It 'aint easy being green

[Allison]

I just saw a story about the 3000+ gallons of fuel Kerry and Bush used today while travelling to and from their Earth Day speeches. :rolly:

[Kegg OBeer]

Your tax dollars at work...

[spyder913]

Taxes pay for Kerry to fly around? whaaa?

[Kegg OBeer]

Of course they do.... the presidential election campaign fund or something like that... It goes to both the parties to pay expenses for their candidates. Or so the IRS tells me.

[Allison]

Not that I know of, Spyder. Kerry hasn't accepted any matching funds from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (http://www.fec.gov/info/checkoff.htm) , and I'm not aware of any other mechanism through which a non-encumbent would receive tax dollars for his campaign.

Kegg, this program is not mandatory. Candidates have to apply for the matching funds. And because the fund requires recipients to agree to spending limits, and to limit the sources of their donations, candidates who expect large donations won't apply to the fund. They'll make more money overall without it.

[Rooster]

Not like he ISN'T the most wealthy Democrat in the legislature.

[Allison]

Lol, never miss an opportunity to take a shot at a Democrat, Roo. :p

[]LoL[Harm]

Another reason why politicians suck hairy ass. Eat the rich.

[Allison]

Harm, I gotta say, I love your rather descriptive use of the English language. Can I have your babies?

[]LoL[Harm]

LOL, only if they don't like killing people to reach their goals in life, and they learn to despise television. ;)

[Rooster]

Actually it wasn't so much a shot at him... I don't hate the rich, they're the only reasons we don't have a major collapse of the economy, we have a military, we have jobs.

[]LoL[Harm]

I don't hate the rich, I hate the fact that you have to be rich to run our country.

[Eiru]

I like Heinz ketchup.

[Rooster]

lol Harm.. you don't.. by any stretch of the imagination.

You don't even have to be a lawyer or "professional" to get elected to any office. I've seen normal every day joe's do more for a community in their city council, school board, whatever than any President will.

[]LoL[Harm]

"Run our country" was referring to the President. I totally agree that the majority of positions in government are easily attained by the average person. But since I've been alive the President has never been one of those. They have always been some Ivy League, Silver-Spoon Fed, I've Got Rich Parents, Lawyer or Businessman persona. Even Ralph Nader falls into this category.

[Jammer]

Harm, I don't mind your slander of wealthy presidents. Hell, it's an American birthright. But lay off TV. Without TV, how the heck would you know what happened on the last episode of Survivor?????

:rolly:

Jammer

[Rooster]

Or the Apprentice? I went to High School with Kwame!

[Sparky]

LoL[Harm']"Run our country" was referring to the President. I totally agree that the majority of positions in government are easily attained by the average person. But since I've been alive the President has never been one of those. They have always been some Ivy League, Silver-Spoon Fed, I've Got Rich Parents, Lawyer or Businessman persona. Even Ralph Nader falls into this category.

Need the money and influence to back their campaigns, IMHO :/

[Rooster]

Well, consider this...

Do you want to elect someone that doesn't strive for self improvement (settles for mediocricy), doesn't really know how to motivate (can't lead), and doesn't understand a budget or economics of even a household?

The above, if in enough quantity (enough motivation, enough willingness to self-improve), makes a person influential and more often than not, well-to-do.

Those are NOT bad traits to expect of a leader.

[Allison]

Personal wealth is not the measure of a man, Roo. There are plenty of people out there with the characteristics you mentioned who aren't well-to-do.. And there are a lot of well-to-do people out there without those characteristics.

[MickeyFinn]

John Kerry for President!!!!!!!!!!1


...of france

[]LoL[Harm]

Do you want to elect someone that doesn't strive for self improvement (settles for mediocricy), doesn't really know how to motivate (can't lead), and doesn't understand a budget or economics of even a household?

The above, if in enough quantity (enough motivation, enough willingness to self-improve), makes a person influential and more often than not, well-to-do.

Those are NOT bad traits to expect of a leader.
I'll ask you this Roo, would you follow Kerry or Bush into War, cause I wouldn't. I'd feel more confident leading myself. And when I say into war I mean your direct CO. The guy with a gun, hunched down in the bush with YOU. I would not trust my life with either one. They do not inspire me.

I budget my household, I've been a Firefighter, an Eagle Scout, a part of the National Youth Leadership Conference, and have held multipe leadership roles in each orginization. I'm currently working on two Associate degrees one in Psychology and one in EMS, while holding down a successful career in the IT industry. But I am not rich. You may have a correlation, but correlations are shitty indicators. True leadership, which requires real wisdom only comes through the struggles of life and the lessons it teaches. People who have sheltered lives, which many rich folks strive to give their children, not that I blame them, do not make adequate leaders. I want someone who will bleed for me as a leader, and neither Kelly, Bush, Clinton or any other President I've been alive for has ever given me the feeling that they would.

Do you think they would bleed for you?

[Rooster]

Bush would, in a heartbeat. If it wouldn't decapitate the presidency, he would be out there on the front-lines with our guys.

[Allison]

Lol. I don't even know how to respond to such blind devotion.

Edit: I realized later that this may sound like I'm attacking you. That's not my intention. What I meant to say is that my inclination to respond is quashed by the thought of the fruitless debate that inevitably ensues from an unwavering devotion to an ideal, party, or man.

[Jobius]

LoL[Harm']
I budget my household, I've been a Firefighter, an Eagle Scout, a part of the National Youth Leadership Conference, and have held multipe leadership roles in each orginization...

...True leadership, which requires real wisdom only comes through the struggles of life and the lessons it teaches. People who have sheltered lives, which many rich folks strive to give their children, not that I blame them, do not make adequate leaders. I want someone who will bleed for me as a leader, and neither Kelly, Bush, Clinton or any other President I've been alive for has ever given me the feeling that they would.

Conrgats on obtaining Eagle Scout Harm I know how much work that is I acheived it too.

You sum up how I feel in the second part of what you posted no sense typing it up again.

Edit... What did I do wrong to not have Harm's part in the bubble window?

Edit2... Figured it out. :stupid:

[]LoL[Harm]

Thanks and a congrats back at ya Jobius. I barely made it in under the 18 year deadline :).

[Rooster]

Lol. I don't even know how to respond to such blind devotion.

Edit: I realized later that this may sound like I'm attacking you. That's not my intention. What I meant to say is that my inclination to respond is quashed by the thought of the fruitless debate that inevitably ensues from an unwavering devotion to an ideal, party, or man.So because I feel like I have a good understanding of what kind of man Bush is, it's blind devotion eh? Because I have faith in him to do the right thing; because he's proven he tries to do the right thing, it's blind devotion? It's certainly not to the party, they've screwed over plenty of oppurtunities to cut the budget and haven't. An ideal... so it's wrong to be devoted to an ideal? Yeah, I guess we should all compromise our ideals in the face of reality. Compromise our integrity, I guess that's what Clinton would do, or Kerry - as they've both proven in the past. Now THOSE are not leaders I'd want to follow.

[Boom]

Bush would, in a heartbeat. If it wouldn't decapitate the presidency, he would be out there on the front-lines with our guys.

You gotta be kidding me? What has he ever done that makes you think this. He had his daddy bump him to the top of the national guard list to avoid going to fight in vietnam. Then he went awol from national guard so he wouldn't have to take a drug test!

And I kinda agree with Roo about wanting a rich guy to lead our country, but I would want a self made rich guy. Someone who can make something out of nothing. I think Roo mentioned "self-improvement" and that would qualify. Bush was born rich and never "made something out of nothing." In fact, he managed to bankrupt a few companies he was put in charge of. And Kerry married rich, that doesn't count as "self-improvement" either. Someone like Oprah would fit the catagory of "self-improvement" better, but I don't think she would be a good president because she seems kinda unstable.

[Allison]

Lol, Rooster. Don't be so defensive. I didn't say any of those things, nor do I think them. "Blind devotion" was a poor choice of words on my part, which is why I made the edit.

You have shown an unwavering devotion to GWB. Without commenting on the validity of that position, I stated my belief that debate with you on that topic would be futile. If I'm wrong, please correct me. But please don't put words in my mouth. :)

[Badger]

"You gotta be kidding me? What has he ever done that makes you think this. He had his daddy bump him to the top of the national guard list to avoid going to fight in vietnam. Then he went awol from national guard so he wouldn't have to take a drug test!"

What the heck is this? Wheres the sources and facts, proof etc.

[Swifty_Johnson]

If you dug down into the Habits of the Hollywood super-stars, you'll see that while they will talk the green life, in reality only a very few of them will do anything about their own person lifestyles. While I don't agree with Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon politically, they at least live what they preach, while the biggest hippocrite Barbra Striestrand has no qualms aout telling us to consearve, than will hop into a gass-guzzling luxury SUV and drive away from the scene.

Swifty

[Rooster]

"You gotta be kidding me? What has he ever done that makes you think this. He had his daddy bump him to the top of the national guard list to avoid going to fight in vietnam. Then he went awol from national guard so he wouldn't have to take a drug test!"

What the heck is this? Wheres the sources and facts, proof etc.Thanks... I was wondering... Boomy should know better.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Someone like Oprah would fit the catagory of "self-improvement" better, but I don't think she would be a good president because she seems kinda unstable.

Next on the President Oprah's Show we were supposed to have the Prime Minister of Canada, but he cancelled at the last minute without warning. I did not have the time to get a quality replacement. So in it's place I'll offer up gun camera footage from U.S. cruise missles as they blow parts of Canada up. I don't think I'll ever have another guest cancel on me again!

Swifty

[Boom]

This stuff is common knowledge Badger. The Speaker of the Texas House from the time has admitted under oath that he made calls to get Bush bumped up on the list. There were over 159 people on the list just for that particular unit. It took 18 months to get to the top of the list. Yet Bush walked in and got the job on the day he applied. And Bush himself has admitted he was suspended from flying because he missed a physical. Funny, he went to his first two annual physicals, then a month after they implimented drug testing he failed to show up for his third physical. After skipping the drug test, he got himself transfered to alabama where there are no records of him showing up for duty. That's called being AWOL. Noone in his unit says they remember him being there. He was a minor celebrity at the time, read below about how he was treated when he signed up for National Guard, they had a special photo-op of him being sworn in. Someone would remember him being there. People who he went to school with remember him being there, but noone can say "Oh yeah, he did his service during the time in question, I was with him. In fact his commander says that he wasn't there.

Anyway, don't take my word for it. Here are a bunch of sources.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072899.htm

That's the Washington Post. A notoriously conservative and pro-bush paper. Even this particular article has an obvious pro-bush slant and tries to downplay the favoritism he got. I could easily find 10 articles from liberal sources that don't try to whitewash this event, but I figured this one article from the Wash Post was worth 10 from liberal sources. Anyway, as much as they try to downplay it, the article repeatedly notes the long waiting list for the unit GWB applied to. Yet he was accepted THE DAY HE APPLIED!!!!

Here is an interesting quote from that article.

"Among the questions Bush had to answer on his application forms was whether he wanted to go overseas. Bush checked the box that said: "do not volunteer."

Here is another quote from the Washington Post.

AUSTIN, Sept. 27-Former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives Ben Barnes said under oath today that he recommended George W. Bush for a pilot's slot in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War at the behest of a Houston businessman close to the Bush family.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/barnes092899.htm

Regarding the skipped physical, this is a good quote from the Boston Globe, Feb 12.

"President Bush’s August 1972 suspension from flight status in the Texas Air National Guard — triggered by his failure to take a required annual flight physical — should have prompted an investigation by his commander, a written acknowledgement by Bush, and perhaps a written report to senior Air Force officials, according to Air Force regulations in effect at the time . . . . Two retired National Guard generals, in interviews yesterday, said they were surprised that Bush — or any military pilot — would forgo a required annual flight physical and take no apparent steps to rectify the problem and return to flying. ‘There is no excuse for that. Aviators just don’t miss their flight physicals,’ said Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon’s director of the Air National Guard, in an interview . . . . Brigadier General David L. McGinnis, a former top aide to the assistant secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, said in an interview that Bush’s failure to remain on flying status amounts to a violation of the signed pledge by Bush that he would fly for at least five years after he completed flight school in November 1969."

Here is a link tying his missed physical to the implementation of drug testing.

http://awol.gq.nu/nypostawol.htm

Here is an article that pulls together all of the above into one little story. I'll quote it in its entirety.

President George W. Bush is a draft dodger. And his cowardice is the worst kind. Mr. Bush avoided both combat and making any kind of political statement on the War in Vietnam. While others served, giving their lives and limbs, or took part in a protest movement to end the war, the president's family connections got him a safe spot in the Texas Air National Guard. This is not the profile of a leader.

In 1994, during his first run for Governor of Texas, I was a panelist on a televised debate between Mr. Bush and Ann Richards. I was the first person in his life to ask him how he got into the National Guard so easily when there were more than 100,000 young men on waiting lists around the country. Mr. Bush said there was a shortage of pilots and he was willing to make the six year training commitment that others were not.

That is not true. There was no shortage. And when he got one of the coveted spots, Mr. Bush failed to honor his commitment.

Sgt. Donald Barnhart of the Texas Guard said there was a waiting list of 150 names for Bush's unit and a minimum of 18 months passed before an applicant was moved to the top. Historian for the Texas Air National Guard, Tom Hall, reported Bush's Houston air wing was authorized for 29 pilots and had 27. But two replacements were already in training and another pilot was awaiting transfer. There was no shortage.

But there were family connections.

In a deposition for an unrelated lawsuit, former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes said he took a call from Bush family friend Sid Adger, a Houston businessman, asking for the favor of moving Bush up on the Guard's waiting list. Barnes said he called General James Rose, commanding officer of the Guard, and the request was granted. Adger was one of former President Bush's oldest and closest friends. A spokesman said the first President Bush "loved" Mr. Adger.

The son of then Congressman George H. W. Bush joined an Air Guard unit at
Ellington Air Force Base where he served with the son of U.S. Senator John Tower and Lloyd Bentsen III, also a Texas senator's son.

Immediately after basic training, Bush got a direct appointment to Second Lieutenant, circumventing a rigorous qualification process, which normally involved Officer Candidate School. Charles Shoemake, who retired from the Texas Guard as a full colonel, said such appointments were rare, hard to get, and required extensive credentials. "I went from master sergeant to first lieutenant based on my three years in college and 15 years as a non-commissioned officer," he said. "Then I got considered for a direct appointment."

During his answer to my debate question in 1994, Mr. Bush said he could have been called up for duty in Vietnam. He had to know that was not true, either. On his Guard application, the future president checked a box saying he did "not" want to be considered for overseas deployment. Additionally, he was hundreds of hours short of flight time required for foreign duty, and the aircraft he flew, the F-102 was no longer being used in Southeast Asia.

After being rejected once, Mr. Bush reapplied and was granted a transfer to a Guard unit in Montgomery, Alabama. But he never showed up for duty. Instead, he spent his days working on a U.S. Senate campaign for a family friend. During his own presidential campaign, Mr. Bush's staff showed reporters a tattered piece of paper, missing a last name, as proof he reported for duty in Alabama. But both the CO of the Alabama unit, and his administrative officer, said they have no record or memory of Mr. Bush showing up. Not one of the approximately 700 men in the Alabama unit has ever stepped forward to say they remember Mr. Bush serving with them.

"Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not," Commander William Turnipseed said. "If we had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered."

Nonetheless, Mr. Bush maintained his flight status until 1972, when he failed to show up for a required physical. His campaign initially said he did not return to Houston because his family physician was unavailable to conduct the physical. When it was made clear such exams are given by military doctors, the campaign then explained that Mr. Bush did not take the physical because he had "decided" he would no longer fly. This is a unique approach to military service when the enlistee gets to "decide" his future duties.
The year Mr. Bush skipped his physical, 1972, was also the first year the Guard began to institute random drug testing procedures.

Mr. Bush was grounded, his flight status revoked, and a punishment order was signed posting him to civilian duty in Denver. No evidence has ever been presented that he showed up there, either.

As the presidential campaign planning began in Texas, Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett of the Texas Guard said he overheard orders from the Governor's office to "scrub" Mr. Bush's records. Burkett said he listened as Joe Allbaugh and Dan Bartlett, both of whom went to Washington with the president, told Major General Daniel James, commander of the Texas Guard, to "make sure there is nothing embarrassing in the governor's file." Burkett, who was chief advisor to General James, also said he was present when the records were surrendered for scrubbing.

After he took office, Commander in Chief George W. Bush promoted Daniel James to CO of the U.S. National Guard in Washington.

And now, by stepping into a flight uniform and appearing on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, the president has insulted the men and women who served honorably in Iraq, and the more than 58 thousand heroes whose names are etched into black granite in Washington, and the surviving Vietnam Vets.

Since Mr. Bush seems oblivious, perhaps it is our duty, as citizens, to be ashamed for him. We are also obligated to ask, "Who fought in your place, Mr. President?"

I like this next link. It lists 9 ways he got preferential treatment in the national guard, then goes through each one of the 9 with cites and sources.

http://www.atomicmule.com/news/news77d.html

I could find hundreds more. This is so well documented. I'm really suprised you were so shocked when I mentioned it, like you never heard this stuff before. I thought it was taken as a given. Bush's supporters claim that the Bush family itself never tried to influence the guard, but they don't deny that a "close family friend" asked the Texas Speaker of the House to get him in, and the Speaker himself admitted he did it under oath! Bush's supporters may claim that he wasn't concerned about the drug test, but Bush himself admits he failed to show up for that physical and noone denies that drug testing had just been implemented. Bush's supporters claim he wasn't AWOL in Alabama, but his Commanding Officer says he doesn't remember him being there and neither does anyone else who was there at the time.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Bush's supporters claim he wasn't AWOL in Alabama, but his Commanding Officer says he doesn't remember him being there and neither does anyone else who was there at the time.

Except Bush has shown that not only did he serv time im Alabama, he did more than was required for the guard by short margine. Where were you a few months ago when the records were released?

Also, it's been discovered that the Commanding Officer who says that he doesn't remember Bush being there is also suffering from Alzheimers.

Swifty

p.s. From CNN

In February, the White House released Bush's military records amid questions about whether Bush reported for duty during a year he spent in Alabama while working on the Senate campaign of a friend.

A review of those records by retired USAF Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd, a military analyst for CNN, found that those records appeared to be in order and that Bush was paid during the time period in question.

[]LoL[Harm]

A fine leader indeed. And that is all they could provide was paystubs. That doesn't dismiss all of the information provided above. Especially of the "favors" provided, the ones stated under oath.

he did more than was required
He didn't show up for a physical and was grounded, he didn't even do what WAS required. There are records indicating that, do you refute the NG's own records?

[Boom]

The records showed he was paid, but his name isn't on any of the sign-in sheets. And NOONE remembers him being there, not only his CO.

[Rooster]

Which aren't illegal (favors). And certainly not akin to lying & disparaging your fellow soldiers STILL in a conflict, or lying under oath to a Grand Jury.

I love how when the lies by the left are disproven with fact they still try to maintain that it's true - trying to live the lie, long enough that the sheep will believe it.

[Rooster]

The records showed he was paid, but his name isn't on any of the sign-in sheets. And NOONE remembers him being there, not only his CO.Oh please, like some young kid looking like GWB would be memorable. Give me a break. I could name all the bases I was at and no one would remember me and it's only been 10 years. Could you try for a little weaker argument?

[Allison]

Lol, heeeere we go. Random Clinton bashing! Wheeeeeeee.

[Rooster]

It's not bashing if it's true.

[]LoL[Harm]

I'm not a sheep, I find it naive of someone to believe that favors were not had by those of, or friends of, economical and policitical clout. On one hand you believe Kerry had some strings pulled to get his 3 PH's to get out of nam, but on the other you vehemetly refuse to believe that similar strings were not pulled to assist Bush in staying state side and alloowing him out of a five year flying commitment. You're the sheep; I believe both are possible where you side your views with blind loyalty.

[Allison]

But is it relevant to the discussion? No. It doesn't matter if Clinton was a kitten-squashing, pedophile of a freak, when Clinton is not the topic. If someone had brought him up, or compared Bush to Clinton, then by all means, let loose with the Clinton criticisms. But, in response to a criticism of Bush, "Oh yeah? Well Clinton was worse," is not relevant. Should we, in response, then start saying, "Oh yeah, Clinton may have lied, but look at Nixon! He lied worse!"

All I'm asking is that we try to stay within the bounds of reasonable and logical argument.

[Rooster]

I honestly couldn't care less if favors weren't handed out to everyone. At that point, they're not favors, it's policy. I didn't say any strings were pulled for Kerry's medals, I said they were gained dubiously - what I did say is that he exagerrated his claims - which is a cardinal sin amongst honorable military members. No one did favors for Kerry, unless it was to turn a blind eye so he could get those medals.

You haven't served, you don't know the military mind set... I mean, be honest Harm, you're not the military type, you're anti-conflict at any cost... and you have a right to think that and be that way, I would certainly not take that away from you. But don't try to boil this down to Bush's favors are worse than Kerry's medal exaggerations (and other lies regarding Vietnam). Bush was not a draft-dodger... he joined a service. Which is far more than a lot of people did. I'm not saying he's as "noble & honorable" as my uncles, who served two or three tours each in Vietnam. But, he didn't run for the border, nor did he lie and disparage his fellow soldiers in conflict.

[Eiru]

What was this about Hollywood stars?

[]LoL[Harm]

You haven't served, you don't know the military mind set... I mean, be honest Harm, you're not the military type, you're anti-conflict at any cost... and you have a right to think that and be that way, I would certainly not take that away from you. But don't try to boil this down to Bush's favors are worse than Kerry's medal exaggerations
I lived on military bases for over 6 years of my life, in two different countries. My backyard was an eight foot fence that held hundreds of tanks. I could identify different types of guns, helicopters, and tanks on sight (still can a few of em but they keep retiring all the ones I did know ;)). I fired my dad's M9 at the age of eight. For a playground I often ran through the military obsticle course, crawling under barbwire and all. I can still march and perform quarter and half turns and about-faces. I can still solute. I might not have served but I lived the life.

I was going to join until as I grew up I found out how much my father sacrificed and what he lost in vietnam, a war that gained us nothing.

And I never said Bush's was worse than Kerry's I said both were possibilities and chided anyone who will believe one and discount the other.

[Rooster]

It was not the soldier's fight that we lost in Vietnam, but the political will of the people. They weren't willing to go the distance to win the war. They weren't willing to let the military do what was needed to win the war. It was a no-win situation, because of the second-guessing by the populace. War isn't pretty, it's very harsh -- and is not for the every day citizen to be playing couch general from the comfort of their own home telling the military what to do and not do because it makes them uncomfortable.

[Kegg OBeer]

LoL[Harm']I lived on military bases for over 6 years of my life, in two different countries. My backyard was an eight foot fence that held hundreds of tanks. I could identify different types of guns, helicopters, and tanks on sight (still can a few of em but they keep retiring all the ones I did know ;)). I fired my dad's M9 at the age of eight. For a playground I often ran through the military obsticle course, crawling under barbwire and all. I can still march and perform quarter and half turns and about-faces. I can still solute. I might not have served but I lived the life.

No offense Harm... but that's not living the life of a soldier. That's living the life of the child of a soldier. There's a very large difference. To imply that you know what it's like to be a veteran just because your father was in the service is naive at best.

LoL[Harm']
I was going to join until as I grew up I found out how much my father sacrificed and what he lost in vietnam, a war that gained us nothing.

Again, unless you were "with" him in Vietnam, you'll never know what he sacrificed. You'll only know what he told you. War stories just don't equal reality when it comes to these things. You never saw a man you know die from multiple gunshot wounds. You never saw people blown to pieces by landmines or RPG's. You never had to trek through uninhabitable jungle for days on end and just when you're completely exhausted, had to fight for your very survival.
All you could ever know without having been there, or a similar environment (the middle east and africa come to mind), is what you've been told and imagined as a result of it. Yes, I'm sure you imagined it was horrible. There is a vast difference however, between imagining something based on what you've been told, read in a book, or even seen on TV and actually "knowing" it.

Does it really matter that the war "gained us nothing"? This is the mentality of the people that spit on our troops as they returned home from the war. All they cared about is What the war was about and their own personal views. So much so, in fact, that they disrespected our soldiers (most of whom didn't even volunteer for it) and fought for their country.
We were never actually in Vietnam to gain anything for ourselves in the first place. We were supposed to be there to protect democracy from being overrun by communists. Sometimes wars are fought to protect people that can't protect themselves. It's a very similar reason to why we fought in europe in WW2. We were never attacked by the Germans (Not officially at least) We went to Europe to save our allies from being overrun by the Germans. Had we not gone there when we did, our allies would have lost.

Just because you don't happen to agree with why we're fighting a war is no reason to not support your country and just do what's asked. It sickens me that people are more concerned with their own personal views and comforts than with their patriotism. Patriotism is what made the US great. Thankfully there are enough of us patriots left to defend your freedom since you don't happen to agree. As long as there is, you'll continue to have the freedom to speak your mind. I hope it's at least appreciated.

[Rooster]

:stupid:

[Allison]

-- and is not for the every day citizen to be playing couch general from the comfort of their own home telling the military what to do and not do because it makes them uncomfortable.
I'll agree with you to a point on that one, Roo. But it absolutely is the business of the everyday citizen to have a say in what actions our government takes on our behalf. If our government goes nutso and starts sending troops in to slaughter babies in Canada, you damn well better believe I'm going to be voicing my opinion about it. An extreme example, but you get my point.

And let's not forget that politicians take advantage of public opinion, or give in to it, at the onset of military action. Example: Iraq. Whether that action was right or wrong, let's remember that this administration did everything they could do generate public support for the war. And they got it. It's rather hypocritical to only go to war with the support of the people, but then expect them to shut the hell up if they change their minds.

Yes, the general public can be fickle sheep. And sometimes that leads to less than desirable results. But, unless you want to live in a military dictatorship, you have to respect the wishes of our citizens, even when they are being sheep. It's not perfect, but the alternative is worse.

[Rooster]

"It's rather hypocritical to only go to war with the support of the people, but then expect them to shut the hell up if they change their minds."

Not really. Not at all (hypocritical). People are always for fighting the good, easy, win-it-quick fight. But when things get tough, those same people start freaking out. It's the people that understand that nothing worthwhile is ever easy that know we have to be in it for the long haul.

[Allison]

Kegg, could you clarify exactly who it is that you say isn't supporting their country? What does one have to do in your view to support their country? And who is it you say is more concerned with their own views and comforts than patriotism? And could you define what you think patriotism is?

[Allison]

Not really. Not at all (hypocritical). People are always for fighting the good, easy, win-it-quick fight. But when things get tough, those same people start freaking out. It's the people that understand that nothing worthwhile is ever easy that know we have to be in it for the long haul.
So, anytime someone criticizes a military action, they're just "freaking out?" Didn't you criticize some of Clinton's military actions before?

[Rooster]

Yeah, cowardly diversions to his Oval Office Antics.

[Allison]

Yeah, cowardly diversions to his Oval Office Antics.Oh, I see... so when we're talking about a military action you support, anyone who voices criticism is being subversive and unpatriotic. But if we're talking about a military action you don't support, then it's OK to state your criticisms? Tell me, who makes these rules? Is there a website we peon citizens can check that will tell us when it's OK to criticise a military action without being unpatriotic?

[Rooster]

When it is done to cover your own ass, it's wrong.

When you're not really willing to do what is needed, but you make a token strike, it's wrong.

When you cut & run at the first sign of danger, it's wrong.

Three strikes and you're out. Clinton was a disgrace as a commander in chief.

[Allison]

Oh, and that "cowardly diversion" you're talking about was the bombing of Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in retaliation for the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. That's a diversion? I know at the time, the right-wing attack machine was crying "Wag the Dog," but in retrospect, I think most criticisms here are that he didn't do enough in retaliation, not that it was a diversion.

[spyder913]

Yeah when it happened I thought 'Wag the Dog' -- the timing was uncanny. But in hindsight it's harder to call it that.

[Allison]

Oh, OK. I see now. If it's a Democratic president taking military action, then it's OK to criticize. But if it's a Republican president, then it's unpatriotic. I'm glad we're narrowing this down.

Honestly, I'm not trying to be a smartass. I'm just tyring to get you to see that people disagree about what warrants military action. So, when is it not unpatriotic to criticise? If it's OK for you to do it, then it's OK for other people to do it. You can't change the rules based on your own personal opinions.

[Rooster]

I think most criticisms here are that he didn't do enough in retaliation, not that it was a diversion.Right, that's #2.

edit: (damn fast responses)

[Rooster]

Oh, OK. I see now. If it's a Democratic president taking military action, then it's OK to criticize. But if it's a Republican president, then it's unpatriotic. I'm glad we're narrowing this down.
Absolutely not Allison. Clinton was a slimeball with no backbone. Not even you can deny that.

Unfortunately, the democrat before that crippled our human intelligence and probably cost us the World Trade Centers.

As for Lyndon Johnson, he (and the population at large) tied our military hands so we couldn't win the war.

Kennedy, Truman... there's some good Democrats.

[Kegg OBeer]

Kegg, could you clarify exactly who it is that you say isn't supporting their country?

I'm not exactly sure I can clarify this further... Either you support your country, or your own personal comfort and opinions are more important.

What does one have to do in your view to support their country?

How about trying to put your personal differences aside and doing what needs to be done. Nowhere did I say that you have to agree with it. Frankly, the only people that need to agree are the ones the American people elected to make these decisions for us.

And who is it you say is more concerned with their own views and comforts than patriotism?

Are you looking for specific people here? We all know these people exist. If they didn't, how would any of this even be a debate?

And could you define what you think patriotism is?

A patriot loves his or her country. So much so that they'd be willing to make any sacrifice to insure it's survival. So much so that their own personal comfort is less important.
A patriot would fight for his country first, even if he disagreed with it. If he disagreed with the majority, he would still accept it as being what's best for his nation.

It's kind of like being in love. If it were unavoidable, would you sacrifice yourself for someone you love? Would you be willing to take a bullet for them in order to ensure their survival? Or better yet, would you criticize anyone that was? To be a patriot, you have to feel like that, but instead of a person, it's your nation.

[Kegg OBeer]

Just out of curiosity... does anyone 'actually' believe Clinton was above sacrificing American lives for political distractions?

It wasn't just the Al Queda bombings that had convenient timing, pretty much any military action taken during his term was pretty amazing timing.

[Rooster]

:stupid: (2 up ... and yeah, the one directly above too... damn fast posts)

[Allison]

Absolutely not Allison. Clinton was a slimeball with no backbone. Not even you can deny that.


Lol, I absolutely can. :)

I believe of him what you believe of Bush, that he is a good man who genuinely cares about people ... with the exception that Clinton had a weakness for the ladies. ;)

However, I don't beleive it's possible to ever really know the heart of a man, especially one who holds political office. It's all opinion and most of the personal "character debates" we hear don't have diddly to do with a person's public life, or his ability to serve. That's why, for one, I prefer to not discuss the personal lives of our politicians, except in extreme cases where a major character flaw would affect his decision making abilities. (Like ongoing drug use, for example.)

Another reason I try not to focus on "character issues," is because it clouds my ability to be objective. Yes, if somone has proven himself to be untrustworthy, I will certainly consider that in judging future claims. But, if I allow myself to villify someone (or a group for that matter) because I don't like his "character," then all my judgments about that person are clouded from that point forward. I want to judge people on what they do in office, not what other people say about their character.

That's why, as much as I don't agree with the job Bush is doing, you'll never hear me talk about the AWOL scandal, his past drug use, DWI, or anything else. None of that stuff has anything to do with the job he's doing now.

[Allison]

It's kind of like being in love. If it were unavoidable, would you sacrifice yourself for someone you love? Would you be willing to take a bullet for them in order to ensure their survival? Or better yet, would you criticize anyone that was? To be a patriot, you have to feel like that, but instead of a person, it's your nation.
I would agree we can compare patriotism to love. But, it's not black and white for me. If that person whom I loved had just gone insane and murdered a child, and the police were shooting at him, no ... I wouldn't step in front of the bullet. Would I still love him? Yes. Would I support him through his trial? Maybe, depends on the circumstances. But, I would not pretend that what he did wasn't wrong.

That's how I see patriotism. Support your country. Absolutely. When attacked, defend it. But keeping my mouth shut when I think my country is doing wrong is the opposite of patriotism in my book. I love this country. I think it's a great nation. And I'm not going to look the other way when I think it's going down the wrong path. If that makes me unpatriotic, then so be it.

[Rooster]

So when things are peachy, you're all for patriotism.

It's not like we freakin nuked the Bahamas. Foregoing all the FUBAR behind WHY we're there, we removed an EVIL dictator from power. Along with that comes a lot of responsibility. We're doing our best to try to install some lasting peace in the area (cause if just another militant Shiite takes office, it will not have helped the region in the end)...

But this is what SOOO many people are in an uproar over. things are tough, it's not easy to rebuild a country. People want instant-quick fixes and not willing to tough it out to do the right thing. Sometimes the cost is human lives. But if we don't stabilize it - creating some semblance of a democracy there, it will surely come back and haunt us, killing our innocent civilians down the road.

Our soldiers understand this: better them (our soldiers) than us. We have (inadvertantly, or advertantly) created a giant magnet for all the evil that wants to do us harm, and they're directing at those that can deal with it best. Our finest.

I would have it no other way.

[Allison]

So when things are peachy, you're all for patriotism.
No, that's not what I said.

My definition of patriotism goes beyond what you'd find on a bumper sticker: "My country, right or wrong." My definition includes the right of our citizens to criticize the government. That's all.

I don't know what the rest of your last post is all about. All this "people don't have the stomach to stick it out" nonsense. I don't know who you're arguing against with that. If you're talking about Iraq, the vast majority of the people, including those who opposed us going to war in the first place, have all agreed that it is imperative we finish the job. Has anyone here said anything different? I know I haven't.

[]LoL[Harm]

Canidea is right, there are other areas where things of this nature should be discussed.

[Boom]

According to Rooster, Clinton never committed perjury or adultery. A crime doesn't happen till someone is convicted. That's why I can't say Bush was AWOL, despite the fact that he cannot account for where he was when he was supposed to be serving in Alabama.

Unless we are operating under a different ruleset for republicans and democrats.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Oh, OK. I see now. If it's a Democratic president taking military action, then it's OK to criticize. But if it's a Republican president, then it's unpatriotic. I'm glad we're narrowing this down.

Alli, you first have to understand the liberal playbook.

If it's a war waged by a democratic president, it's good.

If it's a war waged by a Republican, than it's bad.

Really, what U.S. intrests were at stake in Kosovo? What did it matter to the U.S.A. that Serbia was killing people in Kosovo?

Now, even though we had no direct intrests in Kosovo, yes we did the right thing.

BUt if you supported the Kosovo conflict, than you should also support the Iraq conflict, if not you got your liberal blinders on.

Swifty

[Boom]

I disagree Swifty, lots of liberals supported getting rid of Saddam, and continue to support our involvement in Iraq. I'm one example. And you can easily flip flop what you said and say that conservatives support any republican military action and criticize any democrat military action. I mean, conservatives even criticize Clinton for bombing Bin Ladin. How can you criticize bombing Bin Ladin?

And who are you talking about when you say "you should also support the Iraq conflict." We do support it. Who here has said they don't? We may question Bush's motives for getting involved, but we agree it was the right thing to do. Seems the conservative playbook is to accuse liberals of not supporting Bush whether we do or not. ;)

I support all our military actions. We are powerful and should do what we can to get rid of monsters and help suffering people. Slobovan was a Hitler, Saddam was a Hitler. One Hitler in the history of the world was already one too many. We need to get rid of any Hitlers we find. The fact that we can do it is all the justification we need. I know, I'm kind of a weird liberal when it comes to certain issues. I'm also a big fan of the death penalty. I think we need more death penalty and I'm not being sarcastic.

I have problems with the way we go about our military actions sometimes. We make mistakes and stuff. We made a bunch of mistakes in Vietnam, we made mistakes in Kosovo and in Iraq and stuff. But war is the most complicated thing ever and there are always gonna be mistakes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't ever use force anywhere. But I'm glad we are Americans and can criticize our leaders when we feel they made mistakes, yet still support them in taking action and not be hypocrites.

In general I know I tend to be anti-bush and pro liberal, but when it comes to wars I think I've been pretty neutral. I don't think I've criticized any republican wars or supported any democrat wars in a partisan way. I try to view them all the same way. I think its great that we try to help other people. I always support our troops 10000% no matter what. But I reserve my right to armchair quarterback and say "Well Clinton shoulda sent more troops here and less troops there." Its human nature.

[Allison]

BUt if you supported the Kosovo conflict, than you should also support the Iraq conflict, if not you got your liberal blinders on.

SwiftyWho said I supported one or the other? My point was that if it's fair game to criticize one wartime president, then it's fair game to criticize them all. It is illogical to say that criticisms of Clinton at the time were good and right and needed to be made, but then to turn around and say that criticisms of Bush now are unpatriotic. Either it's OK for citizens to voice their opposition to a wartime president, or it's not. It's hypocritical to flip-flop based on your own personal position of the given conflict.

As far as Kosovo goes, I'm not going to argue the validity, or lack thereof, of that conflict with you. But saying it's the same as Iraq is a gross over-simplification, at best. They were similiar in that we got invovled militarily, and that Al Qaeda sent fighters in to assist the Muslims. But that's where the similarity ends. You might as well say that if you didn't like Clinton, you shouldn't like Bush. After all, they're both well-to-do white men who were elected president. :)

[Swifty_Johnson]

I mean, conservatives even criticize Clinton for bombing Bin Ladin. How can you criticize bombing Bin Ladin?

Becasue he didn't bomb Bin Laden, he threw some missles at some camps, which killed a few people and that's it. The Critism isn't that he did it, it's that he didn't go far enough. It was a half-assed responce that wasn't that well thought out.

Who here has said they don't? We may question Bush's motives for getting involved, but we agree it was the right thing to do. Seems the conservative playbook is to accuse liberals of not supporting Bush whether we do or not.

My point wasn't directed at anyone specific, just liberals in general. Where was Tim Robbins and Susan Saranden when we were going to war with Serbia? Where were the massive protests of the Kosovo war?

Swifty

[Swifty_Johnson]

My point was that if it's fair game to criticize one wartime president, then it's fair game to criticize them all.

Where were the massive consertavite protests over the Kosovo conflict? There wasn't any, consertavites supported the troops.

It is illogical to say that criticisms of Clinton at the time were good and right and needed to be made, but then to turn around and say that criticisms of Bush now are unpatriotic.

Kosovo wasn't launched during an election year. Critisicms of Bush for his conduct of the war to score "political" points is very unpatriotic. Critisicm of Bush becasue you feel that the war can be lead better isn't. For the most part, Clinton took flack in Kosovo for not committing ground troops into Kosovo and instead tried to wage a campaign from the air, that doesn't sound like partisan bickering to me.

As far as Kosovo goes, I'm not going to argue the validity, or lack thereof, of that conflict with you. But saying it's the same as Iraq is a gross over-simplification, at best. They were similiar in that we got invovled militarily, and that Al Qaeda sent fighters in to assist the Muslims. But that's where the similarity ends.

Why did we get invovled in Kosovo? Why did we get involved in Iraq?

We get involved in Kosovo to stop mass murder and ethnic cleansing.

We got invovled in Iraq because of U.S. intests, and to stop mass murder and ethnic cleansing.

No, it's not a gross oversimplication. Unlike Kosovo, we had intrests in what happened in Iraq.

(IMHO) Neither war was wrong. Like Kosovo, we had the MORAL duty to go into Iraq and take action. I supported the war in Kosovo, and I supported the war in Iraq. We should NEVER sit back and let people get slaughtered. I was dismayed that Bush was so timid to put troops into Libera, big mistake there.

Swifty

[Eiru]

I'd just like to say I've never supported the Iraq conflict and I don't now. I do support our troops, however; I support our troops getting the hell out of Iraq.

[Allison]

Becasue he didn't bomb Bin Laden, he threw some missles at some camps, which killed a few people and that's it. The Critism isn't that he did it, it's that he didn't go far enough. It was a half-assed responce that wasn't that well thought out.
Those criticisms didn't come until years later, after we knew exactly how large a threat Al Qaeda really was. At the time, the bombing in Sudan and Afghanistan were either heralded as an "appropriate response" to the embassy bombings in Africa, or as a "Wag the Dog" diversionary tactic. Hindsight really is 20/20. :)



My point wasn't directed at anyone specific, just liberals in general. Where was Tim Robbins and Susan Saranden when we were going to war with Serbia? Where were the massive protests of the Kosovo war?

Swifty
Again, not the same thing. While I can respect your positions about the individual conflicts, I feel I have to point this out, and ask that you also respect other's opinions. On the one hand you have an internal conflict with disputes over authority and control; instability in the region; current and ongoing genocide; military intervention supported by the U.N. On the other hand, you have a sovereign nation with no internal conflict; no instability in the region; no current or ongoing genocide; no support from the U.N.

Admittedly, there were, and are many other factors involved in our decisions to act militarily. And, other reasons why someone might support one action and not the other. But these are a few areas in which the conflicts differed. You may not see it that way. You may see more similiarities than differences, but other people don't. For some, I'm sure their opposition to Iraq is as simple as not having U.N. involvement. For others, I don't know. I don't pretend to know everyone's reasons. Whatever those reasons are, you may question their validity, you may question my assessments about the above, but I don't see how you can say that support for Kosovo necessitates support for Iraq when there are obvious differences in the two.

[Swifty_Johnson]

I feel I have to point this out, and ask that you also respect other's opinions. On the one hand you have an internal conflict with disputes over authority and control; instability in the region; current and ongoing genocide; military intervention supported by the U.N.

Kosovo was NOT supported by the U.N. The U.S.S.R. would never have voted for it, so Clinton bypassed the U.N. and attacked Kosovo with a less countries on our side than Bush attacked Iraq.

On the other hand, you have a sovereign nation with no internal conflict; no instability in the region; no current or ongoing genocide; no support from the U.N.

Humm, I would think the Kurds would take exception to the "no internal conflict" part. There is a ton is instability in the region, partly becasue Saddam was funding it. 400,000 dead Shiet Muslums, what is the magic number for genocide to be reached? (less than 400,000 died in Kosovo.)

Whatever those reasons are, you may question their validity, you may question my assessments about the above, but I don't see how you can say that support for Kosovo necessitates support for Iraq when there are obvious differences in the two.

It's easy, Saddam was 10x more brutal in Iraq, used WMD on the Kurds, started 2 Major wars, and was killing hundreds of thousands of people. What Serbia did in Kosovo was a slow weekend for Saddam. So, why support Clinton's invasion of a sovereign nation (which leaned towards the U.S.A.) and not Bush's invasion of a sovereign nation? (which was an enemy of the U.S.A.)

Iraq, unlike Kosovo posed a threat to it's neighbors, funded world wide terrorism and had terrorist training camps in the country. Kosovo was just an "internal" conflict with no issues extending beyond the borders of Serbia.

Swifty

[Allison]

OK, Swifty. I said I'm not going to debate Kosovo with you, and I'm not. I will say though that I hope anyone reading our posts will take the time to look up the involvement of the U.N. and NATO in Kosovo and Iraq, and decide for themselves whether or not there are differences. If I have over-stated them, I apologize. But there are differences.

I don't argue that Sadaam wasn't a bad man, or that he wasn't responsible for massive acts of barbarism in the past. I'm not even arguing that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. All I'm saying is that there are differences between Iraq and Kosovo. Some people feel that those differences support military action for one and not the other. While I'm sure some may be guilty of wearing "liberal blinders," just as others are guilty of wearing "conservative blinders," it is unfair of you to paint everyone with the same brush. They are different. You may have different criteria for what necessitates military intervention than other people. You can debate whether their criteria is less valid than yours, as you've done. But don't assume that people are guilty of blind partisanship because their criteria is different from yours.

[Swifty_Johnson]

OK, Swifty. I said I'm not going to debate Kosovo with you, and I'm not. I will say though that I hope anyone reading your response will take the time to look up the involvement of the U.N. and NATO in Kosovo and Iraq, and decide for themselves whether or not there are differences.

What's to debate, we both agree that it was nessary, but if you insist that it was done with the U.N.'s blessing you are wrong. Please name the number of the U.N. resultion that authorised the use of force in Kosovo. Kosovo was run though NATO, NATO isn't the U.N.

But don't assume that people are guilty of blind partisanship because their criteria is different from yours.

It's blind partisanship when they only support wars run by democrats. I'm sorry but I am calling it how I see it. When all these hollywood liberals turned a blind eye to Clinton's romp through Kosovo, than raised holy hell on Iraq, I will call them on it.

All I'm saying is that there are differences between Iraq and Kosovo.

Your right, Serbia was never a threat to the U.S. and U.S. intrests. I'd have no problems if people stuck to their guns and protested Kosovo like they did Gulf War I and Gulf War II, but they didn't. I only know what I see, and what I see is blind partisanship.

Now if someone protested all three wars, I have no problem. We cannot be selective on the wars we fight based on weither or not we like the guy in the office.

Swifty

[spyder913]

It's blind partisanship when they only support wars run by democrats. I'm sorry but I am calling it how I see it. When all these hollywood liberals turned a blind eye to Clinton's romp through Kosovo, than raised holy hell on Iraq, I will call them on it.You're correlating here, and that doesn't mean your conclusion is correct. (Or necessarily incorrect)

[Allison]

What's to debate, we both agree that it was nessary, but if you insist that it was done with the U.N.'s blessing you are wrong. Please name the number of the U.N. resultion that authorised the use of force in Kosovo. Kosovo was run though NATO, NATO isn't the U.N.First, I realize NATO isn't the U.N. Second, I already apologized if I overstated the U.N.'s involvement in Kosovo by using the word "supported." You are correct, there was no U.N. resolution authorizing force. There were, however, two resolutions calling for, among other things, a ceasefire, with promises of "additional measures" for failure to comply. (And if I agree, for the sake of argument, that you are correct about all things Kosovo and U.N., can we not argue about this anymore? It is not my intention or desire to debate Kosovo. I merely was pointing out what I saw as differences between the two conflicts. If you don't agree there was a difference in regards to the U.N., I'm sure we can at least agree, in general terms, that there are some differences somewhere.)


It's blind partisanship when they only support wars run by democrats. It's only blind partisanship if their support is based soley on their party's position. Following your logic, if a Republican didn't support the war in Kosovo, but now supports the war in Iraq, (and there are quite a few of those) he is also guilty of blind partisanship. It is flawed logic to assume that is the case without considering the possibility that the reasons for their support included more than their party's position.

We cannot be selective on the wars we fight based on weither or not we like the guy in the office.
I agree with you there. But I'll stress again, a Republican supporting a (for lack of a better term) Republican war, or a Democrat supporting a Democratic war is not, in and of itself, evidence of "blind partisanship."

And that's about all I can say on this subject.

My only objection on this topic was your statement, BUt if you supported the Kosovo conflict, than you should also support the Iraq conflict, if not you got your liberal blinders on. While that statement may be true of some, it is most certainly a logical fallacy to assume it is true of all.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Following your logic, if a Republican didn't support the war in Kosovo, but now supports the war in Iraq, (and there are quite a few of those) he is also guilty of blind partisanship.

That statement is also true. As you can see, I'm a pretty much black and white type person, there is no grey area.

I believe that if we truly want to keep saying, The land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, than when there is mass murder going on, it is our duty to stop it. We have a moral obligation to intervene, and yes, blood will be shed, Americans will die, but the stopping of the genocide will make humanity much better. As long a brutal dictators know that they have someone to answer to, there will be less slaughter. The whole world should adapt the motto, No more Rwandas.

Swifty

[Rooster]

But half the world can't even pronounce Rwanda.

[Boom]

Swifty, you are holding all liberals responsible for the actions of a few hollywood dramaqueens. Not all, or even most, liberals are against our intervention in Iraq. Some liberals have problems with our strategies and methodologies (armchair quarterbacking), but so do tons of conservatives. Yes, before the war there were protests, people wanting us to wait for UN approval, but it wasn't just liberals protesting, it was coming from all sides. Personally, I thought the protests were stupid. In my opinion Saddam had already violated 1442 and it was time for action. If anything I wanted Bush to attack sooner. Anyway, once the decision was made to go to war the protests almost completely stopped and everyone (yes, even liberals) were all about supporting the troops. Overall liberals support getting rid of Saddam and support our troops 10000000%.

Your generalizations are unfair. Pointing to Susan Serboobies and saying, "Liberals are like that!!!" Is like me pointing to Jerry Falwell and saying "Conservatives are like that!!!"

[spyder913]

armchair quarterbackingIn this case I think it's 'armchair general'

[Swifty_Johnson]

Swifty, you are holding all liberals responsible for the actions of a few hollywood dramaqueens.

Well, than the media as this is what they protray the media to be.

Yes, before the war there were protests, people wanting us to wait for UN approval, but it wasn't just liberals protesting, it was coming from all sides.

The only protests the conservatives were doing were aginst the liberals, not the war itself. :)

Anyway, once the decision was made to go to war the protests almost completely stopped and everyone (yes, even liberals) were all about supporting the troops.

I wish I can say that is true, but with idiotic liberals like Boxer and Polizzi it's kinda hard in general that liberals support the troops. Also, when liberal protestors hold up signs that say "We support the troops when they shoot their officers." I have to really wounder where the left truely is on the issue.

Swifty

[spyder913]

here's your answer for me:

I support our troops and I support us finishing the job. I'm in your definition of 'Left'.

[Rooster]

Then why don't people (Lefties) stand up for what they believe in and stop letting the media and the hollywood elite left tell everyone what the Left stands for.

[Figtoria]

Then why don't people (Lefties) stand up for what they believe in and stop letting the media and the hollywood elite left tell everyone what the Left stands for.


How much luck have the Righties :) had shutting up Jerry Falwell and his ilk?

[Swifty_Johnson]

How much luck have the Righties had shutting up Jerry Falwell and his ilk?

Thanks to the leftist media everyone thinks they are kooks and don't represent anyone. :)

Swifty

[Rooster]

And no one seriously thinks that the majority of the right follow Jerry's political views.

[Allison]

Lol, OK, Swifty. I can see no amount of argument will dissuade you from the lumping. So, I'll stop trying.

Something to chew on, though:

In the interests of a fair debate designed to progress the topic and find common ground, would it be so difficult to hold in your mind the slightest possibility that perhaps these generalizations aren't true of everyone? A little restraint in this area would go a long way in not alienating those who are participating in a debate with you.

But I guess that begs the question. What is the purpose of the debate? I assume everyone's purpose is the same as mine. But, is it ...

to progress the topic to an ultimate solution, or compromise?
to prove I'm right and you're wrong?
to justify my position?
to demonstrate my contempt?
to educate myself and/or my opponent?
to understand another perspective or have someone else understand mine?

These are questions I've been asking myself the last couple of days, partly because of my frustration that most of the topics here have degenerated into "You/Clinton sucks ... No, you/Bush sucks," and partly because of the high emotions and some hurt feelings that have erupted as a result. So, I've been asking myself, what is the goal of the debate, and what can I do to further that goal?

I confess my realization that I sometimes get caught up in the idea of proving I'm right, or trying repeatedly to justify myself. "You are wrong and I'm going to prove it to you!" But, that sort of argument degenerates quickly. And although there is a bit of an ego component to proving one's position, in actuality, I have to admit that my ego is less important than maintaining a civil dialogue. It costs me nothing to acknowlege your position X, while maintaining my position Y, and accepting the possibility of an XY convergence. Nothing, unless I take it personally, marrying my self-respect and ego with whether or not I can prove I'm right.

But, I'm just rambling now. Bottom line for me is what i said earlier, what is the goal of the debate; what is the response I expect to elicit; and is what I'm typing furthering that goal, or working against it?

[Allison]

And no one seriously thinks that the majority of the right follow Jerry's political views.You beleive that because you know he doesn't represent your views. Just like liberals know that Susan Sarandon doesn't represent theirs. But make no mistake, there are a lot on the left who think Jerry Falwell does represent a fair number of the right, just as there are a lot on the right who think Susan Sarandon represents a fair number of the left.

But, both are media exaggerations. Why are they shown so often? Because consumers want flash and controversy with their news, the same as with their reality TV shows. But neither is very representative.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Becasue it's easier to say "liberals" than to say "those liberals like the ones in Hollywood".

I know it's hard to tell, but sometimes I am just yanking your chain. BUT if the liberals that support the troops don't want to be lumped into the lot with the rest, than I'll suggest holding some "Liberals that support the war" rallies to get the message out, as all that the media displays is the holloywood types, or the ones that hold up the banners that say "We support the troops when they shoot their officers."

When some wacko blows up an abortion clinic, the right is quick to condem the action, so the left must be just as quick to condem those that try to make themselfs out as the "left." You want your wing back, take it back from the loonies.

As I said before, while I don't like Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins politics, I do respect them as they are the few H-libs that actually pratice what they preach.

Swifty

[Boom]

People like Jerry Falwell and Susan Sarandaboobs are why the whole conservative v liberal thing gets so heated. They are way extremests and don't represent anyone and just cause a lot of misunderstanding and stuff. And the media portrays them as representing the liberal or conservative viewpoint when they don't. They represent extremist viewpoints.

Liberal: "Omg, did you here what Falwell said last night? Those conservatives are total racists!!" "Hey! You conservatives over there! You are racist scum!!!"

Conservative: "Wtf? We aren't racists? I am in a mixed marriage for crying out loud! Damn those liberals are so unfair!"

Then on the other side of the coin...

Conservative: "Omg did you see what Susan Sarandon said last night? Those liberals are unpatriotic traitors! And omg that potsmoking hippie was holding up a sign saying soldiers should shoot their officers! Liberals are bunch of America hating scumbags!" "Hey you liberals!! You are a bunch of America hating scumbags!!!!'

Liberal: "Wtf did he just call me? I freakin love America! I just donated blood to send to the troops and I have 5 veterans in my family and I've been supporting our action in Iraq from day 1. Damn, those conservatives are so unfair!

[spyder913]

You want your wing back, take it back from the loonies.I don't belong to a wing. I am merely lumped there because some of my beliefs are similar. I shouldn't have to hold rallies to prove that I'm not like everyone else.

[ArdryMcArdry]

Yah!

And if I was ever wrong, I would TOTALLY admit it.

But I never am, so nyaaanaanaaa!

[Rooster]

Hey now, that's my MO. Get your own!

[Popo]

Lol, OK, Swifty. I can see no amount of argument will dissuade you from the lumping. [/i]

heheheheheheheh, so true :P

[Rooster]

arguments won't dissuade lumping, that's what a whisk is for.

[spyder913]

arguments won't dissuade lumping, that's what a whisk is for.I can see allison beating swifty with a whisk, lol

[Rooster]

Or a rolling pin. :p

Does anyone here actually use one of those? (no, not to beat across thy husband's head)

[Allison]

:rolly:

[Canidae]

Or a rolling pin. :p

Does anyone here actually use one of those? (no, not to beat across thy husband's head)


Don't tempt me. ;)

[Swifty_Johnson]

Actually to dissuade lumping I eat less fiber.

Swifty