donny
|
posted on February 28, 2003 02:35:25 PM new
Whatever happened to that idea.
|
kyms
|
posted on February 28, 2003 03:23:44 PM new
I always thought that to be true... I am starting to see that a few people find it unamerican to disagree. Live and learn I guess.
|
Borillar
|
posted on February 28, 2003 03:32:26 PM new
It's now "unAmerican" to disagree with the President or anything that he wants to do. Your full and total hearty and loud Approval of each and everything that he does is required of you for Der Fuhrer unt fur deh Homeland! Seig H . . . er, "Victory Hail" und all uf zat zort uf ting! Got That?
|
snowyegret
|
posted on February 28, 2003 03:40:23 PM new
Well, I still believe it's true, but I'm a brontosaurus in the scheme of things and you know what happened to them. Polarization appears to be gaining ground in the US. My husband was just saying today that the name calling and love it or leave it rhetoric reminded him of the years after he came home from Vietnam.
Besides, I live in Philly, and life here without disagreements would be too mellow. Utopia and Philly don't mix, except in the greasy food department.
You have the right to an informed opinion
-Harlan Ellison
|
colin
|
posted on February 28, 2003 05:23:52 PM new
I think we all agree to disagree. There's nothing wrong with that.
On the other hand calling the President, the Devil, a moron, on and on and on. I find that to be a little un-American, especially from people that consider themselves Wordsmiths.
Donny, There's a lot of hate in the world. You won't find much (there's a little) on these boards. You will find a ton of hot debate, a little name calling and an occasional ranting.
Amen,
What did Rodney King say?
Reverend Colin
|
kyms
|
posted on February 28, 2003 07:01:56 PM new
"What did Rodney King say?" -What does this mean? I don't understand..
|
KatyD
|
posted on February 28, 2003 07:04:50 PM new
Famous words. He said "Can't we all just get along?"
I say the exact same thing to the kids at the dinner table every night. 
KatyD
|
Helenjw
|
posted on February 28, 2003 07:43:34 PM new
LOL!
|
REAMOND
|
posted on February 28, 2003 09:16:05 PM new
Good faith first requires honesty. When those that voice opposition to the foreign policy of our government just because they hate an office holder, they're not being honest.
When they protest the Iraq war policy because they hate capitalism and democracy, they're not being honest.
When they ask of us what they would not do themselves for self serving reasons, they're not being honest.
If you hate G W Bush, fine, say so, get it off your chest. But don't become a harpy of every single policy our country pursues because you hate GW. It's irrational and dishonest.
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on February 28, 2003 09:31:32 PM new
Who hates George Bush? I used to think my ex-boyfriend was the devil but I still loved him. It was his way of thinking I didn't agree with. 
|
Borillar
|
posted on February 28, 2003 09:52:56 PM new
Well, that's your estimation of posters on here, REAMOND and it comes as no surprize to me that you think that of us. I suppose that you think that your opinion of others on here is supposed to foister "Good faith first requires honesty" between you and us?
|
donny
|
posted on February 28, 2003 10:36:49 PM new
We don't have to believe that everyone who disagrees with us is a person of good faith. That would be silly, if we had been presented with an indication by that person to the contrary. But the indication is not the conclusion reached. I've sometimes judged people who agree with me to be 'not of good faith.'
It is a question of getting along, sort of. It's a matter of realzing that people can be wrong, without being 'bad.' That people can hold differing opinions with conscience but, by our reckoning, with error. That it's possible to be honestly mistaken.
If we judge their good faith by their conclusions, we've put the cart before the horse.
|
krs
|
posted on March 1, 2003 01:05:10 AM new
Some people argue like those fat loudmouthed black women that are hired by shows like Jerry Springer. Repetition and decibels. Reamond is one of those. I don't waste time with them beyond jerking their chains now and then.
|
colin
|
posted on March 1, 2003 03:20:29 AM new
krs
"like those fat loudmouthed black women"
RACIST, RACIST, RACIST.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
It makes no difference if you meant it in that context. You Wrote it and it's there for all to see.
Next you use the obligatory:
"jerking their chains now"
We know what your talking about. Black people-chain.....
Good Lord forgive me. For a minute I was becoming a Liberal puppet. Taking things out of context, quoting a partial sentence. Cutting and pasting passages.
At least I didn't go so far as to call all that disagree, morons or tell them they were ignorant. That would have made me one of them, a hypocrite
Amen,
It was fun for a minute,
Reverend Colin
|
krs
|
posted on March 1, 2003 03:33:46 AM new
A Hurdy-Gurdy Man.
|
canvid13
|
posted on March 1, 2003 05:52:35 AM new
You have to respect the Office of the President. What the role of president means.
You don't have to respect the man (or woman) that holds that position.
It is not a position that is awarded based on merit.
It's all politics as I've discovered with a project that's been nominated for an Oscar that is based on my source material.
It's who you know that can make you great unfortunately far too often in this world.
Maybe that's why ass kissers seem to do so well?
|
donny
|
posted on March 1, 2003 07:50:01 AM new
Snowyegret, my thoughts are your thoughts. Maybe if we remember the climate of disagreement now being similar to the climate of the Vietnam years, the idea that people of good faith can disagree disappeared before then; The Vietnam years are my limit of personal rememberance, and I wonder if this view is only held when there's no disagreeing going on.
Anyway, it's not about chat board disagreements. If anyone here thinks anyone else here is dishonest, that's a reasonable assessment.
|
Borillar
|
posted on March 1, 2003 08:09:55 AM new
>You have to respect the Office of the President. What the role of president means.
canvid, I agree that the Office itself needs to be respected. But as Clinton so eloquently demonstrated for us through the efforts of the Republican smear campaign, that respect for the Office does not automatically make the Office Holder respectable. That is what many of us believe, that Bush is dishonorable and does not deserve the least bit of respect, that Bush does not belong in the White House that the election was fixed in many ways and that he is a fraudulent President; and that Bush's inept and onerous actions and speeches thus far have embarrassed that Office of Integrity so much farther than any other President before him has so ignobly advanced that he deserves neither respect nor courtesy. A True Leader of the American People does not need to hide behind the title of President to make him respectable; respectability is something that you accomplish through your words and deeds after all.
|
Borillar
|
posted on March 1, 2003 08:16:57 AM new
>Some people argue like those fat loudmouthed black women that are hired by shows like Jerry Springer.
Umm . . . I wouldn't have worded it quite that way, KRS. I, and every other American who has watched that show often enough, we all know what you are talking about. And that type of combative argumentation is exactly the ploy that many of them have been using of late.
However, I have noticed that the fat black women doing it are not always fat, not always black, and sometimes not even an identifiable gender. It makes me wonder just how this sort of full-volume, in-your-face argumentation began and how it has been able to spread. It is hard to speculate o it without sounding racist or some other 'ist', but it is utterly repellant to me and likely repulsive to most Americans. We should not let that happen to the Round Table, as that nonsense brings our discussion group down to the level of a Jerry Springer shouting match. Therefore, please ignore those who wish to engage you in those sorts of argumentation.
|
Tex1
|
posted on March 1, 2003 08:49:00 AM new
"We should not let that happen to the Round Table, as that nonsense brings our discussion group down to the level of a Jerry Springer shouting match. Therefore, please ignore those who wish to engage you in those sorts of argumentation."
Does this mean you a putting yourself on "IGNORE"? What an ineresting idea. That will save you from about 90% of the "Jerry Springer type posts".
|
KatyD
|
posted on March 1, 2003 08:50:54 AM new
LoL! Tex. GMTA!
KatyD
|
NearTheSea
|
posted on March 1, 2003 09:01:52 AM new
Tex
good one!
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
|
REAMOND
|
posted on March 1, 2003 12:48:38 PM new
Liberals lose an argument and its because of the tenor of the argument not the substance and they again resort to name calling.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 1, 2003 01:49:17 PM new
Someone needs to look into the mirror and ask themself if they do exactly what they accuse others of doing. Want to borrow my mirror, Borillar?
|
