McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight.

[gandalf]

surveyor, what an interesting filter through which you view life! You’re over-simplifying the position of those who disagree with you.

This same moralistic over-simplifications exists in your understanding of foreign policy. It’s not that our enemies aren’t ‘evil’. In your sense of the word and the world, of course they are. Alternatively, if you were born Muslim, a fellow like you would be penning some hateful diatribe against American imperalism, support for an oppressive regimes, torture at Abu Ghraib, etc. Both moral positions are at once valid and in conflict. There are more similarities than differences between fundamentalist positions here in America and abroad. They are cut from the same cloth.

This is my main gripe with the neocon position. And at the end of the day, the over-simplifications impede our ability to conduct effective foreign policy. The results speak for themselves.

[NotCranky]

To say he Osama was “forced” was a bad choice of words on my part.Might have been better to say Osama is a symptom.
A religious propagandist at the head of a rebellion is not a surprise.He has many more secular reasons for the issues and stances he has taken that if the roles were reversed the U.S. would absolutely invoke. Sept.11 was fascinating and as miserable as it was,I see it in the context of “all is fair in love and war”. Not that I agree with it, but I understand it in that context.

[NotCranky]

To say he Osama was “forced” was a bad choice of words on my part.Might have been better to say Osama is a symptom.
A religious propagandist at the head of a rebellion is not a surprise.He has many more secular reasons for the issues and stances he has taken that if the roles were reversed the U.S. would absolutely invoke. Sept.11 was fascinating and as miserable as it was,I see it in the context of “all is fair in love and war”. Not that I agree with it, but I understand it in that context.

[NotCranky]

To say he Osama was “forced” was a bad choice of words on my part.Might have been better to say Osama is a symptom.
A religious propagandist at the head of a rebellion is not a surprise.He has many more secular reasons for the issues and stances he has taken that if the roles were reversed the U.S. would absolutely invoke. Sept.11 was fascinating and as miserable as it was,I see it in the context of “all is fair in love and war”. Not that I agree with it, but I understand it in that context.

[NotCranky]

To say he Osama was “forced” was a bad choice of words on my part.Might have been better to say Osama is a symptom.
A religious propagandist at the head of a rebellion is not a surprise.He has many more secular reasons for the issues and stances he has taken that if the roles were reversed the U.S. would absolutely invoke. Sept.11 was fascinating and as miserable as it was,I see it in the context of “all is fair in love and war”. Not that I agree with it, but I understand it in that context.

[NotCranky]

To say he Osama was “forced” was a bad choice of words on my part.Might have been better to say Osama is a symptom.
A religious propagandist at the head of a rebellion is not a surprise.He has many more secular reasons for the issues and stances he has taken that if the roles were reversed the U.S. would absolutely invoke. Sept.11 was fascinating and as miserable as it was,I see it in the context of “all is fair in love and war”. Not that I agree with it, but I understand it in that context.

[surveyor]

gandalf:

An accusation of simplicity does not imply a position to be incorrect. Try harder.

Ah, the “moral equivalence” argument. If we were in their shoes, we would be doing the same thing. Unfortunately, this is also a logical fallacy because it compares apples and oranges. It is actually more correct to say that the moral equivalence argument is at best simplistic because it does not allow for extreme degrees of difference.

It is fact that muslims must wage war against the infidels. It is in the Koran (verse 4294). While it is extremely true that most muslims are unwilling to go to war, the fact that islam requires war against the infidel is a very compelling draw to many muslims.

There is no similar call to war in the New Testament. That is why you rarely see christian suicide bombers, while muslim suicide bombers number in the thousands.

And insisting on creationism in schools (which I disagree with) hardly compares to teaching that christians and jews are the descendants of apes and pigs (also a core teaching within the Koran).

Also, a core belief in islam is that you are not allowed to question or criticize islam. So any self-examination would be discouraged forcefully. Ask how the freedom of press is in overly islamic societies and you’ll find it is extremely repressive. In the U.S., criticism is a sports event and extremely valued.

So anyways, to buttress my position, I have the koran texts agreeing with me, I have history agreeing with me, and then I have logic agreeing with me.

While you, gandalf, all you have to hold on to is that my position is an “over-simplication.” Yes, this can seem like oversimplication to the uninformed.

[surveyor]

gandalf:

An accusation of simplicity does not imply a position to be incorrect. Try harder.

Ah, the “moral equivalence” argument. If we were in their shoes, we would be doing the same thing. Unfortunately, this is also a logical fallacy because it compares apples and oranges. It is actually more correct to say that the moral equivalence argument is at best simplistic because it does not allow for extreme degrees of difference.

It is fact that muslims must wage war against the infidels. It is in the Koran (verse 4294). While it is extremely true that most muslims are unwilling to go to war, the fact that islam requires war against the infidel is a very compelling draw to many muslims.

There is no similar call to war in the New Testament. That is why you rarely see christian suicide bombers, while muslim suicide bombers number in the thousands.

And insisting on creationism in schools (which I disagree with) hardly compares to teaching that christians and jews are the descendants of apes and pigs (also a core teaching within the Koran).

Also, a core belief in islam is that you are not allowed to question or criticize islam. So any self-examination would be discouraged forcefully. Ask how the freedom of press is in overly islamic societies and you’ll find it is extremely repressive. In the U.S., criticism is a sports event and extremely valued.

So anyways, to buttress my position, I have the koran texts agreeing with me, I have history agreeing with me, and then I have logic agreeing with me.

While you, gandalf, all you have to hold on to is that my position is an “over-simplication.” Yes, this can seem like oversimplication to the uninformed.

[surveyor]

gandalf:

An accusation of simplicity does not imply a position to be incorrect. Try harder.

