|
Whew, why can't I just bring myself to ignore this asinine shit? Oh well, here we go....
You said, "Here's a hint. He acts like a spoiled little Napoleon. When he doesn't get his way, he stomps angrily out of the room. He's made one of the guys who helped get him out of Vietnam his #1 enemy. Ya this guy is a real "let's cooperate" kind of guy."
That's exactly why McCain would have been a much better candidate than Bush. Our government has gotten FAR to comfortable with its own corruption, and it's about time we had a man with some strong principles who is determined to clean things up a bit. McCain isn't 100% clean himself, and I never said I would have voted for him over Nader... I just said he was the best out of the 4 main party primary candidates... and how did Bush beat him? Some of the dirtiest political tactics of all time (sorry, but to use McCain's courage in a POW camp against him to make him out to be insane is NOT good politics... especially when Bush himself is a draft dodger). Let me simplify this for you: I was using that example to demonstrate that I'm not a Democrat, and that I don't get my opinions from Democrats, as you implied all liberals must do.
"Correction. You listen to all sources of information that AGREE WITH YOU. It seems to me, that ANY information and ANYBODY that contradicts your prefabricated POV seems to be dismissed outright as someone who is "blind" and can't see your ultimate truth."
Ok, explain to me why I went out of my way to tell R3K and other Bush supporters that I wasn't targetting them. It's because they at least have put some THOUGHT into their beliefs. I still would maintain that they're wrong, but I respect their intelligence, and don't mind debating with them. You have yet to come up with a single intelligent argument to defend your case, other than slinging insults and regurgitating Bill "No Spin" O'Reilly idiocy.
And why is understanding the motivations of the terrorists a bad thing? Obviously you haven't tried, but you also haven't given me a legitimate reason why we shouldn't. If you have a good argument to defend your case here, give it. I'm listening.
I never said we shouldn't have used our military... that's not even the point of this debate. I'm saying that if we're forced to kill people (I hope you realize we've killed more innocent civilians than were killed in the WTC), then we should make an effort to really understand and SOLVE the problem so that we don't have to keep killing more people, and so that we don't have to worry quite so much about them killing our civilians again. There's NEVER a time in life when trying to understand a situation (especially one with such large consequences) is a negative thing.
Finally, you said, "Deal with the terrorists, yes, maybe we can meet their demands so they won't attack us anymore."
Did I say to meet their demands? See, when a person is backed against a wall and has no intelligent argument left, that what tends to happen. You twist words, or you put words in people's mouths, or you resort to insults and recitals of your favorite pundent. Let me also make this one as SIMPLE as possible for you: by understanding their motivations, we can better formulate the best possible response.
Anyway, I'm done with this thread. I'm not going to keep arguing with a person who is proud of not trying to understand the situation. Proud ignorance isn't a good opponent for debate.
|