First off, I am not referring to ANY of you who disagreed with the reasons we went to Iraq but are know hoping and praying for a positive and speedy resolution to Iraq. I highly respect those of you who hold that position. I am talking about those who continue to protest and say hateful, venomous things about the war effort and the leaders of our country.

I am curious as to what you guys think. We have all learned how the actions of Jane Fonda--and probably John Kerry--during the Vietnam War prolonged the conflict and made things worse for the troops. This is no longer a disputable point.

One could argue that Fonda really didn't know any better. I guess she was briefed by the State Department, but it is easy to understand how she may not have believed them. I am NOT justifying her actions, but during that time, I'm not sure we really knew how the rapid broadcast of public sentiment could embolden our enemy.

Today it is different. We all saw what happened during Vietnam. We have heard the NVA generals say how they felt all the dissension would help their cause, so they stuck it out longer than they would have otherwise. We now know that hateful dissension--when the enemy sees it--does embolden them.

So these hateful dissenters today must know and not care how their actions embolden the enemy and make the war harder for the troops.

Are their actions today worse than Jane Fonda's were during Vietnam?

Zig Heil Bush!!

Once again you can not simply answer a question and back up your points with constructive well thought out comments. You are losing any credability you may have had as a reasonable person open for discussion.

In ANSWER to the question I would say no-

IIRC Jane visited a pow camp and some of the prisioners gave her their SS numbers in a hope she would get the word out that they were alive and she turned them over to the NVA running the show resulting in the death and torture of those guys. I don't think the dissenters are as bad but they aren't good. And they are hurting the man/woman on the ground by giving some semblance of hope to the insurgents.


Rick_G - It seems to me (hold on:: the following is opinion and in no way can be used as a super duper fact! It is MY opinion and I am entitles to speak it)

It seems to me that your rhetoric has gone up since your son went to sea. Why is that - why won't you say the things you are saying when he is around to see them? I know he is on a boomer which means he is pretty much "out of the loop" Are you embarrased to speak such things infront of him? Why is it you try to not let your displeasure show infront of the ones you love but it is ok infront of others? Just a question to maybe see why you have gone so down hill in your posts since his departure - they used to be filled with reasoned thoughts and you were open to discussion but now you are just spewing hateful sound bites.

I am sure if we really wanted to play the PC game there are some Jewish people that support the war who might have a very personal problem with your above post, that post did nothing to further the discussion and/or make a point for yourself.

Just some points to ponder.

Listen, thoughtfully if you can. Nazi's hate Jews. Arabs were Nazi allies during WW2 and hated jews. Arabs still hate jews. Convert or die, sound familiar. Liberals are by and far anti Israel=Jews. Liberals believe the US is picking on poor innocent anti-semite terrorist.
Who are the modern Jew killing Nazi's? Be honest.......

The point I was making, although perhaps somewhat crudely (as seems to be the standard conservative fare), is that the Nazi's set up a system of government where the state rights usurped the individuals rights. That is what so many people on this board seem to think is what is most important. That you not speak out against the government because you will be unpatriotic, or some other such hogwash.

I know, I know, OBL and the rest of the terrorists check in here on a daily basis, and I am aiding and comforting the enemy. Let's not go there please.

As for my son, that is really none of your business, but if you must know, he lives quite far from here, and when he is in port, like most young sailors, he is busy with other pursuits, and really doesn't spend time reading posts by a bunch of old fogies. As to my or any other persons political stance, I raised him to think for himself, and to respect authority. I served in the military under Reagan, and I never had any problems following orders even though I didn't support his agenda.

If I see a member of the military in a bar, I will be the first to buy him a drink, and tell him how I appreciate him serving our country. That doesn't mean that I have to condone the foriegn policy of our current administration, or if I speak out against it, I want the war to go badly for our troops. They are the ones who get stuck doing the dirty work for a bunch of rich power mongers back in Washington, and I respect the hell out of them for doing their job in a professional manner. That's why I believe that Rumsfeld and the rest of his cronies should be taking the fall for the prison scandal. Yet, the only ones who will suffer will be the grunts who were following orders. That's the way it always goes, sh** rolls down hill.

I was just making an observation- REALLY. In your second post you presented your point and then discussed it- RATHER than just blast away with a hateful sound bite that did nothing to further the discussion.

The whole point of a forum is discussion, and I would say the reason this one is called the Campfire is because in the hunting/shooting community much of that discussion takes place round a campfire.

I have no problem with people who speak their mind but all that is being asked is that people THINK before they post.

My son watches a show on pbs called "Liberties Kids" basicly a cartoon bout the revolutionary war shown from a childs eye as he is a journalist. They had a show on the power of words - choosing words to get your point across while doing the most good.

I was mearly observing that as your son went to sea your posts seemed to become more knee jerk and based more on pure emotion than thought out responses.

I myself do not agree with a lot that goes on in pres Bushes govt, primarily the $ spent, immigration and the like but I never said (no anyone else) that you can not post your ideas, thoughts and such as they dis agree with others -
All I am asking is that more thought be put into posts rather than pure emotion that does little to further the discussion.

I used to be a member here a long time ago and stopped as my access to a computer went away, then I joined again several months ago. I have seen the recent rash of trolls and bickering, jus twant to try to get things back to a more civil and thoughtful level!!

I respect you and if you remember we ahd a discussion bout your son his rate and deployment- was nice and civil, I respect you and your right to disagree just requesting that people who do dissent do so with a modecum of decorum and tact!

BTW - I am not saying that I am perfect, just saying I'm trying to be better! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


V/R

Don't know why ya'll bother. Some of the guys are gonna bitch no matter who's in office. Reminds me of that old saying, "he'd bitch if he got hung with a new rope". <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I appreciate you doing me the honor of recognizing my lack of partisanship. Others have had the temerity to call me a liberal Democrat--can you imagine?

Oh, the horror!

Hmmmm, Early on during my training for the mental health field one my mentors told me that the 3 top issues that landed people in psy hospitals were: sex. politics & religion.I don't remember the order now but all 3 topics sure do bring up strong emotions. I too am trying to find the self control to be be more tactful... EVEN WHEN I KNOW I'M RIGHT! Just kidding.... kinda 2nd wind

Teal,

There are some people who are unable to say anything without injecting a lot of negative emotion. These folks are also often rude and insulting. They are that way because they do not fare well when they stick to using logic and reason in a debate. They are more concerned about winning than having an informative debate.

Their use of ridicule, excessive sarcasm, etc is a sign that they are losing the argument. However, their ego will not let them be wrong, so they do whatever they think will make them look good personally. They think if they can be "quick witted" with clever barbs and insults, then they can counter the superior logic of their opponent. This does not work with me.

I have grown tired of such folks. I do not personally associate with such people, and here I put them on "ignore." Rick_G is one I put on ignore a long time ago. I don't mind it if a person occasionally uses negative emotion, but when it becomes their trademark I ignore them.

Perhaps you should save yourself the angst and put such folks on ignore as well. They really have no credibility here, so it's not like they are posting stuff that anyone is going to pay attention to.

Blaine

Teal, if I offended you I apologize. For the most part, the people on this board are quite conservative. I have had many discussions here with very conservative people, and have come away with some insight into why they think the way they do. While I might not agree with their point of view, they have a well thought out position, it is a pleasure conversing with them, and I enjoy the give and take. Steve No, TLee, and a few others come to mind.

Some others on this board are downright hostile to anyone who does not agree with their point of view, and resort to name calling and personal attacks in order to try and gain some sense of superiority. It's too bad that this type of behavior has to take place. To respond with more than a short, concise, to the point blurb to this type of person is a waste of time, as it only opens myself up to more of the aforementioned behavior. That is the reason I don't invest more energy into a discussion with these types of people, as I know it will only degrade into some senseless I'm right, you're wrong type of discussion.

