December 10, 2005
-
We Cant Win?
No, You Just Don’t Want Us To Win!!
The Democratic Party has completely spun out of control. This notion that the United States of America cant win is absurd. I don’t even think the democrats believe this. They don’t *want* us to win in Iraq, that’s what this is about. They cant stand the fact that a republican President is bringing liberty and freedom to that country. Its absolutely sickening! They don’t want us to win, they want us to lose. They want us to lose so they can they look back and they told us so. They cant stand to see this President have any success whatsoever. So what do they do? They attack our military, they call them terrorists. They question the effectiveness of our military which has never lost a major conflict, all in a effort to undermine this war and this country. What a shame.
Morrison
Comments (66)
"They question the effectiveness of our military which has never lost a major conflict all in a effort to undermine this war and this country."
-All your typical ranting aside, you seem to be neglecting/ignoring at least one "major" conflict.
Vietnam?
was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
"They don’t us to win in Iraq, that’s what this is about."
Even in my goddamn drunk state I can still spot out your typos and grammar errors.
Read more kid, or learn to type.
: )
Come on... cut him some slack guys... every post its you three on here, and ya'll just look through anything he says just to find one little piss ant sentence that you can disagree with. No offense but its annoying for me, and I dont run this xanga. You guys could be a little less insulting, and still get your points across.
Morrison... Nice little rant you put together, for the leader of a party to say that we wont win, and for a United States Senator to say American troops are terrorizing children in the night is ridiculous and they need to know it hurts our troop morale and emboldens (sp?) our enemies.
Howard Dean. baaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh. Enough said.
PA -
a) I'm pretty sure we're entertaining Mike.
b) I'm pretty sure Mike's entertaining me.
c) It's all pretty much status quo - the difference is in the details. This time he ignores Vietnam, last time he twisted words into something they weren't. I mean, don't make stuff up and spew propaganda if you don't expect people to say something about it.
Sorry - in the future I'll try and be a little more sycophantic.
KUDOS MIKEY!
I do find Mikey entertaining and in fact Im sure we are all entertaining him as well...
So its just some big ass get together at his xanga....its seriously like a party here.
Non-alcoholic drinks for everyone!
"You guys could be a little less insulting, and still get your points across."
sure we could just as Mikey could do the same... but what the heck, what fun would it be? A world without Mikey spewing hyperbole is a world that I don't know if I would want to live in...
just to show that I am a good sport... SUPER DUPER MEGA DITTOS MIKEY!!
Yes, "morrison" - it is a shame - a national shame.
A party that wants to be known as patriotic, but hates our military and its leaders. They have griped about every single thing and person associated with this administration. Why? They know that historically they have no chance to win against a war-time president.
So they must knock the war, the president and their own military troops. Oh yes, I'll use their favorite irrational phrase, "We support our troops, BUT ----". But what? Their commander in chief during a war, the flag, their country?
What do they support? Our enemies. They whine about how many loyal Americans have given their lives, but don't accept that their outrageous criticisms may be causing those deaths. What a desperate bunch of angry, scared politicians.
After their awful public comments (Dean, Kerry, Murtha), they then go out to "clarify" what they really meant. Too late. They give little thought that Al-Jeezera broadcasts their original quotes just the way they yelled them. Always noted is the outrage and anger in the statements of leading Democrats. The enemy loves it. They don't have to give those subtle "clarifications".
I still haven't forgiven Sen. Kerry (loser) for his outrageous and false (say lie!) accusations of our soldiers in Vietnam, and here he goes again accusing our soldiers of terrorism in Iraq. What a pathetic man.
BTW - history lesson: Korea and Vietnam were the only two wars that were not "victories" for our country. Why? They were the only UN sanctioned wars. That's a clue as to why the USA doesn't want to depend on the UN to determine whether we should defend our country in the future. Ergo, "W"'s pre-emption policy. We've learned.
Stay on the offensive, "morrison". It's always necessary for the "few" to fight the battles for the masses, some of whom have lost their objectivity, their integrity and their loyalty.
It's good to do the right thing, to be RIGHT and to be on the side of right!
Congrats, "American Patriot" for calming down the troops. Good job.
Merry Christmas and God bless this blessed nation.
"They have griped about every single thing and person associated with this administration."
-I don't recall anyone griping about Colin Powell.
" "We support our troops, BUT ----". But what? Their commander in chief during a war, the flag, their country?"
-BUT NOT THE WAR. It's not that difficult of a concept. And you're right - he is OUR commander in chief. Meaning, he works for US. All of us. Not just his constituents. Are you saying that any time a conflict is on-going, that any patriotic citizen must support the president?
"I still haven't forgiven Sen. Kerry (loser) for his outrageous and false (say lie!) accusations of our soldiers in Vietnam, and here he goes again accusing our soldiers of terrorism in Iraq. What a pathetic man."
-Yeah, nobody every did anything wrong in Vietnam. Mei Lei was a misunderstanding.
"BTW - history lesson: Korea and Vietnam were the only two wars that were not "victories" for our country. Why? They were the only UN sanctioned wars. That's a clue as to why the USA doesn't want to depend on the UN to determine whether we should defend our country in the future. Ergo, "W"'s pre-emption policy. We've learned."
-So you're claiming that the reason those two conflicts were lost was on account of the UN? That just doesn't even make sense.
Wow, you must know the reasoning behind my beliefs better than I do, because I didn't realize that the people that share my beliefs and I wanted us to lose in Iraq.
I admire the fact that you've invested so much into social capital at a young age, but you really need to sit down and read your posts. It's fine that you are conservative, but if you want to become someone that can be respected by everyone, you've got to stop repeating the things Rush and O'Reily say. I assume you have a political blog because you want to influence people. Well the arguments Rush, Bill, and you are currently making don't influence anyone, they just rally those who are already conservative. If you want to do something that both sides of the spectrum can respect, stop just attacking liberalism with arguments that are childish and can never be proven. Start, instead, trying to convince be why conservative policies are best for America. Bring up facts instead of leaving the real debating to your conservative cronies when WSR, altshiftdelete, etc., start the real debates. You may not be able to sway my beliefs, but you'll at least have earned much more respect, at least from me.
Hi "WSR"
I'll have to admit that I haven't missed the reactions and style that are so difficult to respond to, but here we go.
"-I don't recall anyone griping about Colin Powell."
Agreed. He was and is the darling of the Dems because he never really was a "W" team member. At State, he did a lot to undermind the administration's position. Look at how much got done by Condi by her singing one tune to our enemies instead of an opposing one.
"-BUT NOT THE WAR. It's not that difficult of a concept. And you're right - he is OUR commander in chief. Meaning, he works for US. All of us. Not just his constituents. Are you saying that any time a conflict is on-going, that any patriotic citizen must support the president?"
YES!!! It certainly IS a difficult concept. Not support the war?
Where is the logic in that position?
My family is in trouble - I support my siblings, BUT I don't support my father or the trouble he's trying to get the family out of. Here we go with the garbage about "blind loyalty" again - right?
It's a "Team Country" thing, not a Rep/Dem thing, but with only an "anti"-everything position, the Dems find themselves in another irrational position. They have to be in favor of only one ingredient while hating the recipe. Geesh!
"-Yeah, nobody every did anything wrong in Vietnam. Mei Lei was a misunderstanding."
My God! All the American troops in harm's way have been accused and Dems still do the Mei Li, Abu Graib bit. I once was cheated by a dishonest Italian, ergo all Italians are ---. Don't you see how unacceptable that stereotype is?
"-So you're claiming that the reason those two conflicts were lost was on account of the UN? That just doesn't even make sense."
What doesn't make sense is what you surmise. I didn't "claim" and we didn't "lose". Vietnam: we pulled out. Korea: we signed a truce - war is still on. (No time to explain details here/now).
We have learned that the UN is not an institution that can manage or control wars. Poor Gen MacArthur paid a very high price for his "disagreement with the UN position. We have learned that the UN is valuable to the world in many other ways, but not in waging wars.
Reason? It introduces hundreds of political opinions from as many countries, some friendly, some not. It was a hard learned lesson for many countries in the last 50 years. I'm not putting the UN down, I am merely agreeing with the American position that the UN is not equipped to decide when WE should or should not fight a war. I'd better stop. There's just too much more that has to be understood for my comments to make any sense to you.
Merry Christmas and God bless America.
"Agreed. He was and is the darling of the Dems because he never really was a "W" team member. At State, he did a lot to undermind the administration's position. Look at how much got done by Condi by her singing one tune to our enemies instead of an opposing one."
Is this the reaction to Powell now? He underminded the administration's position by questioning the intelligence and bring up objections to policy? As far as I know, I feel better with administration people who are willing to question the plans/ideas of the boss instead of acting as a "yes" man... secondly, while you can sing the praises of Condi, she has also damaged our position by not being completely honest about certain events in the run up to the war and the current torture issue... tell me that it is better she continue to be less than honest with our allies and others in order to make her boss look good rather than doing her job which includes bringing up valid objections when needbe...
"YES!!! It certainly IS a difficult concept. Not support the war?
Where is the logic in that position?
My family is in trouble - I support my siblings, BUT I don't support my father or the trouble he's trying to get the family out of. Here we go with the garbage about "blind loyalty" again - right? "
If you want to use the family concept as an example, then a better way to explain it from this perspective would be...
My brother is a gambler and has gambled tons of money away that sometimes has not been the best for his family but his dream is to make it big with a huge win and thus the family is in a better situation... I still support my brother and his family but I do not support his gambling habit... this is closer in terms of the position that some have taken in the war arena...
My country has gone to war and has spent countless lives, money and prestige with the dream to make that region/world a better place with a big win... I support my country and the troops but I don't necessarily support the policy and/or the war...
"It's a "Team Country" thing, not a Rep/Dem thing, but with only an "anti"-everything position, the Dems find themselves in another irrational position. They have to be in favor of only one ingredient while hating the recipe. Geesh!"
It is a "Team Country" thing as you said... but that is also a two-way street... if part of the country has feelings of discontent toward the direction, that does not mean or it should not mean that they are pushing for the complete opposite of the other side... meaning, just because people are not for the war and have voiced their thoughts concerning it, it does not mean that they want American troops to die or for us to lose...
"My God! All the American troops in harm's way have been accused and Dems still do the Mei Li, Abu Graib bit. I once was cheated by a dishonest Italian, ergo all Italians are ---. Don't you see how unacceptable that stereotype is?"
A few problems with what you have said here... 1) Not all the American troops in harm's way have been accused as you have stated, 2) the events at My Lai was basically an isolated event while the actions at Abu Ghraib and other such dention camps is a systematic and seemingly authorized action and 3) your example of a dishonest Italian as an unacceptable stereotype is no different than those (such as BOR) have used unfair stereotypes against the French and Germans...
"Poor Gen MacArthur paid a very high price for his "disagreement with the UN position. "
I am not a big fan of the current way that the UN works but my understanding for "Poor Gen. MacArthur" is a bit different than the UN position since he was advocating starting World War III by dropping atomic bombs on China... I know that it can be argued that MacArthur's idea about China went against the UN resolution (the invasion and attack on China) but the idea of dropping atomic bombs which most likely would lead to Soviet reprisals would not be in the best interest of that theatre of operations...
oh I forgot...
Happy Hollidays and God Bless America
"I'll have to admit that I haven't missed the reactions and style that are so difficult to respond to, but here we go."
-I'll have to admit that I have missed the holier than thou, pot calling kettle black, you just don't get it kid style, so it's great to see you're back! In any case, perhaps it is the substance of my statements that you find "difficult" to respond to rather than what you coin as my "style." In any case, best of luck with it, I guess.
"Agreed. He was and is the darling of the Dems because he never really was a "W" team member. At State, he did a lot to undermind the administration's position. Look at how much got done by Condi by her singing one tune to our enemies instead of an opposing one."
-Traitorous bastard, he should be shot!
