| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Damn you, Howard Dean, and our media; savages...8247's pissed! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 2 2003, 01:31 AM (453 Views) | |
| ImpulseEngine | Dec 2 2003, 04:03 PM Post #16 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ I would add to that there are those who are against the war because they believe that it is AGAINST the country's best interests. It is because they LOVE this country that they are against the war. It's merely a different viewpoint. Anyone who honestly believes otherwise is either naive or sheltered. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Dec 2 2003, 04:11 PM Post #17 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
I'm glad you asked the question, 24... it allows me to clarify. First of all, I never said that I consider those to be not as gung ho as me to be gutless cowards. I will define further. Last April I helped organize a supplies drive for the troops. These supplies were the basic comforts of home: AA batteries, mouthwash, feminine hygiene products, non-regulation toilet paper, coffee creamer, powdered drink mix, et cetera that don't come as standard issue. I saw people of all walks of life coming by to make donations. On the days we took donations, a small but loud group actually PROTESTED our supplies drive. They'd shout such inanities as "Two, four, six, eight, stop supporting hate", "Hell no, we won't go" and "Stop the fascist war!" Who were these people? They were mostly college age kids, late teens and early twenties, dressed in clothes that looked like they slept in them, berets and ratty beards. There were three middle aged freakies, who looked perpetually angry in their faded jeans and sandals (one of them). Of course, the news crews covering the drive spent more time talking to these people than the volunteers collecting supplies, loading them into semis, and driving them to Fort Hood. I consider these "protesters" to be gutless cowards. Same as the ones who tried to disrupt a Rally for America back in February. There were 10,000 happy, cheering people expressing support for the President and the troops. There were 50 people in a "counter rally" who threw eggs at some people at the edge of the crowd. Two of them tried to disrupt the rally by sneaking in and yanking the microphone cords from the sound booth. They ran right into a cop who was keeping folks from stepping on them. They were asked to leave. The egg throwers were videotaped and busted. You see, there is a difference between not agreeing with the policy of the president and trying to do everything possible to make it fail. We've gone from a society who has differences of opinion to one that is taking sides. Here's what we've become: During the Clinton Administration, I disagreed with most of his policies, yet since he was my Commander in Chief I kept my mouth shut. I did, however, support him on things I agreed with (NAFTA, as an example). After I left the Navy in 1999, I was free to express my opinion again, but I didn't simply oppose something because Bill Clinton was for it. I actually used my brain and thought about it. Today, all I see is a knee-jerk reaction to George Bush. If he is for it, the Deanies are against it (and vice versa). One thing: the military is one of the FEW services where you stand a chance of getting killed, and all for about the minimum wage (for the average grunt). The fact that they DEFEND our country places them in a special position above most others. A question I have to all who "hate" George Bush. WHY DO YOU HATE HIM? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Dec 2 2003, 04:22 PM Post #18 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
I've never seen anyone who says this. Do they actually believe it? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Dec 2 2003, 06:59 PM Post #19 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
Thanks for that particular clarification!
I have noticed that you place a lot of emphases on what people look like. Would you be more inclined to consider the people who were protesting the food drive as “legitimate” protestors, if they were wearing something more mainstream (khakis and a polo shirt for example)?
I am not defending the illegal actions of these protestors. They broke the law and deserved to get “busted.” But I am having a hard time reconciling your use of the word “cowards” as a descriptive for all of the above-mentioned protestors. Why are these people cowards? Are they cowards because there were so few of them (those participating in the “counter rally”) and so many of the “happy, cheering people expressing support for the President and the troops?” Is it their method of protest (throwing eggs…yanking the microphone cords) that prompts you to categorize them as such? Or is it simply the content of what the protestors were yelling out (your previous example), "Two, four, six, eight, stop supporting hate", "Hell no, we won't go" and "Stop the fascist war!"? **** Then there is the use of the term “Coward.” Which is defined as: “One who lacks courage in the face of danger, pain or hardship (American Heritage Dictionary).” Are you equating physical protest/anti-troop/anti-war in Iraq sentiment with being cowardice behavior because the protestors choose to support peace instead of the War (and all of the support that goes along with the War...food drives/rallies)?
