Political Roundtable Part VIII

[dckingsfan]

Yep, makes my point Zonk.

If someone already hates you, they probably are going to continue to hate you.

If some is trying to kill you, they are probably going to try to continue to kill you.

If you kill a terrorist that is trying to kill you, well you are probably not making more enemies. They and their community already hates you and are trying to kill you - and the father has already tacitly or directly endorsed his son's behavior.

Think of it from the "I hate all xxx" and the xxx could be Americans.

Makes more sense?

You are not getting my point at all. Please read what I wrote instead of seeing what you want to see.

You are right, I don't get your point. Mike is that looking from their perspective - if they are already trying to kill you - your assertion doesn't make sense. What am I missing?

[AFM]

[JWizmentality]

I don't know if I said this in this thread but I had a conversation with my kids the other day.

Suppose you kill a terrorist. You have made enemies of everyone in that terrorist's family. 5-10 people. Of those, probably one or two will end up taking up arms against you. You can't win the war on terrorism by killing terrorists.

And the same calculus applies to civilians who are accidental collateral victims of your attack.

Hatred begets hatred. Revenge begets revenge. It's a never ending cycle. It's something that conservatives have maybe finally wrapped their brains around which is why their solution is...well bomb the crap out of everything. They have the intellectual reasoning of a 4 year old. Hell look who's their front runner.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

[I_Like_Dirt]

You are right, I don't get your point. Mike is that looking from their perspective - if they are already trying to kill you - your assertion doesn't make sense. What am I missing?

Not to speak for Zonk, but I read his point as the fact that most people, Muslim, Middle Eastern or otherwise, aren't trying to kill Americans, and that you create more people trying to kill Americans by having Americans kill their families, directly or indirectly.

[JWizmentality]

Yep, makes my point Zonk.

If someone already hates you, they probably are going to continue to hate you.

If some is trying to kill you, they are probably going to try to continue to kill you.

If you kill a terrorist that is trying to kill you, well you are probably not making more enemies. They and their community already hates you and are trying to kill you - and the father has already tacitly or directly endorsed his son's behavior.

Think of it from the "I hate all xxx" and the xxx could be Americans.

Makes more sense?

Not sure what point you're trying to make? Seems like a chicken and egg agruement. Are you saying they are all predispose to hate?

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

[dckingsfan]

Yep, makes my point Zonk.

If someone already hates you, they probably are going to continue to hate you.

If some is trying to kill you, they are probably going to try to continue to kill you.

If you kill a terrorist that is trying to kill you, well you are probably not making more enemies. They and their community already hates you and are trying to kill you - and the father has already tacitly or directly endorsed his son's behavior.

Think of it from the "I hate all xxx" and the xxx could be Americans.

Makes more sense?

Not sure what point you're trying to make? Seems like a chicken and egg agruement. Are you saying they are all predispose to hate?

I guess what I am saying is that you have to have a different posture with different groups.

If you know that one group hates you and IS out to get you - well then, you don't worry about further alienating them.

With groups that may hate you but aren't actively trying to hurt you, his first assertion works.

[popper]

I don't know if I said this in this thread but I had a conversation with my kids the other day.

Suppose you kill a terrorist. You have made enemies of everyone in that terrorist's family. 5-10 people. Of those, probably one or two will end up taking up arms against you. You can't win the war on terrorism by killing terrorists.

And the same calculus applies to civilians who are accidental collateral victims of your attack.

Hatred begets hatred. Revenge begets revenge. It's a never ending cycle. It's something that conservatives have maybe finally wrapped their brains around which is why their solution is...well bomb the crap out of everything. They have the intellectual reasoning of a 4 year old. Hell look who's their front runner.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

My recollection of history may be a bit fuzzy but didn't Pres Obama just recently bomb Libya, hasn't he advanced the art of drone attacks, didn't Pres Clinton bomb the hell out of Serbia, didn't Pres Johnson bomb the hell out of Vietnam, didn't FDR bomb the hell out of Germany? Have liberals finally "wrapped their brains around .... ". Are they 4 year olds too? The R front runner is a serial liar just like the D front runner. Both are dangerous.