Blaine,

No I do not think these people are as bad as Jane Fonda, she directly caused the death and torture of soldiers she saw, talked too, and shook hands with. To me that is disspectable and inexcusable, she will surely burn for that. Yes these people may and probably will cause the conflict to go on longer then it should and this will cost many lives on both sides, as the war protests did during the Viet Nam era. I do not feel it is wrong to have these beliefs nor too discuss them, but it is out and out treason to tell the troops this like Hillarity did. I also believe it is wrong for the media to pick this dissention up and make it world wide knowledge. Call it blind faith if you will but I think the country needs to stand behind our leaders 100% until this conflict is over, we can sort it out and micro analyze it later when no more harm to our troops can come from it.

Well, I kind of thought Rick went a little over the top with the Zig Heil business, but he is generally one of the more articulate (though misguided) crew who see everything through a prism of dislike for Bush that makes them interpret (or misinterpret) every fact and observation to fit their worldview. Drives me crazy sometimes, but I'm sure I have the same effect on them. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> One of the risks of that pesky First Amendment. If you're only talking to people who agree with you, it's not a discussion, it's just an echo chamber and nobody is learning anything, IMHO.

I don't think there is any valid comparison between such people and Jane Fonda and her ilk, who actively and knowingly worked for the defeat of the United States and its ally, and directly supported our enemies. She should have been indicted the minute she stepped back on American soil.

Steve, what the hell happening, we agree on something. I think that bit** Hanoi Jane should have been tried for treason.

Rick--I don't know if you've read it yet, but here's the Amazon link to a book by two lawyers setting out the legal case against Hanoi Jane, with the draft indictment that should have been filed, and a discussion of the evidence and legal precedents. They conclude, in essence, that she could and should have been convicted of treason, certainly after our prisoners were released and we found out about her passing their names to the Reds and the other things that weren't in the press releases from Hanoi.

Nixon just didn't have the cujones or political capital at the time to expend on a trial where the comsymp media would have been all on Jane's side. Here's the link:



http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/078641247X/002-7142053-2803212?v=glance

Thanks for the link, I'll have to check it out. To be compared to someone like her for voicing a differing opinion is ludicrous, hence the zig heil remark. I think it is justifiable.

Rick - I was not comparing you to her!!!!!!!!

In fact I put her just a few steps above Hitler (not many) she complained about the treatment of the Vietnamese yet treated the American soldier jsut as bad as what she was complaining about!

I respect you and your opinion - but I respect it more when it is a well though out discourse and not a reply like the Zieg heil remark.

You may have missed my reply to the original question - where I stated I do not consider those who disagree with Bush in the same league as Hanoi Jane.

While the Bush presidency will be based and judged on the Iraq conflict (jusgment should be reserved for a while yet, the job ain't over and we need to see it in its entirety) there are other factors to consider when we vote in 160 or so days.

There will very likely be some seats open on the supreme court next term. Do you really want Kerry putting people there that do not recognise the 2nd amendment?

Steve,

There is a huge difference between pointed debate and constantly insulting personal attacks becasue you are losing the argument. We just don't need that kind of behavior, and if it is tolerated, it will continue.

Blaine

Snuffy,

I too think what Fonda did was despicable, but I really doubt she understood that her actions would harm the troops. During Vietnam, I don't think the public in general ever imagined that by protesting and be anti-war that the enemy would be emboldened. Maybe I'm wrong.

However, nowadays everyone knows. I wonder if Nick berg would have had his head sawed off with a knife if the US media weren't so willing to broadcast anything that will make them a buck?

Crud, it's not like the terrorists are competent troops or anything. We kill them at what, a 20-30 to 1 ratio? However, they know if they win the public relations war they will defeat us for sure.

Anyway, I do agree with you about having such discussion being good, but broadcasting them to the enemy is treasonous, and it's mostly in the name of selling news.

If we don't willingly restrict our comments via our own good common sense, then eventually the government will do it and thus will end the First Amendment. It's happened before and it's happening now. I hope it does not happen here.

Since you're ignoring me, I'm sure you won't read this. But why don't you watch 60 minutes tonight and catch Gen. Zinni's interview. You remember him, he was probably your Commander in Chief when you were in Iraq. Funny, he didn't read the same intelligence you did. Guess he got it all wrong. He obviously doesn't have the grasp of the military mind and the situation in Iraq like you do.



Here's a particularly relevant couple of paragraphs:



"Look, there is one statement that bothers me more than anything else. And that's the idea that when the troops are in combat, everybody has to shut up. Imagine if we put troops in combat with a faulty rifle, and that rifle was malfunctioning, and troops were dying as a result" says Zinni.



"I can't think anyone would allow that to happen, that would not speak up. Well, what's the difference between a faulty plan and strategy that's getting just as many troops killed? It's leading down a path where we're not succeeding and accomplishing the missions we've set out to do."

If ya can't tell when speaking up supports your military or if it undermines their effort, ya might be a liberal.

.....or a 4 star general. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Unfortunately, I see where IFID has relplied many times on this thread. I wish the ignore feature would remove all evidence of his existence here, like it does on some other forums. He is not someone I want anything to do with.

I actually composed a reply, but it was just mainly a repeat of my earlier post to him on this thread.



So the rest of you know, I have repeatedly turned the other cheek with him. I have tried to settle our differences privately, but he refuses to read my e-mails or PMs. I have repeatedly given him the benefit of the doubt. The time for all that is past. He is afraid of facing me one on one. However, I given the quality of his character, I have no doubt he will continue to insult me behind my back. And THAT speaks much about his true character.

AFP:



Your insistence has all the power of a brain fart, wait, or are they the same? I would never put you on ignore. It is kind of like watching the kids at play. You know they're going to screw up, it's only a matter of when.



Good night, sweet idiot.

Thanks, a very good illustration of my post.

The Gen. thinks it is ok to speak out about bad weapons supplied to our troops.

Jane thinks it is ok to turn over POW's that passed her notes so their families would know they are alive and the POW's get beaten, some to death.

But in your mind they are the same, guess I will truly never understand.

I really resent those who wave the flag, but crap on everything it stands for. Exercising your right to disagree and even condemn leaders who deceive should not be an indictable offense. Hell, people were saying the same thing as AFP about those who first brought Watergate to light. I've seen and heard enough from this administration to know they are no better than some of the graft and deceit-plagued politicians of the past, yet they wrap themselves in the flag, condemn those who disagree, and seek vengence against those who expose them for what they are, all while professing some higher moral grounding than the majority of the American and world public. Put it this way, there wouldn't be an America worth living in if not for the dissenters you condemn so vehemently. Sometimes, given the manner in which we pick (or buy) our leaders, I have my doubts whether we're making progress in spite of our good intentions.

That makes me ask the question - is it the fact that people dissent, or the words and method of their dissent?

I have said before I don't mind dissent - just ask that those who do dissent bring more to the discussion than "Bush is a liar, baby killing pig" (not talking bout people here - just people I have to deal with in the real world).

The above is part of AFP's original post, now deleted, then he edited his "delete" post to the current version.

Frankly, the mental image of AFP "insisting" that I ignore him was so funny that I couldn't help but goad him a bit more, so he could keep stamping his foot. Ignoring him is actually pretty easy but he keeps lauching these not so veiled attacks. For my response to his "insisting" that I ignore him, I apologize to my fellow campfirers for goading him on. Can you hear the stamping of those feets? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Unlike you, AFP, I don't insult people behind their backs, nor do I post private discussions or parts thereof, which is one of the several reasons why I want no private communications with you, now or ever. I choose not to communicate with certain ego types if at all possible. If I choose to insult someone, I do it upfront and where everyone can see it. I never attacked you personally or your veracity regarding those posts where you claimed to have such deep insight into Iraq because of your military experience and intelligence access. You remember, the ones where you said that the non-military critics of the war were "irrelevant". I didn't attack those posts of yours, even though they often flew in the face of common sense and military thinking, because I had no way of knowing what you had actually seen. However, what goes around comes around and now, your area Commander in Chief, has commented on the gist of what was in those intelligence reports as well as his opinion of the effectiveness of the no fly zones. Not surprisingly, they are nearly direct opposites of what you had posted. You should have remembered Joe Friday's dictum.

