NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been thinking about this for quite a while and I have come to a conclusion. All political parties contradict themselves at one point or another, but which contradiction causes the most damage and inject instability and chaos onto the world?

Republican Contradiction: When Republicans in a position of power contradict themselves, things tend to get quite messy and the actions which take place can effect the lives of many people (positively and negatively).

Example: Republicans also claim to be the party of “life embracers”, yet they are so quick to jump to war and destroy life, that this fact alone contradicts their stance on life, but they always find some mentally blind sighted, over-patriotic, and unrealistic “explanation” to attempt to justify why they support the death of their enemies with so much zeal.

Liberal Contradiction: When Liberals contradict themselves it's usually verbal and based on some sort of factual premise directed towards their opposition, but not always accurate or just. This type of contradiction destroys no life, it doesn't hold people back from their basic rights as a human being, but it may hurt the reputation of political figures with motives that aren't as Liberals label them to be.

Example: The worst Liberal contradiction I can think of is the fact that they consider themselves to be highly tolerant of differences amoung people and accuse anyone who isn't to be a monster, yet when they don't value the opinions of people, even in the face of stupidity, it makes me question their self-envisioned "high horse" morality.

What type of contradiction do you think causes the most damage?

Example: The worst Liberal contradiction I can think of is the fact that they consider themselves to be highly tolerant of differences amoung people and accuse anyone who isn't to be a monster, yet when they don't value the opinions of people, even in the face of stupidity, it makes me question their self-envisioned "high horse" morality.
Tolerance doesn't have to mean moral relativism.

When have Republicans ever contradicted their pro-life stance through war? Name one. In WWII, Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq I & II, America went to war to preserve these very issues amongst the local population. I fail to see in what case this is a relevant contradiction.

When have Republicans ever contradicted their pro-life stance through war? Name one. In WWII, Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq I & II, America went to war to preserve these very issues amongst the local population. I fail to see in what case this is a relevant contradiction.

As many people have said before: Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity.

You can't say you appreciate life when you are so willing to destroy it. The ends doesn't justify the means.

Contradiction of any flavor is inherantly evil when applied to the political arena. Period.

(Wassup Swim!)

Contradiction of any flavor is inherantly evil when applied to the political arena. Period.

(Wassup Swim!)
damn straight

You can't say you appreciate life when you are so willing to destroy it. The ends doesn't justify the means.

Exactly. Those who would leave in power leaders who do this (Hussein, Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, Hitler, etc. etc.) are the ones who don't appreciate life. Republicans who try to stop these dictators aren't willing to destroy life just to destroy it, but pragmatically accept the fact that some might die in the process of liberating the greater majority. The casualties in Iraq right now are a fraction of those under Hussein.

Exactly. Those who would leave in power leaders who do this (Hussein, Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, Hitler, etc. etc.) are the ones who don't appreciate life. Republicans who try to stop these dictators aren't willing to destroy life just to destroy it, but pragmatically accept the fact that some might die in the process of liberating the greater majority. The casualties in Iraq right now are a fraction of those under Hussein.
Now as you might know, I don't agree that liberating the people of Iraq was the ONLY motive. There are so many other countries that need liberating other than just the ones in the middle east, and since we didn't act on those first, and there's no sign we are going to act in the future, that is what makes me skeptical. Also, If you can't liberate a civilization without killing them by the truckloads, don't do it at all.

Also, If you can't liberate a civilization without killing them by the truckloads, don't do it at all.

The only people who the Americans are "killing by the truckloads" are those who would do worse to the Iraqi civilians and are in fact doing just so by their suicide bombings of civilian areas.

The only people who the Americans are "killing by the truckloads" are those who would do worse to the Iraqi civilians and are in fact doing just so by their suicide bombings of civilian areas.

You have to factor in the bombings US planes made during the clearing stages(and the unauthorized bombings Bush made before he even went on tv and said violence would be the LAST resort), and the occupation of US and other Allied Soldiers. Their presence puts the lives of those innocents in danger.

You have to factor in the bombings US planes made during the clearing stages(and the unauthorized bombings Bush made before he even went on tv and said violence would be the LAST resort), and the occupation of US and other Allied Soldiers. Their presence puts the lives of those innocents in danger.

The lives of the innocents put in danger because of these activities is very, very small, however, I will admit, it does exist. However, this is vastly fewer than those put in danger due to the activities of insurgents and other terrorists. Whatever fear local civilians may be experiencing, it is nothing compared to what happened under the old regime, and will eventually end. Without the Americans, Saddam's terror would have never ended. What's worse, being afraid because of short-term sergical bombings that kil very few, or because of extensive gassings, rape, imprisonment, stoning, biological attacks, firing squads, and plunder?

The lives of the innocents put in danger because of these activities is very, very small, however, I will admit, it does exist. However, this is vastly fewer than those put in danger due to the activities of insurgents and other terrorists. Whatever fear local civilians may be experiencing, it is nothing compared to what happened under the old regime, and will eventually end. Without the Americans, Saddam's terror would have never ended. What's worse, being afraid because of short-term sergical bombings that kil very few, or because of extensive gassings, rape, imprisonment, stoning, biological attacks, firing squads, and plunder?

I still don't think this "war" is just, there is something about it that seems very very wrong. Something we aren't being told. I'm not against this just to be difficult, I'm not trying to create opposition just to make republicans frustrated, I am a truly worried and conscerned American and I just want what's best for people, and I don't think killing in ANY form is acceptable, what so ever, unless there is a CLEAR threat, and a CLEAR objective to obtain. Sure Saddam would have been in power, it's good that he isn't, but I don't think the lives of the innocents who died is worth all this, and they still are dying. This situation has done nothing but breed an entirely new generation of terrorists, and it will come to bite us in the ass later.

Oh great, it's another "Iraq War: Right or Wrong" thread. :rolleyes:

Oh great, it's another "Iraq War: Right or Wrong" thread. :rolleyes:

Oh look, another person pointing out what a thread is about and complaining about its contents :rolleyes:

No, I'm just kidding. I just wanted to say something snappy :p

You have to factor in the bombings US planes made during the clearing stages(and the unauthorized bombings Bush made before he even went on tv and said violence would be the LAST resort), and the occupation of US and other Allied Soldiers. Their presence puts the lives of those innocents in danger.

What unauthorized bombings are you talking about? And what do you define as an unauthorized bombing?

Oh great, it's another "Iraq War: Right or Wrong" thread. :rolleyes:
it never gets old, does it?

They cause equal damage, but it all has to do with who is in power. At the time, Republican hypocrisy will do more damage but when power shifts, the same will be true of Democrats.

Btw: Not all Democrats are liberals, and not all Republicans are conservatives so that is kind of an inaccurate question.

What unauthorized bombings are you talking about? And what do you define as an unauthorized bombing?

There have been documents found that state Bush ordered several bombings without approval (or knowledge for that matter) from congress, WAY before war was declared. I'm not suprised you haven't heard about it, they didn't report it on the mainstream news. People signed a petition to put Bush under investigation and try to get him to face criminal charges, but it doesn't seem like that's going to happen.

As many people have said before: Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity.

You can't say you appreciate life when you are so willing to destroy it. The ends doesn't justify the means.

Its funny that liberals are suppose to be so pro womans choice and equality, yet when we fight so people that are being oppressed by dictators can have the same liberties that you liberals so strongly fight for, you turn your head and say "we can't fight for that!"

There have been documents found that state Bush ordered several bombings without approval (or knowledge for that matter) from congress, WAY before war was declared.

Wait? Are you telling me that the President doesn't have the authority to order bombings? OMG. Someone here doesn't realize that the President is the friggin Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces. He has the power to order bombings. BTW: What type of bombings are you mentioning? The ones where our planes were getting shot at and we retaliated? Don't need orders for that. That is what we call self-defense. :rolleyes: So I'll ask again, what bombings are you talking about?

I'm not suprised you haven't heard about it, they didn't report it on the mainstream news. People signed a petition to put Bush under investigation and try to get him to face criminal charges, but it doesn't seem like that's going to happen.

Sorry boyo but under the war powers act, he has the authority to use force for up to 90 days without Congressional Approval. After that, he has to come before Congress to explain himself.

Its funny that liberals are suppose to be so pro womans choice and equality, yet when we fight so people that are being oppressed by dictators can have the same liberties that you liberals so strongly fight for, you turn your head and say "we can't fight for that!"

I'm not liberal by any means, and the reason why I oppose this crap is because of the WAY it was carried out. This has been one military blunder after the other and has continously shown the ignorance of this administration, yet the typical republican continues to support such idiotic decisions that they have made, and it makes me question the intelligence of certain human beings.

Its funny that liberals are suppose to be so pro womans choice and equality, yet when we fight so people that are being oppressed by dictators can have the same liberties that you liberals so strongly fight for, you turn your head and say "we can't fight for that!"
It's funny how Bush has said that war should be a last resort--yet, we attacked Iraq before Rumsfeld could even say "go!"

I think it also has something to do with the fact when liberals fight for woman's rights and equality, we don't cause hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Its funny that liberals are suppose to be so pro womans choice and equality, yet when we fight so people that are being oppressed by dictators can have the same liberties that you liberals so strongly fight for, you turn your head and say "we can't fight for that!"
You are actually greatly misinterpreting the liberal position. Violence on leads to death. Death leads to grief and anger. Grief and anger lead to bitter war. Bitter war leads to well... more war.

Damn, I'm such a hippie.

Wait? Are you telling me that the President doesn't have the authority to order bombings? OMG. Someone here doesn't realize that the President is the friggin Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces. He has the power to order bombings. BTW: What type of bombings are you mentioning? The ones where our planes were getting shot at and we retaliated? Don't need orders for that. That is what we call self-defense. :rolleyes: So I'll ask again, what bombings are you talking about?
I'll admit I have to agree with you there. Bush does indeed have the power to press the little red button marked "FIRE" that launches the U.S. arsenal of nuclear weapons and a free play of Q-Bert, without Congressional approval.


Sorry boyo but under the war powers act, he has the authority to use force for up to 90 days without Congressional Approval. After that, he has to come before Congress to explain himself.
SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

And it's 60 days, not 90.

Liberal Contradiction: When Liberals contradict themselves it's usually verbal and based on some sort of factual premise directed towards their opposition, but not always accurate or just. This type of contradiction destroys no life, it doesn't hold people back from their basic rights as a human being, but it may hurt the reputation of political figures with motives that aren't as Liberals label them to be.

Example: The worst Liberal contradiction I can think of is the fact that they consider themselves to be highly tolerant of differences amoung people and accuse anyone who isn't to be a monster, yet when they don't value the opinions of people, even in the face of stupidity, it makes me question their self-envisioned "high horse" morality.


HUZZAH! The old "Liberals are bigots because they are bigotted against bigots" argument!

This takes me back...

Its funny that liberals are suppose to be so pro womans choice and equality, yet when we fight so people that are being oppressed by dictators can have the same liberties that you liberals so strongly fight for, you turn your head and say "we can't fight for that!"
That's why I'm a liberal hawk!

But why do Republicans fight for freedom abroad, but oppose it at home?

The fact is, that it is a contridiction to say that a certain political party can make worse contradiction than the other. It is stupid and idiotic for someone to say that republican contradictions are worse than liberal contradictions, and vica verse.

actually, it was the democrats who "murdered" people while fighting the kaiser and hitler. don't you dare throw this on the republicans. in ww2 we were fighting for the good of people. if you deny that, in my opinion you're a traitor. ww1 is a bit nastier picture, we entered that in kind of a bad way... and like it or not, we are in Iraq. and Bush invaded Iraq because he genuinely wants to help the Iraqis. like him or not, he's a good person, and he's not doing this just for oil. (especially since oil has gotten more expensive)

either way. the end does justify the means SOMETIMES. ww2 is the best example. millions more would have died if we hadn't drop the bomb on japan. millions would have died in europe under hitler. and if we hadn't used the bomb/had the bomb, stalin would have though he could take over europe and after defeating hitler he probably would have kept pushing as far as he good go. THUS, if you and your pacifist friends had determined americas course in ww2, it would have been a tragedy. and i would have blamed you for millions of deaths.

That's why I'm a liberal hawk!

But why do Republicans fight for freedom abroad, but oppose it at home?

To compare the freedom of a country from an evil dictator, or mass murders to the questions of freedoms being delt with at home is total crap.

And just as a little fun fact, 90% of the liberals in the house and senate voted down a live freedom called civil rights the first time it was brought up. only 50% of republicans did.

As many people have said before: Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity.

You can't say you appreciate life when you are so willing to destroy it. The ends doesn't justify the means.

yes they do, when the alternative (letting the enemy win) means that many more lives would be lost and those who remained living would suffer tyranny.

Imagine if the Axis powers had won WW2, for instance.

swimmingpool, our #1 freedom is the freedom to live. sometimes security needs to be stepped up a notch to help make sure that those of us who do not threaten the country have a chance to enjoy LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty means nothing if we're dead.

And besides, the people being nabbed are suspectd terrorists. Do you really want them walking your street?

yes they do, when the alternative (letting the enemy win) means that many more lives would be lost and those who remained living would suffer tyranny.

Imagine if the Axis powers had won WW2, for instance.
The world would've been a more extreme version of what the stereotypical conservative Christian wishes it to be.

The world would've been a more extreme version of what the stereotypical conservative Christian wishes it to be.

mmmm, no

i'm a christian, and I find racism intolerable (hence the herding/sequestering/killing of millions of Jews is repulsive)

i believe in free enterprise (hitler's economic policies had some strong socialistic tendencies. not socialist, per se, but they had some socialist ingredients. he was all for government control. the party wasn't called National Socialist Party for nothing.), as do most protestant christians.

i believe in free press, free religion, etc. (such freedoms as are delineated in the Bill of Rights, and Hitler would have been a totalitarian dictator trashing such rights. people would be killed for voicing their opinions. that doesn't happen here, nor should it)

Christians are not for Hitler, never have been. Hitler spat on every religion. He was to be worshiped as God.

Christians are not for Hitler, never have been. Hitler spat on every religion. He was to be worshiped as God.
Actually, that's wrong. Hitler believed in Nordic mythology, and told the Germans they were all demigods, but never said that he was to be worshipped as a God.

That's Japan...who also believed all their people were demigods, but that the emporor was a God.

mmmm, no

i'm a christian, and I find racism intolerable (hence the herding/sequestering/killing of millions of Jews is repulsive)

i believe in free enterprise (hitler's economic policies had some strong socialistic tendencies. not socialist, per se, but they had some socialist ingredients. he was all for government control. the party wasn't called National Socialist Party for nothing.), as do most protestant christians.

i believe in free press, free religion, etc. (such freedoms as are delineated in the Bill of Rights, and Hitler would have been a totalitarian dictator trashing such rights. people would be killed for voicing their opinions. that doesn't happen here, nor should it)

Christians are not for Hitler, never have been. Hitler spat on every religion. He was to be worshiped as God.
I said the stereotypical conservative Christian. If you do not fit in that category, than I'm not referring to you! :)