Not that you are owed any explanation for what we chose to post...sm
Posted By: Democrat on 2006-07-06
In Reply to: Do you talk about anything on this board besides - LibertyLucille
because anyone who wants to come on the liberal board and post liberally and respectfually can. From your tone, I would think you were not a liberal.
FYI, we have discussed the Gitmo decision, and you or anyone else is welcome to post *important legislation* coming up. I'm sure there will be in response to the Gitmo judgement.
The firing off of misses by North Korea is a few days old and I'm waiting to see how the government reacts. I mean we went into Iraq for so-called stockpiles of WMDs and yet N. Korea is test firing their missles and the White House says there is no threat, so this tells me one or two things. #1. There was equally no threat in Iraq. OR #2. We are more ambivalent to fight in N. Korea than we were in Iraq, especially since our troops are already spread out.
Thanks for your input new blood. Feel free to open a debate of your own if that's what you want to see happen, but if you are a conservative here to stir the pot spare us and yourself the annoyance.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
If I always owed, then i would be having
them take out extra every check, even $10 would help.
it would if they owed less than the credit - nm
x
These attorneys do not eliminate taxes owed.
They negotiate penalties and interest on back taxes and try to help their clients with their returns to see if there are any LEGITIMATE deductions they may have missed. BTW, they represent all income groups and their fees are based on a percentage of the amount "recovered" from IRS. They charge a modest retainer fee on the front end.
I don't know how any of them chose one,
but I think Bosnia had something to do with US connection to Russia or Germany (my history is rusty on this. Ie debated US involvement in Bosnia when it was going on.)
It's all anyone's guess.
Why did Bush chose Iraq in retaliation for 9/11?
Why do you think Clinton ignored Rwanda?
And nowhere did she say it was. She chose an
x
You certainly can chose with whom
you have sex. You just cannot choose with whom you WANT to have sex. Lucky for you that you want to have sex with a man, and that's more socially acceptable. It's not to your credit, and it's not to a 'homo's' discredit that they feel the opposite. That's the hand God deals you, and just as immutable as race. It is generally frowned upon for blacks to wish they were white, try to make themselves white, try to cure themselves of blackness, disassociate themselves from other blacks. That would be considered a pathology.
You certainly can chose with whom
you have sex. You just cannot choose with whom you WANT to have sex. Lucky for you that you want to have sex with a man, and that's more socially acceptable. It's not to your credit, and it's not to a 'homo's' discredit that they feel the opposite. That's the hand God deals you, and just as immutable as race. (Funny you should mention race.)
It is generally frowned upon for blacks to wish they were white, try to make themselves white, try to cure themselves of blackness, pray to God to remove their blackness, disassociate themselves from other blacks. That would be considered a pathology. That being said, being black should not prevent anyone from seeking the same RIGHTS as whites, from associating with whites, and it does not mean God loves them less for giving them a harder row to hoe.
explanation
It is the thought that everyone, no matter what situation they were born in, is solely responsible for their own misfortunes. It is the thought that what is yours is yours and you are never under any obligation to help anyone in need. It is the philosophy that government's only duty is to fight wars and sometimes pave the roads. It is the philosophy that if you are 80, handicapped, and have no family or vehicle in which to escape a natural disaster, it is your choice to remind in a natural disaster and the consequences are your problem.
No one had given me an explanation still. Because you don't have one. nm
x
explanation
I haven't seen him show any disrespect to the flag, EVER! Can you show an example of actual DISRESPECT?
And there is still no explanation..(sm)
of *the reality of O.*
Explanation...........
They ALL spend like drunken sailors. Didn't Clinton (at least) leave us with a balanced budget? I have a granddaughter in Brownsville, Tx, and kids in Houston so I get a weekly report on how bad the illegal situation is.
People can blame the Democrat congress of the past 2 years and don't get me wrong, I think they all need to be sent to the moon, but Bush and his Republican majority didn't work out so well did they?
I'll take the promise of change over more of the same. At least we can change the change we don't like if we're of a mind to. But before we do that the "rabid" Republicans AND Democrats need to get over it.
DEFINITION OF RABID REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRAT: A person who has such tunnel vision regarding their "party" that they can't see past the end of their nose.
Explanation
Republicans on this board have been calling Democrats sheeple...sheep people I think.
And that would be why she chose the word
x
He chose to be more black
He said so himself in his book.
Since you chose to go down this road...
...with me. This is cut and pasted from the web site. While this does not specifically name soft drinks, anything that rings up as taxable on the register is ineligible. In Ohio, only foods for home consumption are nontaxable; restaurant food is taxable; soft drinks are taxable; paper products, soap, etc.
Okay, NOW you're excused! And still not credible. But thanks for playing!
Households CAN use benefits to buy:
![](http://www.fns.usda.gov/FSP/images/bullet.gif") |
Foods for the household to eat, such as: |
|
-- |
breads and cereals; |
|
-- |
fruits and vegetables; |
|
-- |
meats, fish and poultry; and |
|
-- |
dairy products. |
|
Seeds and plants which produce food for the household to eat. |
In some areas, restaurants can be authorized to accept benefits from qualified homeless, elderly, or disabled people in exchange for low-cost meals.
Households CANNOT use benefits to buy:
|
Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco; |
|
Any nonfood items, such as: |
|
-- |
pet foods; |
|
-- |
soaps, paper products; and |
|
-- |
household supplies. |
|
Vitamins and medicines. |
|
Food that will be eaten in the store. |
|
Hot foods. |
Maybe that's why he chose the kid's playroom...
so he could have a See N Say shoved up his nether region - and the sheep says "Baaaa Baaaaa" ---- he could be a naughty, naughty little boy - instead of a stepford husband getting worked out like a tennis racket.
Those people chose to have that job...
The military gets paid very well. It is such honorable job. They get paid to fight wars so no one messes with the USA!!! Police officers die everyday here and it seems no one gives a CRAP!!! Add up all the firemen, police officers, etc and those numbers for the same years in this war is FAR FAR LESS. I wish people would stop complaining. IT IS THEIR JOB!!! My brother in law is in the Army and I wish he was sent over there. Maybe it would make him more of a man then a wife beater.
Partial explanation perhaps?
I've been noticing that quite often when there is a conservative belief/claim being put forth repeatedly on this board (right now it's that Republicans always do the right thing and admit to their behavior and resign versus the Democrats who never do the right thing/can't admit their behavior and never resign), when doing research I find that the posters on this board are simply regurgitating what they are reading on the many far-right blogs/newsletters/publications. It's almost word for word. THere have been many examples in the past besides this most recent rant. At this point it seems that the far-rights are guilty of being unable to have original thoughts. Now let's see if they can do the right thing and admit it.......(laughter here, please).
On a more serious note, I never saw Clinton referred to as a serial rapist until reading this board. Once again, upon checking this out I see multiple, multiple references on -- you guessed it - multiple far-right-crazy political blogs/newsletters, etc......you get the idea. The thing that I find worrisome, though, is that we have been requested repeatedly not to bash Bush on this board in any fashion, yet past presidents (especially those that are Democrats) are fair game for any manner of accusations. If we shouldn't question Bush's decisions (as an example) because of how it will look to other countries who might read this forum, how does it look to call our former president a serial rapist?
Sam explains it very well, see her explanation below....nm
Good explanation! nm
x
This is not an intelligent explanation
First, if the administration was pushing for good things for our country, not taking the country down the path of socialism/communism and had a good plan for the future to get us on the road to recovery, everyone would want him to succeed. But since he is not and we're on the brink of depression/socialism with no hopes for the future and no plans to help Americans, more unemployment ahead, more people losing homes, etc, yes we want "that" to fail (not "him", we want "that" to fail). If it was anyone else in the seat doing the same actions I would wish for the same thing. If Hillary, Mit Romney, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, etc had the same exact failing policies that are being pushed on us now I would have the same opinion.
I've listed to plenty of their lies they are spewing. This is not an "intelligent explanation about the plan for this country". This is another distortion and lies to us and we are tired of it.
Calling people un-American because they are tired of being lied to is really un-Patriotic.
And Obama chose to be Christian,
is he's not trying to push his religion down everyone else's unwilling throats.
You want to be in everyone's bedrooms, whether it's for gay marriage, birth control, abortion, etc.
You want everyone to walk in lock step with you on social issues, and this is exactly why the Republicans are in the toilet. Americans want to choose their own paths and not have these things forced upon us by a group that claims that only THEY hold the exclusive keys to heaven.
By the way, did you know that Muslims believe that Jesus was a messenger from God (via virginal conception) who had been sent to guide the children of Israel??
It's quite simple and doesn't need an explanation...sm
Get your hands (control) in areas that product oil, i.e., Iraq.
Thx - your explanation helped me understand it better
I understand that it had to be done, however, I guess I'm wondering is who is going to end up paying for it. Is it going to be us (people who make around $30K or so), or will it be the super wealthy millionaire, billionaire, and then the gluttonous people like Soros - now there's someone whose a slime lizzard). I did find this article written by Motley Fools. They are pretty good for writing things that even I can understand and they wrote an article listing the people responsible. So, I guess my questions is...Are the people who are responsible for letting this happen going to be responsible to get it fixed. After all, if I have a business and I run it into the ground nobody but me is going to pay for it. Anyway...think this is a good article...
http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2008/09/10/the-people-responsible-for-fannie-mae-and-freddie-.aspx
Thats a great explanation (no message)
x
Bush could have snagged 100 Taliban but chose not to.
I wonder if the neocons will make a movie about this, and I wonder how many thank you notes Bush has received from terrorists in the last five years. :-(
U.S. Declines Taliban Funeral Target
Sep 13, 6:29 PM (ET)
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. military acknowledged Wednesday that it considered bombing a group of more than 100 Taliban insurgents in southern Afghanistan but decided not to after determining they were on the grounds of a cemetery.
The decision came to light after an NBC News correspondent's blog carried a photograph of the insurgents. Defense department officials first tried to block further publication of the photo, then struggled to explain what it depicted.
NBC News claimed U.S. Army officers wanted to attack the ceremony with missiles carried by an unmanned Predator drone but were prevented under rules of battlefield engagement that bar attacks on cemeteries.
In a statement released Wednesday, the U.S. military in Afghanistan said the picture - a grainy black-and-white photo taken in July - was given to a journalist to show that Taliban insurgents were congregating in large groups. The statement said U.S. forces considered attacking.
During the observation of the group over a significant period of time, it was determined that the group was located on the grounds of (the) cemetery and were likely conducting a funeral for Taliban insurgents killed in a coalition operation nearby earlier in the day, the statement said. A decision was made not to strike this group of insurgents at that specific location and time.
While not giving a reason for the decision, the military concluded the statement saying that while Taliban forces have killed innocent civilians during a funeral, coalition forces hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than their enemies.
The photo shows what NBC News says are 190 Taliban militants standing in several rows near a vehicle in an open area of land. Gunsight-like brackets were positioned over the group in the photo.
The photo appeared on NBC News correspondent Kerry Sanders' blog. Initially military officials called it an unauthorized release, but they later said it was given to the journalist.
NBC News had quoted one Army officer who was involved with the spy mission as saying we were so excited that the group had been spotted and was in the sights of a U.S. drone. But the network quoted the officer, who was not identified, as saying that frustration soon set in after the officers realized they couldn't bomb the funeral under the military's rules of engagement.
Defense Department officials have said repeatedly that while they try to be mindful of religious and cultural sensitivities, they make no promises that such sites can always be avoided in battle because militants often seek cover in those and other civilian sites.
Mosques and similar locations have become frequent sites of violence in the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they have often been targets of insurgents and sectarian fighting in Iraq.
What is she chose Obama as running mate?
Do you think that would be beatable? Not sure either one would go for it, but sure would make an interesting race!
Does not chang the fact that they chose the Bridge ...
over Katrina victims. FACT.
Of course, the Obama flock only sees the "good" in such a decision...
feel free to chose the sources
you want to believe -- Wall Street Journal versus "websites". As the McC campaign stated ' this election will not be based on facts. They are going personality whole-hog. OMG. I just offended someone somewhere.
Chose my words carefully, I knew you
over this one!! You are a real .. . . Oh well, you are still showing your colors blubbering about the shoe throwing crap above.
Important: An explanation we can understand.....see inside
Please read this, as this is finally an explanation in terms we can understand, of what this 700 billion plan will entail.
I hope they go into more details once it's all decided.
September 27, 2008
President's Radio Address
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This is an extraordinary period for America's economy. Many Americans are anxious about their finances and their future. On Wednesday, I spoke to the Nation, and thanked Congress for working with my Administration to address the instability in our financial system. On Thursday, I hosted Senator McCain, Senator Obama, and congressional leaders from both parties at the White House to discuss the urgency of passing a bipartisan rescue package for our economy.
The problems in our economy are extremely complex, but at their core is uncertainty over "mortgage-backed securities." Many of these financial assets relate to home mortgages that have lost value during the housing decline. In turn, the banks holding these assets have restricted credit, and businesses and consumers have found it more difficult to obtain affordable loans. As a result, our entire economy is in danger. So I proposed that the Federal government reduce the risk posed by these troubled assets, and supply urgently needed money to help banks and other financial institutions avoid collapse and resume lending.
I know many of you listening this morning are frustrated with the situation. You make sacrifices every day to meet your mortgage payments and keep up with your bills. When the government asks you to pay for mistakes on Wall Street, it does not seem fair. And I understand that. And if it were possible to let every irresponsible firm on Wall Street fail without affecting you and your family, I would do it. But that is not possible. The failure of the financial system would mean financial hardship for many of you.
The failure of the financial system would cause banks to stop lending money to one another and to businesses and consumers. That would make it harder for you to take out a loan or borrow money to expand a business. The result would be less economic growth and more American jobs lost. And that would put our economy on the path toward a deep and painful recession.
The rescue effort we're negotiating is not aimed at Wall Street -- it is aimed at your street. And there is now widespread agreement on the major principles. We must free up the flow of credit to consumers and businesses by reducing the risk posed by troubled assets. We must ensure that taxpayers are protected, that failed executives do not receive a windfall from your tax dollars, and that there is a bipartisan board to oversee these efforts.
Under the proposal my Administration sent to Congress, the government would spend up to $700 billion to buy troubled assets from banks and other financial institutions. I know many Americans understand the urgency of this action, but are concerned about such a high price tag. Well, let me address this directly:
The final cost of this plan will be far less than $700 billion. And here's why: As fear and uncertainty have gripped the market for mortgage-related assets, their price has dropped sharply. Yet many of these assets still have significant underlying value, because the vast majority of people will eventually pay off their mortgages. In other words, many of the assets the government would buy are likely to go up in price over time. This means that the government will be able to recoup much, if not all, of the original expenditure.
Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have contributed constructive proposals that have improved this plan. I appreciate the efforts of House and Senate Democratic and Republican leaders to bring a spirit of bipartisan cooperation to these discussions. Our Nation's economic well-being is an issue that transcends partisanship. Republicans and Democrats must continue to address it together. And I am confident that we will pass a bill to protect the financial security of every American very soon.
Thank you for listening.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080927.html
A good explanation of the polls and margins...sm
Pollsters Struggle to Handicap Presidential Race
Barack Obama's leading in virtually every national poll, but his margin fluctuates wildly -- suggesting that in some cases, the numbers do in fact lie.
Barack Obama's been leading John McCain in almost every national poll since late September, and it may seem like he's got the election all sewn up.
But the Democratic presidential nominee's margin has fluctuated wildly, anywhere from 1 to 13 points in the past two weeks alone. And a few recent polls are even within the margin of error, suggesting McCain could actually be leading among certain sets of voters.
This doesn't mean the surveys are masking a widespread McCain advantage -- he's still trailing in most major battlegrounds needed to secure the election. But survey disparities are so great this year as to suggest that the numbers, contrary to the old adage, sometimes do lie.
Part of the problem? The sheer amount of polls being conducted across the country.
FOX News political analyst Karl Rove said by his count, there have been 177 national polls conducted as of Oct. 24, compared with 55 at the same time in 2004.
"The proliferation of polls, particularly polls run by universities that may not have the skill and capability that a professional polling outfit has, are really not helpful to the process, in my opinion," Rove said.
But some of the inconsistencies in the polls this year can also be traced to the method used by the pollsters.
The "expanded" Gallup poll, unlike the "traditional" one, includes those citizens who call themselves likely voters but who've never actually voted before.
"This year, I think all pollsters are concerned about how they're defining 'likely' voters, and trying to understand turnout," FOX News polling director Dana Blanton said. "There's been so much attention placed on new registration and enthusiasm among the electorate, and it's just -- it's extremely hard to figure out that, that piece of the puzzle."
Obama held a 10-point lead Monday in Gallup's expanded poll, but only a 5-point lead in their traditional poll.
Karlyn Bowman, who studies public opinion for the American Enterprise Institute, urged voters to examine the wording and sequencing of a poll's questions, to be wary of sudden spikes -- and to shop around.
"If you see a huge change in let's say the McCain-Obama margin overall, you might want to think about whether or not there has been something that's happened that would produce that kind of extraordinary change," she said. "But I think it's important to look at one poll, and then to compare that poll to other polls, and that's the way you can be an educated consumer."
A survey of the polling landscape shows the latest CBS News/New York Times poll to be the outlier, placing Obama up by 13 points.
A FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll last week had Obama up by 9 points.
Investor's Business Daily, which came closest to nailing the race between President Bush and John Kerry in 2004 (within four-tenths of a point), has the current presidential race within the margin of error. And The Associated Press recently reported a virtual tie.
With polls still fluctuating but mostly showing Obama in the lead, the Illinois senator says he's taking nothing for granted.
"Don't believe for a second this election is over. Don't think for a minute that power concedes," Obama said Monday in Canton, Ohio. "We have to work like our future depends on it in this last week, because it does depend on it in this last week."
McCain, meanwhile, is pledging to stun the pundits on Election Day.
"Let me give you the state of the race today. There's eight days to go. We're a few points down. The pundits have written us off, just like they've done before," McCain said Monday in Ohio. "Senator Obama's measuring the drapes ... You know I guess I'm old fashioned about these things. I prefer to let the voters weigh in before predicting the outcome."
Both Blanton and Bowman said there appears to be no evidence of a so-called "bandwagon effect" in American elections -- the idea that widespread dissemination of polling data trending a certain way will cause voters to in turn move in that direction. Such an effect might have led to a Hillary Clinton-Rudy Giuliani pairing, once the favorites in their respective races.
Experts say the "bandwagon" effect might be more common in places like Israel or Great Britain, where election cycles are much shorter.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/dont-like-polls-wait-minutes/
The best explanation I've heard thus far for economic crisis..(sm)
The Real Deal
So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here's a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:
- The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
- Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
- Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
- Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
- The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
- Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
- Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
- Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
- The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
- An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
- Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.
The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) the crisis is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.
–by Joe Miller and Brooks Jackson
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html
So people are poor because they chose to give tax cuts to billionaires?
Just today Cheney cast the deciding vote to cut back Medicare, Medicaid, and student loans. I guess as long as you're not the one who has a bit of misfortune and need a safety net, you really don't give a hoot, do ya? What about the billions spent in Iraq to turn it into a theocracy like Iran?
Finally, a clear, concise explanation of ""The Plan". check out link
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=224262&title=Elizabeth-Warren-Pt.-2
Wow, common sense!!
