The First of Many

Let me preface this post with an explanation. There is a lot in here that is a little disjointed, and I recognize that, and let me apologize. However, I wanted to preserve it in more or less original format. With all its problems, however, there are an awful lot or good, and, more importantly, well written points.

I have decided that I am going to post my online conversations with people as my blog. Anyone can find a dime a dozen news and political commentary from some armchair quarterback. Very rarely, though, will you get the stunning insights into political philosophy and theory and how it applies to current events as you will on my blog.

At this point, all this is moot, because no-one really reads my blog.

Jake (the liberal) said:

I simply mentioned "the gay thing" to better illustrate my opinion on war. What did you ask that anyone here is supposed to answer? Despite your top-notch credentials, you haven't provided any arguments as to why peace would be a bad thing. People are people regardless of where they're from.

But, yes, whether you realize it or not, you are a hater. You do hate. What I find absurd is your belief that any of your comments should be taken seriously at all when you do indeed discriminate against a minority such as the homosexual community. Not that I could see why homosexuality would matter at all to you (whether it's in the military or otherwise).

Who exactly are you referring to when you say "an a sworn enemy?" Is the basis of combat and conflict to resolve your issues with your personal enemies? I can think of no reason why anyone in any other country should be my enemy. But that must be because I'm "ignorent".

I (eruditely, devestatingly) responded with:

Sorry, I misspelled ignorant, which is pretty ironic if you think about it.

Let us determine terms then. An enemy is someone who wishes to do you harm, and, within the international realm it is a state or non-state actor whose purpose is to subvert or destroy another state or non-state actor. In this case, the target of aggression has a moral and traditional right to defend itself from said attacks.

In the case of terrorists, they have sworn to destroy us and our society, hence "a sworn enemy". This is why other people in other countries should be your enemy: they want to hurt or kill you and/or your nation. While I am not saying that all foreigners are evil, I am trying to convey to you that each country looks after its own interests first, last, and always. If they see that their interest is in harming the U.S., they are your enemy. You don't have to hate them, but you do have to help fight them.

You must fight them because it is your moral duty to your country, and because they threaten your society, way of life, and your own personal well-being. You may say that the loss of all that is worth "peace", but that is a craven's council. It is a slave’s peace to accept your life in return for everything you are. It is also guaranteed to not last. It is a "provocative weakness", in other words, a show of such soft spirit and cowardly deferment, that it makes others want to take advantage of you.

And, no, the basis of conflict is not to "resolve your issues with your personal enemies", though I am not exactly sure what you mean by that, but I assume it's facetious.

You talk about discrimination likes it is a bad thing, when, in order to be a right (as in correct) thinking and ethical individual one must discriminate all the time. Though, now writing this, I think that I can see your problem: you don't discriminate. You can't see the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, natural and unnatural, healthy and unhealthy, and, the most important distinction: enemy and friend. These are the very basis for logic and government. And it is something that you should already know.

Furthermore, while discriminating may help you think and act effectively and intelligently, not discriminating doesn't change the truth or the objective fact of any situation. For instance, not calling a tiger a tiger doesn't make it any less dangerous. Besides, you discriminate every day, you just don't think about it.

Aristotle was prejudiced towards women; does that mean he is an idiot or that he shouldn't be read? I don't concede your point that I am prejudicial, but whether I am or not is completely irrelevant. (Author’s Note: No, I don’t think I am Aristotle)

Homosexuality is unnatural, morally repugnant, socially degrading and indicative of deep-seated emotional problems. Their sub-culture is destructive to virtue and good citizenship, and it promotes complete self-worship, that is, extreme selfish desire. Individual homosexuals may or may not be this way, and I've known some both ways, but that is undeniably the mainstream of the sub-culture. I have written a lot, and I have other things to do.

However before I sign off, I want to assert that these are not the only reasons that I think homosexuality is wrong and unhealthy. If you are burning with a desire to argue about this more, we can.

Alright, everything I have said, someone has taken exception to, but no arguments have been made. The Clinton thing, the U.N. thing, the torture thing- all of this has gone unanswered. These are arguments I have made, does that answer your question?

Look at that! I didn't even get to why peace is not the highest good.

Reid is a Doublegood Ducktalker

Harry Reid has apparently decided that Senate is an appropriate place to attack private citizens, blatantly lie, and, essentially, make a sacred institution a tool to advance a personal agenda. Nothing says "I'm a good public servant" like hiding behind senate protections while besmearching a constituent's reputation.

I am, of course, referring to Harry Reid's recent attack on Rush Limbaugh. Reid says that when Rush Limbaugh referred to "phony soldiers" he was talking about any member of the military who objected the war. Nevermind that Rush had mentioned specific cases detailing citizens impersonating soldiers, and the fact that many of the more famous impersonators were trumpeted by the media as heroes because of their objection to the War on Terror. That is, before they were discovered actually to be honest men and women of our confidence game forces. Anyone who actually listened to the show would know that the charge is ridiculous.

This recent attack is just a way for liberals to strike at someone who disagrees with them, and is persuasive and entertaining enough to get others to agree with them. In fact, listening to Rush speak is a hell of a lot more entertaining and persuasive then listening to Reid, or any other Democrat. (I wonder if they drone so that people won't actually listen to what they are saying.)

This just highlights an increasingly disturbing trend, however. Democratic politicians are becoming increasingly willing to abuse the sacred trust we put in them when they were elected. Your personal vote is immaterial, they have the resonsibility to live up to the office they were entrusted with, from alderman to President of the United States. When politicians behave in this way, it highlights just how deficient they are. However, Democrats seem willing to ignore all custom, tradition, legal and moral boundries, as long as their narrow agenda is put into place. They have even stooped so low as to publically accuse a private citizen of being unpatriotic and morally bankrupt (a hypocrisy so blatant that it would be funny if it weren't so horrifying.) If they can attack one private citizen, then they can do it to any private citizen that disagrees with them.

It just begs the question: Who's next?

"Excessive Growth"

In the current Blackwater hearings (what is it with America, scandals and water?) Kucinich showed a chart of damning evidence. The chart had a shallow line, which spiked at around 2002, and went almost straight up to indicate the firms earnings since then. It looked pretty impressive, but it was just a way to make Prince (the owner of Blackwater) look he had been doing something illegal.

Kucinich proceeded to fake with amazing fervor, if not competance, complete bewilderment with how Blackwater could have possibly gown so much. In the next sentence he then talked about how the government had been farming out billions in securities to Blackwater. Well, which is it? Doesn't that answer the question?

When will the democrats stop picking at the backs of the people that put their lives at the sharp end of the stick to protect Americans, be it private or public? Or, just as important, when are we going to hear something come out of a politician's mouth that isn't doubletalk?