You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #46: There is a difference [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
RandomUser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #21
46. There is a difference
between saying,

hmm...he's been in the military, this might be something that needs to be examined, and possible cause for concern. I need to know his stances on PNAC, MIC, etc.

and saying,

no one who has ever been in the military should be president. They are all fanatical republican automatons. How can they be in such a restrictive authoritarian culture and still be able to think for themselves? Only idiots join the military. They are killers. Only someone who has no morals would ever join the military. No one who has ever been involved in the military is a respectable person unless he gets out and denounces it and repents and swears to abolish it because we shouldn't have soldiers. If he won't swear to dissolve the military, and leave us defenseless, he's not human.

Admittedly hyperbole, but too much so, and I hope my point is clear. There are many good people in the military. They serve out of a sense of patriotism, pride in their country, desire to serve their fellow countryman, to make the world a better place. Many have sacrificed their lives, and we democrats should not treat our veterans and soldiers as republican doormats. Does that mean we shouldn't examine someone just because they were in the military? Of course not. I've been very pleased with what I've seen regarding Clark's stances on PNAC and MIC.

Others won't even bother, because their minds are made up. And they want to make up the minds of other people for them. If they support clark, they must be assailed until they repent and see Clark for the great satan that he is. Obviously, no one can hold a different opinion about Clark, unless it's the opinion the (small group of ten, you'll know who they are if you hangout here) Anti-clarkers have.

I think people have a right to not choose Clark or to withhold judgment until they know more, and I would not label them as rabid anti-clarkers. But this is something different. There are indeed a handful of ten rabid anticlarkers (a observation by a dean-supporter I respect, no less).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC