aceventura3

In context, this was war-time rhetoric. The issue of global terrorism impacts the world. People need to make a choice to fight for freedom and peace or fight against it. I understand how others see a middle ground, but I don't and think they are wrong.

It is bellicose. During war that is how leaders speak. I think the disconnect is with some not believing we are at war. How would you communicate to those who want us dead?

Because I think those "a-ggin us" are more motivated than those that are with us.

I am a cynic. People do what is in their best interest, not yours. I am always going to suspect those offering free advice intended for my good.

I am not saying that people in other nations can't voice their opinion, I am just saying their opinion has very little value to me. I understand that it is more important to others, and I wanted to get a better understanding of why it is important to them.
-----Added 4/11/2008 at 12 : 44 : 59-----
If you are saying you don't understand my comment that is one thing, but you never asked for clarification.

The concept behind "spreading wealth", and the concept of many Democratic economic policy positions is based on shrinking the spread between those that have a lot of wealth and those who do not. The war on poverty started in the 60's was intended to move as many people to the middle class as possible. The impact of these policies is to make the normal distribution curve taller in the middle - average. I don't understand how you dispute that intent.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."