To All Conservatives: Why do you think we liberals hate America?

Mjkenoyer opined thusly on Nov 4:

[...]

The problem is that your subject header is instancing the same kind of
generalization you deign to impugn. "To 'all' conservatives" -- as if "all"
conservatives think liberals hate America.

This is the problem among some ;-) on both sides.

I think people are weary of hyperbole being presented as if it were fact,
of misrepresentation, of bad faith argument, of the will to power rather
than persuasive dialog and deliberation recognizing the importance of
compromise. Of course, there are issues for which no compromise is likely.
But yeah, there's a lot of room for improvement.

--
Scott

El Chingaderro

2004-11-04 20:58:31 UTC

Post by Mjkenoyer
...because we don't. Many of us campaigned for John Kerry and John
Edwards because we believed in their vision for a _better_, not a
worse, America that would reach out to the poor and disenfranchised
the war on terrorism.
I am not a hippie, Godless, pinko, Commie, slacker, lazy-ass
stereotype that people of the Karl Rove variety like to paint us. My
husband and I (and all of my friends who volunteered in the
Kerry/Edwards campaign) are tax-paying, law-abiding, full-time,
gainful job-working Americans who feel privileged and grateful to live
in a free country such as this. We just wish we could talk about our
opinions freely without being unduly attacked for being "un-American".
We are just as worried about our nation's moral compass as you are. We
are just as nervous about terrorist threats and our children's future
under them as you are. We want our children and grandchildren to live
in a beautiful, compassionate, and safe place--just like you do. We
want that shining city on a hill that Reagan spoke of so many years
ago--we simply differ in how we want to get there. Is that so wrong?
So let me ask you again: why specifically do you think we hate
America? Because we simply don't, and want to understand why you feel
that way.

Because with conservatives it's all about having enemies. If they don't have
an enemy their policies fail to appeal to their voters. Take the cold war
for an example. After the big threat of the USSR was gone, that's when they
searched for another enemy and started focusing on liberals. Now liberals
and their causes have been villianized to the point where Kerry had to
defend himself for being a liberal and Bush didn't have to defend himself
for being a conservative. With conservatives everything is black and white,
so if you are not with them you are an enemy supporting all the straw men
described in the post above. Maybe we will eventually come to realize that
conservatives have picked their own countrymen as enemies and turn the
corner.

mhirtes

2004-11-04 20:09:18 UTC

Because with conservatives it's all about having enemies. If they don't have
an enemy their policies fail to appeal to their voters.

Well guess what? They have no opposition to worry about this time. So
when get sour? Who are they going to scapegoat?

Be careful for what you wish for, rightards. You just got it!

Scott Marquardt

2004-11-04 21:51:47 UTC

Because with conservatives it's all about having enemies. If they don't have
an enemy their policies fail to appeal to their voters.

Well guess what? They have no opposition to worry about this time. So
when get sour? Who are they going to scapegoat?
Be careful for what you wish for, rightards. You just got it!

As glad to have it as you are to cede it. Thanks!

--
Scott

Julian D.

2004-11-04 21:57:31 UTC

Because with conservatives it's all about having enemies. If they don't have
an enemy their policies fail to appeal to their voters.

Well guess what? They have no opposition to worry about this time. So
when get sour? Who are they going to scapegoat?

Hi Mike! Underestimated Bush again I see. AND you underestimated the
American electorate.
How can you live with yourself?
Apologize for being so wrongheaded please. We can still be friends.
I'm compassionate.

Post by mhirtes
Be careful for what you wish for, rightards. You just got it!

YOUR guy lost to an 'idiot,' jackass.

A Warm Fuzzy

2004-11-04 22:51:02 UTC

Because with conservatives it's all about having enemies. If they don't have
an enemy their policies fail to appeal to their voters.

Well guess what? They have no opposition to worry about this time. So
when get sour? Who are they going to scapegoat?

Post by mhirtes
Be careful for what you wish for, rightards. You just got it!

YOUR guy lost to an 'idiot,' jackass.

Doesn't say much for the electorate, does it, moron?

Julian D.

2004-11-05 01:03:18 UTC

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:51:02 -0800, "A Warm Fuzzy"

Because with conservatives it's all about having enemies. If they don't have
an enemy their policies fail to appeal to their voters.

Well guess what? They have no opposition to worry about this time. So
when get sour? Who are they going to scapegoat?

Post by mhirtes
Be careful for what you wish for, rightards. You just got it!

YOUR guy lost to an 'idiot,' jackass.

Doesn't say much for the electorate, does it, moron?

The democrats kept saying Bush was an 'idiot'. And their guy lost to
him.

Gray Shockley

2004-11-05 04:47:15 UTC

Post by Julian D.
The democrats kept saying Bush was an 'idiot'. And their guy lost to
him.

From a Democrat in another election:

Supporter: "That was wonderful, Governor Stevenson; every thinking American
will vote for you."

Adlai Stevenson: "That's not enough, we need a majority.

A Warm Fuzzy

2004-11-05 20:31:38 UTC

Post by Julian D.
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:51:02 -0800, "A Warm Fuzzy"

Post by Mjkenoyer
...because we don't. Many of us campaigned for John Kerry and John
Edwards because we believed in their vision for a _better_, not a
worse, America that would reach out to the poor and disenfranchised
the war on terrorism.
I am not a hippie, Godless, pinko, Commie, slacker, lazy-ass
stereotype that people of the Karl Rove variety like to paint us. My
husband and I (and all of my friends who volunteered in the
Kerry/Edwards campaign) are tax-paying, law-abiding, full-time,
gainful job-working Americans who feel privileged and grateful to live
in a free country such as this. We just wish we could talk about our
opinions freely without being unduly attacked for being
"un-American".
We are just as worried about our nation's moral compass as you are. We
are just as nervous about terrorist threats and our children's future
under them as you are. We want our children and grandchildren to live
in a beautiful, compassionate, and safe place--just like you do. We
want that shining city on a hill that Reagan spoke of so many years
ago--we simply differ in how we want to get there. Is that so wrong?
So let me ask you again: why specifically do you think we hate
America? Because we simply don't, and want to understand why you feel
that way.

Because with conservatives it's all about having enemies. If they
don't
have
an enemy their policies fail to appeal to their voters.

Well guess what? They have no opposition to worry about this time. So
when get sour? Who are they going to scapegoat?

Post by mhirtes
Be careful for what you wish for, rightards. You just got it!

YOUR guy lost to an 'idiot,' jackass.

Doesn't say much for the electorate, does it, moron?

The democrats kept saying Bush was an 'idiot'. And their guy lost to
him.

No one ever got rich betting on the relative intelligence of voters. Bush
should thank god for dumb people.

Lars Eighner

2004-11-05 19:39:13 UTC

Post by A Warm Fuzzy
No one ever got rich betting on the relative intelligence of voters. Bush
should thank god for dumb people.

Or, as my cousin Adlai said when told he would get the vote of
every thinking person: "It is not enough. I need a majority."

--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- ***@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
Quoting me will give your meaningless drivel a little color, no pun intended.
-- "Fineous"

Gray Shockley

2004-11-05 04:26:13 UTC

Post by mhirtes
Be careful for what you wish for, rightards. You just got it!

YOUR guy lost to an 'idiot,' jackass.

An excellent point.

gray

Ashland Henderson

2004-11-06 20:40:28 UTC

Because with conservatives it's all about having enemies. If they don't have
an enemy their policies fail to appeal to their voters.

Well guess what? They have no opposition to worry about this time. So
when get sour? Who are they going to scapegoat?

Hi Mike! Underestimated Bush again I see. AND you underestimated the
American electorate.

Actually he appears to have overestimated the American electorate.

Post by Julian D.
How can you live with yourself?

I don't know about him, personally I'm quite happy with myself.

Post by Julian D.
Apologize for being so wrongheaded please. We can still be friends.
I'm compassionate.

Now that's one of the funiest things I've heard you say yet.

Post by mhirtes
Be careful for what you wish for, rightards. You just got it!

YOUR guy lost to an 'idiot,' jackass.

And you should still be careful about getting what you wish for.

Scott Marquardt

2004-11-04 21:50:58 UTC

Because with conservatives it's all about having enemies. If they don't have
an enemy their policies fail to appeal to their voters.

Well that's quite a contrast with liberals, then, who this year cast Bush
as the enemy of the freakin' free world and couldn't find traction with
voters as a consequence. In other words, if liberals DO have an enemy,
their policies fail to appeal to their voters. Go figure. ;-)

Post by El Chingaderro
Take the cold war
for an example. After the big threat of the USSR was gone, that's when they
searched for another enemy and started focusing on liberals. Now liberals
and their causes have been villianized to the point where Kerry had to
defend himself for being a liberal and Bush didn't have to defend himself
for being a conservative. With conservatives everything is black and white,

Let's see -- liberals, it's a rainbow, conservatives, it's black and white.
Isn't that also binary thinking? ;-)

Post by El Chingaderro
so if you are not with them you are an enemy supporting all the straw men
described in the post above.

Isn't that the argument Dems were making against Nader this year? If you're
not with us by bowing out, you're ag'in us so we'll hate on ya?

Post by El Chingaderro
Maybe we will eventually come to realize that
conservatives have picked their own countrymen as enemies and turn the
corner.

LOL

This from the camp that embraced the likes of Michael Moore?

Do you freakin' realize that your party parked Moore's ass in the chair --
or nearly so -- of the man who brokered one of the most important peace
deals in the Middle East -- a deal that cost Sadat his life? What the hell
is Moore doing sitting there? Talk about dividing America. Moore destroyed
your effort to elect Kerry, by instilling fear and loathing of the tinfoil
hat brigade in the populace at large. If Bush's enemies are that ludicrous,
how bad can Bush possibly be? Gee, we better rethink this.

--
Scott

A Warm Fuzzy

2004-11-04 22:47:03 UTC

Post by Scott Marquardt

Because with conservatives it's all about having enemies. If they don't have
an enemy their policies fail to appeal to their voters.

Well that's quite a contrast with liberals, then, who this year cast Bush
as the enemy of the freakin' free world and couldn't find traction with
voters as a consequence.

They found traction with damn near half of them, many tired of liberal being
used as a bad word.

In other words, if liberals DO have an enemy,

Post by Scott Marquardt
their policies fail to appeal to their voters. Go figure. ;-)

If you want they fair shake on liberals, their problem is that they want to
play the role of the protector of victims. This means that the democrats are
a motly crew of victims with beliefs all over the board and the party to
busy trying to make them all happy to fight back against the republicans.
This is why I'm an independant, because I don't think either group is
righteous enough to villianize the other in such broad strokes.

Scott Marquardt

2004-11-04 23:20:22 UTC

Post by Scott Marquardt

Because with conservatives it's all about having enemies. If they don't have
an enemy their policies fail to appeal to their voters.

Well that's quite a contrast with liberals, then, who this year cast Bush
as the enemy of the freakin' free world and couldn't find traction with
voters as a consequence.

They found traction with damn near half of them, many tired of liberal being
used as a bad word.

Shouldn't've made it one, then. Its pedigree is undeserving of its later
heirs, that's for sure.

Post by Scott Marquardt
In other words, if liberals DO have an enemy,
their policies fail to appeal to their voters. Go figure. ;-)

If you want they fair shake on liberals, their problem is that they want to
play the role of the protector of victims.

Or the pandering to African Americans -- take your pick. Geez what a party.

Post by A Warm Fuzzy
This means that the democrats are
a motly crew of victims with beliefs all over the board and the party to
busy trying to make them all happy to fight back against the republicans.
This is why I'm an independant, because I don't think either group is
righteous enough to villianize the other in such broad strokes.

A fair judgment, quite possibly.

--
Scott

Julian D.

2004-11-04 21:53:46 UTC

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:58:31 -0800, "El Chingaderro"

Lack of war or conflict does not define ' peace'.

Post by El Chingaderro
Now liberals
and their causes have been villianized to the point where Kerry had to
defend himself for being a liberal and Bush didn't have to defend himself
for being a conservative. With conservatives everything is black and white,
so if you are not with them you are an enemy supporting all the straw men
described in the post above. Maybe we will eventually come to realize that
conservatives have picked their own countrymen as enemies and turn the
corner.

A Warm Fuzzy

2004-11-04 22:50:01 UTC

Post by Julian D.
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:58:31 -0800, "El Chingaderro"

Lack of war or conflict does not define ' peace'.

Obviously for conservatives it does not. So much so that they will turn on
their countrymen and try to force everyone into lock-step with them.

Gray Shockley

2004-11-05 04:25:16 UTC

Post by Julian D.
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:58:31 -0800, "El Chingaderro"

Lack of war or conflict does not define ' peace'.

Unless one reads Ambrose Bierce.
gray

conservozilla republican

2004-11-04 20:03:00 UTC

IF IT WALKS LIKE A COMMIE TALKS LIKES A COMMIE VOTES LIKE A COMMIE POSTS
LIKE A COMMIE BETS ARE IT IS A COMMIE NORTH VIETNAM IS A DEMOCRATIC
REPUBLIC AMERICA IS A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLICONE NATION UNDER GODWITH
LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR CHRISTIANS JUST LIKE THE GUYS THAT AUTHORED IT WERE

Cary Kittrell

2004-11-04 20:38:08 UTC

Post by conservozilla republican
IF IT WALKS LIKE A COMMIE TALKS LIKES A COMMIE VOTES LIKE A COMMIE POSTS
LIKE A COMMIE BETS ARE IT IS A COMMIE NORTH VIETNAM IS A DEMOCRATIC
REPUBLIC AMERICA IS A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLICONE NATION UNDER GODWITH
LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR CHRISTIANS JUST LIKE THE GUYS THAT AUTHORED IT WERE

And now that we've heard out the delegation from the Thorazine ward,
how about some responses from a few of the more thoughtful and intelligent
conservatives out there? (and we know you're there; we can hear you
breathing)

"Mjkenoyer"s post was well and thoughtfully written, and raises a
most important issue. It deserves better than this.

-- cary

Julian D.

2004-11-04 21:51:44 UTC

Post by Cary Kittrell

You found out immensly on Tuesday just how many there were.
If you havent figured it out, why in THE HELL should we deign to waste
our time explaining it again to you now??????
You had the immensly opportunistic time to hear from us in the 2002
mid-term elections. The Democrats did NOT listen then either.
You've underestimated Bush time and time again.
He knows what America wants and needs.
Integrity and being decisive is what leaders are made of.
National security was the #1 issue in this campaign. America was not
going to follow the policies of the failed UN as Kerry would have
surely followed.

Post by Cary Kittrell
"Mjkenoyer"s post was well and thoughtfully written, and raises a
most important issue. It deserves better than this.
-- cary

Mjkenoyer

2004-11-07 20:54:31 UTC

Post by Julian D.
You found out immensly on Tuesday just how many there were.
If you havent figured it out, why in THE HELL should we deign to waste
our time explaining it again to you now??????
You had the immensly opportunistic time to hear from us in the 2002
mid-term elections. The Democrats did NOT listen then either.
You've underestimated Bush time and time again.
He knows what America wants and needs.
Integrity and being decisive is what leaders are made of.

Frankly, I thought John Kerry had both integrity and decisiveness, and
about 55,000,000 other Kerry voters thought the same way. Bush might
very well have both qualities also, but he doesn't own a monopoly on
them.

Post by Julian D.
National security was the #1 issue in this campaign. America was not
going to follow the policies of the failed UN as Kerry would have
surely followed.

Emmmm...actually, "moral values" (read: homophobia and anti-choice
beliefs) trumped national security, the war in Iraq, and the economy:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6401635/site/newsweek/

It's pretty scary when your candidate can win an election in which
people think two guys kissing is more important than a mushroom cloud
in their backyard.

One consolation I can garner from a Bush win is that he and his
advisers are now speaking openly about reaching out to Democrats and
their supporters and moving toward the center. Although this would be
nice in terms of foreign and domestic policy--it would certainly help
him clean up the mess he made and help bridge the Great Divide--Bush
is now somewhat damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

If he does moderate his views (particularly his social ones), he risks
alienating and disillusioning the evangelical Christians who shooed
him in with their large turnout--and they will likely not trust his
successor in 2008, even if Bush does manage to clean things up a bit
on the homefront and in Iraq. If he, instead, panders toward his base
so as not to lose their support for the next Republican in office (and
designs his policies accordingly), he very well may galvanize the
Democrats and progressives against him; and in 2008, you might see
many more than 55,000,000 million of us voting for the other guy (or
gal) in '08.

Paolo Pizzi

2004-11-06 01:26:46 UTC

Post by Cary Kittrell
And now that we've heard out the delegation from the Thorazine ward,
how about some responses from a few of the more thoughtful and intelligent
conservatives out there?

==================== TOTAL SILENCE =================

Maybe you're asking for something that doesn't exist... ;-)

Mjkenoyer

2004-11-07 20:40:17 UTC

Post by Cary Kittrell

And now that we've heard out the delegation from the Thorazine ward,
how about some responses from a few of the more thoughtful and intelligent
conservatives out there? (and we know you're there; we can hear you
breathing)
"Mjkenoyer"s post was well and thoughtfully written, and raises a
most important issue. It deserves better than this.

Why thank you, Cary. :)

Mike Flannigan

2004-11-04 20:48:34 UTC

John Kerry told the world that the President of the US lied about the
reasons for going to war in Iraq. Yet Kerry himself said Saddam had WMD's
before and after Bush was elected. Kerry thought Saddam had WMD's just like
Bush and countless other democrats did. Kerry told a lie that was extremely
damaging to his country to get elected. Why would someone who loves their
country do that? What Kerry did was un-American.

Kerry kept saying that the President of the US failed to get the
co-operation of countries like France. But Kerry knows that France was knee
deep in the oil for food scandal and was on the take from Saddam. Why would
someone who loves his country blame his own country first rather than blame
the corrupt countries that lent aid and comfort to Saddam? Enough aid and
comfort that Saddam believed he could defy us. What Kerry did was
un-American.

Why would you support a man for president who put his political ambitions
ahead of his country? Naivety?

Brigid Nelson

2004-11-04 21:53:39 UTC

Post by Mike Flannigan

Do you really not understand that Kerry got his information from the
administration. The administration was lying to congress. Kerry
believed what he was told by the administration and supported the
administration's policies until he learned the truth. Your guy will
never ever change his opinion based on learning new facts, and I don't
see that as a positive trait.

I remember Bush stating that the first thing we needed to do was to let
the UN inspectors investigate. When they didn't give him the answer
that he wanted he disregarded them and went in anyway. He knew there
were no WMDs long before anyone else did. He didn't care he was looking
for any excuse to invade Iraq. If the Saudi terrorists hadn't taken out
the twin towers he would have found some other reason to do it.

You do understand that lying to congress is impeachable. Why is the
republican majority less inclined to investigate the documented lies of
the POTUS than they were to examine Clinton's cigars?

Post by Mike Flannigan
Kerry kept saying that the President of the US failed to get the
co-operation of countries like France. But Kerry knows that France was knee
deep in the oil for food scandal and was on the take from Saddam. Why would
someone who loves his country blame his own country first rather than blame
the corrupt countries that lent aid and comfort to Saddam? Enough aid and
comfort that Saddam believed he could defy us. What Kerry did was
un-American.

Saying that France was knee-deep in the food for oil scandal is like
saying that the US was knee deep in it because Halliburton was involved.
Just like in the US, the French government does not own the
corporations in France who were benefitting from the scandalous situation.

Post by Mike Flannigan
Why would you support a man for president who put his political ambitions
ahead of his country? Naivety?

Good question. Why did you support Bush?

brigid

Mike Flannigan

2004-11-05 03:59:54 UTC

Post by Brigid Nelson

Post by Mike Flannigan

I thought I just said that Kerry said Saddam had WMD's BEFORE Bush was ever
elected. Right along with Clinton, Gore and a host of other dems. It wasn't
until Kerry saw Dean gaining traction with the idiotic Bush lied lie that he
did a 180 and picked up the mantra. That's how he got the nomination.

You going to tell me that Bush was telling Kerry Saddam had WMD's from
Crawford while Bush was governor of Texas and that Kerry believed Bush over
his own intelligence reports that he received as a member of the Senate
intelligence committee now?

Post by Brigid Nelson
I remember Bush stating that the first thing we needed to do was to let
the UN inspectors investigate. When they didn't give him the answer that
he wanted he disregarded them and went in anyway. He knew there were no
WMDs long before anyone else did. He didn't care he was looking for any
excuse to invade Iraq. If the Saudi terrorists hadn't taken out the twin
towers he would have found some other reason to do it.

How did he know there were no WMD's before anyone else did? Kerry argued
that we should get permission from the UN before invading. Now we know that
key members of the UN were being bribed and bought off to overt an invasion
and they conspired to keep Saddam in power in exchange for blood money.
Bush's judgment was proven correct and Kerry's proven completely felonious.
He wanted us to get permission from a corrupt body that would have NEVER
gone along with us. Even while Saddam reconstituted his weapons program. And
that was the plan.

Kerry has been proven to have poor judgment over and over again. The 9/11
commission report said that the primary cause of 9/11 was poor intelligence.
Democrats have ALWAYS been very hostel to the intelligence gathering
agencies. Kerry never missed a chance to vote to cut the budget of the CIA,
even after 9/11. He was a member of the intelligence committee yet his
record of attendance at committee meetings is nothing sort of abysmal. Kerry
was simply not a serious candidate. Certainly not the man for the job post
9/11. Unfit for command.

Post by Brigid Nelson
You do understand that lying to congress is impeachable. Why is the
republican majority less inclined to investigate the documented lies of
the POTUS than they were to examine Clinton's cigars?

Because Bush didn't lie. He believed that Saddam had WMD's just like Kerry,
Clinton, Gore, the UN and a host other countries like the UK believed.
Clinton lied under oath as it was proven. He lost his license to practice
law over it.

And as I have proven. If Bush lied, then so did Kerry. Except Bush didn't
lie. Kerry did.

Post by Brigid Nelson

Post by Mike Flannigan
Kerry kept saying that the President of the US failed to get the
co-operation of countries like France. But Kerry knows that France was
knee deep in the oil for food scandal and was on the take from Saddam.
Why would someone who loves his country blame his own country first
rather than blame the corrupt countries that lent aid and comfort to
Saddam? Enough aid and comfort that Saddam believed he could defy us.
What Kerry did was un-American.

Saying that France was knee-deep in the food for oil scandal is like
saying that the US was knee deep in it because Halliburton was involved.
Just like in the US, the French government does not own the corporations
in France who were benefitting from the scandalous situation.

I don't know that those French companies are not nationalized in every real
sense of the word. Corporations and the government are far more one in the
same in socialist France than we are used to here in the US. As the
investigation now stands it looks very probable that this scandal reaches
into the highest echelons of the French government. Right up to close
cronies of Chirac himself. Now that Bush has been reelected we can rest easy
that the corrupt UN scheme perpetrated at the expense of the Iraqi people
will not be swept under the rug like it would have been under a Kerry
administration that would have promised to ignore the scandal in exchange
for hand shakes and smiley faces for the superficial TV public.

Post by Brigid Nelson

Post by Mike Flannigan
Why would you support a man for president who put his political ambitions
ahead of his country? Naivety?

Good question. Why did you support Bush?
brigid

Explain something to me. Why did Bush risk his presidency and political
career on such a risky venture as Iraq?

Lars Eighner

2004-11-05 13:58:36 UTC

Post by Mike Flannigan
Explain something to me. Why did Bush risk his presidency and political
career on such a risky venture as Iraq?

Greed and unresolved Daddy issues - that justified the lies to get
America into Iraq. Profound stupidity - that accounts for the lack
of an exit strategy. He really did think, and evidently still does
think, people of other cultures will regard American invasions as
"liberation."

--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- ***@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
Quoting me will give your meaningless drivel a little color, no pun intended.
-- "Fineous"

Poster

2004-11-05 18:22:25 UTC

Post by Lars Eighner
Greed and unresolved Daddy issues - that justified the lies to get
America into Iraq. Profound stupidity - that accounts for the lack
of an exit strategy. He really did think, and evidently still does
think, people of other cultures will regard American invasions as
"liberation."

so true.....

now, is that clueless, or evil?

or.... both..

Lars Eighner

2004-11-05 19:36:29 UTC

In our last episode,

Post by Poster

so true.....
now, is that clueless, or evil?
or.... both..

At a certain level, they are one and the same.

--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- ***@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
Quoting me will give your meaningless drivel a little color, no pun intended.
-- "Fineous"

yaffaDina

2004-11-05 20:39:11 UTC

Post by Lars Eighner
In our last episode,

Post by Poster

so true.....
now, is that clueless, or evil?
or.... both..

At a certain level, they are one and the same.

What is it if you picture Bush Jr. lording it over Bush Sr. because he's
a 2-term President?
yD

Post by Lars Eighner
--
Quoting me will give your meaningless drivel a little color, no pun intended.
-- "Fineous"

John Tibbs

2004-11-05 22:16:06 UTC

'cause you apparently do...
--
............................................................................
...................

If you like uncertainty,
Politics over issues,
Manicures over manliness,
Loud hateful animated oratory,
UN permission to defend,
Withdrawal without winning,
Celebrity worshipping
Dead people voting,
Convicts voting,
Doctor's leaving the practice,
Outsourcing our medicines,
Elitist, Condescending politicians,
Schools that don't teach,
Schools that brainwash kids,
Empty, impossible promises,

Then, Vote Liberal!

If you want security,
Straightforward talk,
Down home values,
Respect for the constitution,

Then Vote Conservative!

I am a
Conservative Independent
www.townhall.com
jt

Gray Shockley

2004-11-06 20:49:31 UTC

Post by Lars Eighner

Post by Mike Flannigan
Explain something to me. Why did Bush risk his presidency and political
career on such a risky venture as Iraq?

Greed and unresolved Daddy issues - that justified the lies to get
America into Iraq. Profound stupidity - that accounts for the lack
of an exit strategy.

I can understand Presidents Cheney and Bush not having an "exit strategy" a
lot more easily than I can their not having an "entrance strategy".

Post by Lars Eighner
He really did think, and evidently still does
think, people of other cultures will regard American invasions as
"liberation."

At least both President Cheney and President Bush
have daughters of draft age.

Gray Shockley / Vicksburg, MS
---------------------------------------------
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Mjkenoyer

2004-11-07 21:00:30 UTC

Post by Mike Flannigan
John Kerry told the world that the President of the US lied about the
reasons for going to war in Iraq. Yet Kerry himself said Saddam had WMD's
before and after Bush was elected. Kerry thought Saddam had WMD's just like
Bush and countless other democrats did. Kerry told a lie that was extremely
damaging to his country to get elected. Why would someone who loves their
country do that?

Emmmm...because Kerry had initially _believed_ in what his President
was telling everyone. And then the truth came out.

I remember a time when _we_ lent aid and comfort to
Saddam...particularly when he was fighting off the fundamentalists in
Iran. That is a horrible truth about our country that a lot of people
can't accept.

The world IS better off without an evil bastard like Saddam. I'm not
arguing that. It's the manner in which we outsted Saddam that has
troubled me.

Post by Mike Flannigan
Why would you support a man for president who put his political ambitions
ahead of his country? Naivety?

Bush and Kerry are both politicians--they *both* put their political
ambitions first. And you don't think Bush is guilty of doing this as
well?

One word: Fallujah.

Julian D.

2004-11-07 23:18:51 UTC

Post by Mjkenoyer

Emmmm...because Kerry had initially _believed_ in what his President
was telling everyone. And then the truth came out.

I remember a time when _we_ lent aid and comfort to
Saddam...particularly when he was fighting off the fundamentalists in
Iran. That is a horrible truth about our country that a lot of people
can't accept.
The world IS better off without an evil bastard like Saddam. I'm not
arguing that. It's the manner in which we outsted Saddam that has
troubled me.

"Knowing what you know now (about wmd), would you still have gone to
war?"

Kerry: "yes".

Post by Mjkenoyer

Post by Mike Flannigan
Why would you support a man for president who put his political ambitions
ahead of his country? Naivety?

Bush and Kerry are both politicians--they *both* put their political
ambitions first. And you don't think Bush is guilty of doing this as
well?
One word: Fallujah.

Steven Litvintchouk

2004-11-04 21:16:33 UTC

Post by Mjkenoyer
...because we don't.

The following poll proves that while liberals don't necessarily "hate"
America, they sure are far more *conflicted* about America than
conservatives are:

April 27, 2004--More than six-out-of-ten American voters believe the USA
is a good role model for the rest of the world.

A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 64% of voters believe that
American society is generally fair and decent. Additionally, 62% believe
the world would be a better place if other countries became more like
the United States.

However, while a solid majority views the nation in this way, there are
significant differences of opinion among partisan, ideological, and
political fault lines.

Among Bush voters, 83% say that American society is generally fair and
decent. Just 7% say it is basically unfair and discriminatory.

While Bush voters are united behind this perception, Kerry voters are
divided--46% say fair and decent while 37% say unfair and discriminatory.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of Bush voters also believe the world would be
better if other nations were more like the United States. This view is
shared by just 48% of Kerry voters.

From an ideological perspective, 74% of conservatives say the world
would be better if other nations were more like ours. Just 15% of
conservatives believe it would be worse.

However, among self-identified liberals, the numbers are 49% better and
37% worse. A plurality of those who say they are very liberal believe
the world would be in worse shape if other nations were more like ours.

Moderate voters, by a 3-to-1 margin think that having other nation's
more like us would create a better world.

Similar differences of opinion were found on the question of the United
Nations. Just 38% of American voters have a favorable opinion of that
organization.

The survey also found that just 18% of voters believe most Americans are
racist. Sixty-five percent (65%) disagree.

Rasmussen Reports provides a comprehensive Election 2004 polling
service. We have recently released state polling data for the
Presidential race in California, New Hampshire, New Jersey, West
Virginia, Florida, and Colorado. Earlier surveys were conducted in
Washington, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Ohio, and Missouri.

On a national basis this time around, the Rasmussen Reports Presidential
Election Tracking Poll updates the Presidential race on a daily basis.

The telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen
Reports April 25-26, 2004. The margin of sampling error for the full
sample is +/- 3 percentage points, with a 95% level of confidence.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/USA%20Role%20Model.htm

[
"A plurality of those who say they are very liberal believe the world
would be in worse shape if other nations were more like ours."

"Kerry voters are
divided--46% say [American society is] fair and decent while 37% say
unfair and discriminatory." (Notice that the questions in this poll
didn't have anything to do with the actions of the Bush Administration.
They were about America and American society generally.)

]

--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: ***@earthlinkNOSPAM.net

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Julian D.

2004-11-04 21:46:18 UTC

No. You. Are. Not. If you were, you would have stoically REJECTED
Hollywood, michael moore and other socialist un-Americanism and
DEMANDED Kerry publicly reject their endorsements.
You should have DEMANDED Kerry to reject the Communist Party's
endorsement.
Real America rejected the most leftist Blame-America-first crowd and
was appalled Kerry did not.

Post by Mjkenoyer
We
are just as nervous about terrorist threats and our children's future
under them as you are. We want our children and grandchildren to live
in a beautiful, compassionate, and safe place--just like you do. We
want that shining city on a hill that Reagan spoke of so many years
ago--we simply differ in how we want to get there. Is that so wrong?
So let me ask you again: why specifically do you think we hate
America? Because we simply don't, and want to understand why you feel
that way.

Yes you do. You lie down with dogs. You let michael moore and the
most leftist, anarchist, anti-Capitalist organizations like MoveOn.org
take over and lead Kerry's campaign WITHOUT SO MUCH AS A PROTEST on
your part.
Kerry was a whore who needed their votes though.
YOU are complicit.

Too Damn Bad

2004-11-04 22:47:58 UTC

In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@ersatz.com
says...

No. You. Are. Not. If you were, you would have stoically REJECTED
Hollywood, michael moore and other socialist un-Americanism and
DEMANDED Kerry publicly reject their endorsements.

Are you saying to publicly criticize a president makes someone un-American?

Julian D.

2004-11-05 01:05:21 UTC

Post by Too Damn Bad
says...

No. You. Are. Not. If you were, you would have stoically REJECTED
Hollywood, michael moore and other socialist un-Americanism and
DEMANDED Kerry publicly reject their endorsements.

Are you saying to publicly criticize a president makes someone un-American?

Those like Hollywood and michael moore? Absolutely, positively YES.
Hollywood is full of immoral boobs and you can easily read moore's
insults towards Americans and America in general.

A Warm Fuzzy

2004-11-05 20:32:42 UTC

Post by Too Damn Bad
says...

No. You. Are. Not. If you were, you would have stoically REJECTED
Hollywood, michael moore and other socialist un-Americanism and
DEMANDED Kerry publicly reject their endorsements.

Are you saying to publicly criticize a president makes someone
un-American?

Those like Hollywood and michael moore? Absolutely, positively YES.
Hollywood is full of immoral boobs and you can easily read moore's
insults towards Americans and America in general.

It's boobs like you who hate the constitution that are un-American.

Free speech. Don't like it? Fuck you.

Julian D.

2004-11-05 22:56:49 UTC

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:32:42 -0800, "A Warm Fuzzy"

Post by Too Damn Bad
says...

No. You. Are. Not. If you were, you would have stoically REJECTED
Hollywood, michael moore and other socialist un-Americanism and
DEMANDED Kerry publicly reject their endorsements.

Are you saying to publicly criticize a president makes someone un-American?

Those like Hollywood and michael moore? Absolutely, positively YES.
Hollywood is full of immoral boobs and you can easily read moore's
insults towards Americans and America in general.

It's boobs like you who hate the constitution that are un-American.
Free speech. Don't like it? Fuck you.

Are you demanding we have to listen? Or even like it?
That's not what free speech is.

A Warm Fuzzy

2004-11-06 06:13:25 UTC

Post by Julian D.
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:32:42 -0800, "A Warm Fuzzy"

Post by Too Damn Bad
says...

No. You. Are. Not. If you were, you would have stoically REJECTED
Hollywood, michael moore and other socialist un-Americanism and
DEMANDED Kerry publicly reject their endorsements.

Are you saying to publicly criticize a president makes someone un-American?

Those like Hollywood and michael moore? Absolutely, positively YES.
Hollywood is full of immoral boobs and you can easily read moore's
insults towards Americans and America in general.

It's boobs like you who hate the constitution that are un-American.
Free speech. Don't like it? Fuck you.

Are you demanding we have to listen? Or even like it?
That's not what free speech is.

Fuck you.

Don't like it? Just go to court so you can learn a lesson.

ravinwulf

2004-11-06 09:56:58 UTC

Post by Julian D.
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:32:42 -0800, "A Warm Fuzzy"

Post by Too Damn Bad
says...

No. You. Are. Not. If you were, you would have stoically REJECTED
Hollywood, michael moore and other socialist un-Americanism and
DEMANDED Kerry publicly reject their endorsements.

Are you saying to publicly criticize a president makes someone un-American?

Those like Hollywood and michael moore? Absolutely, positively YES.
Hollywood is full of immoral boobs and you can easily read moore's
insults towards Americans and America in general.

It's boobs like you who hate the constitution that are un-American.
Free speech. Don't like it? Fuck you.

Are you demanding we have to listen? Or even like it?
That's not what free speech is.

Nope, you don't have to listen, or to like it. But you don't have the
right to try and stop them from expressing their opinion either.

Regards,
ravinwulf

Julian D.

2004-11-06 14:31:04 UTC

Post by ravinwulf

Post by Julian D.
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:32:42 -0800, "A Warm Fuzzy"

Post by Too Damn Bad
says...

No. You. Are. Not. If you were, you would have stoically REJECTED
Hollywood, michael moore and other socialist un-Americanism and
DEMANDED Kerry publicly reject their endorsements.

Are you saying to publicly criticize a president makes someone un-American?

Those like Hollywood and michael moore? Absolutely, positively YES.
Hollywood is full of immoral boobs and you can easily read moore's
insults towards Americans and America in general.

It's boobs like you who hate the constitution that are un-American.
Free speech. Don't like it? Fuck you.

Are you demanding we have to listen? Or even like it?
That's not what free speech is.

Nope, you don't have to listen, or to like it. But you don't have the
right to try and stop them from expressing their opinion either.

And you can list these attempts to 'stop them'?
You're not talking about boycotts against the Dixie Chick sluts are
you?
That's our free speech in response to their free speech.
See? It works both ways.

Post by ravinwulf
Regards,
ravinwulf

Gray Shockley

2004-11-06 20:44:32 UTC

Post by ravinwulf

Post by Julian D.
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:32:42 -0800, "A Warm Fuzzy"

Post by Too Damn Bad
says...

No. You. Are. Not. If you were, you would have stoically REJECTED
Hollywood, michael moore and other socialist un-Americanism and
DEMANDED Kerry publicly reject their endorsements.

Are you saying to publicly criticize a president makes someone un-American?

Those like Hollywood and michael moore? Absolutely, positively YES.
Hollywood is full of immoral boobs and you can easily read moore's
insults towards Americans and America in general.

It's boobs like you who hate the constitution that are un-American.
Free speech. Don't like it? Fuck you.

Are you demanding we have to listen? Or even like it?
That's not what free speech is.

Nope, you don't have to listen, or to like it. But you don't have the
right to try and stop them from expressing their opinion either.

And you can list these attempts to 'stop them'?
You're not talking about boycotts against the Dixie Chick sluts are
you?

Are the "Dixie Chicks" deemed "sluts" by you in the same
manner by which I refer to Julian D. as a "panderer"?

Post by Julian D.
That's our free speech in response to their free speech.
See? It works both ways.

If you think that there are only two "ways"
then you aren't "thinking" at all.

Post by ravinwulf
Regards,
ravinwulf

Just out of curiosity, do you "think" that the "high-ranking member" of the
Bush administration (likely President Cheney's "Chief of Staff") who "outted"
a CIA employee was exercising "free speech"?

[My "thought" on this is that that person should be tried for "Treason".

(But, then, I have had the honor of being called - by the Dana Raffaniello
thingie - in one 24-hour period - both a "liberal" and "a glorifier of war"
[killfiled the sucka for being stupid].

++ gray /Dana i less than rational, dontchaknow/

Julian D.

2004-11-06 21:05:03 UTC