Dark One
The Tainted Dogma
I'm not saying any other regime has or will take away our freedom, and why would you even infer that that's what I was implicating?? I'm glad you brought this up though because it does sort of further what I was saying about the breakdown in our polictical system causing dissention among those supporters of the differing party lines. We ALL enjoy our freedom together. It transcends party lines, and I wish more ideas and philosophies did as well.Erik said:This has no relevance. What is your point? That Bush hasn't taken away these freedoms yet? Well gee whiz, neither have any of your past presidents, and neither will Kerry. Anyhow it's highly debatable whether "freedom" is a "human right" but that's another discussion.
UGH. Again, I'm NOT saying the "if you don't have anything nice...." sentiment is relevant. IT ISN'T. What is relevant is that the incessant, non-stop Bash-Bash-Bash over the top negativity takes our fundamental right to question and debate to a level that results in counterproductivity and divides us a people. As a result of this kind of mentality, we truly tend to look at each other who have differing views and opinions across the party lines as enemies, at least to a certain unhealthy degree. I don't see you as an "enemy" based on your beliefs at all Erik, and I certainly don't wish to single you out by any means, in fact, I'm glad that people can be so passionate and behind what they believe in, I just wish the desire to change or question things wasn't done in such a divisional manner.Erik said:The "if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all" sentiment is hardly relevant... I don't see anyone saying that Bush has done NOTHING GOOD, I just see people saying that the bad things he have done are bad enough that they want him GONE.
Um... the administration's job is to do just that, it's impossible for an administration to cater to everyone's beliefs, but the system of democracy allows the people to vote to put an administration in place. And I don't want to foster any "Bush stole the election" debates either. Regardless, millions upon millions upon millions voted for him just as they did for Gore.Erik said:Heh heh... How about letting the people decide what's in the best interest of the country? You know, democracy and all that? But sure, I mean, Saddam was obviously a large threat, what with all those gigatons of WMD:s hidden in his bedroom...
Sigh, and again with the WMD, it's always the WMD. Completely ignoring the point about the harboring and supporting of terrorist factions and going right back to the WMD reasoning as to why Saddam should not have been seen as a threat. That's exactly the kind of mentality I'm talking about.
Might? Possibly? Come on. And not "attacking countries", but attacking horrible, despicable and influential regimes to bring freedom to those who have never known it.Erik said:It's amazing how you fail to see the difference between pre-emptively attacking countries that might possibly harbour people who might perform terrorist deeds in the future and trying to prevent a specific attack by securing and defending your own country. Not that I think that 9/11 could have been prevented. Not that I think that future, more inventive, attacks on the US can be either...
No, of course Saddam was never a threat. He never tried to invade and take over another country or anything like that. He was strict, but fair to his people. He didn't terrorize and wipe out his own people or anything like that. He certainly allowed the people to vote for who would be in power. He wasn't a dictator like Bush is. Bush won't allow for the possibilty of being voted out of office, he won't give the people a choice like Saddam did. He's taking away our democracy, unlike Saddam, who allowed open questioning of policies, and championed the cause of freedom.
And again, like I said, the world CHANGED after 9/11. We were all in a "comfort zone" prior to 9/11. Bush, Clinton, etc., everyone. I do believe 9/11 could have been prevented if the way the world was viewed today was the way the world was viewed then. I'm not saying it would have, but the chances would be far greater that it could have. But of course, if the world WAS viewed differently then, it would have been the result of some other major terrorist attack prior to it. 9/11 was the "slap in the face".
Yes, I agree 100%, and to further that thought, it also fosters so much hostility, pointless bickering, and division among our people. There is sooooo much we all have in common, that I just can't believe a middle ground isn't attainable. I just KNOW that if we had a President who did not align him or herself with one "side" or the other "side" and was at least "somewhat" capable, that people would really begin to start focusing on the good things, and achieving peaceful and positive middle ground solutions to so many of the challenges we are faced with. Obviously it would take a very long time to get over the problems of the two party system, but having a regime in charge that is dictated by neither is a helluva place to start.Erik said:Agreement. As I said, it's absolutely retarded to have to settle for "a lesser evil." That's not far from Soviet-style one-party "democracy."
If only it were possible. Is it?