Republican Nazis?!?!?!?! (886 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.78 on 24 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Donne Fan (View user info) at 2004-09-08 10:16:03 EDT
http://www.ubersite.com/m/43978 Yidele you have inspired me to write again. Well you and Rudy. Criticizing Arnold for his statements about Austria is fine. He seems to have gotten his history wrong and that is not a good thing. He also referred to debates that did not happen because he was supposed to say race but changed it to debates. Arnold is a nice guy I think, but he is not a man of great ideas like Ronald Reagan. You can see a few posts back what my immediate reaction to his speech was.
Accusing him of being a Nazi is infantile. "But his father had ties to the nazi party" waaaaaahhhh. That is somewhat similar to saying someone is a fascist because their father supported mussolini. You would be talking about the majority of Italian men. Arnold made some disturbing statements in the 70s (the original "Pumping Iron" is hard to find) but he is not a nazi and throwing that word around is why people do not take it seriously enough anymore.
Your rant against the Republicans aside from reminding me how hilarious your view is given that George W Bush has strengthened the ties with the country within in which you live to a degree
that Kerry would say is dangerous and will isolate us from others, also reminded me of why
there are some jewish people who still hate bush despite the fact that there is no one better
to support Israel or defend the interests of the jewish people.
Here I will use excerpts from the speech given by Rudy at the convention:
The horror, the shock and the devastation of those attacks on the World Trade Center, the
Pentagon and over the skies of Pennsylvania lifted a cloud from our eyes. We stood face to
face with those people and forces who hijacked not just airplanes but a religion
and turned it into a creed of terrorism dedicated to eradicating us and our way of life.
Terrorism did not start on September 11, 2001. It had been festering for many years. And
the world had created a response to it that allowed it to succeed. The attack on the Israeli
team at the Munich Olympics was in 1972. And the pattern had already begun. The three surviving terrorists were arrested and within two months released by the German government. Action like
this became the rule, not the exception. Terrorists came to learn they could attack and often
not face consequences.
In 1985, terrorists attacked the Achille Lauro and murdered an American citizen who was in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer. They marked him for murder solely because he was Jewish. Some of those terrorist were released and some of the remaining terrorists allowed to escape by the Italian government because of fear of reprisals.
So terrorists learned they could intimidate the world community and too often the response, particularly in Europe, was "accommodation, appeasement and compromise." And worse the
terrorists also learned that their cause would be taken more seriously, almost in direct proportion to the barbarity of the attack.
Terrorist acts became a ticket to the international bargaining table.
How else to explain Yasser Arafat winning the Nobel Peace Prize when he was supporting a
terrorist plague in the Middle East that undermined any chance of peace?
Before September 11, we were living with an unrealistic view of the world much like our
observing Europe appease Hitler or trying to accommodate ourselves to peaceful co-existence
with the Soviet Union through mutually assured destruction.
President Bush decided that we could no longer be just on defense against global terrorism
but we must also be on offense. On September 20, 2001, President Bush stood before a joint
session of Congress, a still grieving and shocked nation and a confused world and he did change the direction of our ship of state. He dedicated America under his leadership to destroying
global terrorism. The President announced the Bush Doctrine when he said: "Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
"Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." And since September 11th President
Bush has remained rock solid.
It doesn't matter how he is demonized. It doesn't matter what the media does to ridicule him or misinterpret him or defeat him.
They ridiculed Winston Churchill. They belittled Ronald Reagan.
But like President Bush, they were optimists; leaders must be optimists. Their vision was beyond the present and set on a future of real peace and true freedom.Some call it stubbornness. I call it principled leadership. President Bush has the courage of his convictions.
In choosing a President, we really don't choose a Republican or Democrat, a conservative or liberal. We choose a leader. And in times of danger, as we are now in, Americans should put leadership at the core of their decision.
There are many qualities that make a great leader but having strong beliefs, being able to stick with them through popular and unpopular times, is the most important characteristic of a great leader.
Winston Churchill saw the dangers of Hitler while his opponents characterized him as a war-mongering gadfly. Ronald Reagan saw and described the Soviet Union as "the evil empire" while world opinion
accepted it as inevitable and belittled Ronald Reagan's intelligence.
