The Right to Offend

[wmrs2]

Thorne, thanks for the evidence that is self evident in your reply.
History will tell it as it was. The fact that your are still alive is no illusion although Bush ter would rather there had bee more 9/11's so they could blame Bush. (Evidence of this will be forthcoming!)

"his political cronies reap obscene profits from the war" there is absolutely no evidence of this statement; if there is, please state it. This is part of the dancing in the street theory wherin you are told so many times that something is true that you finally believe.

"country into a deep recession or depression while terrorist leaders thumbed their noses at him." It is difficult to speak any facts that have not occurred as yet, unless you speak from the heart(emotions) of what you hope will happen. Here, Americans should be hopeful Bush can turn the economy around. I think you will find that there is a bipartisan
attempt by Congress to do this. That is a patriotic position instead of the hope the economy goes bad so Bush can be bashed.

"I am proud of the American soldiers who are fighting an insane war under insane conditions for an insane foreign policy." The insanity is by those that can't see that the natives were dancing in the streets and making war on us before 9/11. That America should not fight back is insanity. If the President doesn't lead us in the fight, whose going t to do it. Nancy Pelosi and Liberal Democrats in Congress?

As a student of social science, I can not respect your reasoning which is based on pure emotions and no facts. You and irrational followers of your position are dancing in the street when you say you support the troops when in fact you do not. Your position does in fact provide comfort and aid to the enemy, simply because you lost power in government. That's why your followers keep saying you want to take your country back. You don't want the country back. You want power regardless how many American solders die.

Check your logic and get back to us.

[mkemse]

Thorne, thanks for the evidence that is self evident in your reply.
History will tell it as it was. The fact that your are still alive is no illusion although Bush ter would rather there had bee more 9/11's so they could blame Bush. (Evidence of this will be forthcoming!)

"his political cronies reap obscene profits from the war" there is absolutely no evidence of this statement; if there is, please state it. This is part of the dancing in the street theory wherin you are told so many times that something is true that you finally believe.

"country into a deep recession or depression while terrorist leaders thumbed their noses at him." It is difficult to speak any facts that have not occurred as yet, unless you speak from the heart(emotions) of what you hope will happen. Here, Americans should be hopeful Bush can turn the economy around. I think you will find that there is a bipartisan
attempt by Congress to do this. That is a patriotic position instead of the hope the economy goes bad so Bush can be bashed.

"I am proud of the American soldiers who are fighting an insane war under insane conditions for an insane foreign policy." The insanity is by those that can't see that the natives were dancing in the streets and making war on us before 9/11. That America should not fight back is insanity. If the President doesn't lead us in the fight, whose going t to do it. Nancy Pelosi and Liberal Democrats in Congress?

As a student of social science, I can not respect your reasoning which is based on pure emotions and no facts. You and irrational followers of your position are dancing in the street when you say you support the troops when in fact you do not. Your position does in fact provide comfort and aid to the enemy, simply because you lost power in government. That's why your followers keep saying you want to take your country back. You don't want the country back. You want power regardless how many American solders die.

Check your logic and get back to us.

Nancy Pelosi and Liberal Democrats in Congress??

Sure why not they can't be any worse then Bush has been

[wmrs2]

The liberal Democratic Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush. Looks like they are doing worse.

That's alright, join the crowd dancing in the street. Don't get out of step and admit to any of the real facts, or you'll lose the election.

[Thorne]

"his political cronies reap obscene profits from the war" there is absolutely no evidence of this statement; if there is, please state it. This is part of the dancing in the street theory wherin you are told so many times that something is true that you finally believe.

It has been well documented that both Bush and Cheney were, and are, connected with Haliburton. That corporation has been raking in profits hand over fist since the invasion of Iraq. Now, while technically Bush and Cheney had to sever their financial ties in order to take office, anyone who believes that they are not still connected, and will be even more connected after serving, is about as naive as they come.

"country into a deep recession or depression while terrorist leaders thumbed their noses at him." It is difficult to speak any facts that have not occurred as yet, unless you speak from the heart(emotions) of what you hope will happen. Here, Americans should be hopeful Bush can turn the economy around. I think you will find that there is a bipartisan
attempt by Congress to do this. That is a patriotic position instead of the hope the economy goes bad so Bush can be bashed.

I work in the manufacturing industry at a level which is right near the front of the economic system in this country. When things start going downhill, economically, we tend to feel the pinch first, and when they start turning around we generally feel that first, too. 20 years of experience tells me that by the end of this year things are going to be about as bad as I've ever seen them. And while it would be nice to believe that Bush and the Congress could do something positive about the economy, experience tells me that that isn't likely to happen, either.

"I am proud of the American soldiers who are fighting an insane war under insane conditions for an insane foreign policy." The insanity is by those that can't see that the natives were dancing in the streets and making war on us before 9/11. That America should not fight back is insanity. If the President doesn't lead us in the fight, whose going t to do it. Nancy Pelosi and Liberal Democrats in Congress?

This is the kind of macho mentality that is making our streets unsafe. If anyone says anything bad about someone, that person seems to feel the need to kill the other to "protect his honor." If anybody wants to "lead" this country in war, make it a war which has some meaning to the American people. That attack into Afghanistan was POSSIBLY justified by the fact that binLaden was there, protected by the Taliban government. He's still there, hiding in the mountains, thumbing his nose at the American people and Bush in particular. The invasion of Iraq had almost nothing to do with the war on terrorism, however. Sure, Saddam was probably helping to finance terrorists: 90% of the Islamic governments in the region are doing so. Economic actions would have done far more to stop that than sending American troops into a morass without any idea of what they needed to do to win. A true leader in DC would be a real novelty after this.

As a student of social science, I can not respect your reasoning which is based on pure emotions and no facts. You and irrational followers of your position are dancing in the street when you say you support the troops when in fact you do not. Your position does in fact provide comfort and aid to the enemy, simply because you lost power in government. That's why your followers keep saying you want to take your country back. You don't want the country back. You want power regardless how many American solders die.

And here we come to the crux of the problem in this country today. Anyone who disagrees with your position, who thinks that mistakes have been made, who dares to stand up and say that Bush and company may have been wrong, is giving "comfort and aid to the enemy." This tactic has been used by those in power for millenia. It's nothing new. And believe me, the last thing I want is power. All I want is to KEEP those soldiers from dieing. What they are being forced to do over in Iraq is completely outside those areas which the military trains for and is expected to perform. They would be far more useful here at home, protecting OUR borders. And for the record, no, I don't think the Democrats would do any better. I think the only thing we can hope for at this point is that whoever gets elected in November won't make things a whole lot worse.

[Thorne]

I wish to apologize to all the people here for EVER using the phrase "dancing in the streets" in a previous post. wmrs2 has taken that phrase and used it ad nauseum in his diatribes against independent thought.

Sir_Russell, you once suggested that I might be a "dittohead." Well, I give you wmrs2: a died-in-the-wool dittohead if ever there was one.

You'll have to pardon me, now. Gas prices have just gone up at the local station. I need to go dance in the streets to celebrate.

[wmrs2]

I wish to apologize to all the people here for EVER using the phrase "dancing in the streets" in a previous post. wmrs2 has taken that phrase and used it ad nauseum in his diatribes against independent thought.

Sir_Russell, you once suggested that I might be a "dittohead." Well, I give you wmrs2: a died-in-the-wool dittohead if ever there was one.

You'll have to pardon me, now. Gas prices have just gone up at the local station. I need to go dance in the streets to celebrate.

Thorne the truth is that you show no evidence of an independent thought whatsoever. What do you call all this ranting about Bush and Chaney? The Democrats and apparently you too, were so shocked in 2000 and 2004 that the American public rejected your type of dittohead Liberal thinking, that the diatribes have never ended. The ideas you present are not examples of independent thinking. Iknow your going to hate this. Your are still dancing in the streets just like your friends who are killing our solders.

[mkemse]

Thorne the truth is that you show no evidence of an independent thought whatsoever. What do you call all this ranting about Bush and Chaney? The Democrats and apparently you too, were so shocked in 2000 and 2004 that the American public rejected your type of dittohead Liberal thinking, that the diatribes have never ended. The ideas you present are not examples of independent thinking. Iknow your going to hate this. Your are still dancing in the streets just like your friends who are killing our solders.

President Bush is, he is one who sent our men and women to Iraq and if Bush didn't who did?? Dick Cheney?? no. no The Repbilcan Run Congress allowed the initial funding at the time they controled congress and gave Bush a Rubber Stamo for what ever he want,that's right

I am not dancing the Streets over the War, but I will be in Novmember when the Republicans loose control of the White House

[wmrs2]

President Bush is, he is one who sent our men and women to Iraq and if Bush didn't who did?? Dick Cheney?? no. no The Repbilcan Run Congress allowed the initial funding at the time they controled congress and gave Bush a Rubber Stamo for what ever he want,that's right

I am not dancing the Streets over the War, but I will be in Novmember when the Republicans loose control of the White House

You keep proving my point. You keep wanting control. Of course Bush sent the troops to Iraq. When the war began it was a bipartisan thing. As with all wars mistakes are made and things go wrong no matter who is President. Almost every Democrat voted for the war because they wanted the country to think they were interested in protecting the USA. However, when it looked like it was going to be more difficult than hoped, the Democrats who saw an opportunity to blame the war on Bush decided to show their true colors and loyalty. Their loyalty was not to the country but rather to the Liberals dancing in the street. Thankfully most Democrats are loyal Americans first and Party members second. That's why the Democrats voted Bush in for a second term in 2004. How does it feel to be rejected by your own party?

Republicans know they must have the silent majority Democrats to win a presidential election. This same silent majority voted in the Blue Dog Democrats in 2006. These Blue Dog Democrats will not be supporting the liberal left of your party. Everybody reports the following fact, both the liberal and conservative media. The presidential candidates in the Democrat Party must run to the crazy left to win the nomination of the Democrat Party. Yet, when the election begins, the Democrat nominee must run from the middle of the road. He can't do this unless he compromises his liberal principles. He must choose. Does he betray the trust the liberals placed in him or lose the election. If he/she betrays the liberal cause to win the middle of the road vote, that's alright because he/she is used to betrayal and besides the main goal of the Democrats like you is to take your country back.

Speaking of getting back to the center of the road at any cost, the Democrats have tried this in the last two presidential elections. But by the time you finish insulting the voters in the middle of the road with your wild accusations and threats, you have all the right wing Republicans fired up and the middle of the road Democrats questioning your character.

What are you going to do when the Democrats take back their country? Win an argument on the internet? Are you going to turn the country over to the Muslim Nation? Are you going to dance in the street until everybody sees how smart you are?

[mkemse]

You keep proving my point. You keep wanting control. Of course Bush sent the troops to Iraq. When the war began it was a bipartisan thing. As with all wars mistakes are made and things go wrong no matter who is President. Almost every Democrat voted for the war because they wanted the country to think they were interested in protecting the USA. However, when it looked like it was going to be more difficult than hoped, the Democrats who saw an opportunity to blame the war on Bush decided to show their true colors and loyalty. Their loyalty was not to the country but rather to the Liberals dancing in the street. Thankfully most Democrats are loyal Americans first and Party members second. That's why the Democrats voted Bush in for a second term in 2004. How does it feel to be rejected by your own party?

Republicans know they must have the silent majority Democrats to win a presidential election. This same silent majority voted in the Blue Dog Democrats in 2006. These Blue Dog Democrats will not be supporting the liberal left of your party. Everybody reports the following fact, both the liberal and conservative media. The presidential candidates in the Democrat Party must run to the crazy left to win the nomination of the Democrat Party. Yet, when the election begins, the Democrat nominee must run from the middle of the road. He can't do this unless he compromises his liberal principles. He must choose. Does he betray the trust the liberals placed in him or lose the election. If he/she betrays the liberal cause to win the middle of the road vote, that's alright because he/she is used to betrayal and besides the main goal of the Democrats like you is to take your country back.

Speaking of getting back to the center of the road at any cost, the Democrats have tried this in the last two presidential elections. But by the time you finish insulting the voters in the middle of the road with your wild accusations and threats, you have all the right wing Republicans fired up and the middle of the road Democrats questioning your character.

What are you going to do when the Democrats take back their country? Win an argument on the internet? Are you going to turn the country over to the Muslim Nation? Are you going to dance in the street until everybody sees how smart you are?

Outisde of Hilary clinton please educate nme as to all the Democrats that supoorted the War to start with

I will wager a large chunck of chnge the John McCain loses badly in Novembmer, we have a very unpopular war going on, we have a 3.1 TRILLION dollar deficet which is Bush's doing, Clinton left office with a $157 milion dollar surplus look up the fact yourself on this, our ecomony is a mess, we pay $3.50 a galon for gas because Bush is to beholden to the Oil Companies to do anything and when he ordered or asked for the stimulus package recently passed he wanted to include those who earn over $150,000 as a single person, he initaly did not want to offer any relief to people who are retired or disabled can not work and liv e on fixed income and the only reason they are getting it now is because THE DEMOCRATS INSISTED that those who are retired or unable to work do to being disabled, who need it more then anyone, living on a fixed income in this ecomony is almost impossible, trust me i know
Ifthe economy remain as it is now, if the War wages on, if Gas goes to $3.50-$4.00 a gallon this summer the Republicans will have a very hard time holding on to anything much less the White House, and John McCain can't even convience Christian Conservatives he is conservative enough for them

[Thorne]

Thorne the truth is that you show no evidence of an independent thought whatsoever. What do you call all this ranting about Bush and Chaney? The Democrats and apparently you too, were so shocked in 2000 and 2004 that the American public rejected your type of dittohead Liberal thinking, that the diatribes have never ended. The ideas you present are not examples of independent thinking. Iknow your going to hate this. Your are still dancing in the streets just like your friends who are killing our solders.

Not surprisingly you can't seem to come up with any valid arguments to refute my statements. You therefore resort to name calling. I refuse to fall into this trap and lower myself to your standards.

When you can come up with a reasoned argument which counters mine, let me know. Calling me, and others here, terrorists is not a reasoned argument. It's merely a desperate ploy to justify your own beliefs.

And for the record, I never claimed to be a manufacturing or business leader. I merely stated that the company I work for is near the bottom of the economic ladder. We make parts which are combined with other parts to make components, which are then joined with other components to make, eventually, equipment or consumer products. As are most people here, I suspect, I am a simple employee, working a full time job to make a living. I don't own or manage the business. I'm just a "grunt".

And for most of my life I've been middle of the road, I suppose, in a political sense. There are some conservative values which I admire and some liberal values which I admire. But when I see wrongdoing I don't care which side of the fence it's on: it's still wrong!

[wmrs2]

Not surprisingly you can't seem to come up with any valid arguments to refute my statements. You therefore resort to name calling. I refuse to fall into this trap and lower myself to your standards.

When you can come up with a reasoned argument which counters mine, let me know. Calling me, and others here, terrorists is not a reasoned argument. It's merely a desperate ploy to justify your own beliefs.

And for the record, I never claimed to be a manufacturing or business leader. I merely stated that the company I work for is near the bottom of the economic ladder. We make parts which are combined with other parts to make components, which are then joined with other components to make, eventually, equipment or consumer products. As are most people here, I suspect, I am a simple employee, working a full time job to make a living. I t.
don't own or manage the business. I'm just a "grunt".

And for most of my life I've been middle of the road, I suppose, in a political sense. There are some conservative values which I admire and some liberal values which I admire. But when I see wrongdoing I don't care which side of the fence it's on: it's still wrong!

So you are a grunt are you? You sure sounded like a big shot while insulting the President and Vice President with the inference that they were corrupt. While you strip away the dignity of our President with your slurs and contempt, we are suppose to treat you with kindness and respect. I refuted each of your arguments without calling you any names. It was you who referred to me as using moncho logic and being a ditto-head. Of course when you resort to such ploys that's not gutter talk. If any name calling has been started here, you started it. If any refuting of your rationality stated here and made you feel like a terrorist, you initiated it.

Do you think any of the parents and loved ones of our dead soldiers feel they have experienced further ranting from a terrorist when they are told that their child died for a worthless cause? The majority of grieving parents respect the President and the cause for which their children died. They don't want to hear your ranting from the gutter and it is not the American spirit that adds to their grief. I did not call you a terrorist but if the shoe........

You can present arguments against Bush without name calling and you can be polite in a debate. I have not seen too much of that among and your comrades who hate Bush. I have been called a shit-head, told to get may head out of my ass, and now you. Your are just a little better at covering up you nasty language and bitter attitude than some of the others but when you are challenged a little bit, you show your ranker with your superior intellectual facade.

[Thorne]

So you are a grunt are you? You sure sounded like a big shot while insulting the President and Vice President with the inference that they were corrupt. While you strip away the dignity of our President with your slurs and contempt, we are suppose to treat you with kindness and respect. I refuted each of your arguments without calling you any names. It was you who referred to me as using moncho logic and being a ditto-head. Of course when you resort to such ploys that's not gutter talk. If any name calling has been started here, you started it. If any refuting of your rationality stated here and made you feel like a terrorist, you initiated it.

I happen to be a well-educated grunt, about as far from a big shot as I can get, and happy to stay there. And I did not state or infer that either the President or Vice President were corrupt, merely that they are historically connected with Haliburton and the oil industry, something which is well known and documented and which they will tell you is true. As required by law they have distanced themselves from any active role in those industries, and in fact are not permitted to even control their investments directly. They do still have emotional ties, as well as financial ties, to those industries, all above board and legal. Those ties do, however tend to influence their decisions, naturally. There's nothing wrong with that. As you pointed out, they join a long list of our political leaders who have done the same thing or worse. But when they put the well being of those industries above the lives of American soldiers, then there is a serious problem.

As for stripping away the dignity of the President and Vice President, I doubt very much that there is anything I can say here which could do that. It seems to me that they have been quite adept at doing that for themselves.

Do you think any of the parents and loved ones of our dead soldiers feel they have experienced further ranting from a terrorist when they are told that their child died for a worthless cause? The majority of grieving parents respect the President and the cause for which their children died. They don't want to hear your ranting from the gutter and it is not the American spirit that adds to their grief. I did not call you a terrorist but if the shoe........

Unless you have lost a child in this war, or any other war, do not presume to tell me how those parents feel! I have not lost anyone close to me, for which I am grateful. I cannot fathom the grief and anguish these parents are having to endure. I try to respect that grief by not denigrating what their children have done. Those soldiers were doing what they were trained to do, following their officers into combat and putting their lives on the line for a cause which they hopefully felt was just. I could never characterize their sacrifice as "worthless."

I have been called a shit-head, told to get may head out of my ass, and now you. Your are just a little better at covering up you nasty language and bitter attitude than some of the others but when you are challenged a little bit, you show your ranker with your superior intellectual facade.

Other than characterizing you as a "dittohead" I have never called you any names, nor have I intentionally implied that you are anything other than a concerned citizen stating his views. It is my understanding that those followers of a certain radio personality who enjoy parroting his highly conservative rhetoric are proud to call themselves "dittoheads." True, I did use the term sarcastically, I admit. But after being compared to terrorist supporters and accused of celebrating the deaths of soldiers I think I was quite restrained.

This thread is a perfect example of why I hate political arguments. I doubt very much that there is any evidence you can present which would convince me that our leaders have placed the best interests of the American people first, ahead of those businesses and even foreign countries which have supported them. And by "leaders" I mean both Republicans and Democrats, from the executive and legislative branches, and yes, even from the judicial branch. I believe that the best thing that could happen to this country would be for all of the incumbents to be voted out of office and be replaced by people who are willing but reluctant to serve, who will put the interests of the American people and the country ahead of their own and ahead of the interests of those who have financed their rise to power.

A nice fantasy, is it not?