"YES!!! It certainly IS a difficult concept. Not support the war?
Where is the logic in that position?"
-Nevermind the fact that it is the duty of patriots to constantly question and hone the direction of his country, a logical position for opposing the war can be found by examining the war's motivations, justifications, its perceived benefits, and its costs.
"My family is in trouble - I support my siblings, BUT I don't support my father or the trouble he's trying to get the family out of. Here we go with the garbage about "blind loyalty" again - right?""
-Here is a better hypothetical to illustrate my position (which you apparently attempted to articulate for me): My dad is in trouble. He's an alcoholic and it just cost him his job. I support my dad and his search for a new job, but I don't support his drinking.
Get it?
[I now see AltShift also offered one, but mine shall remain]
"It's a "Team Country" thing, not a Rep/Dem thing, but with only an "anti"-everything position, the Dems find themselves in another irrational position. They have to be in favor of only one ingredient while hating the recipe. Geesh!"
-Your Team Country assertion only pans out as far as everyone who engages in this debate does so because they want what is best for their country. You seem unwilling to admit this about those who oppose your point of view.
"My God! All the American troops in harm's way have been accused and Dems still do the Mei Li, Abu Graib bit. I once was cheated by a dishonest Italian, ergo all Italians are ---. Don't you see how unacceptable that stereotype is?"
-You made a categorical statement about Kerry and Vietnam:
"I still haven't forgiven Sen. Kerry (loser) for his outrageous and false (say lie!) accusations of our soldiers in Vietnam"
Sorry buddy, but atrocities are committed in war. All of them.
"We have learned that the UN is not an institution that can manage or control wars."
-Oh, so it was the UN that really lost in Vietnam? Gotcha.
"There's just too much more that has to be understood for my comments to make any sense to you."
-That's funny, in all my exposure to Cold War conflict I thought I actually understood a little bit about it. I stand corrected. Thanks for your insight!
I hope this was whirlwind enough for you. Bon appetit.
-All your typical ranting aside, you seem to be neglecting/ignoring at least one "major" conflict.
Vietnam?
You forgot the War of 1812! Sure, a bit dated, but we DID burn the White House you know.... and when I say "we" I mean the British and British North Americans (that would be us canucks).
Ya, I know... but it was likely the last time I'll ever likely be able to claim Canada beat the United States in a war.... let me have this please.
Come on Malleus, everyone knows that was just because of the UN.
Malleus... it is time to get it on...
The reasons your Canadian forefathers and the Brits were able to burn down the White House is simple... when the Canucks crossed the border and headed south, most of the Americans they passed by thought the Canucks were just going to Florida for winter... they travelled right down I-95 fueled up on their Tim Horton coffee... the other half of Americans just thought it was the Expos relocating to DC or one of the many hockey teams going to greener pastures...
Curses! And I would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for that rancher and his pesky ram!
My homage to Scooby Doo. No, no, please, don't applaud.
Hey Altshift, I don't care if they were all disguised as Celine Dion, Getty Lee, or Alanis Morrisette and snuck over in a tub over Niagra Falls. We burned you but good!
you tricky Great White Northers...
I seem to recall you guys apologizing for Brian Adams on many occasions. So do eat ketchup chips or what?
Well, even Canadians make mistakes, and that was almost unforgivable (though I do admit I do enjoy "Summer of '69").
Yep, Ketchup, Dill Pickle... we have a much more varied chip selection than our poor, unciltured southern neighbours. We even have an answer to M&M's. We have Smarties which melt in both your mouth AND your hands!
let me just say that I live the NE and we have a ton of different types of chips such as dill pickle, ketchup, steak, baked potato with sour cream and chives, sea salt and vinegar and so on...
Smarties are very good... when I used to go Toronto on biz twice a year I would grab some of those, some of the Wrigley's Juicy Fruit chickles, this gum that was like a Hall's and that gum that taste like soap!
BTW- WTH is the thing with putting gravy on your McDonald's French Fries?
and clamato in beer is just wacky. wacky wacky wacky
I had a roommate in college that drank clamato and vodka... after a night of binging, the very smell of the leftovers made me wish for Dr. Kevorkian...
Well you don't put clamato in dark beers for pete's sake! Just in the light ones.
this gum that was like a Hall's and that gum that taste like soap!
Ah.... "Thrills." Memories of childhood come flooding back.... Always ironic how I was never really thrilled to get "Thrills" in my Halloween bag.... yep... good times.
... and I always put gravy on my fries. What;s wrong with that?
Thrills!! That's the name of it... I can't believe the slogan is "Tastes Like Soap!" I used to buy some and have people try it... I never found one person who liked it but I did have more than one say it tasted like ear wax (which I wouldn't know)...
What is up with gravy on fries... how can you ruin fries that way? I beg of you, stop it before another spud drowns!
Hi "WSR" - more incoming.
"-Nevermind the fact that it is the duty of patriots to constantly question and hone the direction of his country, a logical position for opposing the war can be found by examining the war's motivations, justifications, its perceived benefits, and its costs."
Yes, our duty, but with a little responsible behavior, please. Your "style" hurts the war effort and is useful to our enemies. Better to be well-behaved in your disagreement and wait for the war to end or go to the ballot box.
"-Here is a better hypothetical to illustrate my position (which you apparently attempted to articulate for me): My dad is in trouble. He's an alcoholic and it just cost him his job. I support my dad and his search for a new job, but I don't support his drinking.
Get it?"
Yep, I really do get it. Your efforts to "improve" what I use as examples gives you the opportunity to "feel" right, but misses the fact that the "father" in my case is trying to defend his family from harm. He is selfless in his effort to help others (a leader). I see the father as a benevolent, caring human being and you see him as a useless, dysfunctional one.
"-Your Team Country assertion only pans out as far as everyone who engages in this debate does so because they want what is best for their country. You seem unwilling to admit this about those who oppose your point of view."
I'm not sure I'm clear on what you meant. To me "team" means responsibility, loyalty and unity. We always disagree on these characteristics, WSR, so I don't know if further attempts at clarification will be useful. Well, OK, I'll try.
If I have a team and one or more team members has an "opinion" that is opposed to our mission, its leaders or worse yet, makes attempts to disrupt the team's ability to function - he is as distructive to the team as is the enemy the team is fighting. That's not just my opinion, that is considered principled behavior. I think we have disagreed on this several times as well. Something about "blind" loyalty.
"-Oh, so it was the UN that really lost in Vietnam? Gotcha."
Oh come on! You are saying that, I'm not. So-called "Blue helmets" forces sent to various conflicts by the UN were very difficult to control. With no national fervor or allegiance, they were not efficient fighting forces. We learned from their experiences.
That's why I said the UN is not able to conduct wars effectively. Any "war" is still ours to fight, UN sanctioned or not. The US can't allow itself to be directed by a group of countries with individual motives. If the UN is ever to work, it would require the same "team" mentality I've already spoken of. It never can - some of the members of the "team" are our enemies, so we must act in the best interests of our country.
"-That's funny, in all my exposure to Cold War conflict I thought I actually understood a little bit about it. I stand corrected. Thanks for your insight!"
Your exposure to the "cold war", I'm sure, helped you too understand many things. Your generation lived through a lot of frightening stuff - assassinations, AIDS, nuclear fears, drug culture, free love, revolts against authority, "duck and cover" exercises in school, missile crises, etc. I understand some of what the "cold war" period was like, as well.
I was speaking of past war efforts and I felt overwhelmed to have to fill you in on all of the details of years of my observations. It would have been very difficult to share so much. You, of course always seem to think it is a personal affront and pow! it's whirlwind time again. It isn't always about you! Sometimes it's about things you have not experienced, studied or lived. Why should the views of someone who may have unique information to share be a threat to your intelligence?
"I hope this was whirlwind enough for you. Bon appetit."
No problem, I took an antacid. Some of your stuff is hard to swallow let alone digest
Merry Christmas and God bless America.
"Yes, our duty, but with a little responsible behavior, please. Your "style" hurts the war effort and is useful to our enemies. Better to be well-behaved in your disagreement and wait for the war to end or go to the ballot box."
-What know ye of my "style"? If your answer is merely "what is written here," tell me - where have I misbehaved?
"Yep, I really do get it. Your efforts to "improve" what I use as examples gives you the opportunity to "feel" right, but misses the fact that the "father" in my case is trying to defend his family from harm. He is selfless in his effort to help others (a leader). I see the father as a benevolent, caring human being and you see him as a useless, dysfunctional one."
-Ultimately, the problem here is that you think you understand my position better than I do. To compound this difficulty, you ignore my efforts to correct you.
"If I have a team and one or more team members has an "opinion" that is opposed to our mission, its leaders or worse yet, makes attempts to disrupt the team's ability to function - he is as distructive to the team as is the enemy the team is fighting. That's not just my opinion, that is considered principled behavior. I think we have disagreed on this several times as well. Something about "blind" loyalty."
-Hitler, Mussolini, Hussein, and Franco had the same notions of team as you seem to. Apologies, but I feel the US is above that. Enlightened discourse and uncensored evaluation of all possibilities leads to sound policy and ultimately, victory.
"That's why I said the UN is not able to conduct wars effectively. Any "war" is still ours to fight, UN sanctioned or not. The US can't allow itself to be directed by a group of countries with individual motives. If the UN is ever to work, it would require the same "team" mentality I've already spoken of. It never can - some of the members of the "team" are our enemies, so we must act in the best interests of our country.""
-Wow, this is a real tornado in here. Why are we discussing the UN? You implied that the UN caused the US to lose Vietnam. Are you backing away from that now? And why are your comments focusing on the United Nations? It seems irrelevant here.
"Your exposure to the "cold war", I'm sure, helped you too understand many things. Your generation lived through a lot of frightening stuff - assassinations, AIDS, nuclear fears, drug culture, free love, revolts against authority, "duck and cover" exercises in school, missile crises, etc. I understand some of what the "cold war" period was like, as well."
-Once again, you seem to be assuming things. My generation? What generation is that? Free love!?! Beg your pardon, sir. My "exposure" to the Cold War was a reference to academia.
"I was speaking of past war efforts and I felt overwhelmed to have to fill you in on all of the details of years of my observations. It would have been very difficult to share so much. You, of course always seem to think it is a personal affront and pow! it's whirlwind time again. It isn't always about you! Sometimes it's about things you have not experienced, studied or lived. Why should the views of someone who may have unique information to share be a threat to your intelligence?"
-What know ye of what I have studied? And as for your last sentence, perhaps you should ask it in a mirror. Don't make everything so personal! Hows about instead of attacking my motives, knowledge base, or philosophy, you support your positions with evidence and a modicum of reason. It's hard to believe that what you write is not about "me" when you speak of "me" in terms of what I know, and what I believe. Perhaps addressing facts and relevant information should be more important to you than assuming so much about my position. Because you know what they say about when one assumes. In any case, save the ad hominem for another time, it's just gotten old already.
Boymarine-
Since you chose to ignore my breakdown, I figured I would join in on the reply to WSR...
"Your efforts to "improve" what I use as examples gives you the opportunity to "feel" right, but misses the fact that the "father" in my case is trying to defend his family from harm. He is selfless in his effort to help others (a leader). I see the father as a benevolent, caring human being and you see him as a useless, dysfunctional one."
As I read this, I actually raised my eyebrows as I noticed that you two are talking about two different examples... the original example as set by yourself (boymarine) was: "My family is in trouble - I support my siblings, BUT I don't support my father or the trouble he's trying to get the family out of." and this a metaphor of how you think the people against the policy for this war are treating our country/president...
WSR come back with: "My dad is in trouble. He's an alcoholic and it just cost him his job. I support my dad and his search for a new job, but I don't support his drinking."
The difference between these two are the qualifiers... BM is giving a generic family in trouble which could be anything from financial to an armed intruder or even the toilet upstairs quit working... while WSR is presenting what the problem is... this makes a major difference in deciding how to react to the situation... now notice that WSR said he supported his father (country/president) in his role but he did not support his drinking (policy)...
Now comes the all or nothing situation which BM has come back with... he sees the difference as his was showing that father was looking out for the best interest of the family while WSR's was showing the father as useless... to be honest, I do not see how either of these could be reached as a conclusion since A) we do not know what trouble the family was going through in the BM's first example and B) I do not see WSR calling the father as uselss but saying he supported his father and finally C) BM's last choice was to say that the father was selflessly protecting the family... but from what and how?
Without all the details of the "family story" put on the table, it is tough to judge if the metaphor in the first place makes sense to the situation and or the beliefs the story is trying to capture...
"If I have a team and one or more team members has an "opinion" that is opposed to our mission, its leaders or worse yet, makes attempts to disrupt the team's ability to function - he is as distructive to the team as is the enemy the team is fighting. That's not just my opinion, that is considered principled behavior. I think we have disagreed on this several times as well. Something about "blind" loyalty."
I semi-agreed with the "team" idea but I have a strong opposition to the "it is my way or the highway" attitude in which the "team" is supposed to follow... thus, this leads me to the conclusion that the idea of trying to label our country as a "team" (outside of sports) is not an accurate portrayal of how this country is supposed to work... I doubt seriously that our forefathers and the great supporters of Democracy ever felt that dissenters should be considered "destructive" to the "team" as is the enemy team... this flies in the face of our freedoms but that is only part of it... I have seen way too many times in our current era of uber-hyperbole that people who do not walk lock step with the current policies as issued by our gov't as "traitors," "anti-American," "unpatriotic" and so on... BM's definition of "team" does this also and it is very dangerous... outside of sending materials to the enemy, wishing that our troops to die, for us to lose (which I discuss on my blog today) or even joining the fight on the other side, having a different opinion concerning the policies of our country is not destructive... opening up the dialogue of ideas that can improve the situation or even taking a strong look at the current situation is not destructive... hell, even the fabled idea of "cut and run" isn't destructive (as the US troops in Iraq will tell you and have done so according to the DoD)...
As a former Marine (once a Marine, always a Marine), you maybe able to put your brain in the drawer of your desk when the President announces a new policy... this idea is drilled in to you starting at boot and runs through your entire enlistment that those above you are to be followed within reason... but the difference between being in the armed forces and not being in the armed forces is greatly different... the major one is that to the People the President is not the CiC over them but a servant of the People... he may be the leader of the country but he (and all politicos) must answer to the People... thus, if the People (majority or minority) have a differing opinion and voice it, they are doing their duty as "shareholders" in this country to report their different opinions... that could be at the ballot boxes, opinion pieces, letters or even various protesting methods... as long as those who have different opinions do not willfully incite a riot or insurrection, then they are doing nothing wrong... this also means that if our President or politicos create a policy or policies that were mistakes (no matter the intentions), we (the People) have every right to call these people to the carpet...
"The US can't allow itself to be directed by a group of countries with individual motives."
It really depends on the situation or issue before making this declaration... but I think in most situations you are correct on this...
I was actually beginning to enjoy that whole Canada digression...oh well
THIS JUST IN!! MORE ISLAMOFASCIST VIOLENCE!!!
Latest Islamofascist Uprising in Australia (click me)
To "WSR" and "ASD"
OK, I am properly remorseful. I stand corrected --- on almost everything, I guess. Here's a last salvo on this:
I speak of proper behavior during war - you guys speak of our right to "speak out" ---- I think that the statements made by the Dem politicians are perfectly legit because of their right to disagree. But doing it for rebroadcast on Al Jazeera, or worse yet, while in other countries is not an honest right to disagree -- it is treason. We're at war!
The "team" I speak of is America ---- you guys speak of the mistakes of an administration as "wrong" and of course, you disagree with the war, etc. etc. These innocent disagreements among us voters are not the problem, the need to be pedantic is.
