You said non-supporters should protest if they wanna "walk the walk." My point was that those to whom they would protest (meaning dubya) would turn a deaf ear. I don't think I said anything else about the Prez aside from the fact that he doesn't listen to or care what war protesters say.
How am I not using logic in that case?
If you are for the war, you must join in the war and risk life to support it.
If you are for abortion, then you must be willing to have one.
Seems like the same logic.
I don't agree with the above example by any means.
I don't see why it is so hard to accept that having a double standard for war supporters is hypocritical.
Portesting is also about raising awareness. By having rallies and organizing supporters to the cause you will put pressure on our leaders to change. Bush is not a dictator, if enough people in congress feel that they might not get re-elected a mjority can be formed to overrule the president. Don't be so apathetic to thing that if bush won't listen you shouldn't even try.
You told me nothing, which is normal!
Nope. No one is demanding that other people must have abortions.Seems like the same logic.Supporters demand sacrifice, yet make none of their own. Protesters demand no sacrifice.I don't see why it is so hard to accept that having a double standard for war supporters is hyprocritical.
If people who support the right to abortion were railing for "total abortion" throughout the world, for all pregnant women, then you'd have a point.
I told you why the Democrats couldn't do anything about it at this time. Next year things will be much easier.
awareness is at an all-time high, and so is the public's dissatisfaction with the war, but nothing changes. you might start seeing some people flip which will take power away from the prez; but with the new public announcement push on talk radio to get republican voters to contact their representatives to threaten them with ouster if they sway from the party line, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Well, I believe I've seen you post on the need to go to Dafur (I could be worng on this, thought it was you). Does that mean if we were to go to Darfur and intervene that you would be enlisting?
And it is at an all time high thanks to the protestors and anti-war movement who did do something and not remain apathetic. If the anti-war movement hadn't picked up so much support, we might still have been under a republican congress. If you expect overnight change, you're in for a disappointment. It takes time and effort, apathy never solved any problem.
Actually that was a counterargument to those who said we went to Iraq and had to stay for the Iraqi people and avoid having some more of them die. If they wanted to wear the white hat, they had to keep it on. Anyway we wouldn't be fighting much in Darfur if the government allowed us in. I have only read of about 10 casualties from the African Union peacekeepers in three years.
And I wouldn't consider peacekeeping in Darfur as a fight for the survival of the United States.
I believe service to one's nation is an honorable thing and there is an implicit trust that the government will use those making the sacrifice to be in the service only in extreme cir stances as a last resort. This administration has done no such thing.
This war is an abortion. You got both. What else would you like? The only reason people suggest that supporters enlist is so they can go see it for themselves and carry the banner of their belief. Then, you can come back and teach us a lesson, provided you're not in a box.
I got both? What else would I like?
What are you talking about? Do you know what this discussion is about or did you wander in halfway and assume you knew?
I think it was your comparison between abortion and enlistment that peaked my curiosity.
If this is considered conservative logic, then it is the best discovery from an autopsy ever recorded. I'm just guessing, but it might be a genetic flaw.
I admit it was a stretch of logic now in retrospec. I find it humurous though that I seem to be portrayed as a "conservative" now by a few people. Nowhere during my arguement have I argued for or against the war. I know that it is the Dem/Rep way to immediately characertize anyone who you feel as disagreeing with you as the other party. I am a member of neither party. I personally think it would be a bad decision on my part to commit to a party rather than evaluate the candidates on a case by case basis and choose the most qualified one.
That rant aside, my point was that it is not right to make all the pro-war supporters have to go fight to listen to their views, while its ok for the anti-war people to not have to make any effort to support their views by their actions. People should have their views counted regardless of how they decide to support their beliefs, but if you choose to put a restricition on one side, the restriction needs to be put on the other as well.
Otherwise, all those on the board who are preaching for a better environment had better be using all the alternative renewable energies to power their home, heat their water, etc., and be driving hybrids or walking/bike riding instead of driving a regualr auto.
completely agree with the first paragraph.
second paragraph, not so much. their views are counted, thats where we find ourselves, because of these views.
third paragraph is something we should all afford to practice, but this is not a cheap endeavor. my solar panels were an expensive purchase and they still require backup. the hybrid wasn't so much, but we don't take it for long trips. it's not practical. the tankless waterheater was 3K plus, installation included.
Agreed. You go to war; I'll go march in a protest.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote