I will say this.There comes a time as an American where each and everyone needs to come together.Freedom of speech and thought are human/American ideals,true.But I seriously believe that "the game" of politics has been carried too far.Many Democrats have crossed the line and made outright seditious statements or taken actions that are out of the realm of acceptability when it comes to the military/USA.Since when is undermining our country for personal gain in the guise of a just cause,during times of crisis,OK? From Gore,the media, right on through to the war in Iraq,it never ends.
So many,in their naivete(or personal agendas), would play games,standing in the way of what needs to be done for the benefit of not only the USA,but the world.Many politicians who oppose what we are doing publicly,know it must be done,yet they cater to their constituencies.
So your previous statement was incorrect. He didn't specifically target military votes, and it is not a fact. He discussed it, and decided not to do it. That sounds like the right course of action. Not a course of action from someone who hates the military. The facts were shown to you. Do you think that ballots that don't follow the law should be counted? Is our military fighting to preserve a nation that doesn't follow its own election laws?
So many in their naivete believe they and they alone know what is best for the benefit of not only the USA, but the world. Many politicians go beyond moral, ethical, and legal guidelines in their effort to acheive their arrogant goals.
I like your sig.It's what America is all about. That said,I think there is much truth to what both of us are saying.It would be nice if a happy medium could be reached,but in these times,I believe extreme action is called for.We must be proactive.
It doesn't prove that at all. It proves that he reviewed all possible strategies to win, which was his goal. We don't know if that was first, second or third of the ideas kicked around. We do know that he decided not to attempt to preclude votes by the military. If you want to deal in facts, then facts are that Al Gore did not attempt to discount votes from our military.
giddy, when gwayneco stops posting crap like, "I'm glad you posted the second link below, but this post more accurately re(f)lects the liberal mindset on things military. The first positive thing you had to say in support of the military was to praise a soldier who revealed the wrong-doing of other soldiers. Yes, he deserves praise, but it very conveniently fits into the anti-military template that liberals have. The anti-war protesters have been known to take it a step further by saying "We support the troops - when they frag their officers." ...and much worse in the past (although that was bad enough), he'll get the respect from me, and those like me, that you (who I respect), and gwayneco seems to think he deserves. I'm a strong supporter of our armed forces, and of having the most powerful military on the planet. I'm not a supporter of a colossal strategic blunder that has us tied down in Iraq, when we should have used part of those forces to destroy al Qaeda, with the remainder in our back pocket, for use if we need it against a rogue state attempting to develop atomic weapons. You know, a real threat, not one created out of whole cloth, in a web of misinformation, distortion, and outright lies to the American people and the world. Keep D&D Civil.
This is actually more the norm than the exception and is a part of waging war in a democracy. Lincoln was called a "monkey", "idiot" and worse by many in the North. There were also politcial opponents who criticized and insulted FDR and Wilson during WWI and WWII. The criticism directed at GW Bush pales compared to what was directed at LBJ. Heck the Republican Congress sharply criticized and even impeached Clinton while US troops were engaged in military action in the Balkans and in Iraq and even tried to rewrite the War Powers act to prevent the President from deploying troops at his discretion to deal with an emergency.
I will agree that in general the amount of civility directed at Gwayneco is fairly low and getting lower. That said though it is hard to be civil towards someone who seems to frequently resort to calling other posters "Dhiminis", "Jihadists", "Moonbats" and other assorted names and will even go to the point of starting threads titled as such. While I don't feel its right to respond in such kind and try to not to I'm not immune to feeling peeved when I'm called a "Moonbat". As I said in my thread a while back regarding a D & D moratorium I will do my best to not insult or get personal towards Gwayneco and other posters even if I feel like I have been. And to Gwayneco personally if you have felt that I have personally insulted you I apologize for that and will say I was just caught in the heat of the debate. I can't speak for other posters and don't pretend to. Its up to every poster to decide how they choose to respond to another poster but every poster should also consider how their responses contribute to the lack of civility on this forum. Also I will say that lack of civility or pack behavior of shouting down a poster isn't just a matter of political leanings. Take for instance a certain poster who has shown a recent penchant to vociferously defend the current Iranian regime. That poster has gotten quite a bit of the pack shouting him down yet to my knowledge I'm not aware of you rising to the defense of this poor opressed minority who is doing all he can to defend President Ahmedinajad.
to be equally fair, "moonbat" is a fairly mile epithet compared to what some of us who support the war have been called.
Whatever it is, I am sure it is mild compared to being told you support Osama, Saddam, are unpatriotic, and hate the troops.
Good grief. Snicker. Being a Hitler sympathizer/supporter won't get you in trouble in the US. None whatsoever. It's protected by free speech right, first amendament, or whatever that crap. Different story if you are a Osama supporter. You get landed in Gitmo outright. No question asked.
No kidding. I would say that the responses to statements like that, aimed at people like us, has been incredibly reserved. That basso and gwayneco are whining about such a mild response to being called a traitor (what it amounts to, and the actual word has been used) is laughable. That people like giddy "rise to their defense," when remaining largely silent when these outrageous statements are directed towards us, is sad indeed. Keep D&D Civil.
It's because his posts are consistently hateful and obtuse. In this section he's whining that Kerry hates the military though spoiled rich kid Kerry volunteered to go fight in Vietnam unlike spoiled rich kid Bush and Cheney with his five deferments. It looks pretty stupid to claim that a man who risked his life to fight in some hell hole war on the other side of the world hates the military. He has no shame really. He's probably going to go off on Max Cleland any second now.
Hate to bump this thread, since it's kind of a garbage dump full of gwayneco related poop, but it looks like Murtha was right, and these guys are going to get charged: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/26/w...&en=b7363380ed080aa4&ei=5094&partner=homepage readign the article, the whole thing sounds pretty sick and My Lai-esque. Very disheartening. But I guess that's to be expected in war. Also included in the article, more slanderous allegations:
Posters like Sishir Chang - discuss and debate, they respect others and rarely attack personally. Sishir Chang has challenged me many times and we've debated and argued points. I highly respect his posts. I don't read many posts that are just personal attacks so I am not sure about these points Sishir Chang is making but I will give my translation- Treat others the way you should be treated also. GOLDEN don't you think? I would defend Sishir Chang, he is one of the better posters in D&D.