In regards to your final general question about Bush… Since I do not hate Bush…just disagree with his governing style, lack of fiscal responsibility and heavy-handed approach to diplomacy (to name a few)…I am not in a position to answer your question.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Dec 2 2003, 09:07 PM Post #20 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Call it moral cowardice, in addition to to physical cowardice. As for me describing their garb, I like to paint complete pictures of the scene. By the way, I was wearing denim shorts, a white polo pullover, and red/white/and blue windbreaker. My son was in blue dockers and a Spiderman t-shirt. As for legitimate protest, why would anyone protest a supplies drive? Especially for Americans. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Dec 2 2003, 09:54 PM Post #21 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
AB…you are still very cunningly side stepping my questions. Why do you equate protest with cowardice physical and moral behavior? No matter how ridiculous the protesters look, how idiotic the protest message or the protest target. (If I am misinterpreting your sentiment/ideology...however you wish to categorize it...I will gladly stand corrected). Btw, in keeping with your penchant for setting the scene…I am currently sitting at my desk, the TV is on in the background, I am wearing a gray/blue t-shirt and gray shorts and the inside temperature is a moderate 69 degrees. The weather outside is 37ish and will be getting down to high 20s...burrrr. :lol:
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Dec 2 2003, 09:56 PM Post #22 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Usually by the time they reach the third rude awakening they turn into Republicans (It's true! I've seen it happen. It's like magic...)... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Dec 3 2003, 12:13 AM Post #23 |
|
Admiral
|
You're kidding! Right...? For example, all the politicians who disagreed with going to war to name just the most obvious... :rolleyes: |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Dec 3 2003, 01:15 AM Post #24 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
^^^ Impulse I suspect it is possible that some folks might think that some politicians take their stance because party ethics (gee, that sounds like an oxymoron). I have spoken with people whose personal convictions are such that they do think the actions in Iraq (a few also in regards to Afghanistan too) are not in the best interest of the US. I disagree with them, but the are sincere in their belief. Others (especially around Santa Cruz and the greater Bay Area region) are knee-jerk liberals, that is to say if a Republican stakes out one position they just have to stake out the opposite. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Dec 3 2003, 06:35 AM Post #25 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Bill - surely if as many Americans support Bush and the USA's military engagement in and occupation of Iraq as you say , then it must take "true grit" and intestinal fortitude to openly go against the flow (of public opinion and government policy and risk being marked as a trouble-maker or as being disloyal and unpatriotic those who like you support Bush Jr and the war in Iraq (it still is a war so long as "insurgents" are resisting and continue attacking military and soft targets). That does not sound like a "coward" to me - it is far from cowardly to stand by your convictions in such circumstances. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Dec 3 2003, 07:29 AM Post #26 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Question, IE... The politician who disagreed with the war .... who are you talking about? The ones who say now that they disagreed with the war then ... or the ones who disagreed with the war then and now ... or the ones who said "whatever the opposite of what George Bush said" ... or the ones who said "the military is just bad and therefore must be wrong" .... or the ones who said "he's not bothering us - who cares if he rapes and kills his own people (their "just Muslims" after all)" ... or the ones who had access military briefings, but refused to attend because the military BY DEFINITION will lie and therefore there is no reason to even listen to them and opposed the war then and now (the stated position of one of the 10 Dem. candidates) ... the ones who listened to the military briefings, stated unequivocally that they supported the need to go to Iraq as a result of the information they recieved then , but now state that, if they KNEW the 16 words in the State of the Union meant "TRIED" instead of "DID" then they would "have never supported the war" (or the "morning after" defense) .... Hopefully, you don't truly see all politicians who "opposed the war" as "equal" :rolleyes: ... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Dec 3 2003, 07:34 AM Post #27 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Who is "Bush, Jr."? :rolleyes: |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Dec 3 2003, 10:46 AM Post #28 |
|
Admiral
|
Good point. I wrote that with too much haste. I meant most of the ones who disagreed with the war then and now.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Dec 3 2003, 11:32 AM Post #29 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
But what of Kucinich's viewpoint (that lovable nut from the great state of Ohio)? He opposed the war then and now. He also refused to sign the paperwork to allow him to attend the military briefing because without hearing what was said he knew it was a lie. Feel comfortable with someone like that for President? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Dec 3 2003, 01:44 PM Post #30 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
I expect Kucinich will be one of the first to drop out as soon as the Primary season gets rolling... (Insert standard "We made a difference in the race" speech here.) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2



2:13 PM Jul 11