don't like the direction our choices take us. We have no sense of commitment. If we don't like our 'life partner', we can divorce them (if we even bothered to marry them). If we don't want the baby we've conceived baby, we can kill it in the womb. If we get tired of fighting a war, we can call it off. Consequences be damned, it's what we feel like doing at the moment that counts. There is no big picture; no forest, only individual trees.

That's the point I'm making, not whether a baby and government are similar or not. It's about attitude, it's about duty, it's about responsibility.
It's about following through on commitments and obligations. It's about consequences for our decisions, our actions, our choices.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

V/R
Shapley


And if we don't like our elected officials, we change them too. Its called democracy. Many of us did not choose this war...many do not choose to conceive a baby (rape/incest/poverty etc.)...many did not choose these elected officials. The ability to face ones' mistakes and correct them does not mean that one has a lack of responsibility...quite the opposite!
Last edited by jamiebk on Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:05 am, edited 2 times in total.
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Postby OperaTenor » Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:00 am

Just like recent administrations have aborted our commitment to the Great Society?

Just because we're tired of trying to make the country a better place for EVERYONE, we can just abandon the programs and policies?

Same logic, bucko...
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby Shapley » Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:08 am

Just like recent administrations have aborted our commitment to the Great Society?


Which commitments have we abandoned, Bucko? We still have welfare, we've just reformed it. We still have Medicare, we still have Medicaid, we still have Head Start. All have been reformed, but they're still there, as big and as expensive as they ever were.

Are you saying we've abandoned a commitment to expand these to everyone? I'm not sure I've ever seen that commitment.

Of course, I could point out that the 'Great Society' abandoned our commitment to freedom and individual responsibility as well, but I won't bother...
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby Shapley » Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:15 am

And if we don't like our elected officials, we change them too. Its called democracy. Many of us did not choose this war...many do not choose to conceive a baby (rape/incest/poverty etc.)...many did not choose these elected officials. The ability to face ones' mistakes and correct them does not mean that one has a lack of responsibility...quite the opposite!


The new Congress assumes the debts and obligations of the previous, just as a new President assumes the debts and obligations of the previous. Abandoning a problem is not a fix. We've made a commitment to the Iraqi people, and this Congress intends to break it, just as the Democratic Congress broke our commitment to South Vietnam 30+ years ago.

Many people may not have supported the war, but the majority did. The majority in Congress authorized it, and that includes a majority of those still in Congress, albeit a slimmer majority. We created an obligation, assumed a debt, and that obligation has to be honoured, the debt has to be paid.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby jamiebk » Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:36 pm

3350 American soldiers are dead (our kids)
$400,000,000,000
4 (plus) years of trying

Hardly a "broken promise". Seems like this is enough already.
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Postby piqaboo » Mon Apr 30, 2007 1:35 pm

Shapley wrote: I think it is telling that those of us believe in commitments, who believe in responsibility for one's actions, and who believe in responsibility, are generally the ones who favour restrictions on abortion and completing the mission in Iraq.


Thank you, I decline to be included in your generality.
Altoid - curiously strong.
piqaboo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 7135
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Paradise (So. Cal.)

Postby Shapley » Mon Apr 30, 2007 1:58 pm

Thank you, I decline to be included in your generality.


You are free to exclude yourself, if you wish. That's the wonderful thing about generalities, they are generally not person-specific. :)

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

PreviousNext

Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron