MUTGR Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 is a legitimate reason to gripe about your tax dollars going to MU: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=13913 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 i was disgusted by this article. if that prof was a teacher of my kid, i swear i would go down to his office and pop him. not only is he doing his students a disservice by encouraging them to more or less quit school (albeit hopefully temporarily) to miss the whole point of operation freedom just makes my blood boil. the good prof should be banished to afghanastan or iraq the rest of his life and then maybe he would realize the point of what is going on. the reason he has the ability to try to organize a stupid "demonstration" such as this is because the united states stands up for rights and freedom world wide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintLouisAlum Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 is the most God-forsaken, foulest place on earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLUWX Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Protesting and questioning leadership was considered unpatriotic in Hitler's Germany. Protesting and questioning leadership was considered unpatriotic in the Soviet Union. Now protesting and questioning leadership is considered anti-American? Republicans take over, and I can't even recognize this country anymore. To quote Michael Moore, "Dude, Where's my Country?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 nm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alonzo P Hawk Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 all you liberals ever do is just call names and ask worthless rhetorical questions as if you're making a point. yes, i'll take your opinion along with julia roberts or george clooney's and go with that over some good solid research any day. i want you to tell me how this country is so horrible, as you and michael moore like to think. what, exactly, has changed that makes you hate living where you do? is it the fact that our minimum wage hasn't gone up? is it because there hasn't been a single terrorist attack on american soil since 9/11? is it because america is still the greatest country in the world? what, my fellow american, has changed? it must be that we have a president with morals, unlike our previous one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3star_recruit Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Men who I couldn't hold a candle to morally, like Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, practiced civil disobedience. But awarding college credit for it is a bunch much. Civil disobedience is the province of private citizens, not publicly funded academic departments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLUWX Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 So you chastise liberals for calling names, then accuse President Clinton of not having morals? You want to know what has changed? America is no longer the land of the free, it's land of the Rich. When America was at it's best, it was a haven for peace and the promotion of that peace worldwide. Now we are a country of corporate greed. You want to dispute that fact? Why then are all of our policies directly tied to economic gain? Do you really think Iraq had something to do with 9/11? Do you really think Saddam was helping out people that had cast him off as a traitor to the Muslim religion? Do you think that nice little oil field has a little something to do with it? Do you think Bush's ties to oil companies might come into play? Do you think that it is strange that we had a plan to invade Iraq long before 9/11? What has our occupation of Iraq done for the people of Iraq? Yes, we got rid of a terrible dictator. I agree that Saddam should have been dealt with, but he should have been dealt with when he invaded Kuwait. All we have done to Iraq is brought instability. More Iraqi citizens have died since we have been in the country than the equal preceeding time period. America doesn't kill the innocent, we help the innocent, right? No. We kill, maim, torture, and humiliate the innocent. I am sick of sitting back and watching my country, the country that I **LOVE** become more and more hated by the rest of the world. We used to be saviors. Now we are villians. So go ahead, tell me that we hate America. Tell me we are unpatriotic. Tell me to go live in Canada. To be honest, the way this country is headed... I am thinking about it. I realize I am wasting my breath. Part of declaring Republicanism is closing your mind to other ideas. Enjoy your life of hatred and solitude. Maybe you can go spit on a poor person to make you feel better. (and for those who thinks politics needn't be on this board, I agree. I refuse to watch the Republicans take over, though.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Shut up ... you are an idiot. Here why don't you Democrats just come by my business and pick up a check ... why route it through the Government ... you can just pick it up and distribute it yourself. Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. Waldman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 sluwx said, "accuse President Clinton of not having morals?" is there any doubts on that one? fyi, things that have happened in iraq in the last year * Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations. *School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war. * Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur. * The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster. * The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August. * Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq. * The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war. * 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war. * Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place. * Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city. *Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets. * Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country. * Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers. * Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever * Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs. * An interim constitution has been signed. * Girls are allowed to attend school. * Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years all you hear on the tv from our liberal media is the deaths. deaths caused mostly by the radicals that are resisting the above. somehow america is the bad guy? get a frickin clue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SluSignGuy Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 > Shut up ... you are an idiot. Here why don't you Democrats >just come by my business and pick up a check ... why route >it through the Government ... you can just pick it up and >distribute it yourself. I would just like to mention the fact that us Democrats aren't the ones not vetoing any spending bills...Republicans are distributing quite well under their leader... Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLUWX Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 So you are upset about welfare in this country... but are totally for welfare for Iraq? Someone else needs to get a clue, or at least know what you are fighting for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SluSignGuy Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 I will not argue that Iraq will be worse off after US Involvement, compared to prior to. Your list and numbers show this. But what right did we have to go to Iraq. What right did America have to go invade and overthrow that sovereign nation? It was blanketed under the War on Terror and 9/11. But there are no links between 9/11 and Saddam. So I still ask why are we there? -We easily could have invested time into places in Africa, like Sudan, and helped prevent deaths from AIDS. -We could have invested time into the North Korea situation, and maybe finally have closure to the situation there. -Why couldn't of we investing time into other countries, like Saudi Arabia, and worked on bring democracy there? I am just confused, why Iraq? And even if I know why.... Why are so many Americans' lives being lost for this war? Couldn't of more diplomatic actions taken. Maybe let the weapons inspections complete...Maybe we could have worked with the United Nations, and not strong armed it as we did...The process in getting into this war was not done as well as it could have been done, and that is a negative for America. I am happy that things like on your list are looking up, but I still question how we got there. I don't think those are too crazy of concerns from this Democrat. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLUWX Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 But did it take "shock and awe" to get it done? But I'm just an idiot. I'll take my Parks Aeronautics degree and shut up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Band Guy Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Way to go buddy! Way to be the first guy out there to start name calling. You are doing a great service to those who share your own beliefs by belittling another person's perspective. It brings an air of classiness to this board, far above the realm of rational discussion and represents the spirit of intollerance of individuals such as yourself. Other people should not be allowed to have their own opinion. And, sir, if they do... and if it is not exactly like yours, then of course, they must be an idiot. It disgusts me that anyone would not believe exactly the way you do. It is very apparent that you are smarter than anyone else and all of your ideas and opinions must be correct. I am sorry that anyone has ever disagreed with your ideology and I personally would like to extend an apology to you in the hopes that you will continue to grace this board with your ever-encomassing knowledge of politics and continue sharing your single-minded conservative perspective. If we all work together, maybe....just maybe, we can stamp out tolerance and respect in this country, and, sir, I nominate you to lead the charge! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlumniFan Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Ever since the NY Times article, facts and people have been coming out of the woodwork with more and more links between Iraq, terrorism, Osama bin Laden, etc. Let's not pull a Michael Moore and ignore the facts. I'm sure most of us can agree that it was unfortunate that we went to Iraq. Some will say it is unfortunate that Saddam forced our hand and some will say that it is unfortunate that we invaded another country. However, at the end of the day, the net result of invading Iraq is to promote democracy in the Middle East (i.e. to supplant a dictator and to foster secular governments without direct ties to militant Islamists). The oil argument just has no basis in fact. Talk to an oil analyst about reserves and cost of doing business in Iraq before you really push the oil argument; its just factually silly and almost all the serious policy wonks and journalists (yes, even on the left, and no, Michael Moore is neither) have abandon this crusade. The long term benefits of democracy in the Middle East are very significant not only for the West, but also for human rights in the region and around the world. Now that is something we SHOULD all agree on. I have one more thing to say. I am really sick and tired of the bashing by certain people (the left would call it hate-mongering) of anyone who is financially successful. That is a bunch of B.S. You can talk about corporate greed all you want, but I own a company where we have fired a dozen people in the last 6 months for STEALING! You'll never read about it in the papers nor will you see legislation to stop it, but it happens every day. The point is crooks are people, rich and poor, black and white, male and female. The unions are not rich corporations, but you certainly cannot seriously suggest that there isn't runaway greed present in many of them. What have they done to U.S. productive capacity and what has the impact been with respect to outsourcing? And I won't even start on the personal injury lawyers and what they effectively do to the economics of the working poor. Too many people seem to forget that they too live in glass houses before they start throwing stones. I know one thing for certain. There is no more greed now than in the 1850's (railroads), the 1900's (trust barons), 1920's (stock manipulators), etc. It is an unpleasant by-product of capitalism. But, that capitalism, where applied, brings FREEDOM and a standard of living that is unmatched in any other economic or political system. Work to improve it - yes. Bash it ignorantly - stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Band Guy Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 It's about friggin' time you shut the hell up!! Everyone knows Park's grads are idiots. Thats why I got my degree in Political Science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alonzo P Hawk Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 i dare you to read this entire post. better yet, i dare you to understand it. >So you chastise liberals for calling names, then accuse >President Clinton of not having morals? saying that clinton didn't have morals isn't exactly calling him names. after all, i guess having adultery (in the white house, none-the-less) and then lying about it wasn't immoral. but that's not the point, anyway. >You want to know what has changed? America is no longer the >land of the free, it's land of the Rich. When America was >at it's best, it was a haven for peace and the promotion of >that peace worldwide. Now we are a country of corporate >greed. You want to dispute that fact? for my knowledge (just because i want to know your opinion on this topic, here), when was america at its best? just so you know mine, i'd say it's pretty dang good right now. what corporation isn't greedy? isn't almost every single person in the world greedy? when you put two babies together with one toy, there will always be a natural struggle to obtain the toy, no doubt about it. and aren't you displaying your greed through your hatred of the fact that these corporations have so much money? aren't you wishing you had this money? somebody has to have money and if they can sell products, like cars, to people like you to get you to work in the morning, or public transportation to get you to work in the morning, or shoes to get you to work in the morning, then don't they deserve to have the money that they get from selling these goods to you? yes, when a tax cut occurs, most goes back to the wealthy. of course it does. you want to know why? because they paid most of the taxes in the first place, buddy. it's all proportional (not that it should be, as detailed by the story below of the substitute teacher. this article was written by Mike S. Adams on June 18, 2004. all rights remain his.) I’ll never forget the day that Mr. Wright came to teach our kindergarten class while Ms. Simpleton was out having surgery. The day before she left for the hospital she was teaching us how President Bush was giving tax cuts to the rich instead of ordinary Americans. That was during our math lesson. When Mr. Wright came to our class, he taught us about taxes by using Oreo cookies. We had used Oreo cookies in class once before when Mrs. Simpleton was talking about Clarence Thomas. She said he was black on the outside and white on the inside. I didn’t really understand that. My mom told me it was a crude joke and not to repeat it. But here’s how Mr. Wright used the cookies in our class: “Okay kids, the first thing you have to understand about taxes is that rich people pay more taxes than anyone else in America. They also pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than anyone else in America. So, let’s say that a rich person pays five cookies to the government in taxes, a middle class person pays one cookie, and a poor person pays half a cookie. When it comes time to cut taxes, would it make sense for everyone to get back a whole cookie?†That’s when Johnnie raised his hand and said, “No.†“That’s right, Johnnie,†said Mr. Wright. “The poor person doesn’t deserve a whole cookie because he never paid a whole cookie in taxes in the first place. And the middle class person wouldn’t be paying any taxes at all if he got back a whole cookie. So class, remember, Mrs. Simpleton doesn’t really want a fair tax system. She just wants to reap the rewards of government programs and services without having to pay for them.†Then Johnnie raised his hand again and asked, “Are you a Republican, Mr. Wright?†Mr. Wright wouldn’t answer that question. Instead, he told us a story that he once heard, which he said could be used to teach anyone to distinguish between a Democrat and a Republican within minutes of making their acquaintance. It went something like this: “A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, ‘Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.’ The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, ‘You’re in a hot air balloon approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.’ She rolled her eyes and said, ‘You must be a Republican.’ ‘I am,’ replied the man. ‘How did you know?’ ‘Well,’ answered the balloonist, ‘everything you have told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help to me.’ The man smiled and said, ‘You must be a Democrat.’ ‘I am,’ replied the balloonist. ‘How did you know?’ ‘Well,’ said the man, ‘you don’t know where you are or where you are going. You’ve risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You’re in exactly the same position you were in before we met but, somehow, it’s my fault.’†We learned a lot from Mr. Wright that day. Before we went home, Mr. Wright said that he was going to come back the next day and teach us about school vouchers. But for some reason we never had Mr. Wright as a substitute teacher again. And Mrs. Simpleton stopped buying us Oreo cookies. >Why then are all of our policies directly tied to economic >gain? simple: this country was built on the principle of free enterprise. anyone has the right to start his or her own business and become successful. private sectors, not government-controlled sectors, especially in the health and medicine field, are what drive this country. Do you really think Iraq had something to do with >9/11? yes. it has been found that: -public statements from six Clinton Administration officials that show that they tooka link between Iraq and al Qaeda for granted. -documented from six separate sources were meetings between Iraqi intelligence operatives and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the late 1990s. -a CIA has officially assessed that "we're convinced money from Iraq was going to bin Laden." -a 1992 Iraq Intelligence document describes Osama bin Laden as being "in good relationship with our section in Syria." -Imad Eddin Barakat yarkas, Muhammed Atta's old roommate and the leader of al Qaeda's operations in Spain visited Iraq and carried out business for al Qaeda there. -Ramzi Yousef, the main perpetrator of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was an agent of Iraqi intelligence. -al Qaeda has consistently attempted to develop WMDs in Sudan and Afghanistan and has received help from Iraq in these efforts. -evidence of cooperation between Shi'ite radicals from Iran and Osama bin Laden's Sunni organization. -a 1998 Iraqi Intelligence memo that reveals more Saddam-Osama links, which the Iraqis went to great lengths to conceal. -an Iraqi General who finds the whole questino of Saddam's links to al Qaeda amusing says "Saddam is the father and grandfather of terrorists." >Do you really think Saddam was helping out people >that had cast him off as a traitor to the Muslim religion? yes. Former Congressman Lee Hamilton, the top Democrat on the 9/11 Commission--the day after the commission's report was released that "there were connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. ...The sharp differences that the press has drawn...are not apparent to me." >Do you think that nice little oil field has a little >something to do with it? very much so. i really would appreciate it if you read this article about oil and enlightened yourself: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgew...w20040613.shtml >Do you think Bush's ties to oil >companies might come into play? probably. since PRESIDENT Bush knows his oil, i'm certain he knows that it is oil that produced the modern world and continues to drive it. >Do you think that it is >strange that we had a plan to invade Iraq long before 9/11? no. do you think it it strange that i'm certain that we have more military plans that you can imagine. military plans to attack any country in this world. of course we have military plans to invade countries. we'd be stupid if we didn't. if any of these countries turns out to be an ally of a country that attacks of, we'll know exactly what to do. our military is the tops in the world, that's why i'm sure we have scenarios for any situation that might occur in the future. >What has our occupation of Iraq done for the people of Iraq? see billiken_roy's post on this one. also, here is a letter that my cousin seán (2nd lieutenant, U.S. Army) wrote: "after having listened to and spoken with a lot of veterans of the second iraqi war, a few common themes emerge...the war they knew is very different from the one exposed on television. things are not as bad as shown on television. as one major who just returned a few weeks ago said today in response to a question of "do the iraqis want us there?": "in bagdhad there are 50,000 u.s. troops, in a city of 8 million and each iraqi has about 15 automatic rifles, so if they really wanted us out do you really think we could stay?" another theme is the demonstrated commitment of american forces has moved attacks away from americans toward the iraqis. the big obstacle everyone says is the iraqi physche: some still believe sadam will come back and one interesting phrase i heard in response to the question "don't iraqis get mad at the terrorists when they get blown up by other iraqis?" the reponse was that in many of their minds they believe "an arab would never kill a fellow arab, the americans must be at fault or its allah's will." the experience of 30 years of saddam oppression has really damaged them. like abused children they only resort to violence, i.e. they will snipe at workers trying to fix the electricity grid to convince them to cut power to one neighborhood and give power to their neighborhood. but the situation continues to improve. one more interesting fact: all suicide bombers are non-iraqis. the iraqis don't believe in that 72 virgin bit and see no benefit in blowing themselves up. just altogether such a different version from what the media portrays." hmmmm, sluwx, did you catch that line in there "another theme is the demonstrated commitment of american forces has moved attacks away from americans toward the iraqis." that means that terrorists, non of whom are iraqis, by the way, don't see much point in trying to blow up american forces any more because we are so dedicated to our cause of creating a better place, that they (the terrorists) are now aiming for iraqi citizens, attempting to anger them into fighting. hmmm. these terrorists from other nations know that the U.S. and a democratic republic are coming for them, and they're scared. > Yes, we got rid of a terrible dictator. I agree that >Saddam should have been dealt with, but he should have been >dealt with when he invaded Kuwait. well, he wasn't. guess what, he should have been dealt with when clinton was president, but he wasn't. he's out of there now, so no further need to discuss this point. >All we have done to Iraq >is brought instability. Oh. Have we? i believe billiken_roy and i have already taken you to school on this. >More Iraqi citizens have died since >we have been in the country than the equal preceeding time >period. WHAT??? Did i misunderstand your point there, because that statement was just ludicrous. Saddam killed more Iraqi citizens (60,000+). That's more SIX times more than have died since American occupation of Iraq (which by the way, haven't been caused by Americans alone...have you ever heard of terrorists?) America doesn't kill the innocent, we help the >innocent, right? No. We kill, maim, torture, and humiliate >the innocent. yes, America helps the innocent. read this story written by daniel henninger, two weeks after the "torture" videos from abu ghraib: Quite obviously it has been decided, as the handling of the Abu Ghraib story makes plain, that when America stumbles, we are going to have our faces rubbed in it. And rubbed in it and rubbed in it. As far as I can make out, the purpose of this two weeks of media humiliation is that we--the president, all of us--are being asked to morally prostrate ourselves before the rest of the world. Some may choose to do so, but this story should make a few Americans want to simply stand up straight again. As perfect justice, the story in fact begins in Abu Ghraib prison, in 1995. With Iraq's economy in a tailspin, Saddam arrested nine Iraqi businessmen to scapegoat them as dollar traders. They got a 30-minute "trial," and were sentenced, after a year's imprisonment, to have their right hands surgically cut off at Abu Ghraib prison. The amputations were performed, over two days, by a Baghdad anesthesiologist, a surgeon and medical staff. We know this because Saddam had a videotape made of each procedure. He had the hands brought to him in formalin and then returned to Abu Ghraib. Oh, one more thing: The surgeon carved an X of shame into the forehead of each man. And the authorities charged the men $50. Last year, after we liberated Iraq, a veteran TV news producer named Don North--who has worked for major U.S. broadcasters--was in Baghdad with the U.S. to restore TV service. Iraqi contacts there brought him a tape of the men's amputations. Mr. North says dismemberment was common in Saddam's Iraq and that if one walks down a crowded Baghdad street one may see a half-dozen people missing an ear, eye, limb or tongue. He decided to seek out the men whose stubbed arms represented the civilized world's lowest act--the perversion of medicine. He found seven. Mr. North determined to make a documentary of their story and get medical help for them. How he found that help, if one may still use this phrase, is an all-American story. An oil engineer from Houston, named Roger Brown, overheard Mr. North's tale in a Baghdad café. He suggested Don North get in touch with a famed Houston TV newsman named Marvin Zindler. Mr. Zindler put him in touch with Dr. Joe Agris, a Houston reconstructive surgeon, who has worked in postwar Vietnam and Nicaragua repairing children. Mr. North sent Dr. Agris a copy of the videotape of the surgical atrocities, and Dr. Agris said: Send me the men; I will fix them. But flying seven Iraqi men out of Baghdad is easier said than done. In this case, prodded by Don North and government friends, the famous U.S. bureaucracy gave itself a day off. Paul Bremer wrote a memo authorizing their departure. Paul Wolfowitz told the Air Force it could fly them to Frankfurt. Homeland Security waived visa requirements. Continental Airlines donated passage to Houston. There, Dr. Agris enlisted a fellow surgeon, Fred Kestler, to assist. The Methodist Hospital donated facilities, and the men arrived in Houston in early April. Dr. Agris saw that the Abu Ghraib "surgeries" were a botch. They'd cut through the joining of the wrist's carpal bones, "like carving a Turkey leg." Saddam's doctors did nothing to repair the nerve endings, which left the men with constant real and "phantom" pain. Drs. Agris and Kestler had two preliminary tasks: Repair the nerves, and, alas, take another inch off the men's lower arms, to leave a smooth surface for attaching their new prosthetic "hands." They worked for two days operating on the seven men, who then took a week to recover before receiving their new hands. Those devices were donated by the German-American prosthetic company Otto Bock, at a cost of $50,000 each. They are state-of-the-art electronic hands, with fingers, which respond to trained muscular movements. The rehabilitation and training is being donated by two other Houston companies, TIRR and Dynamic Orthotics. The Iraqi men are in Houston now, spending five hours a day learning to use their new right hands. And oh yes, the brands on their heads were removed. Don North completed his documentary on what happened to these men in Iraq. I watched "Remembering Saddam" this week. Several of the men insisted on seeing Saddam's home video of the atrocity, and so it's in the film--a bizarre, almost dainty image of forceps, scalpel, surgical gloves and green operating-room garments. Nothing like it since Dr. Mengele. Watching his hand come off, Baasim Al Fadhly says: "Look at this doctor, who considers his career noble and swears to God to be a noble person. Let everyone see this film." This crime deserves condemnation from international medical societies, such as the U.N.'s World Health Organization, or the Red Cross. And Don North's film indeed should be seen--but may not be. After two months of trying, no U.S. broadcast or cable network will take it. This is incredible. TV can run Abu Ghraib photos 24/7 but can't find 55 minutes for Saddam's crimes against humanity? On May 23, the American Foreign Policy Council will bring the restored men to Washington. They will visit maimed GIs at Walter Reed Army Hospital. It wouldn't be surprising if they said something positive about the U.S. soldiers who have not been on television the past two weeks. Then Don North and Joe Agris will fly with the men back to Iraq, to survey the rest of Saddam's dismembered population. "The practice of prosthetics is very archaic," Mr. North says,"for a country where this is such an affliction." Dr. Agris hopes to survey the hospitals and bring in some modern equipment and supplies. "If they let me, I'll do some of the kids," he says. "Let's show the good side of what we can do." Sure. Why not? > >I am sick of sitting back and watching my country, the >country that I **LOVE** become more and more hated by the >rest of the world. We used to be saviors. Now we are >villians. since when? "If the same number of people who have been killed in terrorist attacks in Iraq over the past year had been killed on the battlefield in one month, it would not have been nearly as big a news story in the media. Terrorists get more bang for the buck when papers like the New York Times make each individual murder front page news, day after day."-Thomas Sowell, columnist >So go ahead, tell me that we hate America. Tell me we are >unpatriotic. Tell me to go live in Canada. okay. you do hate America. you are unpatriotic. go live in Canada (which by the way, over half the population is now leaning toward a non-medicare, private health care system. when my brother lived in canada for 7 years, he had to automatically give up half his paycheck to taxes because of their horrible system. read this article: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/pauljac...20040613.shtml). > To be honest, >the way this country is headed... I am thinking about it. good. >I realize I am wasting my breath. Part of declaring >Republicanism is closing your mind to other ideas. Enjoy >your life of hatred and solitude. here comes my first point again about liberals only calling names. please refer to this article by greg crosby: "Remember when you were in elementary school and kids would call other kids "chicken" when they tried to get them to do something that they didn't want to do. If a kid didn't want to play dodge ball, he was "chicken." If he didn't want to throw spitballs or cut school he was "chicken." Name-calling was a way for some kids to shame other kids into doing something they ordinarily wouldn't do on their own. Words can be powerful convincers, and name-calling really does work on many people - after all who wants to be thought of as "chicken?" It's more than name-calling - I call it shame-calling. Shame-calling isn't just for kids anymore -it is alive and well with some segments of adult society. Liberals learned their grade school lessons well it seems and have adapted this adolescent approach of shame-calling against basically anyone who doesn't agree with them. I single out the Left and the Liberals on this one because I really can't come up with any examples of it from the Right. In the 50's and 60's the Right used the terms "pinko" and "commie" for