Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
293,634
edits
Changes
→Protection 2: You have said absolutely nothing
*What Bush said has alot to do with how you portrait Liberals. When someone says that opposition to nation building is a belief that distinguishes Liberals from Conservatives, you can rightfully point to Bush, and say that it is not distinctively Liberal.
*What Bush said has alot to do with how you portrait Liberals. When someone says that opposition to nation building is a belief that distinguishes Liberals from Conservatives, you can rightfully point to Bush, and say that it is not distinctively Liberal.
**No. forget George W. Bush. George W. Bush is a lame duck and will be ancient history in less than two years. We want to know what the eternal values of Liberals are. We want to know what these values will be in the year 2010 (when G.W. Bush will chewing dip on the front porch in Crawford). We want to know what the enduring values of liberals will be in the year 2525. And "opposition to their opponents" defines nothing.
*Furthermore, Bush answered '''Absolutely not''' to the question if the US military should make nation building one of its core missions. That suggest firm opposition. That the word was invented in the late 90s doesn't matter. Call it interventionism, if you like it better.
*Furthermore, Bush answered '''Absolutely not''' to the question if the US military should make nation building one of its core missions. That suggest firm opposition. That the word was invented in the late 90s doesn't matter. Call it interventionism, if you like it better.
**"The US military". Duh, come on? does this even '''''need''''' a response?
*Your point about Haiti doesn't prove that I have my hands in the cookie jar, sorry, (you probably assume that I want to blame Bush for his 2000 stance on nation building). However, it proves that you are able to see that people can have good reasons to oppose an official policy by the sitting president, and not because they oppose freedom, but because they think that the execution of the policy is poor, and that it doesn't achieve the purpose. As a reminder, lets repeat what I said a few weeks ago about why people oppose an official policy that claims to further human rights.
*Your point about Haiti doesn't prove that I have my hands in the cookie jar, sorry, (you probably assume that I want to blame Bush for his 2000 stance on nation building). However, it proves that you are able to see that people can have good reasons to oppose an official policy by the sitting president, and not because they oppose freedom, but because they think that the execution of the policy is poor, and that it doesn't achieve the purpose. As a reminder, lets repeat what I said a few weeks ago about why people oppose an official policy that claims to further human rights.
**Now "an official policy of a president" gets confused with "the US military core responsibilties". Order, please take note, you are not speaking with one someone swallows any line of Liberal crap because it sounds reasonable or intelligent. This kinda of meaningless nonsense isn't even worth the time discussing if you cannot present a coherent arguememnt.
:# Firstly, you may or may not believe the claim that the administration does it for human rights, you may believe that the administration has ulterior motives
:# Firstly, you may or may not believe the claim that the administration does it for human rights, you may believe that the administration has ulterior motives
:::Been over this probably four times now: (1) the Adminstration is a constitutional Office with a Constitutional responsibility; opponents & critics have the right to think and say whatever garbage they want, they still are just that, opponents ant critics of Official US policy.
:# Secondly, even if you do believe a policy want to further human rights, you might believe that a given policy fails to do so.
:# Secondly, even if you do believe a policy want to further human rights, you might believe that a given policy fails to do so.
:::Fine. So what? Because they oppose Us policy means they do not oppose US policy? What's the poijnt here?
:# Furthermore, you might think that furthering human right abroad is none of the US military's business.
:# Furthermore, you might think that furthering human right abroad is none of the US military's business.
:::OK, we're getting onto something. The Pentagon and the Statement Department, while both part of the Administration, are two different Departments. Now, which Department handles diplomatic relations and foreign policy?
:# And finally, you might be opposed to human rights.
:# And finally, you might be opposed to human rights.
Bush falls clearly in category 2, with his criticism. And most Liberal critics today of Bush as well. The article however suggest that the Liberals critics belong to category 4. And that's incorrect. Just as much as it would be incorrect to say that Bush opposed democracy in Haiti. Now, that you are able to see these differences when it concerns Bush, you might be evenly capable to see these differences when it concerns Liberals.
Bush falls clearly in category 2, with his criticism. And most Liberal critics today of Bush as well. The article however suggest that the Liberals critics belong to category 4. And that's incorrect. Just as much as it would be incorrect to say that Bush opposed democracy in Haiti. Now, that you are able to see these differences when it concerns Bush, you might be evenly capable to see these differences when it concerns Liberals.
:::You still haven't said anything. NOBODY GIVES A RATS TAIL ABOUT GEORGE BUSH. We'll take your word it, Liberals hate his guts . Big deal. Now, what do Liberals stand for? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:54, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
[[User:RobS|RobS]], we try to write an encyclopedic article about 'Liberals'. However, what you try to do is settle the Gore-Bush dispute. I said it before, your anger at Liberals on issues from recent history doesn't make a good article. If you think that I am arguing in favor of Gore, you are mistaken. I argue to see interventionist positions as what they are, neither liberal nor conservative. And the Gore-Bush debate proves it. [[User:Order|Order]] 11 April, 13:55 (AEST)
[[User:RobS|RobS]], we try to write an encyclopedic article about 'Liberals'. However, what you try to do is settle the Gore-Bush dispute. I said it before, your anger at Liberals on issues from recent history doesn't make a good article. If you think that I am arguing in favor of Gore, you are mistaken. I argue to see interventionist positions as what they are, neither liberal nor conservative. And the Gore-Bush debate proves it. [[User:Order|Order]] 11 April, 13:55 (AEST)