Question For Republicans

[Mephisto]

What are your views on environmental preservation and foreign invasion and involvement?

[hismajesty]

I don't think anybody is completely opposed to helping the enviroment, that's why Bush passed legislation helping the air and skies.

Foreign invasion/involvement is more or less a responsibility of the US. It's not like the United Nations is going to remove the dictators that they're getting money from, so somebody has to do it. (Like Saddam)

[Skywing]

So you think it's our responsibility to invade other countries?  Interesting viewpoint.

[hismajesty]

involvement results in invasion if diplomacy doesn't work, which it didn't in Iraq for example.

[Skywing]

involvement results in invasion if diplomacy doesn't work, which it didn't in Iraq for example.

So what do you think gives us the authority to do this, since the UN clearly doesn't?

[hismajesty]

We've been a world power for a long time, and as such have helped to liberate oppressed people. The United Nations is corrupt (perhaps you should read the book 'Inside the Asylum,' it's rather good) and it's officials have been paid off by foreign dictators. If the rest of the world won't act, it's up to us to get involved or suffer foreign casualties. Peace can't be acheived without force, it's been proven throughout history.

[Skywing]

We've been a world power for a long time

Just because we've been a world power doesn't give us the right to invade other people.  That's called being a bully (at best).

, and as such have helped to liberate oppressed people. The United Nations is corrupt (perhaps you should read the book 'Inside the Asylum,' it's rather good) and it's officials have been paid off by foreign dictators.

Provide hard evidence of something if you are going to make such claims, please (this means independently verifiable facts and not opinions) -- and in a readily accessible form.

If the rest of the world won't act, it's up to us to get involved or suffer foreign casualties. Peace can't be acheived without force, it's been proven throughout history.

You still haven't answered the original question -- why it's up to us?

[Hazard]

Its up to us because, unlike some who are totally concerned with self-preservation and are selfish bastards, we have the ability to do so. Its a moral obligation at the very least to help the oppressed.

[Adron]

Its up to us because, unlike some who are totally concerned with self-preservation and are selfish bastards, we have the ability to do so. Its a moral obligation at the very least to help the oppressed.

Ah. You'll be helping the palestinians oppressed by Israeli next?

[hismajesty]

No.

[Hazard]

Its up to us because, unlike some who are totally concerned with self-preservation and are selfish bastards, we have the ability to do so. Its a moral obligation at the very least to help the oppressed.

Ah. You'll be helping the palestinians oppressed by Israeli next?

The Palestinian "oppression" by the Isrealis is subject to debate. For one, the "Palestinian Liberation Organization" or whatever its called is little better than al Qaeda, they're just terrorists. If the Israelis cross the line, I have no doubt that the US will move to stop it.

[Mephisto]

I don't think anybody is completely opposed to helping the enviroment, that's why Bush passed legislation helping the air and skies.

Foreign invasion/involvement is more or less a responsibility of the US. It's not like the United Nations is going to remove the dictators that they're getting money from, so somebody has to do it. (Like Saddam)

Apparantly after 9-11 there was a lot of legislation passed that was harming the environment that the media never got a hold of people because they were all preoccupied with 9-11.  Also, I read in an article stating that the earth has about another 100 years remaining before it "dies" due to pollution, expansion, extinction, etc.  And with the republican majorities in congress and the new supreme court judge appointments, it'll be largely up to the republicans in theory to fix this.  I'm sure that'll go well. 

[hismajesty]

I don't see what future supreme court judges have to do with anything. Republicans have a 5-4 majority right now, and sure some judges are going to retire and Bush will appoint more. But he's vowed to not give a litmus test so it doesn't matter.

[Mephisto]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment; but if the the majority of the supreme court is conservative (which it will definitely be once Bush is through appointing), all issues that arise will lean towards a conservative point of view rather than a liberal, and that's not good if your opinions are opposed to conservative ideas.

[Hazard]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment; but if the the majority of the supreme court is conservative (which it will definitely be once Bush is through appointing), all issues that arise will lean towards a conservative point of view rather than a liberal, and that's not good if your opinions are opposed to conservative ideas.

Thats so stupid. Supreme Court justices rarely vote based on their own views. They do as they are sworn to do, which is to interpret the Constitution and the law to the best of their ability. Would it be better to have the court packed with liberals as opposed to conservatives? It wouldn't really matter if they did their job.