When I and other posters became "irrelevant" because we didn't know what you knew in your military position, I didn't question your veracity. My mistake. And, Mr. Paranoia, I won't insult you behind your back, I do it in the open. Nor do I run to Rick Bin, complaining that my tender feelings have been hurt.

BTW, "afraid of you." It is to laugh.

And, Rick, he leaves me alone, I'll leave him alone. He posts BS as he is wont to do, I'm going to prove it wrong, as I am wont to do.

IIFID:

It seems to me the last time you were supposed to prove somebody wrong, you blinked, to our collective detriment.

AFP and IIFID:

Do you realize how this is making you both look? How about dropping the whole, thing, putting each other on ignore, and moving on.

Quit pissing on the fire.

Rick

Rick:



Faulty memory, is it catching? I didn't blink. In that thread, I said early on in the bet, there was no bet unless DFC paid for 1/2 of the legal expenses up front. He didn't, and, never intended to, so future discussions ad nauseum were pointless. Now, if you'd like to bet, head up, man to man any amount that you'd like on the sale of the coin in question, just post it right here and we won't involve any lawyers. I trust your word. Name your price.

Never thought you hadn't, have full and complete confidence to this moment that you did. There is no question in my mind, and never has been. Just pointing out that despite our both agreeing that you held the key to end one of the nastiest flame wars ever on this website, and take the wind out of a blowhard's sails, you didn't, and we had to suffer an emboldened fool for months thereafter, not to speak of the thread that wouldn't die.

It's your business as to why you didn't. Fine. But it's my business that I had to clean up the mess.

I see the same thing happening again. Talk the issues all you want. I'm fine with that. But the personal stuff is now way over the edge, and I am asking both of you to cool it. You two obviously should not talk politics. It is not Must See TV.

If you feel a strong need to continue interacting, then do it via PM, or via email, or on the phone, or have tea together, but you are now urinating on the Campfire on a regular basis, and it stinks.

I never thought it would happen between two respected members such as yourselves, but it did, so now let's just cauterize it and move on, for everyone's sake.

Rick

It was a bet. There was no money EVER put up by anyone that wanted to prove me wrong. That is why I didn't post proof (well, actually I did but not documents, mostly because I couldn't find them at that time, hadn't done my taxes yet) and why I'm not going to today. I said it, it was true, and if someone wanted or wants to prove me a liar they can pay the piper. The few people on here who really know me knew it was true and I believe you when you say you believed it as well. The rest of them can believe what they want, or pay me off.

The "mess" got you thousands of hits. But you don't have to thank me. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Please let me worry about how to generate traffic, 'kay. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I hope I'm right in considering this a closed issue.

Rick

Thank you RickBin! Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.

Well - seeing as I am part of this particular thread - If I have pizzed on this particular fire - I apologize. I meant no malicious harm, just conversation.



As with any public forums - topics get discussed that can be and are fairly emotional to the people present, I admit I have let my emotions get the best of me. I will take my own advice and "think b4 I post" a little more rather than blast off a reaction to something I have read.



Another bit of advice : Stay out of any thread that has the word "union" in it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Rick:




It will be closed shortly.

I tell you what Rick, it seems your little campfire empire has gone to your head or you've been in California too long and think every one should hold hands and sing, "We are the World" in harmony. It used to be that 2 members could argue all they wanted to as long as they weren't profane. I can go back and cite numerous instances of that occurring. But now, I'm pissing in the campfire when I argue with AFP by pointing out that his Commanding officer didn't see it the same way he reported it after he calls those of us who "hatefully" dissent Jane Fondas. Oh sure, that's fair. I guess AFP can claim victory, the whining azzhole. This place has become far too politically correct for me. It has been fun. Goodbye.

Charlie:



I don't know what the hell is driving you to be so emotional, but whatever it is, it's clouding your judgment.









I see I got on your $h!tlist awful fast!



Don't you think you're overreacting? I'd expect a response like that if I was pulling plugs on threads, or jumping in early. But step into an obvious flame war that has been going on and on with no end in sight, where the situation is going nowhere but down, ask both parties politely to cool it, and all of a sudden analogies to dictators and empires fly. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />



It seems to me there was a time when you would have agreed that a flame war for flame's sake was better done in private, if at all.









