I dislike his conduct during the Vietnam war. I particularly don't care for the fact that he personally selected military targets for his generals. I also don't like how he escalated troop levels constantly, the Gulf of Tonkin lies, and that moron Westmoreland he put in charge of operations.
Actually, when I look at it some more I can see many parallels with the mess we have today. Bush fired Shinseki and puts that idiot Franks in charge, followed by even more idiots like Bremer. Bush also hoodwinks the public by circumventing the UN and manufactures a false case for war on WMD that isn't there. The only thing Bush didn't do is pour more and more troops into Iraq, which he can't do because the active duty forces are too small, and he can't afford to increase them without repealing his taxcuts.
When it comes to war presidents, I'll take Wilson and FDR, thank you. And I'm not a fan of FDR either but at least he was a good war president.
Compassion can mean different things to different people. Compassion for who? Your enemies too? Criminals? If yes, then what does that mean...let them get off easier? Does that mean someone who favors the death penalty is not compassionate?
What about love? Some people think love can exist between any two people, some people think only a man or woman can be "in love". Some people think love between pets and owners is equivelent to love between people. Some people don't believe love doesn't truly exist at all...at least not in the fairy tale ideal sense.
Whenever you deal with feelings, you're inevitable going to encounter deep divisions. Wars have been fought over such things.
Nobody in politics has a better team than Hillary. I think it'll backfire. She'll look extremely strong blowing Pirro out of the water. Since Pirro is a moderate republican, hopefully this will make the GOP think twice about running a moderate nominee in 2008.
But the problem with discussing morality is that virtues like the ones you listed mean different things to different people. It's very subjective is how they're applied according to each person's perspective and value system. Different cultures often see those values in very different ways.
I think the religious right is wrong to try and define morality for everyone. I hope the left doesn't start doing the same.
Not only will Pirro not come within 25 pts, this tactic to make Hillary spend money will backfire. If this turns into the most expensive Senate race in history as some pundits have predicted, this will only further cement Hillary's name in the public eye, give her plenty of MSM attention, and increase her momentum going into the dem primaries after her inevitable rout of Pirro.
I like that but the problem is lazy ass Americans who don't vote would probably still not vote and just use the day to go out drinking. If you gave them a tax credit of say $100 to vote and speak their language (money), then I bet turnout shoots up to 80%. It's a bribe, but for a good cause.