left-wingers, but that's about as far as it went. The Left in our society has taken name-calling shame to new heights. If you are against same-sex marriage you are called "homophobic." If you are not in favor of federally-funded abortions, you are considered to be "anti-woman." If you don't go along with the views espoused by the National Association of Women, then you are a "sexist." If you do not support gun control then you are a "red-neck cowboy." If you find fault with cross-dressing transgender people who demand to be allowed to dress anyway they want in the workplace, then you are "intolerant." If you want less federal government in your life, if you want to pay less tax, then you are part of the "privileged class," the "radical rich." If you believe in the importance of keeping and honoring America's Judeo-Christian history and values, then you are a "religious zealot." If you want healthy, strong adults to get off welfare and go to work, you are "mean-spirited." If you are patriotic and wave the flag, you are "jingoistic and stupid." If you support the war in the Middle East, you are an "imperialist." If you complain about the vulgarity present today in so much of our culture you are a "totalitarian" censoring free speech. If you would like the feds to cut back on government programs then you are "hate-filled." The favorite name by far of the shame-calling Left is "racist." If you oppose bilingual education, then you are a racist. If you oppose affirmative action, you are a racist. If you think that airport security should focus on Middle Eastern men in their twenties as opposed to Scandinavian senior citizens, then you support racial-profiling and you must be a racist. If you don't like Hip-hop rap music, you are a racist. If you think O.J. did it, you are a racist. In short, anytime you oppose a minority group opinion on anything, you are racist. Racist, homophobe, sexist, mean-spirited, intolerant, religious zealot, cowboy, red-neck, stupid, hate-filled. How many of those names have been used by the Left to describe George W. Bush? How about all of them! How many of those names have been used to describe President Reagan? Same answer. I guess for the Left, when it comes to Republicans they're all the same. But to get back to my point, (and I do have one) the name-calling tactics engaged in by the Left are supposed to shame people into changing their beliefs - and it often works. Just as no kid wants to be thought of as a "chicken" to his friends, no decent person wants to be labeled as "intolerant" to society as a whole. No one wants to be a racist. No one wants to be mean-spirited. As I said, names are powerful. Even the name "Liberal" sounds better than being thought of as "Conservative." Liberal sounds like youth and freedom. Conservative sounds restrictive and old. Consider the actual dictionary definition of Liberal: "Open to new ideas; tolerant and board-minded; tending to give freely; generous. Free from bigotry." So if a Conservative is the political opposite of a liberal, then literally, by definition, he is not open to new ideas; intolerant and narrow-minded; tends to be selfish; and is a bigot. What horrible people these Conservatives must be. Who wants to be one of those? Of course, this is a wrong-headed, simplistic characterization of the two labels, but many people don't have the time or the inclination to get into the more subtle aspects of these political philosophies. They take what they hear on network TV and read in newspaper headlines as being true, and they dig no deeper. A nasty one-liner bashing President Bush uttered off the cuff by Julia Roberts or George Clooney will have a greater impact with more folks than an analytical essay that examines the facts. The name-calling by celebrities works wonders. It isn't easy to be Conservative in today's society when most of the people working in the press and the entertainment industry (the two organizations that, arguably, shape America's cultural views more than any other) are staunch Liberals. Easier to just "go along with the times" (like the New York Times or the Los Angeles Times). But easy isn't always right. And popular isn't always right. It takes a great deal of courage to be a Conservative - dare I say it, you can't be "chicken."" >Maybe you can go spit on >a poor person to make you feel better. okay, what's your address? -feel free to bring on some domestic issues and/or your senator kerry/President Bush argument in closing, i'd like to quote thomas sowell to sum up my thoughts on liberals: "Those who are preoccupied with "making a statement" usually don't have any statements worth making." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SluSignGuy Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 I understand that there are Iraq-Osama and Iraq-Terrorism links, but Saddamm did not have anything really to do with 9/11, so I am curious why Iraq? I understand and not blaming it on oil. Never have. I do have my own theories on why we went to Iraq, but they are not significantly rooted/supported by fact, they are just sort of hunches. So I ask, why Iraq? Addressing the other things you mentioned... I also understand that Freedom is the core of our society, and I am more with Locke than Hobbes (But I will not state that Freedom is the only thing, equality needs to come in some cases). I am not really wanting to go into a union debate (I am not extremely informed, I am sure you know more), but I just