P.S. Please scroll down after reading above post. Washington Post article included.
Reprinted in Boston Globe. Sorry!
I wrote: I second JTBB's post, 'watcher's post is misinformed crap...sm
pYou have also to read what's posted 'inside' the message.
Oops, meant to post this under the loose trolls post...
I'm going to keep ignoring these troll posts. It's kind of fun, actually, just pretend you don't see them.
Post the direct link. I don't see the post you're referring to.
t
The post I quoted was the entire post. It was not taken out of context. sm
I imagine there are as many emotions and thoughts going on with our troops as possible and each does not feel the same as the other, which is obvious by the posts here.
Sorry gourdpainter, my other post should have been under the wacky Pakistan post (nm)
xx
Why did you post this? Republicans have been asked NOT to post here..Bye Bye.
Why did you post this? Happy Thanksgiving is enough but to be so happy we have a republican president? Why did you post that? I would like to remind you, you are on the liberal board. Are you trying to start trouble? If so, let me know and I will report you immediately. No, Im not happy we have a republican president, a warmonger chickenhawk president. Does that answer your question? Now, go back to the republican board. We dont want you here and actually the moderator and administrator have asked republicans not to post here..Bye..bye..
Forgot to post a link in 1st post. Sorry.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Please refer me to any post where I referred to either the post...
or the poster as ignorant. And I certainly never sunk to the levels you did at the top of the post, against a man who is ill in a wheelchair. Pot calling the kettle black...?
I re-read your post, and I stand by my post.
You are twisting his words by saying that he wants to make friends with terrorists. That is not what he said.
Ya gotta understand the rules. We have to post on this board only. They can post on any board they
The above post explains a lot about everything else you post!
Your revelation about being married to a career Army guy explains why your views are skewed so drastically to the far right! I thought it had to do with small-town Pennsylvania, but now I truly understand where you are coming from. Thank you for explaining that us. We will read your posts in a completely different light now that we know the truth.
If you want to post something on the subject, post
objective views. This is a one-sided publication that asks for donations to keep it going. Nothing I read in there posts anything against any democrats, just republicans. It is not a fair-minded reporting.
I like to read both sides of the aisle but this publication spews hatred for anything not democratic in order to sell books. To those who can't see both sides, this blog, or publication as they like to state, is just up their aisle. I shake my head at one-sided news. Taken from their web site:
"Indeed, a founding idea of the Consortium for Independent Journalism was that a major investment was needed in journalistic endeavors committed to honestly informing the American people about important events, no matter what the political and economic pressures.
While we are proud of the journalistic contribution that this Web site has made over the past decade – and while we are deeply grateful to our readers whose contributions have kept us afloat – we also must admit that we have not made the case well enough that this mission is a vital one.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.' "
I second your post and 'watcher's post
is misinformed crap.
My post was a direct answer to the direct post...
of Democrat. It was not a blank open-ended statement. And dial it back a notch...it is certainly your right to protest anything any time you want to. Just like it is my right to protest you protesting while men and women are still in harm's way, because you are in effect aiding the enemy. Apparently the Viet Nam experience taught you nothing. Americans protesting in the streets heartened the enemy and when they were about to surrender decided not to, based a lot upon what was happening in the American streets. I believe that the protesting in that war prolonged the war and cost more American lives. Hanoi Jane should have been tried for treason. That being said...lessons were not learned and the protestors are doing the exact same thing now. Exercising the very right bought for them by shedding of American military blood. And I still say common courtesy should keep people out of the streets and off the TV until the military are home safe. But it just proves the same thing to me over and over...the selfISHhness of the protestors vs. the selfLESSness of the military. They continue to put it all on the line for your right to protest anything you want to protest...it is up to YOU to decide where and when that is appropriate, and it is up to you to take the heat for same. It is up to me and others like me (in my opinion) to apply that heat. Go ahead and do whatever your conscience or lack thereof moves you to do. But do not expect those of a different mind not to protest the protest.
|
