[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by dgs212:
<STRONG>

I've got one word for y'all: Nader. Now before you let your personal feelings on Nader get in the way (and I know a lot of you hate his damn guts), just listen calmly and carefully. Nader is a politician. He's not very good at it though. I'll be the first to admit that he has very little charisma. What his in spades, though, and what bush and gore are devoid of, is integrity. You'd never catch nader lying to get voter support.Christ, nader spent the last 30 years making sure your car had seatbelts, pointing out the flaws of a corporate controlled government, etc. How can you no respect a man who gives of himself so thoroughly. Now here's the part where you say: I can not respect him because he stole the election from Gore. Or you say, a man with integrity would have stepped down when he knew his presence could sway the election one way or the other. Go ahead and say those things. On some level you're right. But on another level, Nader's performance in the last election can be viewed as entirely virtuous. Al Gore did not deserve to win. Neither did Bush. Neither did Nader. And perhaps Nader's presence cost Gore votes, ensuring a Bush victory. From Nader's perspective (and from the perspective of several hundred thousand americans) whether bush won or gore won made little difference. What was important was to make a stand. If you are happy with a two party system divided over one issue (abortion), then I guess you have nothing to complain about. But a lot of us are sick and tired of bought-and-paid politicians who lie to our faces. Not every politician lies, cheats, and steals, and you needn't tolerate those who do.

*waves american flag*</STRONG>

Ha ha ha ha ha... Nader. He is an activist not a politician. Is he completely without any merit, well no. But is he qualified to run for any sort of upper level office... NO. The majority of individual who voted for this guy are what I call Abercr-unchers: those 18-22 year old college kids who grew up in the burbs in upper middle class white families and went away to some liberal arts college to become wannabe hippies. They are dreamers and blind to the way the world works. Very few people with mortgages and real world responsibilities voted for him. You had about as good a chance as he did in being elected.
Now back to Nader, he didn't know until the last 4 months that his presence in the election would tilt the vote the way it might have. But by that time he was in the race and there was no backing out. He also isn't quite as altruistic as you like to think. He may not be as cut throat as other lobbyists but he has his own personal agenda and is also suffering from a little bit of martyr syndrome. Either way the man is a quack.
By the way have you seen the stats on this guys personal wealth? He didn't make that cash hugging trees or investing in Dot Coms.

[TNproud2b]

Something conservatives and liberals can both agree on: Nader sucks

[TomCondon]

Gee, George Bush is a liar... How do I know that? I read it in

a.) The Nation
b.) The Utne Reader
c.) Some other leftist trash.

I really love the way people can accuse someone of something without ANY proof.

The people commenting negatively about GWB should at least try to be a little original.

[Pikeman]

Bush smells funny. I think he has oil down his pants.

[daimoni]

.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by TomCondon:
<STRONG>Gee, George Bush is a liar... How do I know that? I read it in

a.) The Nation
b.) The Utne Reader
c.) Some other leftist trash.

I really love the way people can accuse someone of something without ANY proof.

The people commenting negatively about GWB should at least try to be a little original.</STRONG>

Uh, so you're saying that Bush wasn't lying when he said in a nationally televised debate, with a straight face, that he was an environmentalist and supported a patient's bill of rights? I didn't need to read about that in the leftist press - he said it right on camera.

What more proof do you need? How about the drunk driving arrest that he pretended never happened - I didn't hear about that in the leftist press.

Anyone who thinks that "their guy" doesn't lie is kidding themselves.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by TomCondon:
<STRONG>Gee, George Bush is a liar... How do I know that? I read it in

a.) The Nation
b.) The Utne Reader
c.) Some other leftist trash.

I really love the way people can accuse someone of something without ANY proof.

The people commenting negatively about GWB should at least try to be a little original.</STRONG>

Please see my earlier note about proving one's opinion.

[driven]

Originally posted by daimoni:
<STRONG>

Nader can't be bought. Kinda takes the wind out of your sails, huh? And that makes you very uncomfortable.

I don't want a CEO as a president. I hate Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. and the rest of his shadow government goons. **** 'em all.

I want integrity, honesty, intelligence and compassion in a president. Hell, even a sense of humor in a president. And we're not getting it now. Just my opinion.</STRONG>

Of course you had all that in Jimmy Carter.

[driven]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>

Please see my earlier note about proving one's opinion.</STRONG>

Providing ones opinion and outright calling someone a liar or a thief are two entirely different things.

You say "He is a liar" (which would require some proof) or "I feel like he is a liar" (which does not.)

[yoyo52]

Originally posted by driven:
<STRONG>

How cynical.

If he were a democrat I'm sure he would have gotten in on his own merits, eh?</STRONG>

Love it when people putwords in my mouth. It's so romantic.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by driven:
<STRONG>

Of course you had all that in Jimmy Carter.</STRONG>

I voted for Jimmy Carter twice. I was indeed happy with that decision.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by driven:
<STRONG>

Providing ones opinion and outright calling someone a liar or a thief are two entirely different things.

You say "He is a liar" (which would require some proof) or "I feel like he is a liar" (which does not.)</STRONG>

I don't believe I called him a liar or a thief in this thread.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by daimoni:
<STRONG>

I have a mortgage, a wife and two kids that I support on one salary (mine)... and more real world responsibilities than you'll ever know.
</STRONG>

Pffff, want to see my balance sheet for my school loans after I am done with law school? Its about the size of a mortgage and I won't have a house to show for it.
Anyway, I said most people who voted for him. The rest are environmentalists :cough, cough, huggers: or other like minded people who prob belong to some kind of co-op thingy or shop at Whole Foods. Go ahead and vote Green though, I mean if we were in a country with a proportional representation system it would be a wise thing to do... IF.

[driven]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>

I don't believe I called him a liar or a thief in this thread.</STRONG>

I didn't say that you did.
I was pointing out for those who did.

You just gave me the segue.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by theolein:
<STRONG>1. If somebody should want to drop a atom bomb on DC, NY or even Sioux Falls, would it not be worth asking oneself why they would want to do that?</STRONG>

Not in the least. There are absolutely no valid reasons for terrorism. Only cheap excuses, to be discarded when they no longer make any kind of sense. Anyone who wants to drop a nuke on anyone invalidates whatever reasoning they claim to have behind it.

2. Isn't the whole shadow government thing perhaps more of a propaganda tool to ward off possible future attacks because they would then be useless?

I don't know about that. For one, they'd hardly be useless

3. Since the US spends more on it's military than the next five largest military nations combined, what do you have to fear?

The military can be bypassed fairly easily. Just pop a small nuke into a suitcase and head to a city; the hardest part would be getting the nuke.

That is no excuse for wrecking the Fourth Amendment, mind you.

4. What would the american media say if they found one of GW's daughters practising a bit of non sexual abstinence?

I'm not sure I understand the "non-sexual abstinence" bit. I'm going to assume you mean abstinence from alcohol, as this has gotten them into trouble in the past. I doubt the media would do much of anything in such a case; it would be too boring to sell anything with.

5. Why did GW not do well in the Gallup poll taken throughout the moslem world?

Because OBL's got them believing that this is actually an attack on Islam. If I thought someone were going to kill me because of my religious beliefs, I'd be pretty darned upset too.

6. What does the phrase "Southern Comfort" mean to GW?

An old mistake which he regrets. Also, something that, according to all evidence, he hasn't so much as touched in years.

7. Would GW be able to find his way around the metro in suburban Paris?

I don't claim to know. Although last I checked, the Metro didn't reach into suburban Paris; it stayed in the city proper. I could be wrong about that, of course.

8. Does GW post in internet forums when drunk and apoligise for it the next day?

I doubt it, considering that a) he doesn't drink anymore and b) he doesn't use the Internet anymore (that last bit being rather boneheaded of him if you ask me).

[TomCondon]

George Bush claims to be for protecting the environment and to be for a patients bill of rights. He does not claim to be for protecting the environment the "Greenpeace" way. He lies about this only if he does not meet your definition of being an environmentalist.

The same goes for the Patient's Bill of Rights. Seeing that there are competing versions of this bill, I guess he lies if he is not for your favored version.

That's the way it is with modern left-liberals. If you agree with them, you are enlightened and sophisticated. If you do not agree with them, you are extreme, right wing, environment-hating, gay-bashing, woman oppressing, racist, ignorant, stupid, simplistic.... I could go on and on....

You leftlibs are sooo tolerant!

[TNproud2b]

Liberals think people are inherently bad when left unattended.


Conservatives think people are inherently good when left unattended.

[TomCondon]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>Liberals think people are inherently bad when left unattended.</STRONG>

I agree!

Conservatives think people are inherently good when left unattended.[/qb]

Most people, not all people. That is why we tend to support the police and the military.

[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: TomCondon ]

[cognoscenti]

Well, not that there's a whole lot more to add in this conversation, but I'll put in my bit�

Bush, to me, feels like simply the bastard child of the government a select few people wanted to create in the 80's and are just now trying to finish up. It's incredible when you see how much of a "repeat" government this is�and I didn't even live through much of the 80's. Rumsfeld is the worst example of this�he seems as though he's trying to prove he can fight and win a war which he was not able to do when he had the exact same position before. Cheney is also a has-been, a relic more than twice Bush's age. It's like a bunch of old guys hiring some enthusiastic young kid to make their policies seem cool. Those who think Bush is a nice guy or an enthusiastic leader need to understand that he is simply a pretty fa�ade on a bunch of outmoded, old-world thinkers. He himself is no more than a figurehead.

And, before you conservatives start whining about how liberals are all the same and they all say the same things and whatnot, I come from a family that is evenly divided Democrat-Republican and I'm not even old enough to subscribe to any political party. I didn't even know what the terms "left-wing" or "right-wing" meant for a long time�my views are simply that and reflect no leanings towards a framed way of thinking.

[andi*pandi]

I didn't vote for the man. He seemed stupid, ill-informed about international issues, clumsy at public events. His history of running companies didn't bode well for him either.

After Sept 11, I felt he said the right things, had some good speeches made, and comforted the country reasonably well. I lay the credit for that at his advisors' feet, and perhaps some of his own charisma.

However, since Sept 11, I think he's let his advisors go a little nuts. Security, homeland security, is getting nuts. The current situation reminds me of the way my husband describes the communist regime he grew up under. Can't criticize the govt, can't move freely about the country, talk of nat'l id cards... it's getting scary. I think the airline security is nuts. I'm not going to hijack a plane with a lapel pin... cripes.

And then there's enron. There's reasonable proof that Bush and his administration knew what was up with Enron, I think it's disgusting how many cabinet members have enron connections, and that ken lay interviewed the energy cabinet. (that michael moore page was enlightening, thanks)

What's most shocking about Enron is how it's all getting swept away... no one is paying attention to the Bush connections, it reminds me of the reagan Bank scandals and such that went nowhere, whereas Clinton got nailed (no pun) for something that shouldn't have effected the taxpayer. Whatever they threw at Clinton stuck, and whatever they threw at Reagan, Bush Sr, and now Bush Jr, they are teflon...

[daimoni]

.

[G Barnett]

Originally posted by driven:
<STRONG>

Of course you had all that in Jimmy Carter.</STRONG>

Hey! Jimmy Carter is the best ex-president we've ever had. Ok, so he was pretty much ineffective in office, but after that he's absolutely kicked much ass.


G Barnett

[G Barnett]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>Liberals think people are inherently bad when left unattended.


Conservatives think people are inherently good when left unattended.</STRONG>

Hmm, I think that people are inherently entertaining when left unattended. Where does that place me on the political spectrum?




G Barnett

[theolein]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
<STRONG>I didn't vote for the man. He seemed stupid, ill-informed about international issues, clumsy at public events. His history of running companies didn't bode well for him either.

After Sept 11, I felt he said the right things, had some good speeches made, and comforted the country reasonably well. I lay the credit for that at his advisors' feet, and perhaps some of his own charisma.

However, since Sept 11, I think he's let his advisors go a little nuts. Security, homeland security, is getting nuts. The current situation reminds me of the way my husband describes the communist regime he grew up under. Can't criticize the govt, can't move freely about the country, talk of nat'l id cards... it's getting scary. I think the airline security is nuts. I'm not going to hijack a plane with a lapel pin... cripes.

And then there's enron. There's reasonable proof that Bush and his administration knew what was up with Enron, I think it's disgusting how many cabinet members have enron connections, and that ken lay interviewed the energy cabinet. (that michael moore page was enlightening, thanks)

What's most shocking about Enron is how it's all getting swept away... no one is paying attention to the Bush connections, it reminds me of the reagan Bank scandals and such that went nowhere, whereas Clinton got nailed (no pun) for something that shouldn't have effected the taxpayer. Whatever they threw at Clinton stuck, and whatever they threw at Reagan, Bush Sr, and now Bush Jr, they are teflon...</STRONG>

I dunno about communist countries Andi, but it sure as hell reminds me of the bunch of Nazi, racist pigs that ran the country that I grew up in. It reminds me of people like thatcher and reagan supporting dictatorships in countries like mine and providing assistance in illegal bioweapons programmes to eradicate the black majority there.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by driven:
<STRONG>

Name calling. Sweet.

"Anyone who does not agree with me is a dumbass!"</STRONG>

You're mistaking me with Ca$h.

I said those things because you can't call an entire nation "evil" based on the actions of a few.

[theolein]

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by theolein:
1. If somebody should want to drop a atom bomb on DC, NY or even Sioux Falls, would it not be worth asking oneself why they would want to do that?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not in the least. There are absolutely no valid reasons for terrorism. Only cheap excuses, to be discarded when they no longer make any kind of sense. Anyone who wants to drop a nuke on anyone invalidates whatever reasoning they claim to have behind it.

unquote:Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Isn't the whole shadow government thing perhaps more of a propaganda tool to ward off possible future attacks because they would then be useless?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know about that. For one, they'd hardly be useless

unquote:I meant the attacks being able to knock out your government.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Since the US spends more on it's military than the next five largest military nations combined, what do you have to fear?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The military can be bypassed fairly easily. Just pop a small nuke into a suitcase and head to a city; the hardest part would be getting the nuke.

That is no excuse for wrecking the Fourth Amendment, mind you.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. What would the american media say if they found one of GW's daughters practising a bit of non sexual abstinence?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure I understand the "non-sexual abstinence" bit. I'm going to assume you mean abstinence from alcohol, as this has gotten them into trouble in the past. I doubt the media would do much of anything in such a case; it would be too boring to sell anything with.

unquote: No, I meant having sex.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Why did GW not do well in the Gallup poll taken throughout the moslem world?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because OBL's got them believing that this is actually an attack on Islam. If I thought someone were going to kill me because of my religious beliefs, I'd be pretty darned upset too.

unquote:Amazing how all those muslims need someone else to make up their minds for them isn't it?&lt;/sarcasm&gt;
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. What does the phrase "Southern Comfort" mean to GW?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
An old mistake which he regrets. Also, something that, according to all evidence, he hasn't so much as touched in years.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Would GW be able to find his way around the metro in suburban Paris?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't claim to know. Although last I checked, the Metro didn't reach into suburban Paris; it stayed in the city proper. I could be wrong about that, of course.

unquote:Talk about missing the point.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Does GW post in internet forums when drunk and apoligise for it the next day?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt it, considering that a) he doesn't drink anymore and b) he doesn't use the Internet anymore (that last bit being rather boneheaded of him if you ask me).

unquote: Maybe they made him pay his own online bills.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by TomCondon:
<STRONG>George Bush claims to be for protecting the environment and to be for a patients bill of rights. He does not claim to be for protecting the environment the "Greenpeace" way. He lies about this only if he does not meet your definition of being an environmentalist.</STRONG>

I notice that you cleverly qualified your statement by using the phrase "claims to be", which only proves my point. A politician can "claim to be" anything he wants, but that doesn't make it so. I don't have to be a member of Greenpeace, or even a "leftlib", as you call it, to know that Bush is not an "environmentalist" by any commonly accepted meaning of the term. That you would believe it only demonstrates that you can't see past your particular political allegiance.

I suppose if you defined the term broadly enough, I could claim to be a "musician", even if I had never done anything more than play the flute-o-phone in a 4th grade production of The Wizard of Oz. Or, I could say that by my definiton of the term, a blow job is not "sex." Sounds good - notify Kenneth Starr.

Similarly, the idea that Bush "supported" a patient's bill of rights in Texas is laughable. He fought it all the way, and not because he wanted an "alternative" bill.

You didn't address the drunk driving thing. I guess you're conceding that he lied about it.

But we're straying from my original point. My point is not that Bush is right or wrong about any one of these particular issues (I don't particularly care about his youthful indiscretions, for one thing), but that Bush is no different than any other politician when it comes to "lying." Are you saying that Bush has never lied about or even misrepresented anything?

<STRONG>That's the way it is with modern left-liberals. If you agree with them, you are enlightened and sophisticated. If you do not agree with them, you are extreme, right wing, environment-hating, gay-bashing, woman oppressing, racist, ignorant, stupid, simplistic.... I could go on and on....</STRONG>

That's the way it is with modern right-conservatives. If you agree with them, you are enlightened and sophisticated. If you do not agree with them, you are extreme, left wing, tree-hugging, anti-family, bra-burning, multi-culturalist, ignorant, stupid, simplistic . . . I could go on and on . . .

[goatnet]

I LOVE having him as a president. But let me elaborate:

I'm military. Unfortunately, the majority of society has no comprehension of what "respecting our colors" and "freedom" really mean. To most, this is just some political war to further GW's might. I enlisted during the very end of Desert Storm (that wasn't hard, it was over in like, what, 2 weeks? Roll over! Good boy!). I wish I could explain what my feelings were like on Sept 11th. I'm trying to stay very level-heading, articulate, and emotion-free during this post. But to see people here state "I hate GW and everything he stands for in this country" then here's a tip: go. Leave. It's not hard. There are many, many wonderful places to live in. You won't be missed.

No money for moving expenses? I can set up a nice Pay Pal account that I'm sure freedom loving Americans will be more than happy to donate to. Isn't democracy great?

I will feel no sorrow seeing you leave, because guess what? Everything you stand for and believe in, I'm ready to defend until I keel over and die. Me, stupid as it is, am willing to die so you can sit there and criticize everything we've become. You laugh at the prediciment I'm in, but, that's your right and I will defend it to the death.

This is what I have chosen. I do it freely, without regret. You are welcome.

[TNproud2b]

Thank you.

My Paypal account stands ready to purchase some one-way tickets for some anti-American Americans.

I'm not wealthy, so it'll have to be Mexico via Greyhound.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by goatnet:
<STRONG>I LOVE having him as a president. But let me elaborate:

I'm military. Unfortunately, the majority of society has no comprehension of what "respecting our colors" and "freedom" really mean. To most, this is just some political war to further GW's might. I enlisted during the very end of Desert Storm (that wasn't hard, it was over in like, what, 2 weeks? Roll over! Good boy!). I wish I could explain what my feelings were like on Sept 11th. I'm trying to stay very level-heading, articulate, and emotion-free during this post. But to see people here state "I hate GW and everything he stands for in this country" then here's a tip: go. Leave. It's not hard. There are many, many wonderful places to live in. You won't be missed.

No money for moving expenses? I can set up a nice Pay Pal account that I'm sure freedom loving Americans will be more than happy to donate to. Isn't democracy great?

I will feel no sorrow seeing you leave, because guess what? Everything you stand for and believe in, I'm ready to defend until I keel over and die. Me, stupid as it is, am willing to die so you can sit there and criticize everything we've become. You laugh at the prediciment I'm in, but, that's your right and I will defend it to the death.

This is what I have chosen. I do it freely, without regret. You are welcome.</STRONG>

thus proving my earlier point that in a time of crisis, to criticize the president (no matter which president) is considered traitorous and anti-american, regardless of whether a person is just stating their opinion, which is kinda free speech (not exactly but kinda).
The man is the same as he was before 9.11, its just easier now to feel its ok to defend him and physically threaten to deport anyone who doesnt "toe the line".

Complete submission and non-thinking does not make america great.

[TNproud2b]

You're free to say anything you want about Dubya - just like before 9-11.

We still can't make you leave.

Just don't act surprised when your anti-American feelings are frowned upon by Americans.

[daimoni]

.

[cognoscenti]

The problem with fervent patriotism is that it blacks out opinion and pigeonholes people into one of two drastic extremes. The reason Osama bin Laden was powerful was because he has minions of people who felt very passionately about him and their country (or religion) and would fight to the death for him.

Such rabid allegiance is in a way heartwarming, but only in the low-level way that a dog defending its master is.

I personally prefer thinking for myself.

But that's me.

[driven]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
[QB]


thus proving my earlier point that in a time of crisis, to criticize the president (no matter which president) is considered traitorous and anti-american, regardless of whether a person is just stating their opinion, which is kinda free speech (not exactly but kinda).
The man is the same as he was before 9.11, its just easier now to feel its ok to defend him and physically threaten to deport anyone who doesnt "toe the line".

[QB]

He is not the same now as he was before 9/11. None of us are.

[zigzag]

goatnet, I'm sure that most of us respect your decision to serve and possibly sacrifice yourself on behalf of others - at least I do. But it's contradictory to say "I would die for your right to criticize, so stop criticizing." It sorta defeats the purpose. If we didn't have people with the courage and freedom to go against the grain, even at the risk of being wrong, there would be nothing special worth fighting for.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>You're free to say anything you want about Dubya - just like before 9-11.

We still can't make you leave.

Just don't act surprised when your anti-American feelings are frowned upon by Americans.</STRONG>

I have NO anti-american feelings whatsoever.
I just don't like George Bush....figure it out.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by theolein:
<STRONG>Hiroshima and Nagasaki?</STRONG>

Depends on whether or not you refer those as terrorism or not. There are arguments back and forth either way; it should be noted that both of these were military targets.

Myself, I haven't decided whether or not I consider those terrorism. But my beliefs hold: if they were terrorism, then they were inexcusable; if not, then they could be justified. However, I'm not going to call them terrorism simply because you say I should; I want real reasons. Likewise with not calling them terrorism.

I meant the attacks being able to knock out your government.

That's never the aim of terrorism. Terrorism is just a matter of spreading fear, panic, and chaos. And knocking out one government would certainly do a good job of that, even if a backup were in place.

No, I meant having sex.

Oh. Then you meant "sexual non-abstinence".

The tabloids would likely have a field day, but I doubt the mainstream media would do much. She's a college kid having sex; who cares? She isn't President, after all.

Amazing how all those muslims need someone else to make up their minds for them isn't it?&lt;/sarcasm&gt;

I could say the same for a lot of other people. I tend to think you may be in that same category.

But in all seriousness, consider this as well: those polls are often taken in places with totalitarian regimes. Many (though not all) of these regimes support OBL. When disagreement with the government means death or worse, most people will choose to parrot the government's position.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Would GW be able to find his way around the metro in suburban Paris?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't claim to know. Although last I checked, the Metro didn't reach into suburban Paris; it stayed in the city proper. I could be wrong about that, of course.

unquote:Talk about missing the point.

Perhaps I did miss the point. Because I fail to see how this question was at all relevant. The reason I pointed out the urban/suburban distinction was because I thought this might have been a trick question (if there is no suburban Metro, the Dubya certainly couldn't find his way around it. But answering "yes" reveals the subject as stupid and an answer of "no" would be taken as an admission of guilt before any explanation could be offered).

unquote: Maybe they made him pay his own online bills.

Actually, it had to do with that whole "the Internet darkens kids' hearts" spiel that we all love to hate. At least the man practices what he preaches.

