Subject:
|
Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:41:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2903 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
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.
|
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 the head with this hammer.” The fact of that you have a perceived
choice doesn’t mean you have freewill; the choice must be between two equally
appealing or equally unappealing options in order to be truly free.
| |
| |
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?
|
Well, Dubya’s notion of freedom of religion differs sharply from mine (I know
that “freedom of religion” isn’t the phrase used in the Constitution, but it’s
the nearest equivalent colloquial referrent). I suspect also that Dubya doesn’t
believe that Iraqis will be free to elect a rigid Islamic theocracy for
themselves, so Dubya’s view of freedom probably differs from Iraqis’, too.
| |
| |
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....
|
Okay, but this is a protracted campaign war, rather than a missile strike.
| |
| |
he’s bypassed legislative checks-and-balances to appoint
Exreme-Right activists to the judiciary,
|
No. Democratic stonewalling
|
Perfectly legal by the way. Are you saying that the Democrats should have
abdicated their responsibility to prevent extremists from filling the judiciary?
| |
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.
|
Really? Is Pryor not extreme-right, just to name one example? Why, then, did
Democrats resist his appointment? And please don’t pretend it’s because he’s
Catholic.
| |
| |
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.
|
Explain what that means, please.
| |
| |
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.
|
He has gutted the FOIA and has rendered off-limits the papers of Reagan and Bush
Sr. with no more justification than “Because I said so.” That’s hardly the work
of a man who embraces openness in Government. Even if a matter of national
security is at stake, he should subject the materials to review before summarily
declaring them forbidden from public view. They are, after all, public
documents of public employees.
Cheney’s (and, by extension, Dubya’s) energy commission is likewise kept from
public view, and the burden is on the administration to show that this is
justified. It is not sufficient to evoke executive privelege in this case,
regardless of what Cheney and his quack-quack buddy Scalia assert.
| |
| |
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.
|
I find a lot of religious radio programming to be offensive, divisive, and
damaging to society--should it be banned because I say so?
| |
| |
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!
|
Interest rates are only one of many indicators, as is the raw unemployment rate.
What about deficit levels, pensions, job security, health care costs, just to
name a few others?
| |
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.
|
To hear Ashcroft tell it, there was absolutely no way for the Dubya
administration to prevent the WTC attacks, because it was all Clinton’s fault.
Therefore, the WTC attacks would certainly have occurred regardless of what Gore
might have done, right? And I’m sure that O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter,
and the rest would have rallied behind President Gore the way they rallied
around Dubya, right?
The WTC attack would likely have occurred, and Gore (like Dubya) would likely
have retaliated against Afghanistan, but Gore certainly wouldn’t have created a
baseless war in Iraq (thereby killing 700+ Americans and several thousand
Iraqis).
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
| (...) The choice is to accept God or not. I'm sure that dwelling with God is as wonderful as dwelling without God is miserable. (...) Freedom of religion doesn't mean "freedom from religion". But let me ask you: do we have an obligation to assist (...) (21 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
| (...) 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. (...) I'm not sure what you mean here. Freedom is freedom. What is Bush's vision that differs (...) (21 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
|
|
|
|
