Subject:
|
Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:16:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2494 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
Well, heck, those wacky Iraqis might vote for Islamic extremists - an
eventuality that the Guy Not Elected by “Yankees” did not even consider.
|
I think it is a bit offensive and even racist to believe that any human
being wouldn’t want to be free if truly given the chance.
|
Maybe, or maybe not. In terms of religion and faith, you yourself are far
less free than I am--wouldn’t you want to be free in the first place?
|
But it is my choice to limit myself, and frankly, to advocate complete freedom
without responsibility is to be an Anarchist, not a freedom-lover.
| |
And in any case, why must the American Vision of Freedom be the universal
solution for everyone? For example, I don’t agree with Dubya’s Vision of
Freedom, so why should we expect a historically different culture to trust
him?
|
I’m not sure what you mean here. Freedom is freedom. What is Bush’s vision
that differs from yours?
| |
| |
| |
Let’s face it, why should
Bush support the will of the people? If he did he wouldn’t be President.
:-) :-(
|
He supports the will of the people who wrote our Constitution the way they
did-- you don’t seriously have a problem with that, do you?
|
Are you kidding? He did an end-run around the Consitutional process for
declaring war,
|
He’s in good company-- most of our conflicts transpired without declarations of
war from Congress....
| |
he’s bypassed legislative checks-and-balances to appoint
Exreme-Right activists to the judiciary,
|
No. Democratic stonewalling forced him to use perfectly legal measures. Your
“extreme-right” characterization is opinion and merely reflects a clash of wills
and ideologies between Liberals and Conservatives.
| |
he’s worked very hard to institute
policy respecting the establishment of religion,
|
You and I have very different ideas as to what “establishing” a religion means.
You have a very theoretical idea, and I have a very practical idea.
| |
he’s eliminated the openness
and transparency necessary (and desired by the founding fathers) fundamental
to maintaining democracy, and he’s lied to the American people and Congress.
He has not upheld the duty of his office, and he has utterly failed to
“preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
|
I’m not sure as to the specifics of your allegations, so I assume you are just
stating opinion again.
| |
| |
But I have to
wonder: what is the record length of time for milking a joke? Surely the
teat is dry by now? :-)
|
Careful--talk like that will get you fined $275,000.00!
|
Was that amount per, or total in sum? Anyway, I think it’s good to clean up the
public airwaves. Let Stern pollute private airwaves with his pablum.
| |
Honestly--if a Liberal-majority Supreme Court had appointed Gore to the
Presidency, and if, afterwards, Gore to Dubya’s lengths to damage domestic
economic health and foreign relations, would you be happy to sit back and
pretend Gore was a great president (as Dubya’s apologists like to pretend
that Dubya is)?
|
What makes you think that our domestic economic health is bad? Seen interest
rates lately? I wasn’t even charged interest on my new Jeep!
I honestly believe that even Gore would have eventually been prodded into war.
al-Qaeda wouldn’t have relented, and would have continued to terrorize with
increasing deadly force. Instead of the WTC attack, it may have taken a nuke to
wake him up, but he would have-- and too late for possibly millions. We may or
may not ever know what horrors Bush averted by acting quickly and decisively,
but this conflict was going to occur regardless of the man in the office.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
| (...) Perhaps this is a matter of semantics. Under what I understand of your faith, you are "free" to to worship God or to condemn yourself to eternal damnation, but that's like saying "you're free to eat this ice cream cone or to hit yourself on (...) (20 years ago, 19-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Freedom is freedom.
|
| (...) John, Given your blind support for Bush, would you say (URL) this> is freedom? Given your blind support for Israel, would you say (URL) this> is freedom? (I would have thought that a nuclear deterrent was useless if one’s enemies did not know (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
| (...) Maybe, or maybe not. In terms of religion and faith, you yourself are far less free than I am--wouldn't you want to be free in the first place? And in any case, why must the American Vision of Freedom be the universal solution for everyone? (...) (20 years ago, 19-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
97 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
