An Observation: Kerry's Nicer than His Fans

Exactly who cares? Oh and freign opinion pisses of the U.S. Other countries are just pissed off because we're still here. No not just that because we keep doing things our way.

Yes. Not only that. NATO was a huge step in the right direction but might be seen as slightly 'passe'.

What worries me these days is the systematic refusal from the United States to make any kind of effort towards the building of an International Community that is fair, balanced and equal, and this especially since Bush was elected.

Example:

As you know, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) entered into force on 1 July 2002. The ICC will have jurisdiction over crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and can investigate these crimes, if national courts are unable or unwilling to do so. As of 10th December 2002, 139 states have signed and 87 states have ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC. The USA has been the only state actively to oppose the establishment of the International Criminal Court. Since the adoption of the Rome Statute, the USA has sought an exemption for US nationals from the jurisdiction of the Court. In recent months, the USA has been asking states around the world to sign impunity agreements, providing that they will not surrender US nationals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes to the new International Criminal Court.

(Amnesty International report, https://www.pucl.org/Topics/Human-rights/2003/ai.htm )

Now isn't that a big 'f*** you' to the rest of the world?

Not that it matters, of course, not that it matters...

It is a big f*** you to the world.

I wonder if we looked at our grand coallition from the other perspective. If we counted every tiny a** country that did not wish to join, and every medium country, and every large country What percent of countries and people actual agree with our mostly-unilateral movement towards conservatism. Who cares?

World wars drag everyone in. World wars don't ask permission they force sides. Will our efforts in the mid east lead to WW3. Its just me being a stupid idiot liberal, and when we finally beat these guys up enough and kill enough innocent bystanders we will just move on to the next step which is to rebuild the mid east country in the same fashion we rebuilt japan. I love my toyota, perhaps in ten years I will be driving a new iraqi car.

Hmm...yeah...So somehow, my attempt at a deep philosophical thought thread just turned into the millionth "What's Wrong with the War" subject on this site. If you will, please allow me to get this back on track.

Back to the initial thought: Do we not have a growing problem of overly bitter animosity between partisan people across the aisle from each other? And why is it political viewpoints are generalized by extremists that hardly represent the average Joe?

For example, Michael Moore and Ted Kennedy, etc., represent the radical extremist left, but hardly the Democratic Party as a whole, or even the average democrat. However, the media places them in such a light that they are becoming the new figureheads of the party.

However, I find that most average Joe Blows are hardly so extremist either left or right.

Meanwhile, this election has demonstrated that it seems Kerry and Bush supporters hated each other far more than Kerry and Bush did each other. Why is this?

Let's please keep the war debates to the war threads, and let's explore these thoughts some more. I'm curious to see what some others from various viewpoints have to contribute to this.

The original topic is slightly slanted.

Like for instance when you include examples of people on the extreme right to balance the statement about the extreme left.

oh wait, you didn't.

Fair enough, but you could pitch in on that, ya know!

Ok, some extreme rightists:

Pat Robertson -- CREEPS ME OUT! I pay little attention to this guy as possible, but what little I do still hear of him, the more I see him as the very image of christianity and conservatism that I try to stay far away from. For instance, do I hear correctly that he called down the wrath of God upon court justices? What the crap?! Dude's gotta screw loose somewhere.

Michael Savage -- Savage is a great thinker and writer in my opinion, and he's helped me shape my own political views, not to mention I greatly admire his non-partisan stand. However, I do at the same time have some criticisms of him. For one, he's too hateful of liberals, and is too hot-tempered and quick to hurl insults. In some regards, I'd say he's possibly the Michael Moore of the conservatives, at least in regard to his lack of respect for the other side. To me, in some ways he's a political hero, while in others he's horribly misdirected.

But jeoin, part of the thing here is that I just really don't know many radical rightists. I think that if you're true to conservative philosophy, being radically conservative is in a sense, an oxymoron. True conservatism, in my opinion, avoids extremes by its very nature. Either that, or I just don't pay attention to the extreme nutcases. The truth, I imagine, is probably a little of both.

However, "Who has the most nutjobs" is rather irrelevent, as it's quality over quantity, and we both have high-quality nutjobs to deal with.

