Subject:
|
Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:56:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2901 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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.
|
The choice is to accept God or not. I’m sure that dwelling with God is as
wonderful as dwelling without God is miserable.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Freedom of religion doesn’t mean “freedom from religion”. But let me ask you:
do we have an obligation to assist those under persecution? Can we all be free
if there are those who aren’t? And for those who have been brainwashed to
believe that freedom is evil, do we not have an obligation to enlighten them?
Isn’t the Cause of Freedom that noble? Is that such a horrible cultural idea
to export?
| |
| |
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?
|
Both were “legal”. It’s politics; it’s scuzzy, and I don’t like it (politics).
| |
| |
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?
|
It may seem like he is far-right when one is so far away to the left.
| |
Why, then,
did Democrats resist his appointment? And please don’t pretend it’s because
he’s Catholic.
|
Because they want their ideas and policies in place, not any one elses.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
For instance, the phrase “under God”. You claim a voluntary phrase such as this
“establishes religion” and means that our government has in effect established a
religion. I believe the FF had a little more in mind when they crafted that
phrase-- like the setting up of a state church as was the one in England. The
FF envisioned a government that didn’t dictate what religion you followed, but
not a government that eschewed the concept of God.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
It’s a catch-22. We’d need to know what’s in them to decide; it’s a matter of
trusting his judgment; you don’t, I do; been there, done that.
| |
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?
|
Do you find it obscene or profane?
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
In all fairness, when ever have all of the indicators been good?
| |
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?
|
Clinton bears much of the responsibility for 9-11 because he generally ignored
the terrorist attacks on the US. But I don’t fault him for 9-11. There was no
way for Bush to prevent 9-11, unless we had gotten lucky. As it was, it
appeared that OBL got lucky. And then he got very unlucky (PE#1). If
President Gore took the bull by the horns I’m sure the Right would have rallied
around him, because their patriotism would have won over their partisanship.
| |
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).
|
We shall never know, unless life turns out to be like an episode of Star Trek:-)
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
| (...) I figure that you and I both know that we're getting off the initial point of the debate, so our audience may wish to tune out at this point! On what basis are you sure of that? Faith? I'm afraid that's simply insufficient for me (and in any (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
