He may say that but I don't believe that, nor do I believe that to necessarily be an appropriate role for the military. After all, Bush doesn't believe in democracy at home.Originally Posted by MichaelEaston
"My generation, we were the generation that was going to change the world: somehow we were going to make it a little less lonely, a little less hungry, a little more just place. But it seems that when that promise slipped through our hands we didn´t replace it with nothing but lost faith."
Bruce Springsteen, 1987
http://brucebase.wikispaces.com/1987...+YORK+CITY,+NY
And frankly, by bin Laden's logic, the civilians he targeted were not innocent. For consistency's sake, if we grant Bush his premises in judging him, we should do the same for the other guy.He may say that but I don't believe that, nor do I believe that to necessarily be an appropriate role for the military. After all, Bush doesn't believe in democracy at home.
It is puzzling to me why American conservatives insist on using the civil unrest in France to demagogue young, immigrant Muslims.
Much of the analysis among American liberals has correctly focused on the need for more American-style intergration, and more American-style liberalization of labor markets - policies one would think that American conservatives would applaud.
We can be dismayed that the Muslim youth of France have chosen rioting over peaceful demonstration and civil disobedience but to the extent that they have political objectives, those political objectives are in greater accord with core Anglo-American conservative values and policies than some kind of Islamist policy program. They're rebelling against the kind of old school populist-nationalist policies that have deranged France's politics, crippled its economy, and led white French natives to live in a kind of paranoid delusional bubble. They just want a shot at full (American-style) integration and economic opportunity (that the more educated ones understand can only come through market reforms). These kids are de facto Thatcherites (whether they all realize it or not), not Bin Ladenists, and the threat of further violence rather than demands from the business community may be what finally breaks the back of western Europe's failed post-post-war economic system.
Or are today's American conservatives really just populist nationalists who secretly would like some kind of French-style entitlement system that favors middle aged white people (as in men) and brings less than 1% growth a year, no assimilation of immigrants, and double digit unemployment? The pervasiveness of victomology among white, heterosexual, middle aged conservative American men certainly suggests that may in part be the case.
"Jan, cut the crap."
"It's just a donut."
You didn't really counter any of my points, Kiff. As for the IRS, they are justified in questioning the tax exempt status of that church, IF they are prepared to do so across the board. In fact, I don't think it amounts to anything of significance, since there's no large movement toward it.
The Left keeps claiming there is a vast movement to restrict civil rights, then pointing to a handful of isolated incidents to justify it. It's not enough. Tens of housands of people have spoken out, many of them saying things are border on treasonous, and have suffered essentially no consequence at all.
We've had municipal and county governments actively seeking to interfere with Federal efforts, with no consequences. We've had a press corps seek out every malcontent they can find and publicize their accusations (most of them false) without checking them out. They just the last couple of days got embarrassed that way again, with more allegations that turned out to be lies.
We've had people like Michael Moore and his ilk make fistfuls of cash by actively publishing lies and false allegations about their own country in wartime, and paid no price other than public disapproval.
No combatant in modern history that I know of has gone to the lengths America has to minimize civilian casualties, and to reduce collateral damage. Nobody.
We're holding up many fronts in the WOT simply to repeatedly satisfy politically-motivated false accusations. Rest assured that most combatants would not even hesitate to use military tribunals in situations like ours, whereas we're going through the farce of a politically motivated Supreme Court case on the matter. (Except for the American citizens involved, there really isn't any case to hear anyway.)
So don't try to tell me about a 'collapse of civil liberties'. It's simply not happening.
Empty angry comment. I've never claimed any such thing, and I know of few if any others who have. I've pointed out that America's level of respect was falling because we were letting Hussen defy his obligations without reacting, which is the simple truth.
All good Christians knew that Saddam had to be taken out for the sake of American honor.
What he said was that if it came down to a choice of war or assassination, that might be the lesser evil. I don't necessarily agree with him, but what he said was not irrational.
And that holy man Pat Robertson asks, "why don't we just assassinate communist tyrants like Hugo Chavez anyway?"
There is no such movement. What there is a movement to let pharmacists refuse to take part in active evil, as they see it. You don't have a consensus about these issues, Kiff. There are large swaths of the country who reject your basic beliefs on the matter, and you owe them the same respect they owe you.
