Most likely for the same reason that some conservatives argue that all liberals are on welfare. The political arena today has sunk to the level of a schoolyard p***ing contest. Partisanship has taken over, people are becoming more insular and closed minded all the time. Instead of at least attempting to work together for the betterment of our county, there are those who would rather tear each other down. I cannot understand why, if someone feels so strongly about their chosen beliefs, they are unable to support them without resorting to attacking the so called opposition.
People like the ones you (and I) have mentioned are the reason that I have no affiliation, simply because I choose not to associate with those who refuse to make an intelligent argument to support their position.
2007-07-18 10:56:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by What's The Point 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
Generally, liberals believe in shared sacrifice. There are lots of able-bodied war supporters within the proper age range (18-42). Our military is overextended and the National Guard is overtaxed. Yet these war supporters don't believe in shared sacrifice and don't support the troops. If they did, maybe they'd enlist for the military or National Guard. Or they'd protest the way this administration has treated the troops so shabbily.
No, too many war supporters would rather sit at home and cheerlead from behind their keyboards. In other words, they support the war as long as THEY do not fight the war.
In other words, their aversion to enlisting means they don't really support the war at all.
2007-07-18 17:20:29
·
answer #2
·
answered by feline11105 2
·
3⤊
3⤋
It is all they can say to defend and re-enforce their own lack of responsibility and patriotism.
I got three emails over the last two days asking me this same question. They were all from an able-bodied young man attempting to justify his own refusal to participant while telling me (a 46yo female) that I should be there.
Hey, I tried right after 9/11 and was turned down which is, I'm sure, more than he has done.
Go figure..... (shakes head)
2007-07-18 17:54:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Your comparison makes no sense. If you believe in the war and think it is necessary to kill innocent people to protect us from a terrorist threat then you should step up and fight to defend your country. The war cannot be successful without sufficient forces. If the cause is something I am not willing to fight for then I am not going to ask someone else to fight and possible die in my place. Its a perfectly good argument.
Being pro-choice means I believe in a women's right to choose. It is not necessary for me to work in an abortion clinic in order for women to have this option because there are already plenty of qualified people running them. If there was a shortage of abortion clinic workers and this shortage was threatening a women's right to chose you can bet I would sign up. And I also certainly lobby to keep a women's right to choose. Bottom line...the thing that I believe in isn't going to fail without my help.
And how would my having a gay marriage help the gay marriage cause?
If you support the war effort and believe it is necessary, then the success of what you support is directly effected by you participation or lack thereof. If you believe something is worth fighting for then you should be willing to fight for it. Sending other people to die for a cause you supposedly believe in is sad and wrong.
Your argument makes no sense.
2007-07-18 18:37:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by gjs2113 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
When your entire philosophy is based on lying and obfuscation that is all they can muster.
You do know how to tell when a person from the left is lying, their mouth is moving. It is their culture as outlined by Herbert Marcuse that lying is the best method in confronting those that oppose you.
2007-07-22 15:10:22
·
answer #5
·
answered by Make My Day 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The problem with that line of reasoning is this: someone may support something without necessarily having to *do* what it is they support. That argument is an extreme viewpoint and most extreme viewpoints are irrational.
I am in favor of decriminalizing prostitution and many drugs...but that *doesn't* mean I am going to go partake of a prostitute's services or begin using drugs.
I am against organized religion...but that doesn't mean I will prevent my son from going to church if he wants to (which he does).
2007-07-18 17:28:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by Mathsorcerer 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Let me try to make a comparison for you. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Americans were flooding into recruitment centers. When President Bush attacked Iraq, Americans trickled into recruitment centers. Four years later, recruitment centers aren't meeting quotas. I think the question is very valid. If there is so much support for this conflict how come people aren't flooding in to sign up and fight? People keep saying they support the troops but the troops are being pushed to their limits of endurance with all this so-called support going their way. The way I see it at this point, either put up and join or shut up about how much you support the troops. If people really supported them, they would be demanding they be brought home. This fiasco is doing nothing but sacrificing them for no damn good reason. Our military being in Iraq will not stop terrorism.
2007-07-18 17:29:02
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
4⤋
While I am far from fond of the republican extremists who bash homosexuality and abortion, I must admit that this is one of the places where liberals can get it wrong. I'm not sure why they think its a good argument...probably because either they're stupid, or they think the people they're talking to are stupid. Of course in most cases both the people arguing are stupid, because if they were intelligent they'd more likely be libertarians.
2007-07-18 17:26:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
What I really like is that if I say, yes, I've been to Iraq, my wife is there now, and we both support the war, they just sort of go blank. Apparently once you have been there, you aren't supposed to support it. I have never once gotten a good answer to that.
2007-07-18 17:25:04
·
answer #9
·
answered by joby10095 4
·
6⤊
1⤋
cows cause global warming, so kill all the cows on the earth, quit breathing, don't drive anywhere, you know the really cool liberal state of California, even though there is a fake Republican in charge, has a solution to car pollution in Court, seriously go to NuclearFuels.com they have the solution to the problem there, but NO, can't do that, can't have something that works. Hell NO, that is why I say no one in our government even cares. They are a bunch of fake a---holes!!!!!
2007-07-18 17:24:22
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