I'm guessing like most liberals it was opposing the conservatives and Reagan and Bush I administrations which were supplying, and supporting Saddam. The Republican president's ambassador to the UN even vetoed UN actions against Saddam for his atrocities. The marches and protest wasn't as strong in the U.S., because the U.S. wasn't as directly respsonsible for those deaths. But anyone who opposed Reagan and Bush I was opposing a president that supported Saddam Hussein, and even covered for the murders you are talking about by keeping measures against them out of the UN. What about you? Were you concerned then? Were you against the Republican administration's support of Saddam? It works both ways. Why can't the faith based programs do good deeds without attaching it to a religion? Why can't they provide the same services to the needy, but keep the religion portion out of it. That way they would be able to qualify for more governement monies to carry on their good work, and wouldn't put any of the funding in jeopardy because a conflict between church and state.
I don't want to speak for Batman, but this is a bit of an odd argument. Of course it is different when your country is doing something as opposed to another. If President Bush personally went to somebody's house in DC and punched them in the face, breaking their nose, there would be much more outrage here than if Hussein had gone to somebody's house in Bagdad and killed them with his bare hands, laughing all of the time and shouting obscenities to passersby. Stupid example, obviously, but you get the idea.
In Serbia there was on ongoing genocide that was being stopped. It was a more urgent and ongoing situation. It wasn't a war where the U.S. would be occupying and running a sovereign nation. In Iraq there was no ongoing genocide, the U.S. would be the ones in control and respsonsible. In Serbia the Serbs own neighbors were responsible for 80% of that coalition. They were taking care of their own neighborhood.
RF: I don't know the actual numbers of uninsured American citizens vs. illegals. Was just responding to that to say that the great many uninsured (citizens or not) is the real problem. It's funny to me to worry about the cost of illegals receiving health care when we have the same problem with legals. I'm for America joining every other civilized Western country and adopting universal health care. I agree with you about the homeless.
I'm not saying sex ed or condoms are a magic bullet -- just that they would help. I would like the Republican leadership to explain why they oppose methods of curbing abortion that we know for a fact work. I'd also like to echo FranchiseBlade's sentiment. You're a great addition to this forum. Post more.
basso: Serbia was not a preemptive war. It was waged to stop an urgent situation and was explained to us as such. Iraq was not. Of course I was concerned with civilian deaths there. I think war is a horrible thing and we ought to avoid it wherever possible. I was conflicted about Serbia but I supported it because the situation there was so awful. I might have been persuaded to support an Iraq war too if it was presented as a means to stop genocide. Saddam is a horrible, murderous man. There are lots of those out there and many lead countries. We have not expressed an interest in going after all of them. Why not? Ironically, one of the few things Bush said in the 2000 campaign that I liked was the idea that we should not be a country of nation builders -- that we should have a more humble foreign policy. As for the other thing, I am for any and all assistance to any and all needy people. I am against that assistance coming with a requirement that the assisted be proselityzed to in any way. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. It's a tricky, touchy subject, but it's an important part of our national character and it's worth preserving. I'm all for churches of any sort living their faith by helping those who need it. I am against the government being in the church business. I've never said that the government must only provide assistance directly so I don't know why you implied I had (you do that a lot). The government provides assistance through many third party providers, but I am leery of any proposal that seems to play fast and loose with the separation of church and state.
Some believe that is so, but others don't. There are also non-religious folks that do many good deeds.
Last night was interesting, first I went to the speech he gave in front of probably 2000 people... but afterwards I got to go to the private reception of about 25-30 people and get a chance to talk to him.. Some things that stood out to me in his speech -he spent the first part of his speech talking about how they didn't get their message out right. They need to go to all the states.... because by not going places you look like you don't care etc... and that hurts the lower level races as well not just presidential election.. . he talked about how they need more soundbites etc that fit into 20 seconds etc..... - he specifically noted that he isn't saying to change their mesage at all - he said there is room for people who are against abortion in the democratic party.. He was very well spoken and I was actually impressed by his speech, even if it wasn't what I believe. As a republican the thing that catches my attention is the fact that he was just in an election. If they didn't do all the things right to get the message out in the election he was just in... what makes them they think will be able to next time? It is easier said than done, as I'm sure he learned. He also talked about improving education. Once again, every candidate wants to improve education, but it is easier said than done. Moving on, I met Tipper Gore as I was leaving... not a big surprise since she is a Vandy alum and comes to some things I know.. but it was cool to get a pic with her. Afterwards, I went to the reception with Dean.. with the members of the board who brought Dean there as well as their guests. Probably about 25-30 of us there. I was introduced to him as a Texas conservative by by new jersey friend, and asked him how he would convince me to be a democrat in under 2 minutes... He more or less just said a (not exact quote)... you cant trust republicans with your money. They spend and spend and don't pay. it will be bad for your generation... He was a pretty good guy, that talked to us each for quite a while (while eating chocolate chip cookies).. then again if I was getting big money to come speak I'd be nice too I was joking with a democratic friend last night though that.. if the DNC head can't convince me to be a democrat, you might as well give up. I'll post more later if I think of anything.. maybe I can get ahead of a transcript of speech, but i dunno .
oh he also talked about the d emocrats need to stop letting the republicans tell people what the democrats believe in. and get their own message out.
oh one last thing.. in the reception afterwards someone was talking to him about his own campaign... dean felt that if he had advanced to the election his problem would have been national defense. they would have tried to tear him apart like they did kerry .
Thanks for the recap, RF. Pretty cool that you got to go to the smaller reception. Can you speak to what, specifically, Dean said that wasn't in line with what you believe? I'd be more interested in issues/values stuff than political strategy stuff.
batman.. sadly, much of his speech seemed like he was talking to an all democratic rally or something.. he seemed to be speaking mostly about political strategy and what we need to do better.. seemed like he had it geared a little too much towards the whole crowd being democrat.. but some things.. I brought up the abortion thing with him afterwards.. and he said there is room for someone that is pro life in the democratic party. I myself can't see that. If I'm anti abortion I'm not just going to go along with the democratic party. Also he just didn't say anything that would convince me that the democrats would be better at national defense. He wants to make education better. I'm all for that, but so is everyone else. I need to know how, and where the money is going to come from. Personally I think the new social security moves could be a good thing. Also I believe vouchers can be a good thing instead of just pumping money into schools. We're actually studying it in one of my courses right now... making schools compete with each other and how it makes them more efficient. Many studies I've read show that pumping money into poor schools does not make a difference. The inner city schools, often times the problem is the students and the family and environment they were raised in. A lot of studies show that pumping money into a poor school does not increase performance. Lastly as an economics major, I actually believe in the econ policies of the repubicans. I believe a tax cut can help stimulate the economy.. etc. Then again I also have classes with the son of the guy who invented the Laffer Curve of economics One last note. he made one comment about if the bush econoimc policy was a company it would be enron or something..... hope he doesn't use that in the future. .. I don't think calling them enron is fair.
Thanks for the response, RF. I'm glad you raised that with him. Being a pro-life Republican, I hope you'll work to encourage the Republican party to allow for a sex ed policy that would include more than an abstinence only approach and to allow for increased access to contraception. I'm also curious as to how you square your party ID with the fact that abortions were down under Clinton and up under Bush. The SS proposal is one of the reasons Dean compares the Bush admin to Enron. SS was created as an insurance policy for our seniors. That insurance policy is significantly less valuable if a young person makes a wrong move with his SS money in the stock market. The comedian David Cross likens it to betting money on a horse ("Have you seen the stock market lately? It's like betting all your money on Papa's Moustache in the third."). I'd be in favor of studying other investment options for SS funds, but the stock market is too volatile to rely on when it comes to monies that are specifically earmarked for insurance. You've spoken before about Coulter's (and basso's) thesis that when the majority rejects a message the cause may be the message itself. Bush's SS proposal is increasingly unpopular. Gallup has Americans rejecting the plan 53-40 (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/pollsoc.sec/index.html) and Time has it at 54-37 (http://realclearpolitics.com/RCP_PDF/Time_0328 Bush Poll results.pdf). In this case, is it the message or the messenger that's flawed? Interesting since Dean once said vouchers were worthy of study. If the family and/or the environment a poor child is raised in is the problem though, I'm not sure I understand how vouchers are the solution. How do you feel about truth in advertising when it comes to proposed budgets and deficit forecasts? How do you feel about the Bush admin submitting a budget that doesn't include the majority of the costs of the Iraq war? The Republican party was until recently the party of fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets and smaller government. What do you believe has changed such that we now have the biggest government and the largest deficit in the history of the country and how do you feel about those changes?
batman.. I should have specified. I don't think dean specifically said vouchers.. but after listening to sharpton etc I thought most democrats were against vouchers. I should have seperated the two issues.. !) Many times it's not the school thats the problem, it's the background of the students in it.. in these cases pumping money into them doesn't help.. pumping money into inner city schools for instance often times isn't the solution.. someway needs to be developed to figure out how to solve the real issues behind why so many people in inner city schools etc drop out.. and when money does help, often times the schools don't use the money the way it should be used. 2) when the school is the problem, I prefer the students get a chance to leave the school. Really, I think the problems with a lot of schools is how they are ran.. the method in which teacher salaries are decided etc etc... they need to become more effiecent and the threat of having to compete to keep students may help that. I could make a whole thread on my issues with pubilc education.
batman.. abortion... I think the fact that abortion went up during the last 4 years doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on Bush. Abortions were made legal before Bush, I don't think he has done things to increase abortions. It could be because of all kinds of factors.. even including the fact that we are in a recession and more people thought they couldn't afford to keep a kid.. I'll have to look at numbers later, don't want to comment further on something I'm not quite sure about. economy... I think we were put in a tough situation because of the fact that when Bush took office we were at the beginning of a recession. I think the tax cuts were needed to help restart the economy. I also supported the war, and the costs associated with it. Tax cuts and war together, will create deficits. Normally I probably wouldn't be cutting taxes during a war, but I think because of the recession it was needed. I will need to look at some numbers before I comment further on past republican administrations. I'm only 21, so don't remember very far back. I need to run and work on something for a class, but I will comment again later. I also need to further examine the social security issue. I like the idea in general, but I haven't looked at it enough in detail to know everything about it. I just like the general idea of it.. but I need to examine it further.
I should note that I say that I support the ideas of Republicans. They might not always be implemented perfectly, I recognize that. When done correctly though, I think they are best. There is always room for improving the way they are done though. When I'm president, I'll make sure they are ran perfectly