President Bush sees world terrorism for the evil that it is. John Kerry has no such clear, precise and consistent vision. This is not a personal criticism of John Kerry. I respect him for his service to our nation.But it is important to see the contrast in approach between the two men; President Bush, a leader who is willing to stick with difficult decisions even as public opinion shifts, and John Kerry, whose record in elected office suggests a man who changes his position
often even on important issues.
When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, John Kerry voted against the Persian Gulf War. Later he said he actually supported the war.
Then in 2002, as he was calculating his run for President, he voted for the war in Iraq. And then just 9 months later, he voted against an $87 billion supplemental budget to fund the war and support our troops. He even, at one point, declared himself an anti-war candidate. Now, he says he's pro-war. At this rate, with 64 days left, he still has time to change his position at least three or four more times.
My point about John Kerry being inconsistent is best described in his own words when he said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
Maybe this explains John Edwards' need for two Americas - - one where John Kerry can vote for something and another where he can vote against the same thing.
Yes, people in public office at times do change their minds, I've done that, or they realize they are wrong or circumstances change. But John Kerry has made it the rule to change his position, rather than the exception. In October, 2003, he told an Arab-American Institute in Detroit that a security barrier separating Israel from the
Palestinian Territories was a "barrier to peace." A few months later, he took exactly the opposite position. In an interview with the Jerusalem Post he said, "Israel's security fence is a legitimate act of self defense."
The contrasts are dramatic. They involve very different views of how to deal with terrorism. President Bush will make certain that we are combatting terrorism at the source, beyond our shores, so we can reduce the risk of having to confront it in the streets of New York.
John Kerry's record of inconsistent positions on combatting terrorism gives us no confidence he'll pursue such a determined course.
President Bush will not allow countries that appear to have ignored the lessons of history and failed for over thirty years to stand up to terrorists, to dissuade us from what is necessary for our defense.
He will not let them set our agenda. Under President Bush, America will lead rather than follow.
John Kerry's claim that certain foreign leaders who opposed our removal of Saddam Hussein prefer him, raises the risk that he would accommodate his position to their viewpoint. It would hardly be the first time he changed his position on matters of war and peace.
Now for my final word on that. Europeans have always hated the jews and their reaction to terrorism has been appeasement. Guess where the murderers of Klinghoffer ended up? In Iraq
with Hussein. Kerry will tell the jews what he thinks they want to hear, but he is not
committed to them or to anything else really. That is why many of my friends in NYC who are jewish told me they are secretly voting for a Republican for the first time in their lives.
They disagree about many issues but overall they want to be safe, and being safe is not going
to come from validating the terrorists or working to build a consensus with isolationist
selfish and myopic world leaders who will not stand up to threats until it is too late. It
comes from prevention through intervention and the preemption doctrine will keep America safe
by allowing our soldiers to fight the terrorists on their soil, rather than on our own. Kerry
is not a Nazi, and neither are the democrats, he is just the neville chamberlain of our era.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men sit idly by" (this quote is not edmund burke http://www.tartarus.org/~martin/essays/burkequote2.html but I like it and it is apt
for today. If faced with the great threat of terrorism we are content to sit and enter in the
fray only to respond, as Chamberlain did in attempting to appease Hitler before the war, we will
pay a far dearer price than if we aggresively root out and destroy those who seek to take the
lives of our civilians because of a religious ideology that has been perverted to justify
our demise.
User Reviews
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2004-09-09 14:55:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
you sound a bitter man, smokey. If you think that Poland is "Bush Country" then I have some attractive beach frontage parcels of land in central texas for you to look at.....
- But seriously folks, how does it feel to unconditionally back a man whose only positive feature is that he once lived in Houston?
- Isn't it just a bit more than ironic to support the military policies of a man who did his level best not to serve his country in any theatre of operations?
- Isn't it strange that a man who run and hid like a coward is now being touted as your war leader? isn't it embarrasing to nominate as your highest exectuive a man who couldn't name the leader of your largest trading partner residing on the other side of your single longest land border?
- A man who declared: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
sheesh. really, smokey, don't you just get tired of having to make excuses for that walking exaple of foot-in-mouth disease?
Let me leave you with a few perls dropped from the lips of your fuhrer:
"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"—Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000
"We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile.''—Ibid.
"I have a different vision of leadership. A leadership is someone who brings people together."—Bartlett, Tenn., Aug. 18, 2000 (Thanks to Tarja Black.)
"The only things that I can tell you is that every case I have reviewed I have been comfortable with the innocence or guilt of the person that I've looked at. I do not believe we've put a guilty ... I mean innocent person to death in the state of Texas." All Things Considered, NPR, June 16, 2000 (Thanks to Andy Nouraee.)
"I'm gonna talk about the ideal world, Chris. I've read—I understand reality. If you're asking me as the president, would I understand reality, I do."—On abortion, Hardball, MSNBC; May 31, 2000
"There's not going to be enough people in the system to take advantage of people like me."—On the coming Social Security crisis; Wilton, Conn.; June 9, 2000 (Thanks to Andy Mais.)
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating."—U.S. News & World Report, April 3, 2000 (Thanks to Alfred Stanley, Austin, Texas.)
"Actually, I—this may sound a little West Texan to you, but I like it. When I'm talking about—when I'm talking about myself, and when he's talking about myself, all of us are talking about me."—Ibid.
"He has certainly earned a reputation as a fantastic mayor, because the results speak for themselves. I mean, New York's a safer place for him to be."—On Rudy Giuliani, The Edge With Paula Zahn, May 18, 2000 (Thanks to Peter Goldman.)
"I think we agree, the past is over."—On his meeting with John McCain, Dallas Morning News, May 10, 2000
GOV. BUSH: Because the picture on the newspaper. It just seems so un-American to me, the picture of the guy storming the house with a scared little boy there. I talked to my little brother, Jeb—I haven't told this to many people. But he's the governor of—I shouldn't call him my little brother--my brother, Jeb, the great governor of Texas.
JIM LEHRER: Florida.
GOV. BUSH: Florida. The state of the Florida.—The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, April 27, 2000
"Laura and I really don't realize how bright our children is sometimes until we get an objective analysis."—CNBC, April 15, 2000
"I was raised in the West. The west of Texas. It's pretty close to California. In more ways than Washington, D.C., is close to California."—In Los Angeles as quoted by the Los Angeles Times, April 8, 2000
"Reading is the basics for all learning."—Announcing his "Reading First" initiative in Reston, Va., March 28, 2000 (Thanks to Carl LaRocca.)
"We want our teachers to be trained so they can meet the obligations, their obligations as teachers. We want them to know how to teach the science of reading. In order to make sure there's not this kind of federal—federal cufflink."—At Fritsche Middle School, Milwaukee, March 30, 2000
"Other Republican candidates may retort to personal attacks and negative ads."—Fund-raising letter from George W. Bush, quoted in the Washington Post, March 24, 2000
"It is not Reaganesque to support a tax plan that is Clinton in nature.''—Los Angeles, Feb. 23, 2000
"I understand small business growth. I was one."—New York Daily News, Feb. 19, 2000
"The senator has got to understand if he's going to have—he can't have it both ways. He can't take the high horse and then claim the low road."—To reporters in Florence, S.C., Feb. 17, 2000
"If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and principles, come and join this campaign."—Hilton Head, S.C., Feb. 16, 2000
"How do you know if you don't measure if you have a system that simply suckles kids through?"—Explaining the need for educational accountability in Beaufort, S.C., Feb. 16, 2000
"We ought to make the pie higher."—South Carolina Republican Debate, Feb. 15, 2000
"Will the highways on the Internet become more few?"—Concord, N.H., Jan. 29, 2000
"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."—Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000
"When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and you knew exactly who they were," he said. "It was us vs. them, and it was clear who them was. Today, we are not so sure who the they are, but we know they're there."—Iowa Western Community College, Jan 21, 2000
Submitted by smokymtcsw (user info) at 2004-09-09 09:50:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
yid quick quiz, is George W Bush the first person to lose the popular vote and become president? If not then why not? I think perhaps you think America is a direct democracy. I am happy that although Bush lost the "world vote" which I cannot imagine being unbiased in sample size in any manner, he still won in Poland. Hope you love living in Bush country.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2004-09-09 03:27:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I do understand them, domenad. What i have difficulty with is the fact that the republican packed supreme court decided to overrule what the voters did, and in doing so invalidated the electoral process.
