<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"A lot of these people are not prepared for rugged conditions," an
Ontario border patrolman said. "I found one carload without a drop of
drinking water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley cabernet, though."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Princess, I'm proud to be an American too, and that's exactly why I fight. I want to do my part to stop the men who are doing evil in America's name and tarnishing her reputation with the world. I hate the fact that they've whipped up nationalism to the point where my friends tell me to shut up or leave because I disagree with the government. That's not what America is about, and if you are truly proud to be here, you need to learn that. And you need to fight too.
"struan87 you are way better than Google!" --BCole Pictures.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hmm...it sounds like you are saying that unless we fight against the current government, unless we disagree with it, we are not truly proud to be Americans. Is that any less bigoted and fascist than us believing in our government?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by raven6mt
Hmm...it sounds like you are saying that unless we fight against the current government, unless we disagree with it, we are not truly proud to be Americans. Is that any less bigoted and fascist than us believing in our government?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No, what I'm saying is that Americans are free to criticize the government, and those who tell others they can't don't understand how our democracy is supposed to work. This is a factual statement that is supported by the documents on which our country was founded.
A separate claim I'm making (and I can see why this would lead to confusion) is that those who love their country should oppose this administration and their policies which demonize dissenters (thereby acting against my previous point). Bush & Co are showing disrespect to America's formative values by trying to silence the voices that oppose them. This is my own statement, though. I'm not saying everyone has to oppose Bush &c, I just wish they would.
"struan87 you are way better than Google!" --BCole Pictures.
I will reiterate what has been said before and that is that no one has said Bush haters are not entitled to their own viewpoint or that they have to leave the country. THAT would be fascism and that is a very high and insulting charge to levy just because someone suggested that if you were unhappy enough living under this government you could leave.
BTW, those suggestions are made by ordinary citizens, not the government. Please provide documented proof that Bush's administration is trying to "demonize" dissenters and silence the voices that oppose them. I saw much more of this happen in very public statements by Kerry and his wife calling Americans who support Bush "idiots" and other choice names.
Bush & Co aren't trying to silence the voices...the rest of us who are sick and tired of of the incessent whining are. There are a great number of people who have been bitching about Bush because they felt he "stole" the election in 2000 and they haevn't shut up since. For years, all we would hear from many wacko Hollywood "stars" and whiny liberals is that "he isn't my president because he stole the election" and other crap like that. I think that many of us are burned out because the media spends so much time reporting on the dissenting views and the protesters and they seldom report the reasoning behind tough decisions. I have no problem with Americans being upset over the Iraq war and being concerned about the ill feelings towards American's abroad. I'm kind of concerned too (even though I think that the governments in Europe are a bunch of worthless pantiwastes who have done nothing in the past century except appease terrorists and evil dictators while the US and UK fight to keep their asses from getting overthrown every 50 years).
Bush & Co aren't trying to silence the voices...the rest of us who are sick and tired of of the incessent whining are. There are a great number of people who have been bitching about Bush because they felt he "stole" the election in 2000 and they haevn't shut up since. For years, all we would hear from many wacko Hollywood "stars" and whiny liberals is that "he isn't my president because he stole the election" and other crap like that. I think that many of us are burned out because the media spends so much time reporting on the dissenting views and the protesters and they seldom report the reasoning behind tough decisions. I have no problem with Americans being upset over the Iraq war and being concerned about the ill feelings towards American's abroad. I'm kind of concerned too (even though I think that the governments in Europe are a bunch of worthless pantiwastes who have done nothing in the past century except appease terrorists and evil dictators while the US and UK fight to keep their asses from getting overthrown every 50 years).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Whoa, stop the presses. I actually agreed with most of that. Somebody call Guinness... on second thought somebody get me a Guinness.[cheers]
If nothing ever ended badly then nothing would ever end.
Bush & Co aren't trying to silence the voices...the rest of us who are sick and tired of of the incessent whining are.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
That's the genius of Karl Rove and the republican handlers. They're making people like you do the dirty work so no one can catch them in the act. Of course Bush isn't going to come up to me and say "shut up", but if he says things like "if you're not with us, you're against us" and smirks at his opponents' views often enough, people start to believe it. When I say I'm not with you, you assume I'm against you, and since you're America, I must be anti-America and NOBODY GONNA TALK THAT WAY BOUT MY COUNTRY.
But I'm not talking that way about your country, I'm talking about your leaders. That point is lost now because the leaders have tied themselves so closely to the country. That's why strongly nationalistic parties work so well (in the beginning)--they get their supporters to crush opposing voices for them; the leaders get what they want without getting their hands dirty.
"struan87 you are way better than Google!" --BCole Pictures.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by raven6mt
Please provide documented proof that Bush's administration is trying to "demonize" dissenters and silence the voices that oppose them.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Bush has, on many occasions, disregarded dissenting opinions from his advisors, the CIA, the science world, etc etc. His solution to dissent has been to surround himself with people who will accept whatever he says. I don't have time to search the internet for all the articles I've read; I can post them here as I read them if you want. Here are some quick examples off the top of my head:
* Suppresion of reports regarding arsenic in drinking water
* Continued publication of scientifically innaccurate reports about global warming
* Publication of documents suggesting a link between abortion and breast cancer, despite overwhelming evidence that none exists
* Forced retirement of military officers who counseled against action in Iraq
* Inaction when presented with intelligence that bin Laden was planning an attack
* Inaction when military officers said there was not enough security for that famous 380 tons
* Ignorance of the intelligence regarding Falluja
In all these cases, Bush & Co removed or ignored people who disagreed with them.
"struan87 you are way better than Google!" --BCole Pictures.
You, as most people (myself included), are guilty of referencing biased "scientific" proof that supports your point of view. Being a scientist, I am especially aware of the amount of junk that is often reported as "scientific" findings. Often times (especially environmental findings), research is funded by groups with an agenda and they know how to spin data to their favor when no statistically significant basis for any conclusion exists. I'm not saying that a study didn't find arsenic in the water, etc., just that you need to take many of these findings with a grain of salt. That being said, can you imagine if a president (or leader of any rank) made laws or any major decisions based upon every study that is published.
The same principle holds true when dealing with military intelligence...just because you get some general intelligence that states Bin Laden is planning an attack, doesn't mean that the threat if imminent or that you have any idea how it could happen. There are many reports of people planning attacks against US interests at home and abroad, but you can't jump on every one of them, especially if you can't confirm reports. I'm sorry that I'm being a little long-winded, but I'm sure that making these decisions is not easy, especially when there is often conflicting intelligence reports. Did the administration make mistakes, of course. Did Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, etc make mistakes? Absolutely. The world is a complicated and dangerous place and every decision will make some people happy and others pissed. I, like you, hope that Bush can bring the country and world together; however, it won't happen unless he and the anti-Bush folks both work towards this goal. Keep your fingers crossed.
I agree with (some of) what you said, but I find it hard to believe that Bush is always right. Yet he seems to only disregard information that doesn't match his preconceived notions...
Anyway, my point was that he has little to no respect for people who disagree with whatever he has decided is true. If he doesn't respect advisors who are at the top of their fields, why would he ever respect the ordinary jerks like me who make up half his constituency? If the president doesn't respect us, why should anyone else? Bush leads by example, and that is why I'm in the awkward position of speaking to a group that has already decided I'm an idiot.
"struan87 you are way better than Google!" --BCole Pictures.
Damn you guys are dragging me in to this political thread.
The advisors role is to advise, not to make decisions. The ultimate decision is up to the President and the President is the person whom we (as a country) have elected. If everything was up to the advisors where would we be as a country? I don't know, but it's scary to think about.
Substitute advisors for Congress.......eeeerrrrr.[shake] Nothing would ever get done except them requesting extended sessions, to get things done.
"In the game of chess you can never let your opponent see your pieces"
AutoForums.com is the premier network of enthusiast-owned
enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
We operate more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share
experiences and opinions as a community.
]
