: Stuart Gort (from a previous thread):: The words which were used to establish our nation were noble and pure without argument. Is there hypocracy and failure to live up to those words everywhere on this planet? Of course there is! Does that hypocracy attack the credibility of our system. Of course it does! Argue to that failure if you must but allow that there are men who die nobly. Please allow that there are those who see and know what is happening in this world more than you or I and that perhaps, just perhaps they are motivated by their responsibility to oath and honor.
: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
:
: DDN: Actually, I don't see any hypocracy here at all. These words were written by rich white guys FOR rich white guys and have since been carried out to protect the "Safety and Happiness" and "secure the rights" of rich white guys at everyone elses expense. A black man wasn't really a "man" but only 3/4 of a man, a native american was a savage, and if you, as a white male, weren't a wealthy land owner your ability to participate or influence the government discussed above was negligeable if not nonexistent without the use of force. And forget about women - no mention of them at all here. This was the intended design and U.S. government today reflects this design pretty accurately as far as I'm concerned. So, no, I don't find these words to be particularly noble considering the context and, no, there's very little hypocracy here.
DC: Of course you don't. It profits you naught to do so. One doesn't complain about the cannibalism of those on the Congo (an awful habit, and quite distressing to the eatees), nor does one kick up much of a fuss about butchery in places like Chad or the Sudan. It is when the interests of wealth and mighty nations are involved, however, that the "moral watchmen" of this supposedly Mammonic Empire of ours raise their mighty clucking in protest. And why?
Why, profit of course! Would the East Timorese be so important to the Left without the involvement of oil resources in the equation? Would their blindness to the wretchedness of Mr. S. Hussein be related in any way to their unfortunate alignment with him, come the fall of Kuwait? And what of the people of Cambodia? Has the ethical stock value of their lives plummeted, now that the Vietnamese run the ever-victorious army there? Or is this all, yet again, another thinly veiled trick of the Great Satan, born so long ago at the hands of such diabolically brilliant, ruthless palefaces as are honored on our script of worship?
It must be the unbounded love that the Left holds for the wealthy, so eager are they to relieve them selflessly of their ill-gotten loot. Indeed.
None.