When things like this happen in Chechenya, it is called vote fraud. When Saddam Hussain got 100% of the vote in Iraq, noone doubted that the election was fixed. When George UU. Bush is awarded the presidency after having outright lost the vote, you may choose to call it "the vagaries of the US electoral system", but that don't make it so.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-09-08 16:08:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"In choosing a president, you chose Al Gore."
Yidele, you don't even understand the vagaries of the US electoral system. Shut the hell up until you do.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2004-09-08 15:45:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
I've definitely seen better, even out of you, smokey.
To put things in much needed perspective ( and after your quick n dirty version of consensus reality brain washing they definitely need that perspective), we'd need to adress some issues you for some reason chose not to notice.
1) First of all, you can definitely try to spin the the issue of Gustav Shwarzenegger's nazidom as much as you like and this spin control changes nothing as far as reality is concerned. Gustav Shwarzenegger was a card carrying member of the NSDAP and a SA trooper( a brownshirt) this makes him A NAZI, and not merely someone who "had ties to the nazi party". In much the same way you can try to spin Mt. St. Helens , Krakatoa as "a massifs which have some features of volcanic nature" or Abu Nidal as "a muslim gentleman with ties to terrorist groups". Being of direct nature, I prefer calling a spade a nigger any day over "sparkling urbanite with ties to the afro-american community".
2) regarding Ahnuld's "mistakes" you can pretty much send that lie to the same trashpile; Shwarzenegger's speech at the RNC was his political debut on the national scene in preparation for a potential future presidential bid, assuming his buddy Orrin Hatch manages to get an amendment passed allowing foreign-born nazi to run for the highest office in your land.
No one, not even your oaf-in-chief speaks extempore at the RNC. Speeches are carefully prepared by people who know what the fuck they are doing; a good example being a once and future presidential candidate and far right nutjob, Pat Buchanan who was Nixon's speech writer. Ahnuld's bid for sympathy and support depends on the fact that most of the electorate wouldn't know where austria was, much less whose tanks and soldiers were terrorizing the Guvanator in his youth. It is a prticularly cheap and gaudy attempt bid for pity and support and it is clearly a conscious bit of manipulation, much as Nixon's "My dog checkers" speech was.
3) Arnold Shwarzeneger, a child of a Nazi police chief, a man who declares that Adolf Hitler is the man he admires most, a man who dressed up in nazi uniforms and sang along with his favourite nazi LP's, a man whose stated opinion on the issue of authority is:
' 1990 profile in U.S. News and World Report noted Arnold's intensity as Locker Room Czar, and predicted that he would someday run for office. After noting a longstanding desire for political clout ("My relationship to power and authority is that I'm all for it."), the article quotes the actor as saying:
"People need somebody to watch over them. . . . Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave." '
doesn't need to be a member of the NSDAP (like his dad) in order to be a nazi. He is a nazi in spades.
Ahnuld is therefore AT BEST a lying nazi and AT WORST a brain donor nazi wanna-be who somehow missed out on learning the basic facts of his country's contemporary history( and as such he's really very american after all).
4) Of the balance of your inane philippic, i choose the most grevious of all lies to adress: "In choosing a President, we really don't choose a Republican or Democrat, a conservative or liberal"
In choosing a president, you chose Al Gore. Unfortuantely the lying, cheating, thieving deserter who now occupies the white house was placed there against the expressed wishes of the majority of americans. You are led by a radiculous buffoon ill equiped to run a smallish pig farm, much less the united states of america. George Bush is not a leader, he is the running joke of modern american history. Bush' policies are merely the continuation of the last 4 presidents, with the added twist that what remained of the power balance in your american domestic politics is gone due to election fraud and legislation such as the Patriot acts, while Bush himself is an illeducated dunce incapable of debating( or even legibly presenting) his own opinions, should he actually have any not implanted by his handlers
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2004-09-08 15:45:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
It is all well and nice to mouth the phrases of liberty, equality, fraternity or loyalty to one's allies, but those phrases are nothing but convenient lies on the lips of the last few administrations.
