Bush's America asks: Why us?
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 5, 2004 12:49
VIEWED: 18384
PAGE 9 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by beenwithawarriorwoman:
Oh, and that draft thing? It's in Congress now. Being voted on. And my guess is, since it's not getting a lot of coverage, it won't matter half a hump who gets elected, both of 'em support it. Here's an article:
http://www.bushdraft.com/proof.html
If you follow that link, you'll find out that the sponsors of the draft legislation are DEMOCRATS.
House -- Rep. Charles Rangle, D-NY (plus 14 other Democrats)
Senate -- Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-SC
I'm not sure what their motivation is, whether it's purely anti-Bush, or if there is a racial component, as the house members are in the Democratic Black Caucus.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bojesphob:
Anyhow, so where does civil duty and freedom of expression and religion seperate? He does his civil duty to be a judge, why can he not have the freedom to practice his religion? I understand what you mean by not using public property, but I can go to a courthouse and hold a sign with a cross on it on public property, legally and not have any issues other than the occasional idiot that is a bigot. I have done research, and I agree that there should be a seperation so that no specific church can tell the government what to do and vise-versa, but that does not mean that we have to limit religious freedom to counter it. I am allowed having any non-offensive stuff up where I work (I know some people find religion offensive, but that's their problem, not mine), why can he not? It is his right to display his religion. Again, he cannot force someone to believe in those things, as that would be forcing religion on someone, which is what the spirit of the whole seperation thing was about. Basically, if you tell him to stop practicing his religion, you are jumping the divide between the seperation, just as if he told someone they had to believe in the God that gave those commandments. We are guaranteed the right to practice religion AND the right to not have the government tell us to stop, as well as have the religion not tell the goverment what to do. There has to be a balance, or it doesn't work at all!
The separation of church and state was meant to be exactly that. Of course you can go into a court and wave around a cross legally. The judge has that same right. However, the separation occurs between his job and his private life. Whenever he is acting in his capacity as a judge, he is a representative fully endosed by the state. As such, it is not proper for him to parade his religion, as that violates the separation dictated in the Constitution. That judge's courthouse is not only public property, it is a public institution, a place where the Constitution and the freedoms of individuals are upheld everyday. All freedoms, not just the right to due process.
Quote:
So, does that mean that since times have changed that we have to give up the right to govern ourselves? Why have a Constitution then? I agree that we have to have a Federal government, but we have to have MORE of the local stuff. BUT, when you have the power of the masses in the hands of a select few, there are MAJOR abuses, and they will only get worse until people get fed up with it enough and take back control. I think it was Jefferson who said "There needs to be a Revolution every once and a while" or something to that effect. I know these are kind of retarted comparisons, but look at Firefly AND Star Wars (the prequals). Both Joss and Lucas both have a grasp on what too much central power does to a society. That is the main thing that the founding fathers were against. I would bet that Jefferson and Madison wouldn't care if a judge had the ten commandments on a courthouse wall compared to the injustices that the Fed AND the Prez have done recently (and I'm not just talking about Bush).
I don't think we've given up the right to govern ourselves at all. The heart of democracy is participation. The founding fathers obviously had a bit of an easier time with this, seeing as there were not only less people, but, let us not forget, they only allowed the participation of few of the many.
It's so much harder now for two reasons: there is less direct participation and people simply don't care anymore. Studies show that participation in government has not rose with education and I blame this firmly on shoddy school systems, which, incidentally, are controlled by the state and local governments.
I know so many people who just aren't going to bother voting in the upcoming election. I, too, am disgusted with the two-party system, but not voting is not the answer nor the start of a revolution. Sure, we have to pick the lesser of two evils, but it is a step in the right directi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
OTOH, the USA could sweeten it with a LOT of reconstruction contracts, a policy that promises to lean on Israel and Saudi Arabia, and perhaps make some other adjustments in trade or foreign policy.. maybe sigbing the Kyoto Protocol or the Land Mine treaty, or promising to do some generic good that really DOES make the world safer- like rounding up loose nuclear material.
All good ideas, and things that really need to be done no matter what.
But, I think that the best diplomatic solution would be for the US ask the rest of the world, "What would it take for you to become involved?" Have us think about it and then all have a sit down and then go from there.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I honestly don't see Europe waiting for Iraq to become a failed state. Even if (when) the USA is defeated, it doesn't mean there will be a clear set of victors in Iraq. It would probably develop that nobody would be "in charge" and since Europe depends on imported oil as much or moe than we do, wouldn't they have an interest in seeing Iraq oil exports resume?
True, if no-one really holds control then the country would be in chaos. Something similar to what is going on now, but *much worse*. And how to recover from that would be a horror of a challenge.
But, Europe doesn't depend on oil nearly as much as the US. They are the ones that are the eco-people and actually act as such. When you think that the US is 5% of the worlds population and makes up 25% of the worlds oil usage, I'd find it hard to believe that anyone else would come close.
At any rate, something *does need* to change.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirikoli:
Um...just that I thought that Kerry's answers, while good compared to Bush's, were not up to his usual standards.
Ah. The way I was reading your comments it seemed to me that you were saying that he didn't do much better than Bush. But, that makes sense and I can't really argue it much as I would believe that you've seen him talk more than I since I get most of my info from papers and such.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, Kirikoli, I guess that's what the government is supposed to be for, helping us to interperet a document that was written a long time ago.