Ah, the “moral equivalence” argument. If we were in their shoes, we would be doing the same thing. Unfortunately, this is also a logical fallacy because it compares apples and oranges. It is actually more correct to say that the moral equivalence argument is at best simplistic because it does not allow for extreme degrees of difference.

It is fact that muslims must wage war against the infidels. It is in the Koran (verse 4294). While it is extremely true that most muslims are unwilling to go to war, the fact that islam requires war against the infidel is a very compelling draw to many muslims.

There is no similar call to war in the New Testament. That is why you rarely see christian suicide bombers, while muslim suicide bombers number in the thousands.

And insisting on creationism in schools (which I disagree with) hardly compares to teaching that christians and jews are the descendants of apes and pigs (also a core teaching within the Koran).

Also, a core belief in islam is that you are not allowed to question or criticize islam. So any self-examination would be discouraged forcefully. Ask how the freedom of press is in overly islamic societies and you’ll find it is extremely repressive. In the U.S., criticism is a sports event and extremely valued.

So anyways, to buttress my position, I have the koran texts agreeing with me, I have history agreeing with me, and then I have logic agreeing with me.

While you, gandalf, all you have to hold on to is that my position is an “over-simplication.” Yes, this can seem like oversimplication to the uninformed.

[surveyor]

gandalf:

An accusation of simplicity does not imply a position to be incorrect. Try harder.

Ah, the “moral equivalence” argument. If we were in their shoes, we would be doing the same thing. Unfortunately, this is also a logical fallacy because it compares apples and oranges. It is actually more correct to say that the moral equivalence argument is at best simplistic because it does not allow for extreme degrees of difference.

It is fact that muslims must wage war against the infidels. It is in the Koran (verse 4294). While it is extremely true that most muslims are unwilling to go to war, the fact that islam requires war against the infidel is a very compelling draw to many muslims.

There is no similar call to war in the New Testament. That is why you rarely see christian suicide bombers, while muslim suicide bombers number in the thousands.

And insisting on creationism in schools (which I disagree with) hardly compares to teaching that christians and jews are the descendants of apes and pigs (also a core teaching within the Koran).

Also, a core belief in islam is that you are not allowed to question or criticize islam. So any self-examination would be discouraged forcefully. Ask how the freedom of press is in overly islamic societies and you’ll find it is extremely repressive. In the U.S., criticism is a sports event and extremely valued.

So anyways, to buttress my position, I have the koran texts agreeing with me, I have history agreeing with me, and then I have logic agreeing with me.

While you, gandalf, all you have to hold on to is that my position is an “over-simplication.” Yes, this can seem like oversimplication to the uninformed.

[surveyor]

gandalf:

An accusation of simplicity does not imply a position to be incorrect. Try harder.

Ah, the “moral equivalence” argument. If we were in their shoes, we would be doing the same thing. Unfortunately, this is also a logical fallacy because it compares apples and oranges. It is actually more correct to say that the moral equivalence argument is at best simplistic because it does not allow for extreme degrees of difference.

It is fact that muslims must wage war against the infidels. It is in the Koran (verse 4294). While it is extremely true that most muslims are unwilling to go to war, the fact that islam requires war against the infidel is a very compelling draw to many muslims.

There is no similar call to war in the New Testament. That is why you rarely see christian suicide bombers, while muslim suicide bombers number in the thousands.

And insisting on creationism in schools (which I disagree with) hardly compares to teaching that christians and jews are the descendants of apes and pigs (also a core teaching within the Koran).

Also, a core belief in islam is that you are not allowed to question or criticize islam. So any self-examination would be discouraged forcefully. Ask how the freedom of press is in overly islamic societies and you’ll find it is extremely repressive. In the U.S., criticism is a sports event and extremely valued.

So anyways, to buttress my position, I have the koran texts agreeing with me, I have history agreeing with me, and then I have logic agreeing with me.

While you, gandalf, all you have to hold on to is that my position is an “over-simplication.” Yes, this can seem like oversimplication to the uninformed.

[gandalf]

surveyor, I don’t think you understand what I was saying.

That’s okay though.

In November, we’re headed back towards the center, more realism in foreign policy matters, less ideology and moralistic posturing, more effective pressure and policies to support our long-term interests.

That happens either way, with Obama or McCain. I think Obama is smarter, will surround himself with good people, and will cross the aisle. McCain isn’t horrible though. Bush has been. The Neocon thing has run its course, to disastrous ends, unfortunately.

[gandalf]

surveyor, I don’t think you understand what I was saying.

That’s okay though.

In November, we’re headed back towards the center, more realism in foreign policy matters, less ideology and moralistic posturing, more effective pressure and policies to support our long-term interests.

That happens either way, with Obama or McCain. I think Obama is smarter, will surround himself with good people, and will cross the aisle. McCain isn’t horrible though. Bush has been. The Neocon thing has run its course, to disastrous ends, unfortunately.

[gandalf]

surveyor, I don’t think you understand what I was saying.

That’s okay though.

In November, we’re headed back towards the center, more realism in foreign policy matters, less ideology and moralistic posturing, more effective pressure and policies to support our long-term interests.

That happens either way, with Obama or McCain. I think Obama is smarter, will surround himself with good people, and will cross the aisle. McCain isn’t horrible though. Bush has been. The Neocon thing has run its course, to disastrous ends, unfortunately.

[gandalf]

surveyor, I don’t think you understand what I was saying.

That’s okay though.

In November, we’re headed back towards the center, more realism in foreign policy matters, less ideology and moralistic posturing, more effective pressure and policies to support our long-term interests.

That happens either way, with Obama or McCain. I think Obama is smarter, will surround himself with good people, and will cross the aisle. McCain isn’t horrible though. Bush has been. The Neocon thing has run its course, to disastrous ends, unfortunately.

[Author]

Posts