So anyway, does that even the slant enough for you to engage in the topic now?

very polite and respectful, as always.
I am engaged now. very engaged. lol

I don't think i agree with your definition of conservative. I could argue for instance that the same definition is appropriate for liberals.

We don't seek to make everyone gay pot smokers with no god, we seek to allow your views room to flourish, and others views to flourish along side them. some views can not co exist without tension. Some views can however coexist without any impact on those around them.
only as an argument for this discussion I say that abortion is one such idea that conflicts with christianity. If christians wouldn't have any abortions and aleave the liberals alone that did it would not affect the christian or the person the christian views as a sinner. However this does not occur as conservatives seek to outlaw the womans right to choice, as though it was their duty and in conflict of their WAR pursuits. Living things die.
You may not agree with the analogy, but to get back on topic the world is composed of many views. none of which are right. When one party believes he is right and seeks to enforce that belief on others, he is not pursuing a middle ground path. No liberal will ever force a conservative(or anyone) to have an abortion. Its a choice. Do you see my point. I am not debating abortion here.

Yeah, I follow ya. I understand the analogy, and I do see your point.

As an aside:



Heh, that reminds me of my friend Sebastian. My other friend Lucas and I were picking on him the other day because he's just about the only democrat we have in our group at church, so of course we pick him on him relentlessly, and the conversation went something like this:

Lucas: "Well if you had it your way, the streets would be overrun with homosexuals having abortions!"

James: "Waita minute...How are homosexuals going to have abortions?"

Lucas: "Science will find a way!"

Well...I thought it was a funny anyway.

That's interesting you say you could apply the same definition to liberals. Would it be within the realm of probability, then, to say that most of us are not quite as extremely right and left as our talking heads in the media represent us to be?

I was told recently that it seems most average people you run into, in both parties, are actually moderates. I'm beginning to see some of that myself, and I wonder if that's indeed the case. This would, again, attest that the media has greatly skewed the true nature of things.

Someone also recently brought this observation up to me, which is one I hadn't considered: On one hand, Republicans support the war (which costs lives) but oppose abortion (to save lives). Meanwhile, Democrats support abortion (which costs lives) but oppose the war (to save lives). Ironic?

I think where we hang up on these issues falls under the umbrella of whether our country, as an entity, has values of its own. I have values. You have values. But does our country have values?

If so, what are they, and how are they defined? Because if what you want legalized merely violates my values, then that's one thing, but if violates the nation's values, it's quite another.

Personally, when I say I'm conservative, I'm not saying I resist change across the board, but merely that yes, this nation, as an entity, does have values, and that those values should be protected (conserved). Outside of the scope of that, I would say there's plenty of room for progressive change, which, by your presented definition, suggests that such is a liberal element to my philosophy.

So, in my mind, such issues come down to this:

(1) Does our country, as a single collective entity, have moral values?
(2) If so, what are those values, and
(3) How are those values defined, and by whom?

Excellent argument. I enjoyed several points.
1. your conversation with you friends. I would say a homosexual woman could certainly have an abortion.

2. I particularly like your reversal of my argument regarding what I call the republican conflict. abortion verses war. i will spare you the quote.
I would say that I do not support war, however sometimes(pearl harbor) there trully is not option. I support that involvement, not Iraq.
I also say sometimes an abortion is vital. However that is too general to describe my current opinion. You can not take away a womans right to abort her baby, just as you can not stop a person from committing suicide.
It is illegal to commit suicide(i believe)

3.I like your middle road analogy, and agree. I believe our country would not be as peaceful as it is if we did not have this middle road. It allows us to continue constructive debate.

Your questions:
1. I say yes our country has morals. I believe however these morals must be general enough to allow the fundemental concept of freedom of religion. I feel now a "christian oriented" push towards views that restrict those of us who feel differently.
2. This would be a long list, but in my eyes can not include things like
No muslim worship.
No right to abortion.
No right to go to war, with false intelligence(this is not a barb)
3. These values are defined by you and I and Harry and everyone that cares to vote.
With that in mind I ask you: Would it be okay with you if a majority of non christians people outlawed christianity.

Moral values are not laws. There is a reason for this.

No. It would be time for me to leave the country. :D

Yes many liberals share your feeling.

So let them move on then. That's been my point this whole time.