Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
295,844
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 434:
Line 434: + + + +
there is another parallel, too
::::::No matter. This discussion about an ideological view will go no where with constantly inject terms like "Bush" "Democrat", or "Republican" into into. So what so we know? The President articluated a policy. People who do not hold the Office of the President rejected the policy, as is their right. What was the policy? Support for human right and democracy. What policy did the persons, without Constitutional authority, reject? Support for human rights and democracy. How do we know this true? The same persons, self-identified as 'liberal", are actively seeking to withdraw American support for the liberal democracy that currently hold power in Iraq. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::No matter. This discussion about an ideological view will go no where with constantly inject terms like "Bush" "Democrat", or "Republican" into into. So what so we know? The President articluated a policy. People who do not hold the Office of the President rejected the policy, as is their right. What was the policy? Support for human right and democracy. What policy did the persons, without Constitutional authority, reject? Support for human rights and democracy. How do we know this true? The same persons, self-identified as 'liberal", are actively seeking to withdraw American support for the liberal democracy that currently hold power in Iraq. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You ask ''What is the policy?''. Your answer is: ''Support for human rights and democracy.''. The liberals answer is ''Its not about human rights and democracy.''. Both are opinions. And both have no place in this article. But I will edit your edit, to reflect the refusal of liberal to see these policies as advancement of human rights and democracy. Because at it now it pushes one opinion. [[User:Order]] 27 March, 12:55 (AEST)
:::::::You ask ''What is the policy?''. Your answer is: ''Support for human rights and democracy.''. The liberals answer is ''Its not about human rights and democracy.''. Both are opinions. And both have no place in this article. But I will edit your edit, to reflect the refusal of liberal to see these policies as advancement of human rights and democracy. Because at it now it pushes one opinion. [[User:Order]] 27 March, 12:55 (AEST)
::::::::The policy of the US Government is not an opinion, it's a policy. The opinion of private citizens that opposes the offical US Government policy of advocating human rights and democracy abroad is an opinion.
::::::::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)
:::*''just as much as Rumsfeld was pro-Ba'athist when he met Saddam in the 80's''
:::*''just as much as Rumsfeld was pro-Ba'athist when he met Saddam in the 80's''
::::Newsflash: Democratic Presidential Candidate and Governors Assoc. Chairman, Gov. Bill Richardson also "shook hands with Saddam" when Richardson "met him in Baghdad" "in the 1980s", likewise. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:29, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Newsflash: Democratic Presidential Candidate and Governors Assoc. Chairman, Gov. Bill Richardson also "shook hands with Saddam" when Richardson "met him in Baghdad" "in the 1980s", likewise. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:29, 26 March 2007 (EDT)