I never said only you were pissing in the Campfire. AFP was asked to stow his pecker as well. I am well aware that it takes two to tango.







Victory? Doesn't seem to me anyone wins a juvenile flame war.



As to the political correctness around here, or lack thereof, nothing's changed. Same as it ever was. It's you that's changed. Nobody has even hinted that you should refrain from expressing your political views. You've aired them quite profusely for months now for all to see, with nary a word from me, as far as that goes. Moreover, there are plenty of members, some very longstanding, with whom I share very little in terms of political views, but they are free to express their opinions. Ask Barak if he feels stymied. Rickg? Skinner?



The issue has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the ratcheting up of piss and vinegar. You know exactly what I mean.



You may be mad at me Charlie, but I hope when you cool off you'll see it from my perspective. You guys obviously are incapable of ending this on good terms yourselves. This situation has gone from uneasy, to bad, to worse, and is on the verge of an all out flame-a-thon. If someone doesn't step in and break you two up, this will end up just like that stupid flame war you had with DFC. If you don't mind too much, I and most others would like to avoid a repeat of that low point.



Your status around here is unchanged, as far as I'm concerned. Your account remains in good standing. I still like you and respect you, even if I disagree with you on your politics.



I just want the flame war between you and AFP to stop, and you guys sure as hell weren't going to do it yourselves.



Rick

Rick,

I want to engage in polite but pointed discussion about controversial topics. I want to hear viewpoints different from mine. This was the purpose of this thread. I will continue to engage such topics in this manner. Much good comes from it.

As to IFID, all I want is for him to leave me alone. I want absolutely no further interaction with him or anyone like him.

I will keep him on ignore. Please let me know if the old IFID ever comes back.

Blaine

Rick,

My bit of advice on the UNION label seems to be comming true ! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

After seeing the responses by IIFID and AFP I reitterate my appology.

No need to apologize, teal, or anyone else. These things happen, especially with certain topics, as you've correctly pointed out.

Maybe if I would have stepped in sooner, or somehow we could have broken these guys up, IIFID and AFP's relationship wouldn't have deteriorated to the point where neither wants anything to do with the other.

For a long time, it wasn't that way between them. They both go back a long way around here.

It's a shame.

Rick

It seems to me that Charlie and Blaine got off into cyber space instead of settin' round the campfire.Every one of these flame wars-and I was only in one and I surrendered the territory pretty quick- would never have got off the ground if the men involved would have imagined a real campfire.

I'm sure that everyone on here is a bona-fide "Billy Joe Badass" and spouts off whatever comes to mind around a real campfire.I've burned more than my share of wood and I've never heard the kind of crap I hear around this "fire" at times.Somebody would for sure get a knot on his head around a real fire.

In my opinion,you let it go just exactly long enough and then handled it well.

Gene,

Look at my posts. Everything I have posted I am willing to say to face-to-face. That is my going in position--I don't post things I am not willing stand behind in person, and I am certainly no "Billy Joe"..... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />.......

However, I agree that sometimes sarcasm, ridicule, and teasing aren't as insulting face-to-face as they are on the Internet. facial expressions go a long way in mitigating words.

Blaine

Hello Blaine,The first comment was directed at you and Charlie.The second was about flame wars in general.You are right about face to face which was really the point I was trying to make.
"The Virginian" ought to still be required reading.The old"smile when you say that,pardner"comment was a good teacher and mitigates a lot of harshness.
Rick seemed to be second guessing himself and I just spoke my piece.It ain't up to me to judge you or anyone else.I did go back and skim over your posts and there is no Billy Joe crap in them.
gene

It would be nice, as Teal says, if we could talk about these subjects without getting personal. May be impossible on these kind of forums where all levels abide together. Kind of like America, huh? I also don't like to hear the "Bush is a baby-killing pig" type of arguing. It doesn't serve any rational purpose. You aren't going to convince anybody with that kind of statement. The main point I would hope to show people is that you can't claim to love America and hate Americans. You gotta get off the rhetoric of the political parties, you gotta look deeper into a politician than his press statements, and you gotta stop looking at actions through rose-colored glasses. A healthy dose of skepticism is entirely patriotic when dealing with career politicians, no matter what their platforms may be. Take the area of economics, for instance. As McCain recently said, "there was a time when the republican party stood for fiscal responsibility." Well, financing round after round of tax cuts with public debt, while there is a war on multiple fronts, with social security a mess and a health care crisis doesn't amount to fiscal responsibility, just as Greenspan or any other economist that isn't on the GOP payroll would say. AG made it perfectly clear to Congress about the long-term implications for huge deficits and the resulting record national debt. But do they listen? No. They have their heads up their rhetoric-soaked arses because getting re-elected, or getting power for their party is their whole purpose in life. Talk about "can't see the forest for the trees, throwing the baby out with the bath water," and "cutting our nose off to spite our face." We all want to be careful to not make the same mistake. Then it would really be a case of "the blind leading the blind."

I dont know about disenters, any time you get into political discussions, I really dont believe there is much critical thinking involved, on either side of the isle, period. Too many of us, myself included, fall in the group of people who wont cross party lines period.

As for Jane Fonda, I do have some first hand experience with her. When I was in AIT training in the Army at Fort Ord CA, she cost our entire unit a 3 day pass because she had staged a peace rally outside the post. Instead of getting to go home for a day or two, all of us had to pull guard duty on the outer perimeter of the post. Do I think her behavior was treasonous in North Vietnam, yes. You dont mingle with the enemy in that manner, you dont sit on anti aircraft guns and pose for pictures for the enemy, you dont aid and abiet the enemy as she did, in providing names.

Finally, as for critical thinking, I think the real issue is many of us on the right of the middle are tired of the low tricks played out by the left, such as, setting up false scenerios, and then harping forever as if it is the truth. There is no doubt, Clinton ushered in a new era of low life political trickery. No I dont see Ted Kennedy as a patriat, if you dont agree, that is fine, but you wont ever change my view of him. I really have a hard time understanding how democrats feel the election was stolen from them in Florida. Let's see, the liberal media announced early victory for Al Gore, which meant the voters in the panhandle of florida had a poor voter turnout, and that area of florida is heavily Republican. The democrats had their entire political machine in Miami the very next morning to begin the spin. The counties involved were democratic counties where the polling precients were managed and run by democrats. And, let's not forget the effort by the democrats to get the naval ship absentee ballots disqualified. All from a party that likes to tout that they support our military, yet, their voting record says otherwise. So you see, when many of us see you with a bad attitude relative to the florida vote, the only conclusion we can come to is you are a party of corruption, and your party apparently is more important to you, than our country.

Uhhhhhh? Rick I believe it should be Sieg not Zig? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Many beleive I despise only George Bush, this is not True.
I despise ALL political Pond Scum, especially when they re -write the Constitution that all here profess
to hold so dear, just to suit their own Political Purposes.
Sometimes I wonder if any of you have ever actually read the Constitution of the USA, other than the pre amble and the 2nd Amendment?
Guess what there are many other amendments in the Document. In most cases the 1st applies here except if your on someones ignore list. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
Our Forefathers would be running through the streets of DC with a Ropes decorating trees if they realized what has happened to the Govt. of the People, by the People and for the People.
Now it is for the Filthy Rich, the Special interests, and Corporate greed.
I'm sure this is just what they had in Mind when they created this Country?
Blind obedience to any Leader only works in Dogs or Slaves, not Free Men.
BTW I hope IFID hangs around as dissent is what created this Country. Not Political bootlicking. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Sorry, my German isn't very good.

