Selective morality is always difficult to defend. You
raise serious problems that do exists, but also slander
ALL people who differ with you at the same time, by
implicating Reagen supported 'slaughter', only certain
Democrats are aware of homeless people, or use blanket
generalities that are contrary to facts and at the same
time use those generalities to support your view that
other approaches to social problems are evil.
Some things work, some things don't ( duh!), but often
the Democratic response to solutions is 'feel good' or
'feel guilty'. If one see's a way of life is killing it's
own people for 20, 30, 100 years where millions are slaughtered
at the hand of an unjust political or social system, it is
all too frequent for some to judge as murders those who
force change at the cost of thousands. I.E. I heard one
Rabbi recently expouse doubt force was necessary against
Hitler. Now that I admit is fringe, but since he was a Democratic
supporter, I don't hear any outrage.
Vietnam was a mess...but have you ever heard the tally of deaths
in Cambodia and Laos AFTER we pulled out. We treat these country's
tyrants like puppies that can't think and are just misguided.
Again no outrage.
Somalia has millions dying every year...do they need more food?
No they need political stability and a change in the basic
freedoms of the society. The food can't get to them.
There are HARD choices, not all are solved by nice neat packages
of food, slick slogans, and smiling helping hands. There are
some real nasty governments out there, and they are not all
Republican and Democratic houses of wisdom with access to the
internet.
Lighten up...it won't all get solved this week...next week maybe :-) |
