http://poligazette.com/2008/04/22/40-year-old-virgins/ Politics and world events from a moderately liberal and conservative perspective Fri, 22 Aug 2008 03:26:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 http://poligazette.com/2008/04/22/40-year-old-virgins/#comment-43664 Jay_C Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:42:58 +0000 http://poligazette.com/2008/04/22/40-year-old-virgins/#comment-43664 In a sense I agree.  At first glance to make the many disparate  anti-war "groups" more effective, you would think that centralizing of their efforts would be the best method of gaining  a relevant voice. However, I think the rub with that  idea is that there are so many different points of view. For instance some violently oppose the war, while others peacefully oppose, some are stuck in the past, while others make logical, thought out arguments  based on the facts of where we are today, while still others take the "I told you the war was a bad idea in the first place" stance.  There are others that feel that we should have gone to war in the first place, but the minute there was no WMD found, we should have left then and there.   And still there are others…Like the Iraq war veterans group IVAW that  I think you can  look at these groups as under the umbrella of "anti-war" but most reasonable people will see that they are separate groups, should be treated as such and judged accordingly.  There are factions within the under the anti war umbrella that make rational reasonable arguements agains the war, but I think it is reasonable to assume that they do not speak for others that they don't associate with.  (Much like how a tv station will air a late night  info-mercial with the discalimer that they do not endorse the product that bought airtime off the station.  If they didn't pu the disclaimer there, I think I could have figured that out for myself) In a sense I agree.  At first glance to make the many disparate  anti-war "groups" more effective, you would think that centralizing of their efforts would be the best method of gaining  a relevant voice. However, I think the rub with that  idea is that there are so many different points of view. For instance some violently oppose the war, while others peacefully oppose, some are stuck in the past, while others make logical, thought out arguments  based on the facts of where we are today, while still others take the "I told you the war was a bad idea in the first place" stance.  There are others that feel that we should have gone to war in the first place, but the minute there was no WMD found, we should have left then and there.   And still there are others…Like the Iraq war veterans group IVAW that  I think you can  look at these groups as under the umbrella of "anti-war" but most reasonable people will see that they are separate groups, should be treated as such and judged accordingly.  There are factions within the under the anti war umbrella that make rational reasonable arguements agains the war, but I think it is reasonable to assume that they do not speak for others that they don’t associate with.  (Much like how a tv station will air a late night  info-mercial with the discalimer that they do not endorse the product that bought airtime off the station.  If they didn’t pu the disclaimer there, I think I could have figured that out for myself)

]]> http://poligazette.com/2008/04/22/40-year-old-virgins/#comment-43291 Michael van der Galien Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:27:15 +0000 http://poligazette.com/2008/04/22/40-year-old-virgins/#comment-43291 Interesting to see how those extremists consider themselves better than the rest. Interesting to see how those extremists consider themselves better than the rest.

]]>