(Untitled)
on a better note. im really proud of my brother (the younger not the penguin). he was in the soap box derby this morning. he didnt race real well but the fact that he built this car and how excited he was to race it really is admirable. he even got an article in the saratogian. check it outi would like to take this space to memorialize the
( Read more... )
As for the "fact" that he "started a war that isn't going to end well," I think I'll disagree with that. Though we didn't find any WMD, I do believe that the world and the Iraqi people are safer now that Saddam is out of power. The turnover of power to the Iraqis seems to be headed in a positive direction: they have a new prime minister who has brokered a deal with, I believe, 6 different militias to disband. Only Al Sadr's militia refused. That seems to be a decent display of power for the new Iraqi government. Granted, we lost a good number of men (I know personally, as a friend of mine was killed in combat over there last year), but that is the price to pay for freedom and security.
On the last note, I do have to agree with you. I also disagree with Bush's stance on gay rights. I don't feel that an amendment banning gay marriage is necessary, but I would rather see civil unions than gay marriages, simply due to the religious implications and heritage of the marriage tradition. If homosexuals want all the rights entitled to heterosexual couples bound in marriage, then let them have them. Just call it something else.
Reply
Reply
Cusey
Reply
From many viewpoints, Reagan's policies may have been archaic, but hey, they worked. We won the Cold War by out-lasting the Soviets. We drove their economy into the ground. We ensured our security. We also had a booming economy thanks to trickle down economics. He didn't "nearly [destroy]" the country, far from it. And who says increasing defense spending is bad? I'm all for it, because in my mind, the government is there to protect our lives, not run them, not handing out money to everyone (as in social programs, not tax cuts).
While I do not readily have on hand the figures, nor am I willing to search them out (end of senior year, feeling kinda lackadaisical), for the current deficit, or when it began, remember, 9/11 happened, a new department was created (Homeland), and military action was undertaken. All of this costs a great deal of money. So we're in a deficit. But what does a deficit actually do? Could you explain the effects of one? From what I've heard, it really has no effect on the economy, its just a number that opponents of the current administration (not particularly this one, but any) throw around to make a big hoopla. What, is France going to demand its money back?
As for the precedent, so? The United States of America is the strongest nation in the world. We have a right to protect our assets if we feel they are threatened. Why should we give up the right to protect ourselves to such an organization as the U.N.? It's a pretty idea, but doesn't work too well in the real world. I believe that we invaded Iraq because the administration honestly thought Iraq posed a threat. I don't believe in all the conspiracy stories that he had already planned an invasion before 9/11. Saddam was known for helping terrorists in Israel. I don't think it would have been a stretch for him to aid Al-Qaeda. As for the US putting him into power... at the time it he seemed the lesser of two evils... a secular tyrant over a fundamentalist regime. Unfortunately, it didn't pan out as we would've hoped. Yes, we all do make mistakes, once in awhile.
So, you berate Bush for his answer to terrorism, what's your's? If you have a better plan, then let me know. Honestly, I'd like to hear it.
Sorry I mistook you for a democrat. I know to call you such was to use rather harsh language, so I apologize for that.
Hey, I tried to be agreeable on the gay marriage issue, but I guess you're not feeling generous today. Quick question: What is the origin of marriage? Was it originally a religious term or a legal one? Find me the definition of marriage. As a disclaimer, I am not very religious, if religious at all. I just feel that the homosexual minority is going to have to make a few concessions if they want to enter a legally binding relationship without a major uproar from "middle" America. There are quite a few moderates out there who would support civil unions, but are turned off by the term gay marriage. The homosexual community needs to be happier with small steps, as large ones will be shot down out of fear of changing the norm... unless, of course, you are proposing a massive revolution. Oh, and also, when did judges become lawmakers? Isn't that reserved for the legislative branch?
Hopefully, from here out, we can have a civil discussion of our opposing views. Super Ju, I'd also like to read your thoughts on the topics discussed. I know you differ on some of my views.
Reply
i started this thread as a memorial to one of our great presidents NOT a thread to bash bush or debate what reagen did or didnt do.
im sort of disappointed in both of you. disgracing reagen's name with your bitter remarks and petty arguements
i must agree i do enjoy going back and forth with you qc and jason but this is not the place nor the time. wait a few weeks perhaps when our flags return to full mast
Reply
Reply
Cusey
Reply
Leave a comment