"If you don't like it, leave"

[brad]

'
To those people I would say - "well, it you don't like it hear. Go somewhere else." Common sense to me. If you don't want to help and dont like us, we don't want you (although we will tolerate you) and you obviously don't want us. Why stay?
'

so if parents (who in their area are a minority) dont want their preteen/teen daughters to get on demand secret abortions via school and stuff and all that goes along with that, you think they are wrong to lobby and get 'their' guys on school board and change policy , etc. ? they should just pack up and leave?

to take a line from the jews, where should they (eventually ahve to) go? the moon?

[Cyrus]

"I personally don't think liberals are less patriotic that Republicans. I don't think it is a liberal or conservative thing."

I am not referring to you when I claim that conservatives lie, that they lie big and that they lie most of the time. I don't know you personally so I cannot tell. That you jump up at every opportunity to defend the conservatives from my accusation is intriguing, on two fronts: (a) it may indicate from you an unwitting identification with their causes, depite your repeated denials that you have ever inhaled conservative fart, and (b) it robs me of the chance to debate this with an out-out-out proponent of those lies!

"What the heck does patriotic mean anyway?"

I cannnot define what patriotic is but I know it when I see it

"The perennial and blatant conservative lie about liberals being less patriotic than conservatives... : This is clearly an opinion. Please tell me sir, how is this a lie?"

No, it is not an opinion, it is a lie. All kidding aside, one of the primary attributes of patriotism (Greek patris: one's country) is to willingly serve your country. It is therefore dowright insulting and as blatant a lie as they come, when conservatives accuse as "unpatriotic" people who have served their country in uniform and have seen battle, especially when those same conservatives have shirked from that elementary patriotic duty.

The sight of politican chicken hawks accusing as "unpatriotic"liberal politicians, when liberal war veterans in Congress outnumer conservative war veterans, is nauseating. They are using a pure, unadulterated lie for petty politics. They know that this is not so (one man had lost two legs and an arm, for pete's sake, yet his loyalty to America was questioned by his GOP prick of an opponent), and they know that their claim is completely unsupported by facts, yet they consciously mouth off those false claims, in order to gain political brownie points.

--Cyrus

PS : Republican politicians were not always like that. It was a Republican who was among the first to stand up to the lies and smears of Joe McCarthy. People were more honorable back then, and politics was not as disgusting a pit of lying hounds as it's become.

[hetron]

What gives with your constant references to Alger as being anti-American? There was a previous poster (who shall rename nameless) who liked to accuse people (including myself) of being Al Qaeda and Hamas sympathizers if we didn't agree with Dubya's Middle East strategy. Fortunately, he was a real wack job and no one took him seriously. So while I'm sure Mr. Alger doesn't need a lawyer, I still want to ask, what proof do you have that he wants to see American soldiers killed? 40 years ago Joe McCarthy ruined a lot of people's lives by levelling half-assed accusations at them. I highly doubt your posts will have the same effect, but they are still pretty serious accusations, given the times we live in.

[Utah]

I still want to ask, what proof do you have that he wants to see American soldiers killed?

I have no proof, as the wording of my statement clearly indicated. In fact, my statement clearly implies that Alger has said nothing on the sort - hence the word secretly.

However, if you want to get a sense of his negative view towards America and his positive views towards terrorists read his previous posts.

Concerning being a sympathizer, since you brought up the word, Alger is clearly a Palestinian Terrorist (freedom fighter) sympathizer. Again, read all his posts.

So while I'm sure Mr. Alger doesn't need a lawyer
Nope, just a shrink.

[Gamblor]

Patriotism is irrelevant to this discussion.

You know why people believe Cyrus and Alger and Michael Moore?

Cause they tell you what you want to hear. You want to hear about Bush's evil sinister plans, you want to hear about how the economy is geared towards making the rich ricker, you want to hear about how American soldiers are being wasted in Afghanistan and Iraq, because it all amounts to one thing:

the status of our lives, the reason why we're not fat and loaded on Crystal and driving Benzes and don't own yachts and not in charge is not our fault.

The government hates us and steals our freedom is inherently evil, and because of that, all our problems are not our fault.

[elwoodblues]

While there probably is absolute truth to the fact that people believe what they want to hear, I don't know if your examples necessarily demonstrate that, but I agree with the general proposition (ironically, I was making the same point about people blaming affirmative action for not getting a job in a different part of this same thread right before I read your post).

I don't know if your Bush discussion really fits the mold...The reason that I want to hear about Bush's "evil sinister plans" is because I am a citizen in a democratic republic. As such, I need to make an informed decision when I vote because the decisions of elected officials are, to a large part my fault (especially if I remained blissfully ignorant of them.)

Wouldn't a better example of "telling you what you want to hear because it isn't your fault" regarding Bush be something like:
I don't want to listen to the substance of what the protesters have to say, I don't want to require greater evidence than was presented in favor of the war because if I did, it might mean that the war was unnecessary (and therefore many deaths were my fault). I would rather take everything the Administration says at face value, because then I don't have to take personal responsibility for a war that need not have happened. Now, I will let the administration make an after-the-fact justification for the war (mass graves) when the real reason we went to war was because of a (perhaps false) belief that we were under an imminent threat from Iraw.

[Gamblor]

I don't recall Bush (or his crew) ever saying Iraq was an imminent threat. If I'm not mistaken, that was an entirely media-run propaganda spin.

The closest thing I can think of is his State of the Union speech, paraphrased below:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.

I do take the words of the government of the United States at more or less face value. One simply doesn't ascend to the highest public office in the nation without a large following of believers and those who trust him in that position. The need for war aside, the Bush doctrine emphasizes a need for the United States to be the foremost champion of human rights.

Now, aside from what actually constitutes a human right, I doubt that as the world's most democratic nation, the one nation above all that provides the right to self-determination to each and every person who owns American citizenship, the right to question authority and enact beneficial change, the United States and its leadership must be trusted as an authority on "doing the right thing", even if it must sacrifice its own soldiers. I, for one, have been conscripted into the army in a nation that has lots of experience in wars, and I understand the position that wonders why our children are being sent across the pond.

Yet, read the actual resolution passed in the House of Representatives authorizing the use of force. Nowhere does it claim "imminent threat". Only potential threat, material breach of UN Security Council Resolutions, and harboring of Al Qaeda terrorists.

[elwoodblues]

Perhaps I'm remembering the political spin about "iminent threat" or perhaps I was reading the subtext of nearly everything leading up to the passing of the resolution. As for the reasons in the resolution, you listed three:

1) Potential threat - might be what the resolution says, but that's not how it was sold. Regardless, "potential threat" is not, in my mind, justification to launch a war.

2) Material breach of UN Security Council Resolutions -- This one is very troubling to me. The administration thumbs its nose at the UN then justifies the war by defending the UN. The resolutions were not the United States' resolutions to enforce, they were the UN's. Texas doesn't enforce US treaties, just like the US shouldn't enforce UN treaties.

3) Harboring of Al Qaeda terrorists. The links of Iraq to Al Qauda are tenuous at best. I continue to demand more for this justification.


Notice that the resolution justifications that you mentioned don't claim that it was because of human rights violations (as the administration so strongly pushed just a few weeks ago prior to catching Sadam.) The main justification - the one that, if true, everyone in the country would agree to - was that Iraq was an iminent threat (even if the actual words "iminent threat" weren't used by the president). There is little doubt in my mind that the majority of the country would not have been in favor of the war if that leg of the three legged stool was missing.

[Rushmore]

Actually, you make an ironic point.

If it had not been for many great American "conservatives," who live in the world as IT IS, rather than the way they'd LIKE IT TO BE, we might live in a country where you were NOT, indeed, welcome to leave.

Go figure.

To put it in pop culture terms: "You WANT me on that wall. You NEED me on that wall. And while my existence might seem grotesque to you, I save lives. So grab a weapon and man a post. Otherwise, I'd rather you just said thank you, and went on your way."

Or should we simply dismantle the military, turn a blind eye to the realities of the world and human nature, stick out heads in the sand, and just, uh, "pray?"

[scalf]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]..love it or leave it!!!

that's the correct phrase...lol..

power to the people..

gl [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]