Golden Legacy, on Oct 17 2008, 09:36 PM, said:
You're slowly starting to reveal yourself Eugine, a closet Bush/neo-conservative fanatic. You've called the Iraq War an example of good foreign policy, the torture and violation of human rights at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prisons as sound, and a belief that America deserves to involve itself in every international conflict possible. This is wrong on so many levels I can't even begin to argue. You clearly have no regard for the Iraqi casualties and slaughters, the rapes and devastation. I can see why you love old senile McCain so much, his war-mongering and thirst for blood is just too much for you, isn't it? I'll bet you even believe the Iraq War was "a task from God" like George Bush preaches.
Anyone who supports Bush, who can't see what he's done to the country, who can't see how much people are struggling, who can't understand the lives lost, the tactics of torture that are morally violating, is truly bad for the world.
You and your fellow conservative religious freaks care so much about the rights of fetuses, yet it's your creed and kind that do not flinch in the face of war. Tell me, how do you justify this greatest of hypocrisies, you being a proponent of "pro life" and yet support the spilling of blood? How do you explain your never ending refrain about the "rights of the unborn", yet the moment those people are born your ideology would have you spit and turn your head away, that they are now responsible for whatever circumstances life begets them? How do you correlate the notion of a fetus deserving full human rights - you care so much about the unborn - yet the further insistence that the poor and the homeless, the poverty-stricken and the ill, the disabled and the orphans, the living breathing human lives are but unfortunate side products of society, expendable, to be tossed aside and told to scrape whatever shreds of living can be mustered?
The filth that exudes from this social construct is beyond revolting and transcends even the lowest of moral incompetence. Good day.
And this is exactly why violence exists. You see things from your point of view, I see them from mine. Violence exists solely because peopple have different views and opinions.
From a Liberal point of view, the Liberals are fighting for peace and justice, and for a world where we can possibly solve every problem through reasoning, without violence. From their point of view, Conservatives are just war mongerers who torture the innocent and condone violence, all the while being hipocritical when it comes unborn human lives.
From a Conservative perspective, Conservatives realise that it's impossible for the world to ever be at peace, and thus, try to find the least violent way of surviving that doesn't involve the destruction of their homeland in any way, shape, or form. From their point of view, Liberals are naive and have their heads in the clouds.
Not all people from each stereotype think that way, as is the nature of a stereotype, but many people
do think that way.
Personally, I believe a lot of the Liberal ideas would be great, if we lived in a perfect world where it
is possible to sidestep violence in every situation. However, no matter how you look at it, the only way for the world to be perfect, is for every individual to be perfect. Such a thing is absolutely impossible.
That's why I'm a Conservative. If there's a way to get through something without violence, then I'm more than happy to take it. I don't like violence, and I don't like hatred. I wish it was possible to irradicate both from the world. But it's just not possible.
The terrorists directed violence towards us, and they didn't listen to reason. Even Saddam Hussein, who was warned by Bush himself that if he didn't shape up, Bush would invoke some article in the UN's book of whatever (this was the legal way to do it, and this is how Bush did it, so no more of that "Bush unjustly invaded" crap). Saddam refused, and Bush invaded.
All of the rapeing and murdering you're talking about is
severely blown out of proportion. The only way I could imagine that you got that mindset is if the only articles you ever read were about how awful and horrible US soldiers are. Just recently, the guy from "Little People Big World" from TLC went to Iraq to help some Iraqi children who had dwarfism. He said that the people in the town he visited actually knew the US soldiers who were stationed there by name, and that the people got along well with the soldiers. Contrary to popular Liberal belief.
The only people being killed over there are the people shooting at and attacking allied forces. There is no reason for the US soldiers to be attacking anyone else, and those that do are immediatley deported uppon discovery and tried in military court. Obviously (and unfortunately), there are some innocent Iraqis who are attacked, raped, and murdered, but they number far fewer than what you believe.
We do not invade a country just to terrorize its civilians. Such thinking is just.....it's naive. Not all of the soldiers behave and act like they should, and there are Iraqis who are dissatisfied with the state the country is in (and they do blame America and her troops). But we are not terrorists, and the country of Iraq is not incapable of repairing itself and prospering once again. What Bush did by invaded, was effectively removing the limit to which the Iraqi people could prosper. Not to mention taking down a dictator who was guilty of genocide, among other things.
As for abortion, every single human being has the right to live. However, it's up to each individual human being to make of life what they want. It is up to them to fail or prosper by their own hands. Not by the hands of someone else. the government should not have the ability to prevent its citizens from prospering, but it should also no be given the right to help its citizens beyond protecting them from foreign and domestic threats such as violence, natural disastors, or [only] in extreme cases, economic collapse.
It should be up to the individual to live in their own way, and either become rich, poor, or somewhere in between. The government does not have the right to interfere no matter how many times the individual trips and falls. Some people are incapable of standing on their own two feet. Would you lift up a man in a wheelchair just to drop him? It's not wrong to help people, but there are way which "helping" someone is actually detrimental to them.
I believe in teaching the man how to fish. Doing so will effectively allow the man to feed
himself for the rest of his life. It's up to him to choose whether or not he fishes.
You seem to believe in just giving that man a fish. It's generocity, yes, and it is helpful for a moment, but that one fish will only feed the man for so long, at which time he will either ask for more, or starve to death.
The means with which to prosper should be readily available, but they should be the means that allow an individual to sustain themselves, not the means that force them to rely on other people.
Now as for Bush, the only bad thing he did was pass the "No child left behind" act, which was a socialist idea in the first place.
He went through the proper legal procedures needed according to UN law to invade Iraq, and he even warned Saddam many times prior. Saddam had attacked his neighbors (and his own people) with what are considered WMD's (for example, nerve or mustard gas). We knew he had used them at one point, and that it was certainly possible he still had more, or could get more. He either had already used them up by the time we got there, or had moved them somewhere else.
The housing crisis was caused largely in part by the mismanagement of money by the CEO's of big financial firms (for instance, giving out sub-prime loans), but that wouldn't have even been possible if Bill Clinton hadn't made it easier to obtain sub-prime loans, with the assumption that it would make obtaining homes easier for many Americans (obviously, it achieved this, but with serious repercussions). Bush appealed to congress numerous times to fix the problem the Democrats made, but the Democrats in congress over-ruled his notions every time. A fact that even Bill Clinton himself has stated. So don't say that it's all Bush's fault, because the problem wasn't caused by him in the first place, and he did infact try to fix the problem before it started getting really serious.
So GL, instead of blaming the President for everything bad that happens, try blaming the people who are actually guilty. Bush wasn't the best President ever. There's a number of things which he certainly could've handled better. However, he's certainly a better President than either John McCain or Barrack Obama ever will be.
Obama has what on the surface sound like really great ideas. However, they only sound wonderful because he only talks about from the viewpoint that they'll work flawlessly with few to no repercussions. Such thinking really is naive, as many of his plans could easily go sour as long as the people he puts in charge of them are, or some day become, corrupt. His plans give government officials too much power. More often than not, those officials abuse that power. So though the ideas are great in practice, they will only work as long as the person in charge of any given idea does exactly what needs to be done to benefit the people. Not what needs to be done to benefit themselves.
McCain, well I'm just not entirely sure what to think. His ideas in general are more realistic, but I'm not entirely sure whether or not I can trust what's comming out of his mouth. He seems to like to appeal to the majority no matter what they think even more than Obama does. Hence why he switched from borderline liberalism to a more conservative stance. I also don't agree with all of his policies.
And overall, quit acting so upitty, and quit being hypocritical. You complain about filth and then go and sling it around youself, saying that the US Army is a bunch of terrorists and that Bush is responsible for every travesty that America's been through in the past 8 years. He is by no means amazing, but he's certainly not as bad as you make him out to be.
Besides that, I'm under the impression that youjust got into pollitics this year, and that you only did so because you were inspired by Obama and the general excitement of getting involved in the "democracy in action". Why not get into politics because you want to better your country? And why not look as deep as you possibly can to find out what the problems are, who caused them, and what can be done to fix them? And especially to fully disect each idea or proposal and look at what benefits it could have, what it's repercussions could be, and the likelihood that it could succeed?
From my point of view, you just seem to take Obama's word for it, and don't look much deeper into what his policy's effects could be.
This topic is locked