Israel is an ally and will remain so as long as there is oil in the middle east. This is not likely to change anytime soon, and no matter who is "elected" to the office, it will remain so as long as oil is the issue. The proof of that can be had in the simple fact that wahabbi/salafi islam is a Saudi invention, financed with saudi money and manned by saudis like Osama /bin/laden. Trying to scare Jews like me with blatant falsehoods like "Kerry will tell the jews what he thinks they want to hear, but he is not committed to them or to anything else really." The truth is, should Kerry be elected, he'll support america's strategic interests in middle east oil because it is folly to do anything else.
He MIGHT be more diplomatic about it. He MIGHT for example actually concentrate on eliminating the threats to american security instead of using them as a means of distracting the public from noticing blatant irregularities in the electoral process or forcing dangerous legislation such as The Patriot acts. He MIGHT have an opinion on what it is to actually fight a war and a soberer view of what it means to win ( viz bush declaring the end of operations half a year ago). Those are the potential things he MIGHT do, but what he WILL do is support the american interests in the middle east. This has nothing to do with Kerry's "convictions" just as it has little to do with Bush "Nazi lite" convictions. What drives american foreign policy in the middle east is the price of oil. It is as simple as that.
Seeing that the middle east and resultant Anti-terror policy can only change for the better( more effective), the only thing we have to fear is fear itself - you know what I mean - fear used to manipulate the public into accepting the naked power grab of the present administration as necessary and patriotic. Fear constantly played on by the gestapo...i mean the department for homeland security...Fear inspiring poor saps in the middle of oklahoma into spending their last few bucks on duct tape and plastic sheeting...can anyone say "duck and cover"? Does anyone seriously suggest that your national media manipulated paranoi actually makes you safer? From where I sit, it just makes you more scared and easy to manipulate.
You chose quotes and so will I:
1) on HOW Bush & co. are leading you
Göring: "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
Göring: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
2) on WHERE Bush & co. are leading you
"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise"
-- Adolf Hitler
3) on WHY Bush & co. are leading you
"The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do."
-- Joseph Stalin
Submitted by smokymtcsw (user info) at 2004-09-08 14:47:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Whirly, you must have missed where I said that was Rudy who had the quote you do not like. Just for the record, Cheney's comment about the war on terrorism being worse if Kerry is elected or whatever he said just make another one in a string of recent Cheney comments I could live without. I do think N Korea poses a threat eventually, but not a direct one, because they do not even have ICBM's capable of hitting hawaii. Iraq was poised to unleash biological and chemical if and when they could, but the main thing was that we sent a message and people like the terrorists who killed klinghoffer got destroyed. Also we created a theater in which our armed forces could fight all the radical muslims who want to kill America, and we created it thousands of miles away from the good old USA. I am happy about that. As a bonus we got to create the first democracy in the arab middle east in...well maybe forever.
Caula thanks alot man. I appreciate it.
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-09-08 13:04:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by whirlycott (user info) at 2004-09-08 11:49:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You are rewriting history and current events here, cowboy.
Fighting terrorism is undoubtedly necessary and The Right Thing To Do. But how on earth do we reconcile that with being in Iraq? By any objective measure, there was less of a threat there than the threat of, say:
1) trying to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict
2) North Korea
3) angering the rest of the world by invading soverign countries without global support
The Bush Doctrine of Oversimplification To The Point of Uselessness relegates those would-be allies who disagree with the gung-ho Bush approach to the position of "supporting the terrorists". We're right, you're wrong. End of discussion. This type of logic, if I can dare to label it as such, isn't helping anybody.
What am I do with statements like this?
"President Bush sees world terrorism for the evil that it is. John Kerry has no such clear, precise and consistent vision."
So, John Kerry doesn't think terrorism is evil? Would you elaborate on this?
The problem with Bush's clarity, precision and consistency of vision is that it's none of the above. He tries to delude people into thinking that the economy is going great, Iraqis are happy now that the US has invaded and he can't reconcile the fact that the US is actually pulling out of large parts of Iraq because they're too dangerous.
Flip flop:
http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11268~2387703,00.html
Finally, on this matter of the $87B vote, Kerry and Edwards voted against it because they knew it was going to pass without their support and they voted against it to highlight the fact that it wasn't enough. They were later proven right when the administration asked for another $113B, bringing the cost so far closer to $200B.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-09-08 11:38:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
for writing, not opinion
Submitted by Random Joseph at 2004-09-08 11:05:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Israel is no friend to the US. They're just pimpin' us.
http://www.ussliberty.org/
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2004-09-08 11:02:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I guess that explains I hate jews.
Submitted by smokymtcsw (user info) at 2004-09-08 10:55:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
no substance to the aipac spy scandal, but the Pollard one was real. We spy on our allies and they spy on theirs, I am not bothered by it. They want more info on our intentions in Iran because they would like to bomb the crap out of the new nuke reactor if they know we will not respond by cutting them off. I say go for it, but that is probably why I am not in charge of such important stuff.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-09-08 10:53:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You raise an interesting point - what about the allegations of spying that have surfaced against Israel? I must say ,I was extremely pissed off about that, to the point where I really believe that if the spy is conclusively linked to Israel, we should end our support for them.
Submitted by smokymtcsw (user info) at 2004-09-08 10:45:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
duk your writing has made ubersite a better place. keep up the good work.
Nator:
Truly one of the only criticisms that I accept and hear often is that our commitment to Israel has made our work towards peace in the middle east harder. That is because all of their neighbors want to kill them and "drive them into the sea". I am still very happy that America stands with our friends and allies, and I take into strong consideration which candidate will support Israel more when I vote.
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2004-09-08 10:42:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I hate jews now?
Submitted by dukkha (user info) at 2004-09-08 10:42:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Kerry voted against a military funding bill that was loaded with pork and contingencies...
While Bush tried to cut combat pay and benefits for soldiers and veterans' benefits.
Bush supports our troops...yeah right.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-09-08 10:39:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Amen.
This was quite enjoyable to read.
Submitted by smokymtcsw (user info) at 2004-09-08 10:38:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
broadminded? I was going to make fun of the word but then realized I did not know the exact definition and it ended up not being "milque toast" or even "incapable of critical thinking" it was [adj] inclined to respect views and beliefs that differ from your own; "a judge who is broad-minded but even-handed"
I rather like that. I would say I am semi broadminded. Which means sometimes I respect views and beliefs but other times I do not. For instance in world religions class in college, I respected hindus, buddhists and muslims (though I called the wahabbis dangerous and evil) but I did not at all respect the guy who had created his own personal religion that basically made him his own personal jesus and I think involved the sacrament of the sega genesis. So I respect most views and opinions but not ones I find stupid or baseless, and not the ones I find dangerous. Hmmm I guess it is even more nuanced than that, I respect the religious fervor of the dangerous guy, but I do not think his beliefs are okay and I want to change his mind. On the other hand there are some people I just find stupid like someone who worships their car. I guess I am inclined that way! And I am tolerant, at least in the negative sense. I do not think everyone has an equal belief or opinion to my own, but I will fight for their right to have a different opinion and I think they should be able to broadly express it because thank God we live in a free nation.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-09-08 10:26:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
>>Anytime you hear someone say "fascist" or "nazi" and that person is not loading jews into boxcars, you know you're dealing with an unintelligent person.
Anytime you hear someone say "liberal" or "socialist" and that person is not broadminded and tolerant of other's opinions, you know you're dealing with an unintelligent person.
... maybe even domenad
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-09-08 10:20:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Really, it's fine Donne. Anytime you hear someone say "fascist" or "nazi" and that person is not loading jews into boxcars, you know you're dealing with an unintelligent person.
----------------------------------------------
^
|
|
|
obviously failed high school government class
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-08 10:19:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Face the barrage of -2's from the liberals and foreigners!!!! Stand strong, soldier.
Submitted by smokymtcsw (user info) at 2004-09-08 10:17:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
paragraph 3 might be my worst written and longest sentence ever and I should have edited this, but I stand by the sentiment. Arnold is not a nazi, Bush loves Poland and has worked with them alot, and Rudy made a good point in that Bush is much better for the interests of jewry worldwide than Kerry is.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-09-08 10:17:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Really, it's fine Donne. Anytime you hear someone say "fascist" or "nazi" and that person is not loading jews into boxcars, you know you're dealing with an unintelligent person.