think that Unions are doing what is in their best interest. As you were when you fired those 12 employees for stealing. They have more power in numbers, so might as well use it. My opinions on personal injury lawyers aren't really defined because I simply don't know, not trying to cop out, but its the truth. Regarding the rich, capitalism is an excellent way for economies/societies to function. But I will not say it is perfect. And the government can be part of the solution of its imperfections. I am more of a government is the problem person, but it can serve its purpose to be solutionary. ---- As for the Middle East/Democracy, I personally believe that a Democratic Republic is the best system of government. But I don't think it is America's job to forcibly say that it is. It is one thing when a country maybe comes and asks for our help, but it is another to take the initiative on our own. What gives us the right to always say that it should be only our way? And that is the beef that I have with the Iraq situation. Not the theories of Michael Moore, or the oil, or whatnot. But I do not like how we forcibly took over a sovereign nation to impose our views. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 You guys are right my apologies for the idiot comment. But ... to try and argue that you support what is going on in that article ... yes I think that is stupid. It involves Tax payers money. No ... I'm not for the way we handled Iraq ... and I am not the biggest fan of Bush. My views are probably a little on the edge for most. What I am is tired of spending Americans money for everyone else ... including most American social programs. I have taken part in Politics ... and it is about $$$'s across the board ... As a leader of a local company I have seen and taken part in an industry having to give millions of dollars to politicians funds ... (Democrat and Republican) ... so they would see our way. I don't know what the $$'s had to do with wether we were right or wrong... but if we didn't pay we didn't get the vote. I know more about our welfare $$'s than most people ... I have dealt with the recipients for 14 years. I knoiw that 75% of it is just a payment to remain lazy. We as a government can't even put our foot down and stop giving away billions to illiegal immigrants. You can come in our country illiegally and have a kid ... and we take care of and educate them for life ... and that is such a small part of our giveaways. I'm tired of having our troops and money go to governments and countries whose citizens profess to hate us ... while their government milks us for every dollar they can get. We as a country are to concerned with what the rest of the world thinks ... and we try to buy a good image ... it doesn't work. I am outraged that America is outraged and felt the need to apologize for the way we treated Iraqi prisoners ... I could go on and on ... but it frustrates me. Again I am sorry for the idiot comment, I am not one to call names ... I got carried away ... but again does anyone really think that what that article states is happenning is ok. Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. Waldman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Come ... on Steve. Republicans are spending now ... and most of it I don't support ... but Democrats generally support most social programs ... anything that gives their constituants more money. I wouldn't say though that I am Democrat or Republican ... There are some things I agree with the democrats on and some I agree with Republicans ... but more that I disagree with both. I think our politicians are about money. PERIOD Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. Waldman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 wow! i want to party with alonzo p hawk! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Me too. I don't have the education that most on this board do ... I'm just a simple used car salesman ... but I do know that I work my a$$ off 6 days a week 10 hrs a day trying to get my business going. I don't want to give it away to people who aren't willing to do the same for themselves. Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. Waldman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SluSignGuy Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 are the big spenders of the day (when you specifically mentioned Dems). Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MUTGR Posted June 28, 2004 Author Share Posted June 28, 2004 understood the danger presented by Saddam Hussein: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...04/262bqypn.asp Since you obviously believe Mr. Clinton is more credible than George Bush, I thought you might like to review what his administration said about Hussein. Of course, since there is a republican in the white house who actually did something about him, and it's election season, and the american people have incredibly short memories, it doesn't serve their interests to repeat it now. Fortunately, a few people were paying attention. This is interesting reading as well: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm By the way, every time I see or hear the distinguished madame Albright criticising the Bush administration, I want to puke, given her harsh rhetoric against Hussein when she was part of the Clinton administration. Like I said, it doesn't serve their agenda now, so the tune has changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.