2,002
edits
Changes
→Discussion
::::::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.
::::::::The policy of the US Government is not an opinion, it's a policy. The opinion of private citizens that opposes the official US Government policy of advocating human rights and democracy abroad is an opinion.
:::::::::Two issues are with this: First, you do believe the claims of the policy makers about their aims. Second, you do believe that the policy is suited to achieve the aim. Lets take the "Defense of Marriage Act" by Clinton as an example.
::::::::*First, you may or not believe that Clinton wants to defend the marriage.
::::::::*Second even if you do believe that Clinton wants to defend the marriage, you might think that Clinton's "Defense of Marriage Act" fails to do so.
::::::::*And third, you might think that ''defending marriage'' is none of the states business.
::::::::*And finally, you might think that marriage should be abolished as an old fashioned institute, rather than defended.
::::::::*In the same spirit you have people who just don't believe Bush, when he says he does it for human rights.
::::::::*There are people who say that they believe his intentions but that that his foreign policy is not achieving his aim.
::::::::*Then there are people that claim that the US should not use the military to advance human rights and democracy.
::::::::*And finally you have people who reject human rights and democracy.
::::::::And what you do is, you lump everybody together in the last group, even though it is really just a minority of those who oppose Bush's foreign policy. Just like it was just a minority of those who opposed Clinton Defense of Marriage act, who opposed marriage. [[User:Order]] 27 March 13:45 (AEST)
::::::::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)