Babicma - I don‘t know if either you or Infanteer have a papered education in either of those disciplines; however, I am currently working towards both myself and I concur with his response to your rant.
I may not like Dubya.
I may feel that individual rights have rescinded a tad in the US since 9/11.
I may feel concerned at the idea of any fundamentalist mentality having a bit of power in the White House as I am a strong supporter of a separate church and state.
I may not agree with the reasons provided for invading Iraq yet feel that the removal of Hussein from power is a good thing.
I may feel that due to their ideological differences I have a hard time believing the Al Queda - Iraq connection without hard evidence to support it and would prefer to see pressure applied to Saudi connections as well, etc...
I may be appreciative that Chretien stood by his convictions against invading Iraq due to that same lack of evidence, even though I cannot stand the man and I am glad to see him gone, especially as the CF is approaching crisis due to the Liberals past approaches to the CF‘s situation.
Etc...
You see how this works, each of these points I have discussed in the past, supported by research or opinion both subject to question due to the nature of the forum and rightly so. To feel so strongly about your convictions is admirable, at least you‘re making yourself heard and taking a stand, but you need to be open to rebuttal. Expecting that, you should have some evidence to support your position and then the debates can begin.
Don‘t leave yourself open to attack, and yet if it happens, do not allow emotion and passion to rule your thoughts, for at that point, you‘ll be in a poor position.
Cheers...
PS
It‘s 0500, that made sense when I wrote it, but I think I went on a bit too long to make my point.