But, I was not saying that one shouldn't vote, though! That was the last thing I was trying to get people to do! I was saying that one should vote for the person who's most qualified for the job, not what the two major parties have put forward. Bush is a boob and Kerry is a puppet. By all means, vote!!!
Anyhow, I totally agree with the education thing. I live near an area that you wouldn't exactly call an upper class neighborhood, and it's amazing that they don't try to help those children learn more and get themselves out of the hell that they live in. Just the other day there was a high schooler shot and killed, right in front of school! He was trying to stop a fight and they shot him! Stupid gangs! 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bojesphob:
Well, Kirikoli, I guess that's what the government is supposed to be for, helping us to interperet a document that was written a long time ago.
Yeah...I'm really not sure how you got that out of what I said. I believe the government's job is to support individual rights, including the right to not have your rights violated (i.e. you can't kill people, even if that is arguably a right, because they have to right to live, etc.). I also think it is the government's first duty to change with the times and be efficient. I would argue that, for example, the second amendment is out of date.
Perhaps you believe the separation of church and state is outdated? I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you said.
Quote:
But, I was not saying that one shouldn't vote, though! That was the last thing I was trying to get people to do! I was saying that one should vote for the person who's most qualified for the job, not what the two major parties have put forward. Bush is a boob and Kerry is a puppet. By all means, vote!!!
In the interest of being accurate, I would agree that Bush is a "boob" or, to be more specific, in my opinion, dumb, biased, irrational, and disrespectful, but how exactly is Kerry a puppet?
Quote:
Anyhow, I totally agree with the education thing. I live near an area that you wouldn't exactly call an upper class neighborhood, and it's amazing that they don't try to help those children learn more and get themselves out of the hell that they live in. Just the other day there was a high schooler shot and killed, right in front of school! He was trying to stop a fight and they shot him! Stupid gangs!
I completely agree but the problem goes even deeper than that. I come from upper middle class suburbia and while we did have our share of violence, it nowhere near compares to, say, city schools. Our problem is, the state doesn't budget itself well enough to give us even a decent fraction of the money it is literally responsible for...I didn't even realize how limited and, frankly, stupid my high school was until I came to college.
In my opinion, equal education for *all* would solve a lot of problems. Which is why I think it should be a federal responsibility and not just in the "No child left behind so schools will pass anyone through so as not to get even less money" sense.
Seriously...some of the people that graduated from my high school...they couldn't even grasp the concept of percentages. I have no idea if they could read.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
I don't think the world is safer with one despot removed, on the simple grounds that as long as the world powers are willing to support these brutal dictators and assist them in obtaining and retaining power there will be no shortage of them.
This is only one aspect of the problem. The whole problem cannot be simplified to these terms.
I am not sure what you are getting at here. I am objecting to Bush's claim that we are safer with Saddam gone when he is unwilling to accept the responsibility that America has for his being in power and our continued support of brutal dictators around the world wherever and whenever it suits our interests (Pakistan and Libya being the most recent).
Quote:Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
At the same time the resolution to attack Iraq was passed overwhelmingly so I don't limit my dismay to the Bush regime.
Qualify this, because I know that the UN didn't.
I was talking about the resolution the U.S. Congress passed to use force and the fact that a large number of Democrats as well as Republicans voted in favor.
Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
I don't think the world is safer with one despot removed, on the simple grounds that as long as the world powers are willing to support these brutal dictators and assist them in obtaining and retaining power there will be no shortage of them.
This is only one aspect of the problem. The whole problem cannot be simplified to these terms.
I am not sure what you are getting at here. I am objecting to Bush's claim that we are safer with Saddam gone when he is unwilling to accept the responsibility that America has for his being in power and our continued support of brutal dictators around the world wherever and whenever it suits our interests (Pakistan and Libya being the most recent).
You wrote "world powers" in your origninal reply which I retain above. This statment is thus not limited to a comment only about the US. This is how I believe you to be misleading in this comment.
I do agree with your clarification
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:Quote:Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
At the same time the resolution to attack Iraq was passed overwhelmingly so I don't limit my dismay to the Bush regime.
Qualify this, because I know that the UN didn't.
I was talking about the resolution the U.S. Congress passed to use force and the fact that a large number of Democrats as well as Republicans voted in favor.
Ah, when I saw the word "resolution" my mind imediately jumped to the UN which didn't exactly fit.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I can see how my use of the word resolution could lead you think U.N., a very bad choice on my part.
I used the word 'World Powers' because I think China's support of the Sudanese leader is just as bad. Whether it is France, England or the U.S., I find the willingness to support such brutal figures to nullify the benefit of removing any particular individual.
Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
I used the word 'World Powers' because I think China's support of the Sudanese leader is just as bad.
Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.
How do you feel about the US arming and funding the rebels in Sudan for the past twelve years ?
While not supporting the measures the Sudanese have taken in suppressing what is a civil war, but by taking a side here, don't you
A) Lose credibility with the other side in negotiation,
B) Lose credibility with any involved third party ( UN, China, etc )
C) Accept some measure of responsiblity when you prolonged a losing fight beyond the point where a normally peacefull compromise might have been reached ?
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME