posted on March 30, 2003 07:12:34 AM new
Some say that ‘peacenicks’ protesting on streets restrict access on roads. True
I’m saying ‘wardrummers’ in malls restrict access for customers & therefore income for some shopkeepers is also true.
I guess the only way to have a mass rally without restricting access is to do it on an empty block of land, in a barren region.
posted on March 31, 2003 05:17:21 AM new
What is so very sad about this thread is it brings to mind high school and what a perfect training ground it was for life.
The school had pep rallies where we were mindlessly whipped to an emotional frenzy about our superiority as Cardinals or Vickings or Bulldogs. The football heros were glorified and the administration who were above all the dirty action demanded obedience and affirmation.
The few who actually pursued something constructive or intellectual where dispised as nerds and eggheads.
If you moved to another school you were expected to instantly transfer all your meaningless loyalty. We had to support the team in a stupid futile effort to move a meaningless marker down the field at the expense of many a knee busted they needed later in life.
If the parallels don't jump out at you I figure you are too far brain washed to ever admit them to yourself so I won't belabor them point by point.
But I had parents that taught me that unthinking total obedience was for the weak minded.
It has served me very very well not to be conditioned to serve unquestioningly.
So Your saying you weren't very popular in high school.
Aside from that your point is valid. It was and is called loyalty. Do you feel the same way about your family? Your culture? your religion? Your friends?
I think most on these boards are true to what they believe. Some have had many years and experiences that mold them to their convictions.
Then again I see a bunch of blind followers too but They're leftist and don't count.
posted on March 31, 2003 11:08:50 AM new
" "Colin, you said:
"Antiwar is one thing but being anti-American is another."
"Can you explain your distinction?"
"Donny, I must be was giving you more credit then your due. You can figure it out." "
Well, I can figure out my own distinction, but I asked you to explain your distinction. In your view, what are the circumstances where one can be Antiwar and not be anti-American?
posted on March 31, 2003 01:47:35 PM new
"Well, I can figure out my own distinction, but I asked you to explain your distinction. In your view, what are the circumstances where one can be Antiwar and not be anti-American?"
donny,
Your question makes no sense. You must have an answer to your comment (question). I doubt it would make sense to anyone but you.
"What a ridiculous, childish thing to say."
Gee Wiz Prof. I thought it was funny. You must have had a rough day, today.
posted on March 31, 2003 02:12:42 PM new
Colin, you said:
"Antiwar is one thing but being anti-American is another."
I'm asking you how, in your view, a person can be Antiwar without being anti-american.
... I'm not sure how I can be clearer in my question. It had seemed to me that, in your view, being antiwar was interchangeable with being anti-american. But now you've said that antiwar is one thing and being anti-american is another.
So, in your opinion, can a person be antiwar and yet still not be anti-american? Your quote above suggests that's possible. If that's so, what views would a hypothetical person hold which would make him antiwar and yet not anti-american?
posted on March 31, 2003 02:27:32 PM new
donny,
See if you can understand this.
There's a lot of people in this country (most I hope) that are against war. When diplomacy (12 plus years) becomes fruitless we have a conflict (in this case a war).
People that are against war may or may not be anti-American. Those that incite revolution and violence in the name of protest are Un or Anti-American.
Many of those that are against war are now on the side of the troops. They have always being pro American. Others will find fault in anything and everything about the United States of America.
Read the posts. Who are the ones that never have anything good to say about the country? They are anti-American. If they don't have something to b*tch about, they will make something up.
They are a minority. Our country is run by a majority. It seems to really p*ss them off. We are a great nation and will remain one. We will never go down their Socialist path.
Hoping this answers your question. I still thought you could have figured it out yourself.
posted on March 31, 2003 02:40:46 PM new
Maybe I haven't been as clear as I thought.
I'll try again. Can a person who is against this war be pro-American? (or, not be anti-American)
"Many of those that are against war are now on the side of the troops."
Can someone who is against war (and/or this war) still be on the side of the troops? Or, do they have to switch their anti-war stance to be 'now' on the side of the troops?