[I_Like_Dirt]

If you know that one group hates you and IS out to get you - well then, you don't worry about further alienating them.

With groups that may hate you but aren't actively trying to hurt you, his first assertion works.

It's more nuanced than that, though. There are many groups that aren't actively trying to hurt you, but might be convinced to actively try to hurt you depending on how you respond to a group that is out to get you.

A lot of the main terrorist groups aren't so much interested in actually attacking the US or Europe or whoever as they are in putting on a show for others who might be convinced to support them. And this can play out in multiple ways. They need to prove themselves strong enough to actually stand up to whoever they choose to define as their opponent. They do this with symbolic attacks, but also by withstanding a response as well. They're looking for a response, knowing full well that in that response, there will be a bunch of hatred that will, on certain fronts (many of the ones they care about, too), it will make them appear more sympathetic because the hatred they elicit won't just be directed at them, but be a bit more broad and indiscriminate. And if they can inspire more actions from sympathizers, even better, because it starts getting even more people emotionally involved in what's happening, which suits their causes just fine.

So with that in mind, going in and trying to kill those who are out to get you does, in fact, increase the number of opponents you wind up facing. You want to take away the podium with which they can broadcast if you want to actually defeat them.

[dckingsfan]

If you know that one group hates you and IS out to get you - well then, you don't worry about further alienating them.

With groups that may hate you but aren't actively trying to hurt you, his first assertion works.

It's more nuanced than that, though.

Actually, that is my point. It isn't so simple as, "you treat everyone the same..."

So, violent agreement. And I am not defending some of our recent actions.

But like you say, it is a bit more nuanced that what Zonk posted.

[fishercob]

Hunch: Republicans have no concept of how much fiscal conservatism most of the country would consent to if GOP lawmakers would stop trying to tell people who they can marry and what they can do with their bodies.

Speaking personally, there are so many issues that I am open to changing my mind on -- or at the very least, exploring a range of solutions to -- if politicians weren't threatening my daughter's theoretical right to a safe abortion should she ever need it, or threatening my gay friends' rights to be married to each other.

Not to mention the fact that if what anti-abortionists really want to do is limit the number of abortions, there are better ways than making them illegal. Education, birth control, adoption, etc.

As the GOP stands that this crossroads, they should abandon their social agenda, get the government out of peoples' bedrooms, and focus on solving problems that affect peoples' day to day lives. I think they'd be shocked at their success over time.

[dckingsfan]

Hunch: Republicans have no concept of how much fiscal conservatism most of the country would consent to if GOP lawmakers would stop trying to tell people who they can marry and what they can do with their bodies.

Speaking personally, there are so many issues that I am open to changing my mind on -- or at the very least, exploring a range of solutions to -- if politicians weren't threatening my daughter's theoretical right to a safe abortion should she ever need it, or threatening my gay friends' rights to be married to each other.

Not to mention the fact that if what anti-abortionists really want to do is limit the number of abortions, there are better ways than making them illegal. Education, birth control, adoption, etc.

As the GOP stands that this crossroads, they should abandon their social agenda, get the government out of peoples' bedrooms, and focus on solving problems that affect peoples' day to day lives. I think they'd be shocked at their success over time.

Fish - more than 50% of the country holds your views. They are socially liberal and fiscally conservative (responsible). You are in the majority.

What we need is a new party. They would trounce both the Rs and the Ds.

[fishercob]

Hunch: Republicans have no concept of how much fiscal conservatism most of the country would consent to if GOP lawmakers would stop trying to tell people who they can marry and what they can do with their bodies.

Speaking personally, there are so many issues that I am open to changing my mind on -- or at the very least, exploring a range of solutions to -- if politicians weren't threatening my daughter's theoretical right to a safe abortion should she ever need it, or threatening my gay friends' rights to be married to each other.

Not to mention the fact that if what anti-abortionists really want to do is limit the number of abortions, there are better ways than making them illegal. Education, birth control, adoption, etc.

As the GOP stands that this crossroads, they should abandon their social agenda, get the government out of peoples' bedrooms, and focus on solving problems that affect peoples' day to day lives. I think they'd be shocked at their success over time.

Fish - more than 50% of the country holds your views. They are socially liberal and fiscally conservative (responsible). You are in the majority.

