Effect of the Anti-war, Anti-Bush Campaign

[Rider]

Another simple poll question-

Yes or No?

Does the left wing anti-war and anti-Bush campaign provide aid or comfort to our enemies?

[Elrathin]

No, not even close. When the left starts putting physical arms to the enemy or proitecting the enemy from ANY prosecution, then come back and talk about giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Until then, this is typical right-wing propaganda. But please by ALL means, tell your congressmen, senators, and any republican you can, to say in their campaign speeches that the left are terrorist supporters and anti-American. Please by all means do this today, I wouldn't mind seeing an all out Democrat victory because of it.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You'll see Democratic metldown, not victory.

They'd step all overthemselves sticking their feet in the mouths proving that when you stick a liar with truth they scream the loudest.

[Mayberry]

Regardless of what liberals might think, anti-war anti- Bush b.s. absolutely aids the enemy. This is exactly what the enemy wants. United we stand, divided we fall. That statement is truer now than it ever was. Hugo Chavez felt he could bash our president on American soil with no fear because of all the anti Bush crap on the air and in the papers every day.

[Elrathin]

You'll see Democratic metldown, not victory.

They'd step all overthemselves sticking their feet in the mouths proving that when you stick a liar with truth they scream the loudest.


Well then, we'll see won't we?

[Elrathin]

This is exactly what the enemy wants. United we stand, divided we fall.

Yes, that's what the enemy wants. They want to destroy freedom of speech. They want the U.S. to turn into a police state where if you speak bad about the president you are put in jail. Seems a lot of people want to support the terrorists in doing just that.


That statement is truer now than it ever was. Hugo Chavez felt he could bash our president on American soil with no fear because of all the anti Bush crap on the air and in the papers every day.


Do you support Bush bashing other leaders then as he has done before in the past? Because that is exactly what it sounds like you support. There is a word for that somewhere that begins with an H.

[Mayberry]

Yes, that's what the enemy wants. They want to destroy freedom of speech. They want the U.S. to turn into a police state where if you speak bad about the president you are put in jail. Seems a lot of people want to support the terrorists in doing just that.

I have nothing against freedom of speech. By all means, speak away. But I do have something against the ones doing the speaking, those who feel it necessary to bash everything the president does, and doing so in a way that the whole world can see and hear. You wouldn't bash your father in public, even though you might hate him to the core, now would you? If you would, then I question your upbringing. There is a moral duty to stand up for your country and your president in the world theater. If you can't or won't, then you don't belong here. Nobody said you have to like everything, I certainly don't, but if someone slanders Bush or America in front of me, they'd better be ready for a fight.
Do you support Bush bashing other leaders then as he has done before in the past? Because that is exactly what it sounds like you support. There is a word for that somewhere that begins with an H.
Hypocrite? No. Patriot? Yes! I really don't care what foreigners Bush bashes, I'm not concerned about anyone else. I am an American, and the rest of the world can kiss my arse. They don't matter. If they are an American ally, and friendly to America, then I'll give them the time of day. Otherwise, they can get bent. Does that make me a bad person? You probably think so, but there again, ask me if I care.

[Elrathin]

Hypocrite? No. Patriot? Yes! I really don't care what foreigners Bush bashes, I'm not concerned about anyone else. I am an American, and the rest of the world can kiss my arse.

Ah I see, it's ok for you and Bush to bash other leaders, but if they do it back to you, then you don't like it. Yes, that is called being a hypocrite. To do something you bash others for doing.

Thank you for showing the common conservative mantra of "do as I say not as I do." And sorry, but being a ptraiot does not mean never question our leaders or crticize them if they deserve it.

I am a patriot. Whether you choose to believe so or not is irrelevent to me. I know the truth about myself and my family, and as you said, to hell with what you think of me.

[Mayberry]

but being a ptraiot does not mean never question our leaders or crticize them if they deserve it.
I never said you couldn't. I just don't think it should be done on the nightly news or the front page.

[Elrathin]

I have nothing against freedom of speech. By all means, speak away. But I do have something against the ones doing the speaking, those who feel it necessary to bash everything the president does, and doing so in a way that the whole world can see and hear.

Then don't listen, and tough s**t


You wouldn't bash your father in public, even though you might hate him to the core, now would you?

If I hated him, yes, I would.


If you would, then I question your upbringing.

Question all you want, I don't care.


There is a moral duty to stand up for your country and your president in the world theater. If you can't or won't, then you don't belong here.

Says who? Who says that it is a moral obligation to support my president if I think what he is doing is wrong. SHOW ME where it says the president of the U.S. gets my unconditional support no matter what he/she does.

As for not belonging here, I think anyone that believes people should never criticize what the president does or requires that people give unconditional support, doesn't belong here, but belongs in Iran.


Nobody said you have to like everything, I certainly don't, but if someone slanders Bush or America in front of me, they'd better be ready for a fight.

That's funny coming from a person that has no problem bashing other leaders of the world and then whines and cries when they do the same.

[rodeojones903]

100% aids the enemy.

[Elrathin]

I never said you couldn't. I just don't think it should be done on the nightly news or the front page.
[/quote]

Well then, that is your opinion, but to call someone unpatriotic for it, just because you don't like it, is just idiotic .

[Elrathin]

100% aids the enemy.


Yes people should never question Bush, if they do so they are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. :rolleyes: Just remember that when a democrat president comes into play ok?

[Mayberry]

As for not belonging here, I think anyone that believes people should never criticize what the president does or requires that people give unconditional support, doesn't belong here, but belongs in Iran.
I never said don't criticize the president. I said don't do it on the front page. Typical liberal twisting my words.
Says who? Who says that it is a moral obligation to support my president if I think what he is doing is wrong. SHOW ME where it says the president of the U.S. gets my unconditional support no matter what he/she does. You aquired that obligation when you were born here.Well then, that is your opinion, but to call someone unpatriotic for it, just because you don't like it, is just idiotic O.K. So trashing your country and your president is patriotic? Please explain, I slept through liberal 101. You know, I didn't care for Bill Clinton, but I swore to obey his orders and defend him and my country when I joined the Navy. And if anyone had slandered him in front of me, I would have kicked their arse as well. Defending America should come first, before anything else.

[Elrathin]

You aquired that obligation when you were born here.

Says who?


O.K. So trashing your country and your president is patriotic? Please explain, I slept through liberal 101.


What you call trashing, I call criticizing. No, I don't like everything that the left says about Bush, but some of it IS CALLED for by Bush.

[Mayberry]

You don't come into my country, you don't come into my congressional district, and you don't condemn my President," Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) scolded after Chavez's rambling, 90-minute rant at Harlem's Mount Olivet Baptist Church.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/454785p-382690c.html

[Elrathin]

I never said don't criticize the president. I said don't do it on the front page. Typical liberal twisting my words.

[/quote]

Again, if you don't like it, don't read it. Other than that, being criticized goes along with the job.

It's amusing that conservatives and Republicans weren't whining about bashing Clinton in the media.

[rodeojones903]

Just remember that when a democrat president comes into play ok?


That would require a democrat to actually take a stand for something and put a plan into action.

[Mayberry]

It's amusing that conservatives and Republicans weren't whining about bashing Clinton in the media. They didn't have to. The Democrats did enough whining for everybody.

[Elrathin]

It's amusing that conservatives and Republicans weren't whining about bashing Clinton in the media. They didn't have to. The Democrats did enough whining for everybody.


Like I said, hypocrites.

[Mayberry]

Like I said, hypocrites. The pot calling the kettle black. So far, Rangel is the only Democrat I hear standing up for Bush, and others in the party are attacking Rangel for doing it! So who is the hypocrite?

[Elrathin]

Like I said, hypocrites. The pot calling the kettle black. So far, Rangel is the only Democrat I hear standing up for Bush, and others in the party are attacking Rangel for doing it! So who is the hypocrite?


If you are ok with Bush bashing other leaders, but call for other leaders to stop bashing bush, that is hypocritical. You can dodge or deny all you want, but that is being a hypocrite.

[Mayberry]

Perhaps in your opinion, but like I said, I don't care about "other leaders". And the only "other leaders" I've heard Bush bash are tyrannical nutjobs anyway. And I've never heard Bush call someone the devil. He calls them what they are. Whatever you may think, George Bush only wants what we all want, justice for the 9/11 attack and all other terrorist attacks, an end to terrorism, and freedom for those who do not have it. The true hypocrits are the like of Chavez and Amaweenyjad.

[lily]

You don't come into my country, you don't come into my congressional district, and you don't condemn my President," Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) scolded after Chavez's rambling, 90-minute rant at Harlem's Mount Olivet Baptist Church.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/454785p-382690c.html


I seriously have to laugh at this........in the country know for it's free speech!

As for the original question...I guess it's going to depend on how many left and how many right vote as to how it's going to turn out. It's a nice talking point, but I don't buy it.

[Elrathin]

Perhaps in your opinion, but like I said, I don't care about "other leaders".


Like I said, you are ok with OUR leaders calling OTHER leaders what they will, but you get offended when OTHER leaders call OUR leaders names.

There is a difference between patriotism and hypocrisy.

[Elrathin]

The true hypocrits are the like of Chavez and Amaweenyjad.


I never said they weren't. But why should we be like them then?

[Mayberry]

But why should we be like them then? We aren't. As far as I know, Bush hasn't likened anyone to Satan. He certainly isn't threatening to nuke anyone. And he wants freedom for everyone, not tyrrany and annhilation.

[lily]

Mayberry

We aren't. As far as I know, Bush hasn't likened anyone to Satan.

Evil and tyrant are pretty close. I don't know, personally I thought when he said it still smelt like sulpher was pretty funny.

He certainly isn't threatening to nuke anyone. And he wants freedom for everyone, not tyrrany and annhilation.

“We cannot take any option off the table".

[lily]

He certainly isn't threatening to nuke anyone. And he wants freedom for everyone, not tyrrany and annhilation.


You know, this is going to take this thread off topic......but this is one thing that has been bothering me. The right insists that Muslims want everyone to convert to Islam. They will take over the world.....but nobody sees this as odd? I mean these countries are perfectly happy the way they are....who are we to invade and force democracy down their throats? How is this different? Both sides seem to think it's perfectly sane.

[Mayberry]

Both sides seem to think it's perfectly sane. Good, then we can call it a draw, pull out, let Iraq get taken over by Iran, they'll build the bomb, nuke us, and it'll all be done with. Nighty night.......sleep tight.

[lily]

That's not what I was saying........but that works for me too! Don't let the bedbugs bite!

[Elrathin]

Both sides seem to think it's perfectly sane. Good, then we can call it a draw, pull out, let Iraq get taken over by Iran, they'll build the bomb, nuke us, and it'll all be done with. Nighty night.......sleep tight.


Not what Lily is saying, but I find it funny that the U.S. will intervene on some countries that are tyrannies, but not others. Yet the reason the president gives is to get rid of tyranny regimes.

So what have we done about Darfur since we care about tyranny regimes? Oh wait, we acutally don't.

[Rider]

Elrathin wrote- Not what Lily is saying, but I find it funny that the U.S. will intervene on some countries that are tyrannies, but not others. Yet the reason the president gives is to get rid of tyranny regimes.

So what have we done about Darfur since we care about tyranny regimes? Oh wait, we acutally don't.

You seem to want to have it both ways. You excoriate Bush for attacking poor Iraq, who never did anything to us, but Darfur would be OK. How's that work?

Actually, we should become involved when our national security interests are at stake. That's why most conservatives were opposed to our involvement in Bosnia. We had no stake in the outcome. Nor do we have anything at stake in Darfur.

I've wondered why we intervened in Bosnia while we allowed the slaughter of 3/4 million in Rawanda? Why wasn't the American left at Clinton's throat for that? Hypocrisy?

[Elrathin]

You seem to want to have it both ways. You excoriate Bush for attacking poor Iraq, who never did anything to us, but Darfur would be OK. How's that work?


ACtually I live in reality where the U.S. cannot attack a country based on that reason. I just find it funny when Republicans invoke the "We invaded Afghanistan for woman's rights" when in fact we didn't give two shakes of a piss over it, just their support of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban's harboring of Osama.

The simple fact is we are NOT the police of the world. We only intervene when it is in OUR BEST INTERESTS, not due to some civil rights.

I recognize this, but when Republican Sheep say we invaded Iraq to free it's people, it is really a joke. We don't care about tyranny regimes, hell we support one (China). So get of it already is what I am saying and quit using the "humanitarian" reasons that we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan already. The FACT and UGLY TRUTH of the matter is, if you run a tyranny and oppressive regime we don't care unless it affects us.

[Rider]

Lily wrote- You know, this is going to take this thread off topic......but this is one thing that has been bothering me. The right insists that Muslims want everyone to convert to Islam. They will take over the world.....but nobody sees this as odd? I mean these countries are perfectly happy the way they are....who are we to invade and force democracy down their throats? How is this different? Both sides seem to think it's perfectly sane.

So steeped you are in the moral equivalency of the left that you could be bothered by two concepts that are as similar as lightning and lightning bug.

"Force democracy down their throats"? I think that it is much more accurate to say that with kindness in our hearts we have offered them a chance to build a free and democratic state in which to raise their children. After all, we could have stood off and pulverized their entire nation without much risk to ourselves.

Now you want to draw some sort of comparison between this and the forcible spread of Islam to unwilling peoples. Do you think that the nations subjugated by this monsters will be "perfectly happy the way they are"? Don't make me gag.

If you can even conceive of an equivalency between these two phenomona, then you are truly lost in the fever swamps of liberalism.

[Elrathin]

I think that it is much more accurate to say that with kindness in our hearts we have offered them a chance to build a free and democratic state in which to raise their children.


Again, was it kindness of our hearts or our self-interest?

If it was kindness of our hearts, why don't we do this with EVERY nation that is under tyranny and oppression?

We didn't attack Iraq out of the KINDNESS OF OUR HEARTS, so please stop using that lame excuse to try and make it somehow NOBLE. WE did it for OUR SELF-INTEREST, not some noble reason.

[Rider]

Elrathin wrote- Rider Wrote:
I think that it is much more accurate to say that with kindness in our hearts we have offered them a chance to build a free and democratic state in which to raise their children.


Again, was it kindness of our hearts or our self-interest?

We clearly invaded Iraq for our national security interests. I have never heard otherwise from Republicans. The fact that we've gone to greater risk to offer democracy to these people is in addition to those interests as a democracy generally does not make war with its neighbors.

If it was kindness of our hearts, why don't we do this with EVERY nation that is under tyranny and oppression?

Is that a serious question? If so, I cannot imagine you understanding the answer.

We didn't attack Iraq out of the KINDNESS OF OUR HEARTS, so please stop using that lame excuse to try and make it somehow NOBLE. WE did it for OUR SELF-INTEREST, not some noble reason.

Who exactly has claimed that we invaded Iraq out of the kindess of our hearts? Not me and if you reread my post you will see for yourself. In fact if you had included the rest of my statement you would have answered your own question.You are just setting up straw men to knock down.

[lily]

Rider

"Force democracy down their throats"? I think that it is much more accurate to say that with kindness in our hearts we have offered them a chance to build a free and democratic state in which to raise their children. After all, we could have stood off and pulverized their entire nation without much risk to ourselves.



Why aren't they the same? Not to bring up past discussions, but I remember the discussion we had, where you said we were forcing freedom down their throats, if we had to do it with a gun, so be it.. In all honesty, Rider that is what I based my question on, it made such an impression on me.

