Real World Event Discussions

Fox News Rules & MSNBC Sucks!

POSTED BY: Skywalken
UPDATED: Thursday, May 24, 2007 18:14
VIEWED: 7874
PAGE 2 of 5

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, May 17, 2007 8:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Early:
But thats not what Paul said. Let me give you an analogy.

I’m completely aware of the argument being made. Let’s try another analogy. A woman walks to work in a miniskirt, and on the way there, she is attacked and raped. But since she was wearing a miniskirt, we can conclude that woman was a slut and brought it on herself.

Probably every woman who has ever been raped, it was her fault, if we assume the rapist is authority on fault in that matter.

Almost every person who has ever been murdered, it was their fault, if we assume the murderer is the authority on the fault in the matter.

I promise you, if Rudy had responded by quoting bin Laden in this case, his career would have been over.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

EARLY

Thursday, May 17, 2007 8:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Early:
But thats not what Paul said. Let me give you an analogy.
I’m completely aware of the argument being made. Let’s try another analogy. A woman walks to work in a miniskirt, and on the way there, she is attacked and raped. But since she was wearing a miniskirt, we can conclude that woman was a slut and brought it on herself.

Probably every woman who has ever been raped, it was her fault, if we assume the rapist is authority on fault in that matter.

Almost every person who has ever been murdered, it was their fault, if we assume the murderer is the authority on the fault in the matter.

I promise you, if Rudy had responded by quoting bin Laden in this case, his career would have been over.

But you keep using the term fault. No it is not the woman's fault. Just like it would not be my fault (which I thought I made clear) for getting shot because I wore a blue shirt. Paul never said it was America's fault. The media and Giuliani said that, putting words into his mouth. In your analogy it is the rapists fault. But if the rapist did it because she was wearing a short skirt then lets not pretend he raped her because she had blond hair. And if the woman alters her dress because of this incident to be safer, it doesn't mean that it was her fault. If after getting shot for wearing a blue shirt I never wear a blue shirt into the bloods neighborhood again thats just a lesson learned. The gunman, the rapist, and the terrorists should all go to jail for they are at fault. not the victims, but what the victims did is a contributing factor (to use Paul's words). To deny that is denying the truth.

www.RonPaul2008.com

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, May 17, 2007 8:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Early:
But you keep using the term fault. No it is not the woman's fault. Just like it would not be my fault (which I thought I made clear) for getting shot because I wore a blue shirt. Paul never said it was America's fault. The media and Giuliani said that, putting words into his mouth. In your analogy it is the rapists fault. But if the rapist did it because she was wearing a short skirt then lets not pretend he raped her because she had blond hair. And if the woman alters her dress because of this incident to be safer, it doesn't mean that it was her fault. If after getting shot for wearing a blue shirt I never wear a blue shirt into the bloods neighborhood again thats just a lesson learned. The gunman, the rapist, and the terrorists should all go to jail for they are at fault. not the victims, but what the victims did is a contributing factor (to use Paul's words). To deny that is denying the truth.

There are two problems with that.

First of all, quoting bin Laden’s hatred of America as justification for 9/ll, regardless of where the fault is intended to be laid, WILL be read as American’s fault and bin Laden’s right. Ergo Giuliani’s career is over.

Second, you are implying appeasement to terrorism. Gangsters shoot you for wearing a blue shirt, so you stop wearing a blue shirt.

Neither of these arguments will work. At the very very best, they are too complicated, at worst they are anti-American. Either way, they won’t go over in a debate.

EARLY

Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Early:

Second, you are implying appeasement to terrorism. Gangsters shoot you for wearing a blue shirt, so you stop wearing a blue shirt.

Neither of these arguments will work. At the very very best, they are too complicated, at worst they are anti-American. Either way, they won’t go over in a debate.

So if you were shot because you wondered into a bloods neighborhood wearing a blue shirt, you would do it again just to show 'em? That's just dumb. You need to do a little risk/reward analysis. As far as appeasing terroists, maybe the reward would outweigh the risks, but we still need to understand the reasons. As Sun Tzu said you should know your enemy and know yourself (I paraphrase).

As far as the arguments...
Well they certainly aren't anti-American. As far as too complicated, thats just a statement on the sad state of affairs of the American public. The greatest debates in U.S. history were very complicated: The Ratification Debates, the Lincoln / Douglas debates, etc. It's sad that we now have to stick to bumper-sticker slogans and mindless talking points instead of really debating the issues.

www.RonPaul2008.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Early:
So if you were shot because you wondered into a bloods neighborhood wearing a blue shirt, you would do it again just to show 'em? That's just dumb.

