Well, both. In the short term, you have law enforcement go after the KKK people. In the longer term, you have a "hearts and minds" approach as well--desegregating white schools, getting rid of racist textbooks, enacting anti-discrimination laws in education/employment/etc., eliminating gerrymandering that minimized minority political power, and so on.
*sigh* Drillsar didn't call them noble. Nobody called them noble (at least, not in this thread). If someone says they "understand" why some in the Middle East hate the US, they're not (necessarily) saying that terrorism is justified. As an analogy, I can "understand" why a soldier under orders might participate in illegal torture of prisoners in Iraq, but doesn't make it right in my eyes.
I think one notices the abuse more when it's aimed at one's own side. If you haven't noticed Marvin calling people names, you haven't been reading his posts. (Which is probably a good thing.)
Don't worry, that's actually a moderate view
Actually Kerry has said he opposes gay marriage, but favors civil unions for gays. (He also opposes amending the constitution to ban gay marriages.)
What I usually see on this site is someone saying something about "understanding" how the actions of the US might have contributed to terrorism, and other people jumping on him for allegedly saying that the US "deserved" to be terrorized. The difference between "understanding" and "justification" ends up getting lost in the ensuing scuffles.
Some views come across more clearly than others. Draginol, for instance, might have lots of liberal views that he doesn't talk about much. But his political blogs tend to be about his views on Iraq, terrorism, and on taxation, and on all of these issues his views are distinctly conservative. His liberal views, whatever they might be, don't come across at all in his writing--the *only* time I've see
anyway, things like the Lockerbie bombing (among others) are usually thought of as terrorism but doesn't meet the definition here.
So by your definition (Draginol) "state-sponsored terrorism" is not terrorism?
She seems okay with the results of her actions, so I don't see why it was stupid to write about it online. Immoral, sure, but not stupid.
are we forgeting that the same campaign finciace laws were FIRST in effect during the previous presidential election? The Democrats had their convention WELL after the republicans and Bush did not use the loop hole. There was slightly over a week between the conventions. This time it's more like a month
They *are* following the same rules since Kerry's actions are legal, so I don't see how equality of opportunity versus equality of results enters into this. What this really shows is that the campaign finance system needs an overhaul.
I'm way too much of a cynic. When the guy said "he risked his life by pulling me out of the river" I was just thinking of what the whole story was: "Well, we were drinking and a bit high at the time. Bob thought it would be funny to push me into the river. John was so drunk he could
Let's limit the liberal-bashing to reasonable levels. The war in Afghanistan had 90+% support. Americans, even those who were dovish on Iraq, clearly recognized the necessity of war as a direct response to terrorism. Practically no one was crying "no blood for oil" in response the Afghan war. In the scenario under consideration, I would expect a similar response from the government as after 9/11, and from the American people, only more so. The
I think it's "Just Enough Education to Perform"
Causation is not justification. Solitair never brought up justification.
is a big place, and there are many possibilities of what happened to the weapons. No matter what happened to the weapons, *if* there was a stockpile, there had to have been at least hundreds, probably thousands, of people who knew about it. Scientists, engin
double post
It seems logical to me that if we've been in the country for over a year, put out rewards for information, and talked to every competent scientist in the nation and most important army officers, and we haven't come up with a significant stockpile, then it's highly unlikely that a significant stockpile exists. Maybe there are occasional old small shells buried here and there, left over from the first Gulf War and since forgotten by everyone, but it seem
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that people, not religion, are the problem. In order to wage any type of atrocity, one needs to make an argument that it is morally justified. The vast majority of people base their morality on some sort of religious undergirding. Therefore, the vast majority of atrocities indeed have some twisted religious undergirding. If all of society was atheist, we'd be having atrocities justified in the name of Utilitarianism
id like to think it is being applied incorrectly Most Muslims outside of that area think it is. I'm certainly no expert, but from what I've read it seems like they're generally adopting Koranic punishments without also adopting Koranic safeguards and standards of evidence. For example, a conviction for
I don't like Moore one bit. But, *if* this is true, it's rather disturbing. One of the fundamental things necessary for democracy to work is a free media. If Disney is censoring itself because it thinks that a government official might not like what it's saying, that's very dangerous. Of course there's a decent chance that it's just Michael Moore inventing a paranoid conspiracy theory. But I will be following this story...
Based on what I've read of Super Baby's posts elsewhere on JU, yes, I'm quite sure.
Uh, people, the article is *sarcastic*
These soldiers, by and large, are likely good, law abiding men and women, who thought they were having a laugh. Closer scrutiny of these Iraqis shows none have been beaten, bruised, cut or mutilated. At worst...these men were merely humiliated. Oh please. In
JoeUser Forums