What we need is a new party. They would trounce both the Rs and the Ds.

To be clear, I don't know how fiscally conservative I am. It's hard to paint a lot of these issues with a broad brush. Maybe Mitt Romney's economic proposals made mroe sense than Obama's. I -- and many others -- was never willing to consider that (or to consider voting on it) because of his and his party's stance on abortion and gay rights.

[dckingsfan]

Hunch: Republicans have no concept of how much fiscal conservatism most of the country would consent to if GOP lawmakers would stop trying to tell people who they can marry and what they can do with their bodies.

Speaking personally, there are so many issues that I am open to changing my mind on -- or at the very least, exploring a range of solutions to -- if politicians weren't threatening my daughter's theoretical right to a safe abortion should she ever need it, or threatening my gay friends' rights to be married to each other.

Not to mention the fact that if what anti-abortionists really want to do is limit the number of abortions, there are better ways than making them illegal. Education, birth control, adoption, etc.

As the GOP stands that this crossroads, they should abandon their social agenda, get the government out of peoples' bedrooms, and focus on solving problems that affect peoples' day to day lives. I think they'd be shocked at their success over time.

Fish - more than 50% of the country holds your views. They are socially liberal and fiscally conservative (responsible). You are in the majority.

What we need is a new party. They would trounce both the Rs and the Ds.

To be clear, I don't know how fiscally conservative I am. It's hard to paint a lot of these issues with a broad brush. Maybe Mitt Romney's economic proposals made mroe sense than Obama's. I -- and many others -- was never willing to consider that (or to consider voting on it) because of his and his party's stance on abortion and gay rights.

In my mind, a fiscal conservative believes that one only spends the money one takes in. A social liberal tries to maximize the benefits from those receipts. The blend of the two would want government to find the line where you maximize the receipts without hurting the economy.

Also, deficit spending tends to hurt the poor the most (or favor banks and ecomomists). We essentially create money that filters through banks (buy buying their financial goods) and then it "trickles down".

We could continue to do that - and that would continue to benefit the 1%.

On a local level, it just drives the municipalities into bankrupcy. We can see what has happened in Flint and Detroit and what is going to happen in Chicago - and it doesn't hurt those that have the assets to get up and move as much as those that don't and are stuck.

So, maybe social liberal is the wrong phrase - maybe it is taking care of the lower and middle classes.

[CobraCommander]

I don't know if I said this in this thread but I had a conversation with my kids the other day.

Suppose you kill a terrorist. You have made enemies of everyone in that terrorist's family. 5-10 people. Of those, probably one or two will end up taking up arms against you. You can't win the war on terrorism by killing terrorists.

And the same calculus applies to civilians who are accidental collateral victims of your attack.

Hatred begets hatred. Revenge begets revenge. It's a never ending cycle. It's something that conservatives have maybe finally wrapped their brains around which is why their solution is...well bomb the crap out of everything. They have the intellectual reasoning of a 4 year old. Hell look who's their front runner.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

My recollection of history may be a bit fuzzy but didn't Pres Obama just recently bomb Libya, hasn't he advanced the art of drone attacks, didn't Pres Clinton bomb the hell out of Serbia, didn't Pres Johnson bomb the hell out of Vietnam, didn't FDR bomb the hell out of Germany? Have liberals finally "wrapped their brains around .... ". Are they 4 year olds too? The R front runner is a serial liar just like the D front runner. Both are dangerous.

Your recollection is....Accurate. Somehow people tend to believe that whatever political party they are against has cornered the market on evil, ignorance, anti-americanism, racism, hatred, killing, etc... While both parties practice the same war time acts and treat the citizens of their country the same. Don't be fooled by a Donkey or an Elephant--- apart from Trump all of these guys are singing from the same sheet of music. Which is WHY no body in establishment wants Trump to win- (Btw... I'm not a fan of Trump...I am just giving you my opinion)

[AFM]

Trumps wife doe....

[CobraCommander]

Trumps wife doe....

You cant argue against the fact that Trump like dem DIMES!

[pineappleheadindc]

.

We've reached 100 pages. Time to start a new thread. Find it here.