Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
295,824
edits
Changes
→'''Foreign Policy''': a parallel
:::::::::*And finally you have people who reject 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)
:::::::::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)
::::::::::OK, so they don't believe 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 and democrtacy and human rights abraod. Third, the government has a track record now of (a)removing a fascist regime and (b) securing universal suffarage and a assisting democratically elected regime to power. By contrast, our "liberal" friends have a track of (a) arguing for the survival of fascism and (b) actively seeking to undermine a liberal democracy that is also an ally.
::::::::::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.
::::::::::Believe 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 "centrists" or respectable people embrace these ideas, thus upsetting the long held public policy positions that advocate basic fairness for all people.
::::::::::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 thier "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)
::::::::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)