You don't think if things start getting heated in Iraq, you might just abandon it alltogether, no?
I haven’t denied that possibility. What I did argue, however, was that current high-level staffing of Obama’s defense team has been known to endorse intervention on moral grounds on the past, often promoting policy options both arbitrary and ill-conceived.
You would be thus extolling the superiority of your race. Or not? Basically, the white race does constitute an overclass due to historical circumstances; identifying it as such is being true. The black race does not constitute an overclass.
Any suggestion that the basis for “legitimate” voting is the color of one’s skin, or that one should always vote in step with one’s ethnic community, is racist.
Obviously the German intent of annihilation was the most damning circumstance; other nations destroyed a lot of people, but they did it as collateral for other goals mostly, however evil that sounds, while the Germans destroyed the people to clean out territory.
This still doesn’t address the fact that many Germans went to war because it was “the thing to do.” This would have been particularly true after 1942.
The German goal of murdering people “because they were there” is indeed arguably more hideous than the service of some other goal, however wretched, and while the German fighting man was frequently the mechanism by which this “cleansing” was carried out, the war was still an exogenous fact, handed down from above. Germans still fought and died for their homes.
And yet, you did contest that belief in creationism can be used as an impromptu test of thinking skills. You can't have it both ways: you can't concede that creationism is bad logic and then tell me that I have no right to generalize that creationists are irrational.
I contested that this has great relevance in comparison of individual policies, Republican and Democrat.
I pointed out to Samuel and Stas several issues on which I think that Republicans have got it right, despite the collective logical failure that is going on across much of the Right.
Like it or not, the conservative movement in America right now is hopelessly intertwined with the religious right. You seem to think it is unfair to characterize conservatives by the religious right, but those two movements have become joined at the hip. This whole thread seems to be an exercise in you looking for excuses to disavow any connection between the current brand of American political conservatism and all the things it does, like embracing creationism, embracing the religious right, demonizing social liberalism, and embracing Rush Limbaugh.
No. This whole thread was really about pointing out a very important problem: that while liberals regard the past ten years as an untrammeled period of Republican dominion, in which we’ve done a great deal of social backtracking, conservatives regarded themselves “under siege” even before the election period. I encouraged board members to dig for answers that would be beneficial to their understanding of “the other side.” In reply, I was told that the other side didn’t want to talk, and couldn’t make rational arguments. I accept that some people are going to become frustrated, call you a “poopy head,” and run away in the middle of an argument that challenges their deeply-held convictions. I don’t accept that somebody’s irrationalism can’t be pointed out to them.
The Republican Party is absolutely fixed at the hip to the Religious Right. Belief in Creationism
is illogical. Yet RedImperator raised strong points as to why strong faith can be regarded as an artifact over which some people have relatively weak control. And even accepting “collective logical failure” on certain issues, weighing policies individually, and the necessity for satisficing (since neither party will usually reflect one’s own issue preferences) can still bring somebody, reasonably, to a Republican outcome.
Addressing, for a moment, Limbaugh. In 2006, Arbitron ratings put his show at “a minimum” of 13.5 million listeners per week. The Republican Party in 2004 boasted a membership of 55 million in 2004.
Not all of Limbaugh’s listeners are going to be in lock-step with his views, and some Republicans will be registered Independents.
Clearly, Limbaugh does not speak for the Republican Party. The numbers don’t bear it out. But Limbaugh does have highly concentrated influence over a very significant percentage of Republicans. This makes him a political danger to a vulnerable politician such as Steele, who must produce “outputs” in order to retain his portfolio. Steele obviously thinks poorly of Limbaugh, but was quietly told, in no uncertain terms, to mend rifts during a time of party weakness.
Yes, and his point is also faulty. Many nations suffered really pathetic level of damage to homefront in World War II. One of them is the United States, incidentally. Does that mean their soldiers fought for nothing?
The United States experienced a massive surge of enlistment after Pearl Harbor. Fighting the war was directly linked to protecting one's home, family, and nation.