That’s not really what I said. But I don’t want a president who will kowtow to terrorists. That is almost never the option that will discourage terrorism, and it is, historically, the appeasement that has created Islamic terrorism in the first place. Giving into terrorists may be the easy solution in the short run, but it will not be an easy solution in the long run.

Quote:
Originally posted by Early:
As far as the arguments...
Well they certainly aren't anti-American. As far as too complicated, thats just a statement on the sad state of affairs of the American public. The greatest debates in U.S. history were very complicated: The Ratification Debates, the Lincoln / Douglas debates, etc. It's sad that we now have to stick to bumper-sticker slogans and mindless talking points instead of really debating the issues.

Welcome to the modern world.

FLETCH2

Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:39 PM

The point is that if you end up not wearing a blue shirt (for the understandable reason of not wanting to get shot) then your freedom to chose your form of dress has been curtailed. Now as you have a lawfull right to wear a blue shirt why should you be forced to bow to someone elses unreasonable demands?

The correct answer is to rid your neighborhood of the Bloods completely because sooner or later they will shoot you for some other reason.

There was an interesting NPR program on Bin Laden about a month ago that followed him from fighting the Russians in Afghanistan through to 9/11. After the Russians pulled out Osama decided to try to keep his fighters together as an irregular army to "defend Muslims." When Sadam invaded Kuwait he offered the Saudi king his private army to oust the Iraqi invaders. When the Saudi government chose to ask the US for help Osama felt slighted.

So to use your analogy what happened here is that you helped old Mrs Dawkins do her yardwork. A Blood that wanted that job felt you had cheated him out of it and came after you for it. This isn't like the shirt issue, you had no way of knowing you were "dissing" him because the slight is all in his head. However, once he took a dislike to you he was going to beat you up anyway. Chances are that afterwards he's going to put the best spin he can on the events, so he'll probably say you insulted him even though you never met him before.

EARLY

Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:05 PM

You bring up a good point lets focus on the freedom issue and kowtowing to terrorists. I assume we're all in agreement that terrorists can't beat us in the traditional way. That is why they terrorize. Otherwise they'd have just used their army to push us out. The entire point of terrorism is to terrorize and when you change your country because of their terrorism you do kowtow to them, as you said. That's bad, I agree (though it doesn't fit my shirt analogy because in that analogy we were in their neighborhood). Anyway, when we discard our must fundamental document, the Constitution, because the terrorists have attacked then we have kowtowed. When we live in fear of them and change the basic fabric of our society (freedom) they win. simply stating that the reasons they attacked us is because we are over there is not Kowtowing its stating truth. What you are saying is don't take off your blus shirt, which too me sounds more like don't change our countries freedoms. And with that I entirely agree with you.

www.RonPaul2008.com

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Early:
When we live in fear of them and change the basic fabric of our society (freedom) they win. simply stating that the reasons they attacked us is because we are over there is not Kowtowing its stating truth. What you are saying is don't take off your blus shirt, which too me sounds more like don't change our countries freedoms. And with that I entirely agree with you.

One of the basic fabrics of our society is our sovereignty. Our right to make our own decision. What does “over there” mean? In bin Laden’s case, it means we put American bases in the Middle East, in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for instance. Those American bases were not there to occupy Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, rather we were there at the pleasure of the Saudi and Kuwaiti government. Bin Laden doesn’t like the Saudi or the Kuwaiti government and he doesn’t like the US, so he’s going to dictate American policy by telling the US how to run its government. If sovereign US policy can be dictated by some rogue with a gun, what does our sovereignty mean? And if bin laden can decide how our government is run, what policies will he decide next time? The execution of women who do not wear Burkas?

ANTIMASON

Friday, May 18, 2007 5:31 AM

Quote:
posted by Finn mac Cumhal-
If sovereign US policy can be dictated by some rogue with a gun, what does our sovereignty mean? And if bin laden can decide how our government is run, what policies will he decide next time? The execution of women who do not wear Burkas?

i dont know.. the basic tenet seems to be 'treat others as youd want to be treated'; there are many more secular societies in the world than US, and "alqaeda" isnt attacking them. but because of bad foreign policy and interference in the region, we have left a bad repor evidently. while in the end the blame is placed solely on the individual, it has to be considered that if we had been minding our own business to begin with, none of this would have taken place as it did.

EARLY

Friday, May 18, 2007 12:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Early:
If sovereign US policy can be dictated by some rogue with a gun, what does our sovereignty mean?

Think about what you just said and now pretend you're an average Saudi or Iraqi citizen, and substitute the word US with Saudi Arabia or Iraq.

www.RonPaul2008.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME