Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zen_tom
I disagree, diversity and a healthy discourse stops a nation from going too far in any one direction. Just as diversity in a population stops it from being completely vulnerable to disease, it also stops us from being vulnerable from errors of policy.
In contrast, I'd argue that those who stand against us are weakened by their one-mindedness, and authoritarian stance. The desparation of their tactics shows us that they are weak.
We are not weak, and showing weakness by employing desparate and degenerate tactics will do our cause more damage than it would ever serve.
We are not losing, bombs have been set off in civillian areas since gunpowder was invented. This technique of warefare has been used by the disaffected and disenfranchised for centuries (I'm thinking of Guy Fawkes here as one example)
Are you suggesting we drop a nuclear weapon? On whom?
And no-one is feasting on anyone - remember our diversity is what makes us stronger. It is the way of nature, and no amount of ideological rubbish is ever going to change that.
|
Discourse, public debate, questioning government and diversity are GREAT for a society and do prevent it from dying.
However, when on the day of attack you have talking heads not showing anger towards the terrorists, not sympathy towards those who died, but instead blaming the other political side for being to weak. We are not having discourse. We are not having diversity we are having a divided house.
You can disagree and argue but the second you begin to turn on each other, and that is what is happening in the USA, then you are divided and easier to take down.
You cannot have one side or both sides of a house so divided that they point fingers toward the other and on days like Thursday, spew hatred not at the parties responsible but at the people in the house they disagree with.
You cannot hate each other in your own house and expect to win a war, it is impossible. There is no civility. If you question Bush's tactics instead of getting answers or having civil discourse and debates, your patriotism is questioned. If you support Bush and question what the Left has to offer, you are considered blind and part of the problem.
I say neither side is wrong in questioning, the responses are wrong in that they turn the diversity against ourselves and the discourse and debates, the civility do not exist.
When civility does not exist in a house, it does not matter how strong the enemy, as they see the weaknesses and prey upon those.
Instead of these talking heads (and the vast majority were Right Winged extremist whack jobs) blaming the opposite political party and those in the house that do not agree with them, they should have shown their anger towards those truly responsible and shown the needed respect and sympathies towards the losses.
But they took the cheap road, blamed the opposing side and not those responsible. They chose to divide the house further and air the differences and hatreds in full view of the enemy.
Not once did I hear Limbaugh say we needed to get Osama. Instead for 3 hours he rambled about how the left, France, Germany, Spain and even the UK were responsible for the attack because they were weak.
To me, Thursday, Limbaugh and the rest of his talking heads gave comfort and aid to the terrorists by dividing us even more, on a day where we should have been united.