That, my friend is precisely why we can't accomplish anything rational, except by accident. You're letting somebody else establish what you are in favor of, with their own analysis or lack therein holding sway over the wisedom or righteousness of a particular issue. If we have a select few wrong, but with the power to shape the party's platform, then you have just sold out, given a blank check, and put the wolf in charge of the hen house. Unfortunately, Americans are lazy, and prefer the easy way out. No need to learn anything about the issues or the people spouting positions. Just look for the donkey or the elephant symbol (we're also lazy about reading too much) and let the consequences fall where they may. Well, there are many people who don't fall so neatly (or blindly) into either category, or we my like most of what one party espouses sometimes, depending on who's making the official party speak at the time. But, then we might see merit in a certain candidate from the other party, or a certain issue may seem to be better addressed by the other party's official numbskulls. I got news for you fellers, those are the guys who decide elections, not the "I won't cross party lines" types. Thank God.

Mule,

I try very hard to hold civil discussions about controversial topics. It is hard on the Internet. People usually post things with the best of intentions, but they are invariably read in the worst light. The line I draw is when people develop the habit of posting in a very negative manner, when their intention is to inflame. Such posting always leads to conflict, unnecessary conflict at that. I strive to separate people from ideas. People are not fair game to be attacked, but ideas are.

Tax cuts are an issue that needs to be studied, and I am frustrated that neither side pulls out charts and graphs and explains what tax cuts do to the economy. I have seen economic recoveries that were preceded by tax cuts. However, I am not sure how big of a role the tax cuts played.

I am of the opinion that the economy cycles up and down, and it's cycles are not greatly affected by the government's fiscal policies and strategies. Now I think such policies and strategies have some effect, but I'll bet that even if the government did nothing, the economy would still cycle. These cycles appear to occur every 10-12 years. I would love to see some actual data that addresses that.

I have seen the "Laffer Curve". Intuitively, it makes sense. For those that don't know, it is a bell-shaped curve that correlates tax revenue to tax rate. Initially, tax revenue increases as the tax rate increases. It increases to the point where the taxes become too much a burden to the economy and cause the economy to slow down. When the economy slows down tax revenue decreases. Increasing taxes past the optimal point only results in less tax revenue.

My gut feel is that we are well past the optimal tax rate in this country. As such, tax cuts will nearly always result in increased tax revenue. However, I have not seen any studies on this, and I am puzzled why neither political party mentions it. Regardless of where we are on the curve, one side will gain political benefit from talking about the Laffer Curve.

Well, maybe I am not so puzzled. When I was in High School in the 70s, I remember a teacher--either economics or government--saying that generating tax revenue wasn't the real goal of taxation. He said the real goal was to control behavior. When you think about it, the government does indeed exercise a lot of control of the population through tax law. Perhaps neither side wants it generally wants that known.

Blaine

I gotta agree with your logic. I've voted both ways, based on who I feel is the better candidate and unfortunately last election I voted for Bush. I thought he was the better candidate, and we needed a change. If I had known what we were in for, I would never have done it. It's funny how on this board I get labeled a liberal, and on other boards I am labeled a conservative. Guess it all depends on what side of the fence your looking from.

It seems to me if I make the 2nd amendment my own litmus test for candidates,I'm gonna wind up with a guy I agree with on a majority- not all - other issues.I'm truly an independent.The ultra left wing has hi-jacked the democrat party on the natioal scale,so I grit my teeth and find myself voting for Republicans more often than not,but Never a straight ticket.
There are bound to be a lot of gun loving democrats who love their position in the party more than standing for what's right.They are no more un-principled than the Republican who votes for big business at my expense when he secretly wishes for big government but the democrat fails my litmus test.
We better all become single issue voters-and you pick the issue- or the un-holy alliance of the ultra-liberal politicians and media will take over.We can't beat the politicians at their own game.Pick a side and make sure it wins.

Actually Mule, I crossed party lines to vote for Jimmy Carter, what an error in judgement I made there. I actually thought the democratic party was finally coming around......

That's the problem as I see it. The Dems are too far left, and the Reps have moved too far right. The Reps have become the neo-cons who are far too much in big businesses pocket. Look at the elimination of overtime pay and the weakening of the OSHA regulations.

It's not going to get any better either with the world economy, and the abundance of ultra cheap labor overseas.

That and the lack of government regulation in cheap labor markets. Our HR guy was telling us about how the safety record at the South American plants are better than they are here. Then it was brought out that if you got hurt and reported it, you lost your job. No wonder why they are so much safer.