• Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Topic: Disagreement and Hate

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ojai, California
    Posts
    305

    Disagreement and Hate

    sponsored links


    ***Advertisments***
    The Difference Between Disagreement and Hate
    Rejection of Bush is based on policy, not politics
    by Byron Williams
    This may not come as a surprise, but I have received a plethora of e-mails accusing me of hating President Bush.

    First, I hate no one. Second, I don't know President Bush, but he appears to be an affable individual. After all, any person whose favorite baseball player is Willie Mays cannot be all bad.

    However, if hate is a loose euphemism for my profound disagreements with the president's policies the argument may have merit.

    As a disciple of theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, I do believe there are instances where military action may be warranted. I supported, as did many Americans, the president's action in Afghanistan post 9/11.

    It was Niebuhr who greatly answered my moral uncertainty of America's use of force against Afghanistan when he wrote: "Whatever may be the moral ambiguities of the so-called democratic nations, and however serious may their failure to conform perfectly to their democratic ideals, it is sheer moral perversity to equate the inconsistencies of a democratic civilization with the brutalities which modern tyrannical states practice."

    But Iraq was a different matter that took a serious departure from what I believe to be fundamentally American.

    It is no longer debatable whether or not the president was wrong on the central notions for going to war. There were no WMDs.

    There was no link between Saddam and al-Qaida.

    In December 2002, at the height of the conflict in Afghanistan, the administration was already ordering Gen. Tommy Franks to shift resources in preparation for war.

    I cannot think of a greater error in foreign policy rationale in U.S. history. Using flawed reasoning, we invaded and occupied a foreign country.

    It is misleading to opine that the senators who voted for war had the same intelligence as the president. The President of the United States has access to intelligence that is not shared with the Senate. Moreover, the decision to go to war rests solely with the president.

    The case for war was wrong, and the plan to win the peace remains insufficient.

    Furthering my disagreements with this administration is the use of propaganda that morphs nationalism into patriotism. Historically, the "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric has been a favorite of dictators and despots alike.

    Once the war commenced, the president's surrogates told us that we should not question the president and to do so was unpatriotic. Why? Should war be the asterisks we place by freedom of speech?

    To follow that line of thinking is to suggest to Thomas Jefferson that he sit on his hands in deafening silence. It would further suggest that it was Vietnam protestors, and not policies, that prevented Lyndon Johnson from seeking re-election in 1968.

    Meanwhile, we have a president who bears no responsibility.

    During the second debate, citizen Linda Grabel simply asked: "Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it." Sadly, the president could only think of one.

    Supporters of the president like to stress that should he acquiesce and answer such a question, Democrats would use it against him for political purposes. Sure they would, but I believe the American people have a successful history of distinguishing authentic leadership from politics.

    My disagreements with the policies by the current administration are not based on party affiliation. I could not support any president, regardless of party, who was guilty of the infractions that have occurred on this administration's watch.

    It is the opinion of this writer that in order to support the president, one must place being a Republican above being an American.

    Byron Williams writes a weekly political/social commentary at Byronspeaks.com. Byron serves as pastor of the Resurrection Community Church in Oakland, California.

    © 2004 Byron Speaks.Com

  2. #2

    Re: Disagreement and Hate

    "It is the opinion of this writer that in order to support the president, one must place being a Republican above being an American."

    Do the republicans here share that view, and if not, why?

  3. #3

    Re: Disagreement and Hate

    Quotation of the Day:

    "PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER"
    - CNN Scrolling Banner, 15 Oct 2004.


    -JF

    PS: Unison (not Dividison) asks a good question above.

  4. #4

    Re: Disagreement and Hate

    Quote Originally Posted by JonFairhurst
    Quotation of the Day:

    "PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER"
    - CNN Scrolling Banner, 15 Oct 2004.
    ROTFL.

  5. #5

    Re: Disagreement and Hate

    Quote Originally Posted by JonFairhurst
    Quotation of the Day:

    "PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER"
    - CNN Scrolling Banner, 15 Oct 2004.


    -JF

    PS: Unison (not Dividison) asks a good question above.
    Good one!

    Asked and answered!

    Rob

  6. #6

    Re: Disagreement and Hate

    "It is the opinion of this writer that in order to support the president, one must place being a Republican above being an American."

    Do the republicans here share that view, and if not, why?
    Of course they don't! And a few of them have even thought about the neo-con policy (which is far to the right of most Republicans) and decided that the answer to all the problems of the world is military. They think that you can fight terrorism by invading countries, and that the more we fight the safer we're getting. Most of them don't think that far, though - they've just been hyped up into excess fear, and then they don't think at all. Instead they react to Bush's simplistic rehearsed answers.

    It is the opinion of me that if people did even perfunctory research into the neo-con policies, most of them couldn't possibly support Bush. There are certainly exceptions - some transplanted Israeli friends of ours are a very good one - but I can't believe that the majority of people are *that* irrational.

  7. #7

    Re: Disagreement and Hate

    It's OK to hate someone who threatens the future of the human race. It's OK to loathe utter deceit. It's not OK to hate the ignorant. Unless the ignorant person happens to be the president.

  8. #8

    Re: Disagreement and Hate

    Quote Originally Posted by JonFairhurst
    Quotation of the Day:

    "PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER"
    - CNN Scrolling Banner, 15 Oct 2004.


    -JF
    So maybe it's time to rename to "the Divided States of America"

  9. #9

    Re: Disagreement and Hate

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Phoenix
    It's OK to hate someone who threatens the future of the human race. It's OK to loathe utter deceit. It's not OK to hate the ignorant. Unless the ignorant person happens to be the president.
    Would that make it OK to hate about half of the registred voters likely to support the ignorant president? Or could it be sufficient to detest what he stands for?

    Even if Bush is removed from power, there is still a tough battle to heal the wounds of America ahead and clean up the mess from the neocons.

  10. #10

    Re: Disagreement and Hate

    I worry about after the election: if Bush does get re-elected, and particularly if he is elected by the Electoral College and\or the Supreme Court again while losing the popular vote, it will be hard to control the hatred.

    If he does what he seems to want to do--undermines social security and continues to keep a force too small in Iraq to contain the mess he's made, the hatred will only increase, particularly as it becomes more clear that his methods don't work, and Iraq becomes more unstable after a brief period of post-election enforced stability (Have we heard much about this election recently?). He'll pull out and declare victory, and half the population will believe him?

    And if Kerry wins, the Right will look for ways to bring him down. Bush, I think, would be glad to get out of the public eye, and retire, but Roger Ailes and others will worry about losing clout and income with a new head of the FCC, and will try to destroy Kerry.

    I hope Kerry supporters will be able to be gracious and not demean those who supported the losing candidate.

Go Back to forum

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •