Marc Emery

[Nuc]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x732283


Nuc is cali

Yeah maybe I am.

Or maybe I'm not the only person in this country who understands English and doesn't think it's the governments job to mangle it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yeah maybe I am.

Or maybe I'm not the only person in this country who understands English and doesn't think it's the governments job to mangle it.

The point is your word games are not actual policy criticisms.

 

[Nuc]

The point is your word games are not actual policy criticisms.

My policy criticism is very clear. The government should not declare "wars" (that are not wars) against things that cannot be defeated, for example drug use.

Regarding terrorism I have a problem with the "War on Terror" because the term is too broad. Declare war on Al Qaeda. Declare war on a country like Iraq. Those are definable enemies. "Terror" is not.

Think about if the US PR machine declared "War on Facism" rather than simply declaring actual war against Germany and Italy. That's a "war" which would have never been won, because facism still exists. I guess that's the point. They like declaring "wars" that will never end and can't be won.

My question to you is "why"?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

My policy criticism is very clear. The government should not declare "wars" (that are not wars) against things that cannot be defeated, for example drug use.

Regarding terrorism I have a problem with the "War on Terror" because the term is too broad. Declare war on Al Qaeda. Declare war on a country like Iraq. Those are definable enemies. "Terror" is not.

Think about if the US PR machine declared "War on Facism" rather than simply declaring actual war against Germany and Italy. That's a "war" which would have never been won, because facism still exists. I guess that's the point. They like declaring "wars" that will never end and can't be won.

My question to you is "why"?

But if they didn't refer to them as "wars", what would your criticism be?. We shouldn't address islamofascist terror? We should legalize crack and meth?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You're into "final solutions", like Hitler.

 

[Nuc]

But if they didn't refer to them as "wars", what would your criticism be?. We shouldn't address islamofascist terror? We should legalize crack and meth?

The so called "War on Drugs" is actually "War on the drug users we would like to lock up". It's very selectively enforced mainly against dumb hippies and blacks. It is not a serious war against drug use. Plus as I mentioned in a previous post, it is hypocrisy when drug companies can ante up and buy propaganda time on Monday Night Football to convince you to go to the doc and pick up your free trial prescription of Ambien. Gimme a break!

If they want to declare "War on Islam" I would almost be behind that because it's more honest and that is what it will eventually come down to anyway. Let's stop beating around the bush, Bush. "Religion of Peace" my ass.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The so called "War on Drugs" is actually "War on the drug users we would like to lock up". It's very selectively enforced mainly against dumb hippies and blacks. It is not a serious war against drug use. Plus as I mentioned in a previous post, it is hypocrisy when drug companies can ante up and buy propaganda time on Monday Night Football to convince you to go to the doc and pick up your free trial prescription of Ambien. Gimme a break!

If they want to declare "War on Islam" I would almost be behind that because it's more honest and that is what it will eventually come down to anyway. Let's stop beating around the bush, Bush. "Religion of Peace" my ass.

Let's just call them both Felix and be done with it.

 

[5stringJeff]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x732283


Nuc is cali

Check out the DU nutjob's equivocation between us and them:

The Boston Tea Party was, in it's day, a terrorist act.