WTF is Perry talking about with Turkey?! He just said they were being ran by terrorists... For what, not being happy that Israel killed their citizens?
How certain are you that it isn't already? Both of you seemed to support Occupy Wall Street... (busting your balls, obviously).
Probably. Maybe a bit of animosity that Turkey stopped allowing military layovers for movement into Iraq, and seemed to side against the Kurds. Which is their right as a sovereign nation.
Honestly the radical Kurds would be labeled terrorists if they were in the US. They're total douchers.
Yea, but they have the benefit of being a... what is the proper way to put it... "oppressed people." So they get the benefit of the doubt, even though they are highly aggressive. I think because they tend to be highly aggressive against people the US doesn't necessarily like also helps.
The funny thing is, if they had their Kurdistan I can guarantee they'd be huge America haters. They are backwoods Islamic hardliner bumpkins.
It's worse to have politicians pander to the mob when they have the available means to make a more informed decision. The "beliefs of the Founding Fathers" mantra is frequently misused, but it certainly applies to this idea that there were more informed individuals who should make the calls instead of the easily mislead populace (which is why populism often delivers shitty ideas). Obviously, the populace is far more informed than in the days of Jefferson, Washington and Hamilton, but the idea still applies. I mean, who knows when civil rights legislation would've passed had Congressmen simply rubber stamped the majority or gay rights issues, for a modern context. The "majority" has been shown again and again to not have the best interests in mind, tending to be reactionary, insular and fearful in their perceptions. Not every time, for sure, nor even a majority of the time, but enough times to make this an issue. For instance, the "Ground Zero Mosque" issues was a classic case of populist fear-mongering, prejudice and misrepresentation of information that advocated a clear violation of basic rights for law abiding citizens. Elected officials should be qualified to make the tough decision to ignore the majority views and protect the rights of individuals without considering their potential election loss, if that happens to be the correct decision.
He's not saying you poll the constituency to decide how to vote on an issue. He's saying a person holding political office should put aside their religious, personal beliefs, and do things that he believes is in the best interest of the constituency as a whole whether or not it necessarily agrees with his own personal/religious views.
I think you have a pretty fundamental misconception of how things work. The Civil Rights Act wasn't passed because some legislator stepped out on a limb; it was passed because Civil Rights Activists worked to sway public opinion in support of such a bill. Gay Rights won't be established by a House member "taking a stand", it will be done either by the Supreme Court or when public opinion eventually sways in favor of it. The majority opinion in this country rules; the majority elects like-minded people who vote the way that the majority thinks. It's not as if some independent person is appointed and then he has to decide whether or not to side with the majority. The majority elects people who share their beliefs. Things don't change through "gambling legislators." They change through grass roots campaigns to sway public support.
How does one not have those two ideas connected? If someone felt it was in the best interest of his constituency, wouldn't that likely be their own personal view? And, how does him saying that a person should work according to the majority not construe the idea that you "poll" (however you may do it) the people in order to determine what you should do according to the majority? So, which is it, does he work for the majority or in their best interest? I understood from the first what he was trying to say, but it doesn't really fit and it wasn't to do things in the best interest of the constituency. That's what I said to do.
Look at the Romney debate directly above. He did things that were different than his personal/religious beliefs as governor. That's why this issue was brought up in this thread.
I have a very good understanding of how things work, don't sell me that bullshit. Hell, Radical Republicans essentially created the ideas of Reconstruction out of decidedly minority viewpoints and that included the first civil rights legislation. The Civil Rights Legislation of the 1960s was stuck in purgatory and took Johnson's insistence that the Congress honor Kennedy's memory by passing it. George Bush the Daddy sacrificed his second term in order to break a campaign promise of "read my lips" in order to pass a tax increase he felt was necessary for the country. All in all, though, my point was more theoretical than anything. Ideally, a representative should operate according to the principle that he acts in the manner that he feels best serves his particular job responsibilities and, then, those results will be the basis for which he is judged upon in his re-elected. In reality, yes, the ability to sway public opinion because you want to be re-elected is critical, but, even then, that is demonstrating the ability of that elected official to lead the constituency in the manner in which he feels is the correct path. Thus, the idea that it is simply the populace electing "like minded people" is false when it fails to recognize that these politicians are often creating those needs and ideas among those people in the first place. I won't even bother going into the pandering of issues in order to get votes and then spend the time in office working on a myriad of other things not associated with the reasons why the electorate put you there. One would be naive to think that the populace isn't hoodwinked again and again in this way.
Romney has no beliefs other than what is needed to get elected. I hated Bush, but at least he took a real stand and had discernible beliefs.
