2,002
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 449:
Line 449: − + − + + − +
→Discussion
::::::::::OK, so they don't beleive the government is sincere. Big deal. Nonetheless, that puts them in opposition to the governments declared policy. Secondly, they are just a random collection of private citizens--without any Constitutional authority whatsoever (other than thier individual First Amendment rights) to pulbicly express thier opposition to the governments stated policy of fostering democracy and human rights abroad. Third, the government has a track record now of (a) removing a fascist regime and (b) securing universal suffarage and assisting a democratically elected regime to power. By contrast, our "liberal" friends have a track record of (a) arguing for the survival of fascism and (b) actively seeking to undermine a liberal democracy that is also an ally.
::::::::::OK, so they don't beleive the government is sincere. Big deal. Nonetheless, that puts them in opposition to the governments declared policy. Secondly, they are just a random collection of private citizens--without any Constitutional authority whatsoever (other than thier individual First Amendment rights) to pulbicly express thier opposition to the governments stated policy of fostering democracy and human rights abroad. Third, the government has a track record now of (a) removing a fascist regime and (b) securing universal suffarage and assisting a democratically elected regime to power. By contrast, our "liberal" friends have a track record of (a) arguing for the survival of fascism and (b) actively seeking to undermine a liberal democracy that is also an ally.
:::::::::::Everything up to ''By contrast'' is kind of true. But our ''liberal'' would deny that they argure in favor of fascism and they would deny that they want to undermine a liberal democracy. You have to give them the right to sincerely believe that they don't , just like Bush has the right to sincerly believe that his policy are fostering democracy. That you or I think that they are mistaken doesn't matter.
::::::::::The Defense of Marriage Act is not really a very good analogy, primarily because there is a difference between law and policy. And Bill Clinton isn't a dictator, the President has no legislative authority.
::::::::::The Defense of Marriage Act is not really a very good analogy, primarily because there is a difference between law and policy. And Bill Clinton isn't a dictator, the President has no legislative authority.
::::::::::There is a difference between law and policy, but in both cases you can have people who disagree with it for various reasons. And in a way, people should be more inclined to subscribe to a law, than to a policy, because as you said, a president doesn't have any legislative authority. [[User:Order|Order]] 27 March 15:00
::::::::::Beleive it or not, there is a strong parallel between this discussion and the one about homosexuals in the Nazi party. In both instances, early on extreme elements (here it was ANSWER and other radicals, there it was gay stormtroopers) who advocated a position that was outside the mainstream. Over time, moderate elements adopted thier radical views and gave it legitimacy, so that it did not seem radical, extreme and fringe anymore. Once it became a majority, and had the reigns of power, then these anti-democratic and anti-human rights positions can be implemented, and they don't seem so radical now that so-called "centrists" or respectable people embrace these ideas, thus upsetting the long held public policy positions that advocate basic fairness for all people.
::::::::::Beleive it or not, there is a strong parallel between this discussion and the one about homosexuals in the Nazi party. In both instances, early on extreme elements (here it was ANSWER and other radicals, there it was gay stormtroopers) who advocated a position that was outside the mainstream. Over time, moderate elements adopted thier radical views and gave it legitimacy, so that it did not seem radical, extreme and fringe anymore. Once it became a majority, and had the reigns of power, then these anti-democratic and anti-human rights positions can be implemented, and they don't seem so radical now that so-called "centrists" or respectable people embrace these ideas, thus upsetting the long held public policy positions that advocate basic fairness for all people.
:::::::::::This is moving off-topic. But lets me say this much. In the beginning of the 3rd Reich there were gays who were pushing the Nazi agenda, but there were no Nazis who pushed the gay agenda. Big difference, to gay liberals who push a gay liberal agenda.[[User:Order|Order]] 27 March 15:00
::::::::::Your arguement is little more than Bush ''et al'' are bad guys and suffer from bad polling numbers. So what. It's just your opinion, and I can't find the words "opinion polls" anywhere in the US Constitution. But in the final analysis, we see so-called "liberals" no longer advocate human rights and democracy, and if anything, they, and now their "middle class" allies, have become more strident, stringent, and hostile to those long held goals of US foreign policy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Your arguement is little more than Bush ''et al'' are bad guys and suffer from bad polling numbers. So what. It's just your opinion, and I can't find the words "opinion polls" anywhere in the US Constitution. But in the final analysis, we see so-called "liberals" no longer advocate human rights and democracy, and if anything, they, and now their "middle class" allies, have become more strident, stringent, and hostile to those long held goals of US foreign policy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::Where did I say that Bush is a bad guy? I said liberals have the right to believe that Bush is a bad guy, and not believe his claims. And Bush has bad poll numbers, indeed. People got a hangover from interventionist policies and are tending towards isolationist positions. Not the first time in American history.[[User:Order|Order]] 27 March 15:00
::::::::Not to get sidetracked, but this discussion is similiar to athiesm. For example, I may hold the opinion that I do not beleive in stop signs, and therefore efforts by others to impose thier morality on me by erecting stop signs does not apply to me, because they can not force me to accept thier law and/or opinion. So watch out when I'm behind the wheel, cause nobody can legislate morality and impose thier value systems on me by forcing me to obey stop signs. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Not to get sidetracked, but this discussion is similiar to athiesm. For example, I may hold the opinion that I do not beleive in stop signs, and therefore efforts by others to impose thier morality on me by erecting stop signs does not apply to me, because they can not force me to accept thier law and/or opinion. So watch out when I'm behind the wheel, cause nobody can legislate morality and impose thier value systems on me by forcing me to obey stop signs. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)