(Forget about Socialists and posters here and incitors of violence. This is a narrow question about how a [hypothetical] person can hold views which are anti-war (this war) and yet still be pro-American (or, not anti-American)
posted on March 31, 2003 03:47:51 PM newSo, in your opinion, can a person be antiwar and yet still not be anti-american?
Yes, imo, it's possible. I believe many fit that description. I'll use neonmania [and hope she doesn't mind] as an example of someone here who I see that way.
But if one acts in a way that is detrimental to our government continuing in it's efforts to do what they were ELECTED by the majority to to, ie: protect our nation and it's citizens, continues to put road blocks up once war is declared, or appears gleeful at our setbacks...then that's against one's country and is an anti-American stance to me.
posted on March 31, 2003 04:01:15 PM new
I try not to generalize either. It just makes one look rather silly. I don't believe that all pro-war supporters on the board are fascists or totalitarians. For instance, Calamity and several others seem to have a level head and don't advocate a repressive military state or the abridgement of first amendment rights, or other dangers to our free society which are currently being promoted by a minority.
posted on March 31, 2003 04:11:59 PM new
::Yes, imo, it's possible. I believe many fit that description. I'll use neonmania [and hope she doesn't mind] as an example of someone here who I see that way. ::
Well, since you let me slide on falling asleep during a new report this morning I'll let you slide this time . Actually I am glad to see that you see that there is a distinction and respect that while I have a discenting opinion on the war, it does not apply to our country or it's trooops..
posted on March 31, 2003 04:16:09 PM new
"Your starting to be one of the little people"
Hey, I've always been one of the little people. Back when big people were still little people, I was little people. I don't reckon I'll ever get bigger, haven't yet.
I think there's a distinction also, though I still don't know what Colin's distinction is. This may be a fault in my ability to perceive it, I dunno.
[ edited by donny on Mar 31, 2003 04:17 PM ]
posted on March 31, 2003 04:43:08 PM new
Thanks, neonmania - glad it didn't bother you.
------
antiquary - Some here appear to me to be very gleeful everytime a left slanting newspaper even mentions something might be going wrong in the way the war plans being carried out. No, that's not them wishing harm to our troops. But to me it comes across like what's more important is to watch Bush fail than to be supportive of their countries actions.
posted on March 31, 2003 04:54:29 PM new
Well, I've missed the gleeful part, Linda. I have seen posts that present alternative views to those of our administration and that also point out false information or propaganda. I don't see how that has anything to do with supporting our troops.
It seems to me that some posters have confused supporting our men and women with supporting the administration that placed them in Iraq without justification. If so, I would consider that to be using our troops as a talking point to create propaganda for strictly partisan political purposes. But I can't imagine that anyone here would stoop to that level.
posted on March 31, 2003 05:04:52 PM new
Antiquary - we WERE discussing anti-war vs anti-american. I wouldn't expect any one here to say they don't support our troops. You're turning the issues.
These are my feelings/thoughts....when ANY party is in office, and we are at war it's a time to come together and be supportive of our country's efforts. Not sit and criticize everything that administration is doing.
To me it's like when parents divorce and when the child is visiting mom or dad they are critical of the other parent. The child is the one who suffers, because the child is a part of both parents. I see our nation the same way. I see the efforts by some to divide our nation as destructive, rather than to work to be united for the sake of our nation.
posted on March 31, 2003 05:21:24 PM new
"I see the efforts by some to divide our nation as destructive, rather than to work to be united for the sake of our nation."
Well, let's all get on the anti-war side, for the sake of our nation. Then we'll all be united.
posted on March 31, 2003 05:22:35 PM new
No, there was no change in the discussion.
I'm aware of your complete devotion to the Bush administration, Linda. It's been the same for two and a half years now about virtually all issues, as mine is usually the opposite. Nothing new there.
However, because the administration has decided to attack Iraq, which in my opinion will have all the opposite results that the administration gives for having done so, and also for reasons that it has avoided stating, doesn't mean that I would now support the administration itself. In fact, even less so. Nor would any of the other millions of people opposed to the administration. It has nothing whatsoever to do with patriotism. To insist that others should now support an administration when they have no reason to do so is simply partisan politics.
posted on March 31, 2003 05:32:40 PM new
It's how it's expressed Helen. No one agrees on every issue. No one is saying these issues shouldn't be discussed. No one is saying that everything the president does is going to be agreed with by both party's.
When people speak about how the war is going, some will have ways they might like to see it done. Sharing those ideas is a normal part of life. But to gleefully see/judge that things don't look like they're going to well, and berate the president/military for how they're handling it, make fun of the misjudgements that have been made ...is something different, imo. And against our countries best interest.
Be on our nation's side. Find the ideas of a person you respect for having some good suggestions about a road that might be taken. But to always criticize and offer NO alternative...is just to #*!@.
Imo, when one constantly blames their own country for everything it does, implies everything it does is wrong, that's anti-American to me.
To me to fight against everything a president that you don't like does, isn't in the best interest of the nation, as a whole. Like biting off your nose to spite your own face.
I'm off...and I know you won't agree anyway. Just stating the reasons I believe many here come across as anti-American. Not putting their nations best interest above their hatred of our current president.
posted on March 31, 2003 05:35:46 PM new
I don't know how to break this to you, Linda. I'll try to be gentle. But blaming the Bush administration for its many faults is not blaming the country. We're not quite a totalitarian society yet.
posted on March 31, 2003 09:18:26 PM new
In a free country, as Thomas Jefferson said, “If you had to choose between a free press and a free government, you would choose a free press,” because without a free press, free expression, there’s no free government - there’s no accountability.
The ability to engage in discussions and exchange ideas about our government at any time is an American privilege that we should all be proud to have. Only a government such as a Fascist totalitarian regime would see a free flow of ideas on a chat board as a threat.
Linda,I haven't seen anyone gleefully making fun of the military. How could anyone find glee in a war?
posted on April 2, 2003 05:49:53 AM new
antiquary,
"Well, I've missed the gleeful part, Linda. I have seen posts that present alternative views to those of our administration and that also point out false information or propaganda. I don't see how that has anything to do with supporting our troops."
You may have missed the gleeful part but most of the others didn't.
Here's a group of your last NEW posts. I went back to see if they were gleeful. THEY are very gleeful.
What are the odds?
Rumsfeld Under Fire!!!
Trouble in River City
Bush tries to undercut 9/11 investigation again
One small step for humanity
The Real George Bush?
Wish I knew how to link to the threads ..but alas I don't.
BTW which one in your coven (group) made the statement (several threads ago) about The President as a young boy, Blowing up cats.
That to me was the most ANTI-AMERICAN thing I've ever heard.
Amen,
fighting the pinko's where and when I can,
Reverend Colin
[ edited by colin on Apr 2, 2003 05:52 AM ]
posted on April 2, 2003 06:27:19 AM new
Colin - Wish I knew how to link to the threads..but alas I don't.
First you need to have the URL of the page or thread you want to post. Then you use this code:
[url]YourLinkHereNoSpaces[/url$]
Remove the $ sign and don't leave anyspaces anywhere.
like this:
[url]http://www.foxnews.com[/url$] {minus the $ sign} it will work.
side note: I sure enjoy your posts...and your sense of humor. Really lightens things up for me. Thank you.
-----
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
DUH on me.. you've already made links above. . So...when you want the URL [address] of a thread, you have to be on that thread and then your computer will show you the URL...the http # that you need. Sorry....I misunderstood.
Edited to add:
say for the thread "What are the odds" it would look like this:
. Actually I am glad to see that you see that there is a distinction and respect that while I have a discenting opinion on the war, it does not apply to our country or it's trooops..
you've already made links above. 
. So...when you want the URL [address] of a thread, you have to be on that thread and then your computer will show you the URL...the http # that you need. Sorry....I misunderstood.