Gallup Polls that were done in reaction to Brown v. Board showed that nearly 60% of the country agreed with the decision to end segregation, and that was in 1954. Public support was going in that direction. They played to Kennedy's death to pass the Civil Rights of 1964 as a political tool. But, in 1964, immediately prior to the passage of the bill, almost 70% of the country supported it. That wasn't only due to them playing up Kennedy's assassination. It was due because the majority was already going in that direction. That's how things change here. In a perfect world, you're obviously right. But, that's simply not how it is. Things change when the majority decides they change. Period.
That's garbage. Romney's no more sleazy than any other politician. Bush took a stand? Give me a [uck fay]ing break. What was that stand? Going to Iraq because of WMDs? Or, was his actual stand "liberating the Iraqis." That became the new spin after they found out that they'd gone to war with Iraq for no reason because there were no WMDs. So, his "stand" suddenly changed. Wonder why it suddenly changed? Oh, that's right. To get him reelected and sell the war to the public. And, it worked. So, he's no different than Mitt Romney or any other politician.
Bullshit. Things certainly changed in the South without their majority (Yes, it was the public opinion of the North, but change came to that area in complete opposition of the people living there.), not to mention there are a host of unpopular Supreme Court decisions if we want to go that route. Plus, you completely disregard the idea that elected officials shape popular opinion. For example, after the 2001 attacks, had Bush come on the TV and treated the attacks as a criminal act instead of an "act of war" as he fashioned it, how might have public opinion changed? The war on Iraq was another, almost a classic case of political manipulation of public opinion. Did anyone give a shit about attacking Iraq until the drumbeat of war by the Bush Administration? Besides these obvious examples, let's not forget the numerous actions done every day in Washington in which corporations, special interest groups, lobbyists, etc. and politicians come together to create many of our laws and the direction of our country. That's really how things change. You can believe that pollyanna bullshit about popular opinion moving this country, but the real invisible hand really is invisible to most of us.
First of all, damn you for making me stand up for Bush, but the guy was transparent. He wanted to go into Iraq and said so. Bush will sell the same story in Knoxville or San Francisco. Romney changes his positions to suit the election he's running for. He's a liberal Republican running for governor in Massachusetts and a right-wing advocate who spits out nonsense about poor people "envying" the rich because he knows that's what people are buying in the Republican Party. His personal belief is ambition, that's it.
As for 9/11, it wouldn't have changed it a bit. When all of those culpable were found to be Muslim militants from the Middle East, the same reaction would have occurred. It wasn't Bush's characterization of the attack as an act of war that caused the reaction. As for the Civil Rights Act, yes, it changed because the majority opinion of the country changed. I have never said anything about regional majorities causing change. As to my disregarding that elected officials shape popular opinion, I've never done that. I was simply speaking on things like the Civil Rights Act and Gay Rights will be done by grassroots campaigns, not legislators making a stand. As for the vast majority of garbage that's passed on a daily basis, you're exactly right. Corporations, politicians, lobbyists, special interests set the political discourse. Is that a problem? I don't know the answer to that. Most of the time, public opinion goes to which side does the best job selling their idea. If the idea is implemented and sucks, then public opinion shifts to something else. But, in the end, as I have said, and which you now apparently concede, it's majority public opinion that drives this country, no matter who shapes the opinion or sets the political discourse.
Bush didn't have this longstanding obsession with Iraq that's commonly portrayed. But, guys like Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz did. (See their 1998 letter to Bill Clinton asking him to invade Iraq then) Ricks' book on this is fantastic. After 9/11, it essentially became a war between Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz and Colin Powell. Powell was opposed to going to Iraq. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were obsessed with it. Military leaders, who were quoted in Ricks' book, said that they saw a military intelligence report on possible WMDs in Iraq in the version that was sent to President Bush. This particular leader said it was significantly altered to make it appear that it was an absolute certainty that WMDs existed. In the end, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz even convinced Powell that they had WMDs; hence, Powell making himself look like an idiot in front of the UN. So, ultimately, criminals like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are why we spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq. I don't blame Bush that much for it; but there's no question that his switch on his "stand" was complete and total bullshit. You ought to read Ricks' book. Very, very good.
Alright, Mr. Law, you are a worthy adversary, obviously very knowledgeable and this has been fun, but I've got to hit the sack before work tomorrow. I'm not even reading your last response because I know it will suck me in for another hour or so. In any event, I hope you didn't take my tone as me calling you an idiot because I found your arguments very compelling and challenging to counter. In any event, take care and we'll spar another day. Later.