Not to mention the movement to allow pharmacists to get in the way of the doctor/patient relationship,
Neither of which in any way intereferes with any civil rights.
and abstinence-only education that's more about religious dogma than helping kids make informed choices about their sexual behavior, and these laws enshrining heterosexual marriage as the only legally recognized partnership between two people.
If you want to convince the country that there should be such rights recognized, that's your right and privilege, but you haven't done it yet.
To use your example, as of right now, America simply doesn't recognize a 'right' to gay marriage, and never has. You can't asssume its existence and then accuse others of violating it until you first convince a sufficient majority of the people that it exists in the first place.
Which is why the current efforts against are inherently legitimate. Note that they are working through the democratic process, by amendment and referrendum and election. It's the gay activists who keep trying to cheat and force their own beliefs on the majority that does not share them via the courts.
So the anti-gay-marriage movement has the upper moral hand in this debate, at least in terms of how they are going about it.
One of the things you keep trying to get around is that the things you believe in can not be taken for granted as the basis for societal action, any more than the Christian or other Fundamentalists can. They have as much right to try to change society and the law as you do, and as much right to oppose everything you believe in as you have to oppose their beliefs.
That's a huge claim, that requires some evidence. (If all you have if Florida 2000, then you need something besides the empty claims that the Democrats keep trying to spin.)He may say that but I don't believe that, nor do I believe that to necessarily be an appropriate role for the military. After all, Bush doesn't believe in democracy at home.
If you mean that we should recognize his sincerity, sure. If you mean that we should accept his definition of who is and isn't innocent, we're under no such obligation. The incompatibility of those definitions is a large part of why the fight exists in the first place.And frankly, by bin Laden's logic, the civilians he targeted were not innocent. For consistency's sake, if we grant Bush his premises in judging him, we should do the same for the other guy.He may say that but I don't believe that, nor do I believe that to necessarily be an appropriate role for the military. After all, Bush doesn't believe in democracy at home.
- - -
I'm fully aware of that. I was being sarcastic. I'm fed up.You didn't really counter any of my points, Kiff.
Let's hope not.As for the IRS, they are justified in questioning the tax exempt status of that church, IF they are prepared to do so across the board. In fact, I don't think it amounts to anything of significance, since there's no large movement toward it.
But, see, you use inflammatory terms like "treason" right there, and then you act all innocent when we call you on it.The Left keeps claiming there is a vast movement to restrict civil rights, then pointing to a handful of isolated incidents to justify it. It's not enough. Thousands of people have spoken out, many of them saying things are border on treasonous, and have suffered essentially no consequence at all.
WHERE'S THE BLOODY TREASON AND WHAT'S "BORDERING" ON IT ANYWAY?
OK, I'll call it "chipping away." I know you like legalisms and nitpicks. There you go.We're holding up many fronts in the WOT simply to repeatedly satisfy politically-motivated false accusations.
So don't try to tell me about a 'colapse of civil liberties'. It's not happening.
You just restated my accusation in gentler language. You are something else. :lol:Empty angry comment. I've never claimed any such thing, and I know of few if any others who have. I've pointed out that America's level of respect was falling because we were letting Hussen defy his obligations without reacting, which is the simple truth.All good Christians knew that Saddam had to be taken out for the sake of American honor.
Evil can be very rational.What he said was that if it came down to a choice of war or assassination, that might be the lesser evil. I don't necessarily agree with him, but what he said was not irrational.And that holy man Pat Robertson asks, "why don't we just assassinate communist tyrants like Hugo Chavez anyway?"
My right to have a legally-written prescription dispensed to me promptly and courteously trumps their right to impose their religious beliefs on me. Likewise, their right to read the "Left Behind" series (which I consider theological trash, but which I'll happily provide to them in the course of my duties) trumps my right to impose my religious beliefs on them.There is no such movement. What there is a movement to let pharmacists refuse to take part in active evil, as they see it. You don't have a consensus about these issues, Kiff. There are large swaths of the country who reject your basic beliefs on the matter, and you owe them the same respect they owe you.Not to mention the movement to allow pharmacists to get in the way of the doctor/patient relationship,
I'm doing my job for them. A pharmacist should show me the same respect.
We're out of your legalistic territory now, HC. We're talking about ethics and consequences here. You can stop nitpicking.Neither of which in any way intereferes with any civil rights.and abstinence-only education that's more about religious dogma than helping kids make informed choices about their sexual behavior, and these laws enshrining heterosexual marriage as the only legally recognized partnership between two people.
