RE: 'Sambo's'& Other Political Ranting
Fri, 01/27/06 3:26 PM
Frank, I thought better of you up to this moment. Good healthy political disagreement, when it is based on fact, reason, and ethics, is an important part of our American heritage. My point here with Scott's ramblings (and I'll continue my critique in a fresh post) is that they contain none of the above.
Your most recent post is a low, name calling cop-out. I certainly acknowledge that there is more than one valid opinion around here (neo-cons call it wishy-washy). So let's hear yours in a thoughtful, well reasoned argument.
Just to give you a little idea of who you're dealing with, my political leanings tend to drift toward both the Liberal and the Libertarian point of view. Yes, people should be responsible for their own actions and decisions. But that assumes that everyone lives their lives in a moral, ethical, and just fashion, with no one taking unfair advantage of any other individual or group. As that is not the case, we need some level of government intervention to make sure that the lowest among us are protected and in some cases provided for.
Believe it or not I support the second amendment with just as much zeal as I do the first. The difference between me and the NRA is that I support ALL the words in the second amendment, not just the ones that make my case.
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
As I understand it, the NRA defines "militia" as every man, woman and child who is a citizen of the United States. You know what, I'll give 'em that. No argument. BUT-let's focus on the two words before that, "well-regulated". Well, let's see, I got me a Funk & Wagnalls (no, really) dictionary right here..."regulate, transitive verb, 1.To direct, manage, or control according to certain rules, principles, etc. 2.To adjust according to a standard, degree, etc."
So, a "well-regulated militia" is one that is subject to the management and control of the individual state (the second amendment only prohibits the federal government from sticking their noses into things) based on that state's rules and principles which can be adjusted to meet the needs and requirements of that state based on current standards or degrees. In other words, gun ownership never has been and never should be a free for all.
I also support the rebuilding in Iraq. We went in there, we made a mess, and now it is our moral responsiblity to clean it up. We've established this precedent in almost every conflict since the Civil War. That being said, I also believe that it was George Bush's unstated intent, in an effort to avenge his daddy's attempted murder by Saddam Hussein, to invade Iraq starting back before the 2000 presidential campaign. While I am not ignorant enough or callous enough to suggest that Mr. Bush brought the 9/11 attacks upon us, I would posit that he used that horrible criminal act to propel his own nation building agenda. Had 9/11 not occurred, he would have looked for any opportunity, any motivation for deposing Saddam Hussein. As such, this administration has conducted itself more shamefully, more criminally than any of Bill Clinton's extra-marital dalliances.
My point here is that while I call myself a Liberal, my attitudes and political beliefs are far more complex than the stereotypical characterization that neo-cons love to bandy about. If you're so smart and I'm so wrong, then convince me. I'm an open minded individual capable of seeing more than one point of view when it is intelligently and carefully laid out. If you want to have a political debate in the "Off Topic" forum (if the moderators will kindly allow it), then let's have one. A debate, I mean. Not some cheap shot, name calling barbs that prove nothing and accomplish less.