[goatnet]

thus proving my earlier point that in a time of crisis, to criticize the president (no matter which president) is considered traitorous and anti-american, regardless of whether a person is just stating their opinion, which is kinda free speech (not exactly but kinda).
The man is the same as he was before 9.11, its just easier now to feel its ok to defend him and physically threaten to deport anyone who doesnt "toe the line".

Sorry, chief, but regardless who is in office, I have an obligation to defend. Bad, good, impartial, I'm stuck. It's nothing your mind can comprehend. What he says, goes. Sure, I wish I could change what happened, but I can't. I hate seeing people harmed, or suffering. I'm compationate and caring, but I will, in a time of need, scoop my seargents guts up into a ****in pot defending your stupid remarks. Why? Because I'm obligated by the very fabric we weave: freedom.

Sorry, but I personally wish your whole family was demolished during the attack on the Trade Centers. Maybe then you'd get the feeling of loss I feel whenever I see someone in the armed forces die. It's not like we sign the dotted line with a death wish. We want prosperity and hope for everyone. But we're the only ones willing to defend it.

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by goatnet:
<STRONG>Sorry, but I personally wish your whole family was demolished during the attack on the Trade Centers.</STRONG>

[Timo]

Sorry, chief, but regardless who is in office, I have an obligation to defend. Bad, good, impartial, I'm stuck. It's nothing your mind can comprehend. What he says, goes.

Why the insulting name-calling? Why is Lerk "stupid" if he doesn't agree with you?

Sorry, but I personally wish your whole family was demolished during the attack on the Trade Centers.

Pfft. You're not sorry. To wish such a fate on anyone is loathsome.

Maybe then you'd get the feeling of loss I feel whenever I see someone in the armed forces die. It's not like we sign the dotted line with a death wish. We want prosperity and hope for everyone. But we're the only ones willing to defend it.

I'm proud knowing that we have the armed forces commited to defending this country and its ideals of truth, justice and tolerance.

But read your history. The best soldiers are citizens, and the best citizens have informed minds, with opinions derived as a result of the fruit of free expression. This is why the motivated Athenians, free citizens, demolished the invading Persians, who were to the last slaves. The very existence of free expression helps defend our nation and our ideals. Not blind obedience. Obedience has its place in our nation (e.g., in the military), but it is not the point of our national experiment.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by goatnet:
Sorry, but I personally wish your whole family was demolished during the attack on the Trade Centers. Maybe then you'd get the feeling of loss I feel whenever I see someone in the armed forces die. It's not like we sign the dotted line with a death wish. We want prosperity and hope for everyone. But we're the only ones willing to defend it.[/QB]

well...here, have a cookie? some tea?

Over half the country voted against Bush. Are they all anti-american? the majority of the country is anti-american? That's going to be a problem. Just for the ill fortune of not voting for the person who becomes president automatically turns one into a traitor worthy of death? wow. That's some tough election law.

Let's follow the logic here (I'll speak slowly so you can understand)
IF, as you are saying, one must completely and blindly follow and worship the ground the current president is walking on, assume that everything he says is true, that he is incapable of being anything other than completely divine, and that one must threaten to kill anyone who has the temerity (that's a big word, maybe you better grab a dictionary) to say they don't like him, in order to prove themselves american. Otherwise, they're anti-american and worthy of death with their entire family or be deported.....well....I just have one question then. Is this rule retro-active? I mean, well, I know a lot of right wing people who spent the previous 8 years of Clinton's presidency doing nothing but trash him and accuse him of all vile things, attempt to get him impeached, spread false rumors about him, and generally just didnt' like him.

I mean, does this mean I can have those republicans killed now, who didn't support the previous president? Please, please, huh can I?


(sarcasm in case you couldn't tell)

[daimoni]

.

[daimoni]

.

[driven]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>

well...here, have a cookie? some tea?

Over half the country voted against Bush. Are they all anti-american? the majority of the country is anti-american? That's going to be a problem. Just for the ill fortune of not voting for the person who becomes president automatically turns one into a traitor worthy of death? wow. That's some tough election law.
</STRONG>

Just a thought side-thought:
49.some% of folks voted for Bush.

Only 40 & 42% voted for Clinton in elections 1 & 2. Which means 60% & 58% voted against Clinton. Yet I don't remember too many people screaming that he was illegitimate. (I certainly didn't, yet I didn't vote for him.) I respect the office even if I don't care for it's occupant.

[ringo]

Goatnet sez...

Sorry, chief, but regardless who is in office, I have an obligation to defend. Bad, good, impartial, I'm stuck. It's nothing your mind can comprehend. What he says, goes.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand behind the president right or wrong, is not only servile, but is also morally trasonable to the American public"

-Theodore Roosevelt

(Tip of the hat to Gary Trudeau's Feb 10 Doonesbury strip)

[driven]

never mind

[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: driven ]

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by driven:
<STRONG>

Just a thought side-thought:
49.some% of folks voted for Bush.

Only 40 & 42% voted for Clinton in elections 1 & 2. Which means 60% & 58% voted against Clinton. Yet I don't remember too many people screaming that he was illegitimate. (I certainly didn't, yet I didn't vote for him.) I respect the office even if I don't care for it's occupant.</STRONG>

well, actually, that wasnt my point. My point was that over half the country is now considered a traitor for not liking Bush. (and I'd bet a great deal of people voted for bush because they didn't like either candidate and just disliked Gore to a greater degree). So, all of us should be killed?

that was my point. Additionally, I doubt very much you NEVER said a less than complimentary word about Clinton while he was president.....shaw..I may be cute, but I'm not stupid.

[TNproud2b]

No, not everyone that didn't vote for Bush should be killed.

Only a handful, so as to set an example for the others.

[driven]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>

well, actually, that wasnt my point. My point was that over half the country is now considered a traitor for not liking Bush. (and I'd bet a great deal of people voted for bush because they didn't like either candidate and just disliked Gore to a greater degree). So, all of us should be killed?

that was my point. Additionally, I doubt very much you NEVER said a less than complimentary word about Clinton while he was president.....shaw..I may be cute, but I'm not stupid.</STRONG>

No ... I said negative things about Clinton a time or two.

But ... I still supported him during that time. I never said he was not properly elected. Out of respect for the office, I never made crude subjective insults. I never said (for example) "He's a murderer" because quite frankly I don't know, and I don't wish to spread innuendo.

Did I vote against him? Yup. Did I campaign for other candidates? Yes. But that's a far cry from juvinile name calling.
(Not that I am accusing you of that, but it's getting quite common around here.)

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by daimoni:
<STRONG>

Heh. Heh. Wow. I remember sitting down with my great-grandfather when I visited him in Iowa as a small boy... my biggest memory was having tea and cookies with him as he would tell me about how loud (and terrifying) the large artillery fire was during WWI.</STRONG>

My grandfather was a world war I soldier. He had a large portrait of his service years in the front hall. He was part of the Mule corp and did some heavy fighting as well. He was also a staunch Democrat. He used to tell me that blindly following a superior's command when you knew it to be wrong was worse than disobeying that command. If you didn't agree you brought it up...respectfully.
My father served twice, in WWII and in Korea. (as a side note, he was stationed in the pacific and was in charge of japanese prisoners. He traveled to and took pictures of Nagaski's devastation). In Korea, he was a supply sargeant and took out a sniper that attacked them while they were setting up camp. He voted mostly Democrat and even once surprised me by voting for Anderson.

He also taught me that only an idiot blindly follows orders. "Question authority" he used to say. They're both gone to heaven now, but I'm sure they're rolling over in their graves at the thought that its anti-american to criticize the government. My dad used to say about vietnam war protestors that they had every right to protest, and he was glad he fought to allow them the freedom to do so.

Are these men from my family traitors? Are they anti-american? I don't think so. For the most part, they enjoyed boisterous political discussions...but I don't recall them ever threatening to kill those they didn't agree with.

Hm.