Are you going to get in my way? Just curious.If you want to convince the country that there should be such rights recognized, that's your right and privilege, but you haven't done it yet.
The way this culture treats gay people is unethical and immoral.To use your example, as of right now, America simply doesn't recognize a 'right' to gay marriage, and never has. You can't asssume its existence and then accuse others of violating it until you first convince a sufficient majority of the people that it exists in the first place.
Only if you believe in conventional morality. Which I don't. And neither did Jesus in his time.Which is why the current efforts against are inherently legitimate. Note that they are working through the democratic process, by amendment and referrendum and election. It's the gay activists who keep trying to cheat and force their own beliefs on the majority that does not share them via the courts.
So the anti-gay-marriage movement has the upper moral hand in this debate, at least in terms of how they are going about it.
I don't take them for granted. I argue them out.One of the things you keep trying to get around is that the things you believe in can not be taken for granted as the basis for societal action, any more than the Christian or other Fundamentalists can.
But they don't have the right to abuse people who don't follow their particular moral code.They have as much right to try to change society and the law as you do, and as much right to oppose everything you believe in as you have to oppose their beliefs.
That's why this Robertson thing troubles me so much. Political assassination is cowardly and it is wrong. It is about as un-Christian an act as I can imagine. How can a follower of Jesus justify it?
I apologize for being the one to launch the culture war salvos. This thread was dazzlingly on-topic before that. Can we possibly have the culture war elsewhere and leave this thread to the events unfolding in western Europe?
"Jan, cut the crap."
"It's just a donut."
Gladly.
I'll look for some answers in the Supreme Court thread.
- - -
- - -
- - -
I don't mean either of those things. The premise was that Bush and bin Laden share things in common. You rebutted (in so many words) that Bush only targeted those he felt were guilty; I re-rebutted that Osama also only targeted those he felt were guilty. Or we could turn it around, and say that Bush only incidentally hurt those he felt were innocent -- another sentiment shared by ObL.If you mean that we should recognize his sincerity, sure. If you mean that we should accept his definition of who is and isn't innocent, we're under no such obligation. The incompatibility of those definitions is a large part of why the fight exists in the first place.And frankly, by bin Laden's logic, the civilians he targeted were not innocent. For consistency's sake, if we grant Bush his premises in judging him, we should do the same for the other guy.He may say that but I don't believe that, nor do I believe that to necessarily be an appropriate role for the military. After all, Bush doesn't believe in democracy at home.
You're comparing apples to oranges. You're talking about Bin Laden's actions and comparing them to Bush' goals. One could say Bin Laden wants to spread Islam while Bush wants to spread democracy. What's wrong with that?
Or you might say, Bin Laden targets innocent civilians while Bush kills innocent civilians as colateral damage. OK, there's a difference there, but not a stark as the original.
Jeff '61
catfishncod said "In my mind the only question is whether the current electoral process will be sufficient to institute new government. The need for revolution is obvious. Fortunately, the French have lots and lots of practice at this. "
Allons, enfants des ghettoes du Paris!
Le jour de "Watts" est arrive!
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article326032.ece
Looks like this is winding down. What is the future of France? Was the rioting a sign of things to come? Can the problem be fixed?France's Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, announced that he has ordered the expulsion of all foreigners convicted over two weeks of rioting.
- - -
- - -
Spaying and neutering them will only make them angrier. It isn't right.
"Jan, cut the crap."
"It's just a donut."
I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but very few people around here would agree with you on the above. :cry: :evil:
I disagree with him. America was no longer the good guy after it stopped killing red indians. Back in my dad's day you could cook and eat them if you were hungry.I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but very few people around here would agree with you on the above. :cry: :evil:
"Jan, cut the crap."
"It's just a donut."
- - -
Way to miss the joke, dude. :?No Dude, if you are a foreigner and you were involved in the rioting - then, like, no duh you get deported.Spaying and neutering them will only make them angrier. It isn't right.
If I was rioting in Mexico City or Buenos Aires or Tokyo or France and burning cars - you don't think the authorities there would turn my sorry ass over to my consulate and be rid of me?
It makes sense. God, why do people get intimidated by those who burn cars and beat their chests? They shouldn't be rewarded for acting like assholes.
Jeff '61
- - -
