|
Review and Comment on the News 1/25/06
(Jaundiced Caterwauling) |
![]() Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2006 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2005 December 2005 November My Links Global Warming Causes Everything A democrat that doesn't make the veins in my neck explode every time she opens her mouth. Analog Baen Books Brainchild of a Conservative Anomaly Lesson along the scenic route through purgatory How Democrats can get away with this bullshit astounds even me! BBC Billings Gazette Big Lizards Brain Terminal Colorado Public Radio Clinton Iraq 1998 Chaos Manor Democrats vs. Republicans on race issues Drudge Report Fox News Jerry Doyle Google News Junk Science.com Just Barking Mad Little Green Footballs The Montana Misanthrope Montana Politics Neal Boortz NO PC Forums Opinion Journal Q and O Newsroom Rabid Sanity Random Nuclear Strikes Reference Desk Sirius The American Thinker Thoolou's Lair VOA News Victor Davis Hanson World Tribune Zombie Hall of Shame (not for the faint of heart) tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog |
posted by: Matthew (reply) post date: 07.12.06 (10:28 am) Though the right end of the political likes to make the case that there views are informed by moral sentiment, is this really the case I ask you, for don't they have a tendacy to be extremely intolernt to views which are opposed to there own? They claim they have they have a strong devotion to the cause of freedom, yet don't they have a tendacy to interfer in the affairs of other nations, often odopting a position which makes eventual conflict sometimes certain. If there views where so moral, as they claim, then why do they have a tendacy to polarize they world into two opposing sides and tend to villify oter nations which makes a diplomatic solution sometime impossible. They say they are devoted to free speech, but do you believe they respect the right of people to speak about views which are opposed to there own, or do you think they secretly desire to make certain forms of speech illegal, is freedom about being intolerant to the views of others because they conflict with there own. Are they devoted to the cause of right, are noble ideas such as humanitarianism and the right for all to live with respect and dignity, ideas like basic and undeniable human rights for all, are these views which the right hold sacred. Don't listen to their rhetoric for they will say anything and twist the truth sometimes, look at how they choose to conduct themselves, are their motives informed by the common good, or only their own good and self interest? Do they care more to resolve the social evils whcih plague many in society, or have they not done anything by use their conception of morality to justify their militant world ideology which costs a countless many there lives, have they solved any of the social evils which confront our society, or do they seem more committed to a perpetual war instead of furthering the cause of their own people, what will be there final testiment to their beleifs, a better world where the condition of living was raised, or a war which will cost hundreds of thousands their lives? Do they want a better world for all, I don't know for sure, but their tactics to make this better world seems to furthered only by the act of destruction and the ending of human life. Is that an idealogy based upon morality or one where force is used to make others bend to there will, where morality is just a justification for war? It seems they can only make the world a better place with war, yet is it a better world they will deliver us in the end, because you might want to think about how you feel personally about it. We got lots of war mongers right now, to bad we have few selfless humanitarians who are committed to the cause of humanity rather then the cause of attaining power only for the sake of power. posted by: Matthew (reply) post date: 07.12.06 (10:28 am) Though the right end of the political likes to make the case that there views are informed by moral sentiment, is this really the case I ask you, for don't they have a tendacy to be extremely intolernt to views which are opposed to there own? They claim they have they have a strong devotion to the cause of freedom, yet don't they have a tendacy to interfer in the affairs of other nations, often odopting a position which makes eventual conflict sometimes certain. If there views where so moral, as they claim, then why do they have a tendacy to polarize they world into two opposing sides and tend to villify oter nations which makes a diplomatic solution sometime impossible. They say they are devoted to free speech, but do you believe they respect the right of people to speak about views which are opposed to there own, or do you think they secretly desire to make certain forms of speech illegal, is freedom about being intolerant to the views of others because they conflict with there own. Are they devoted to the cause of right, are noble ideas such as humanitarianism and the right for all to live with respect and dignity, ideas like basic and undeniable human rights for all, are these views which the right hold sacred. Don't listen to their rhetoric for they will say anything and twist the truth sometimes, look at how they choose to conduct themselves, are their motives informed by the common good, or only their own good and self interest? Do they care more to resolve the social evils whcih plague many in society, or have they not done anything by use their conception of morality to justify their militant world ideology which costs a countless many there lives, have they solved any of the social evils which confront our society, or do they seem more committed to a perpetual war instead of furthering the cause of their own people, what will be there final testiment to their beleifs, a better world where the condition of living was raised, or a war which will cost hundreds of thousands their lives? Do they want a better world for all, I don't know for sure, but their tactics to make this better world seems to furthered only by the act of destruction and the ending of human life. Is that an idealogy based upon morality or one where force is used to make others bend to there will, where morality is just a justification for war? It seems they can only make the world a better place with war, yet is it a better world they will deliver us in the end, because you might want to think about how you feel personally about it. We got lots of war mongers right now, to bad we have few selfless humanitarians who are committed to the cause of humanity rather then the cause of attaining power only for the sake of power. posted by: Matthew (reply) post date: 07.12.06 (10:29 am) Though the right end of the political likes to make the case that there views are informed by moral sentiment, is this really the case I ask you, for don't they have a tendacy to be extremely intolernt to views which are opposed to there own? They claim they have they have a strong devotion to the cause of freedom, yet don't they have a tendacy to interfer in the affairs of other nations, often odopting a position which makes eventual conflict sometimes certain. If there views where so moral, as they claim, then why do they have a tendacy to polarize they world into two opposing sides and tend to villify oter nations which makes a diplomatic solution sometime impossible. They say they are devoted to free speech, but do you believe they respect the right of people to speak about views which are opposed to there own, or do you think they secretly desire to make certain forms of speech illegal, is freedom about being intolerant to the views of others because they conflict with there own. Are they devoted to the cause of right, are noble ideas such as humanitarianism and the right for all to live with respect and dignity, ideas like basic and undeniable human rights for all, are these views which the right hold sacred. Don't listen to their rhetoric for they will say anything and twist the truth sometimes, look at how they choose to conduct themselves, are their motives informed by the common good, or only their own good and self interest? Do they care more to resolve the social evils whcih plague many in society, or have they not done anything by use their conception of morality to justify their militant world ideology which costs a countless many there lives, have they solved any of the social evils which confront our society, or do they seem more committed to a perpetual war instead of furthering the cause of their own people, what will be there final testiment to their beleifs, a better world where the condition of living was raised, or a war which will cost hundreds of thousands their lives? Do they want a better world for all, I don't know for sure, but their tactics to make this better world seems to furthered only by the act of destruction and the ending of human life. Is that an idealogy based upon morality or one where force is used to make others bend to there will, where morality is just a justification for war? It seems they can only make the world a better place with war, yet is it a better world they will deliver us in the end, because you might want to think about how you feel personally about it. We got lots of war mongers right now, to bad we have few selfless humanitarians who are committed to the cause of humanity rather then the cause of attaining power only for the sake of power. posted by: Matthew (reply) post date: 07.12.06 (10:29 am) Though the right end of the political likes to make the case that there views are informed by moral sentiment, is this really the case I ask you, for don't they have a tendacy to be extremely intolernt to views which are opposed to there own? They claim they have they have a strong devotion to the cause of freedom, yet don't they have a tendacy to interfer in the affairs of other nations, often odopting a position which makes eventual conflict sometimes certain. If there views where so moral, as they claim, then why do they have a tendacy to polarize they world into two opposing sides and tend to villify oter nations which makes a diplomatic solution sometime impossible. They say they are devoted to free speech, but do you believe they respect the right of people to speak about views which are opposed to there own, or do you think they secretly desire to make certain forms of speech illegal, is freedom about being intolerant to the views of others because they conflict with there own. Are they devoted to the cause of right, are noble ideas such as humanitarianism and the right for all to live with respect and dignity, ideas like basic and undeniable human rights for all, are these views which the right hold sacred. Don't listen to their rhetoric for they will say anything and twist the truth sometimes, look at how they choose to conduct themselves, are their motives informed by the common good, or only their own good and self interest? Do they care more to resolve the social evils whcih plague many in society, or have they not done anything by use their conception of morality to justify their militant world ideology which costs a countless many there lives, have they solved any of the social evils which confront our society, or do they seem more committed to a perpetual war instead of furthering the cause of their own people, what will be there final testiment to their beleifs, a better world where the condition of living was raised, or a war which will cost hundreds of thousands their lives? Do they want a better world for all, I don't know for sure, but their tactics to make this better world seems to furthered only by the act of destruction and the ending of human life. Is that an idealogy based upon morality or one where force is used to make others bend to there will, where morality is just a justification for war? It seems they can only make the world a better place with war, yet is it a better world they will deliver us in the end, because you might want to think about how you feel personally about it. We got lots of war mongers right now, to bad we have few selfless humanitarians who are committed to the cause of humanity rather then the cause of attaining power only for the sake of power. posted by: Matthew (reply) post date: 07.12.06 (10:30 am) Though the right end of the political likes to make the case that there views are informed by moral sentiment, is this really the case I ask you, for don't they have a tendacy to be extremely intolernt to views which are opposed to there own? They claim they have they have a strong devotion to the cause of freedom, yet don't they have a tendacy to interfer in the affairs of other nations, often odopting a position which makes eventual conflict sometimes certain. If there views where so moral, as they claim, then why do they have a tendacy to polarize they world into two opposing sides and tend to villify oter nations which makes a diplomatic solution sometime impossible. They say they are devoted to free speech, but do you believe they respect the right of people to speak about views which are opposed to there own, or do you think they secretly desire to make certain forms of speech illegal, is freedom about being intolerant to the views of others because they conflict with there own. Are they devoted to the cause of right, are noble ideas such as humanitarianism and the right for all to live with respect and dignity, ideas like basic and undeniable human rights for all, are these views which the right hold sacred. Don't listen to their rhetoric for they will say anything and twist the truth sometimes, look at how they choose to conduct themselves, are their motives informed by the common good, or only their own good and self interest? Do they care more to resolve the social evils whcih plague many in society, or have they not done anything by use their conception of morality to justify their militant world ideology which costs a countless many there lives, have they solved any of the social evils which confront our society, or do they seem more committed to a perpetual war instead of furthering the cause of their own people, what will be there final testiment to their beleifs, a better world where the condition of living was raised, or a war which will cost hundreds of thousands their lives? Do they want a better world for all, I don't know for sure, but their tactics to make this better world seems to furthered only by the act of destruction and the ending of human life. Is that an idealogy based upon morality or one where force is used to make others bend to there will, where morality is just a justification for war? It seems they can only make the world a better place with war, yet is it a better world they will deliver us in the end, because you might want to think about how you feel personally about it. We got lots of war mongers right now, to bad we have few selfless humanitarians who are committed to the cause of humanity rather then the cause of attaining power only for the sake of power. |