The Right has themselves convinced that if we don't crush Iraq, while completely forgetting about Afghainstan, that Muslims all over the world are going to come and kill them.......when the fact is, we invaded two countries, you want to invade a third, to "offer them freedom", when in fact not only weren't we asked to do it, they don't want us to do it. We are hated for our "ideals", just as you hate them for theirs.

We clearly invaded Iraq for our national security interests. I have never heard otherwise from Republicans.

Which we now find out that most of it was wrong.

The fact that we've gone to greater risk to offer democracy to these people is in addition to those interests as a democracy generally does not make war with its neighbors.

That is true. We had a better shot at this shining example in Afghainstan.

[Rider]

Lily wrote- Rider



Quote:
"Force democracy down their throats"? I think that it is much more accurate to say that with kindness in our hearts we have offered them a chance to build a free and democratic state in which to raise their children. After all, we could have stood off and pulverized their entire nation without much risk to ourselves.





Why aren't they the same? Not to bring up past discussions, but I remember the discussion we had, where you said we were forcing freedom down their throats, if we had to do it with a gun, so be it.. In all honesty, Rider that is what I based my question on, it made such an impression on me.

Lily, I vaguely remember that discussion, but I never said that, at least in any context I can think of.


The Right has themselves convinced that if we don't crush Iraq, while completely forgetting about Afghainstan, that Muslims all over the world are going to come and kill them.......when the fact is, we invaded two countries, you want to invade a third, to "offer them freedom", when in fact not only weren't we asked to do it, they don't want us to do it. We are hated for our "ideals", just as you hate them for theirs.

I repeat Lily, I don't want to invade Iran. I've made that clear in several posts. I certainly never said that I wanted to invade anyone to offer them freedom. And where did you get the idea that we've completely forgotten about Afghanistan?

Quote:
We clearly invaded Iraq for our national security interests. I have never heard otherwise from Republicans.



Which we now find out that most of it was wrong.

Not at all.


Quote:
The fact that we've gone to greater risk to offer democracy to these people is in addition to those interests as a democracy generally does not make war with its neighbors.



That is true. We had a better shot at this shining example in Afghainstan.

You know Lily, I get the distinct impression that you would prefer that we lose in both countries.

[Churchel]

You'll see Democratic metldown, not victory.

They'd step all overthemselves sticking their feet in the mouths proving that when you stick a liar with truth they scream the loudest.


Bush seems to being a good job leading by example. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhR04RkBFhs)

[lily]

Rider


Lily wrote- Rider

Lily, I vaguely remember that discussion, but I never said that, at least in any context I can think of.
Like I said, it made such an impression on me, and that's what gave me the idea of my post.

I repeat Lily, I don't want to invade Iran. I've made that clear in several posts. I certainly never said that I wanted to invade anyone to offer them freedom.

Huh? You bring it up all the time. It's your argument for why we are in Iraq and Afghainstan.

And where did you get the idea that we've completely forgotten about Afghanistan?

How many troops are posted there? How much money do we spend on re-building? I can post link after link, showing the poppy money coming in to support the Taliban and training for Al-Qaada.

Bush says he needs Iraq to be a shining example of how democracy will be, so other countries in the Middles East will want it. Afghanistan could have been that country. For the millionth time......we didn't need to go into Iraq!

Not at all.

I know, I know....all those reports, including the last one from a mostly Republican panel showing we were wrong.......are wrong.



[color=red]You know Lily, I get the distinct impression that you would prefer that we lose in both countries.

Yeah........I know.......just to make Bush look bad.:rolleyes:

[firefox]

but being a ptraiot does not mean never question our leaders or crticize them if they deserve it.
I never said you couldn't. I just don't think it should be done on the nightly news or the front page.


If not there then where? The mass media is what makes politics work (or not), and always has in this country to a greater or lesser extent. I think the anti-war movement is where it's at, given that the majority of animosity and violence towards the US stems from invasive US foreign policy. Belive it or not, people in OTHER countries don't like being invaded and killed EITHER. It's not just Americans! You don't see THAT in the MSM very often. Also, think about who backed Osama and Saddaam in the first place... The US military and CIA.