Yes, I am very clear on what I believe - as are we all. What we believe is an accumulation of all that we have learned and experienced. In that regard, we have no disagreement - we are each "right" from our point of view.
It's difficult to make a point in this medium without causing a lot of unintended consequences. It becomes very easy to "see" opportunities to be "right" and to pounce. The competitive nature in us boys pops up and before you know it, we are far afield.
We do not have the benefit of a human relationship, so we are dependent on some tolerance by people with opposing views. This seems to be in short supply. Much of the discourse has to do with accusations like "you don't know me" and "you have no idea how much I know, etc."
Of course not. Why is it so necessary to indicate one's correctness by stating one's credentials? This isn't grad school. There the professor tries to gain credibility by stating how many degrees he has while egoistically hoping to gain the awe of students. This is merely a discussion - an opportunity to exchange ideas. At times it seems more like a hockey game - not that there's anything wrong with that!
It's easy to see people building up a real dislike for one another, simply because of their desperate need to be "right". Well, I understand - I really do. Therefore I leave you with these personal beliefs and thoughts. Let the bombs fall where they may - I mean no destruction, I only want to make a loud noise.
I am an American by birth, a Marine by choice. I served my country when it called on me to do so. I would do it now if called upon again - whether I agree with the leaders or not, regardless of their political party.
I admit that it really hurts me to hear people who use our right to free speech in a way that helps our enemies. I recognize and understand, the "I disagree with -" school of thought. It's been with us since the sixties. I learned how to accept it. But because we are at war it has a much more intense effect on me.
I have watched young men die for their flag; I have draped that flag over their coffins; I have folded that flag and on bended knee presented it to wives, mothers and sweethearts. In dying for that flag, and despite how it hurt them, they were willing to do it for the right of people to burn or otherwise desecrate that flag.
With that kind of life experience, I realize that my comments seem like they are based on "blind" loyalty" or the "my country right or wrong" camp - well, you're right, they are.
I count myself on the side of "proud Americans" amidst the current crop of "not proud Americans". It's an odd feeling that is foreign to me. Being one of the proud doesn't make me any better than anyone else, but it sure seems to make me different.
Sorry about the flag waving, but do you know of a better flag to wave?
Merry Christmas, good luck to our new ally, Iraq and God bless America.
"But doing it for rebroadcast on Al Jazeera, or worse yet, while in other countries is not an honest right to disagree -- it is treason."
-First off, you seem to be implying that they say what they say for the benefit of rebroadcast on Al Jazeera. Do you really think so?
-Second, Jazeera didn't even report the recent John Kerry statements on their website.
-Third, that is quite a "liberal" interpretation of treason you are endorsing.
"This seems to be in short supply. Much of the discourse has to do with accusations like "you don't know me" and "you have no idea how much I know, etc.""
-Which comes about of course when people make asinine assumptions about beliefs, past experiences, ideology, et al ad nauseum.
"Of course not. Why is it so necessary to indicate one's correctness by stating one's credentials? This isn't grad school."
-It's not necessary. So people should stop being dismissive and trying to tie someone's beliefs down to their experiences and rather, they should back up their own positions with facts, or when necessary, articulable experience. Some seem more inclined to support their positions than others. Ad hominem takes things only so far and essentially, BM, that is what this entire response is filled with: Those who disagree are desperate to be right, and those who want change are not proud of their country. This sounds like a nice, easy world to live in.
Unfortunately, it is not the real world.
An example of brave patriotism vs petty cowardice:
"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country. . . . We fight not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live in." — Thomas Paine, "The American Crisis," 1776-1777
"The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong." — Howard Dean, chairman, Democratic National Committee, Dec. 5, 20
Patriotism vs cowardly "cut and run" -
"I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king and of a king of England, too; and think foul scorn that Parma and Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm." — Elizabeth I on the approach of the Spanish Armada, 1588
"The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong." — Howard Dean, chairman, Democratic National Committee, Dec. 5, 2005
boymarine,
I know I rarely disagree with you (snarky meter on 10) but Mr. Dean's comment really doesn't fall in to either category...
By stating that we can not win is not cowardice just as saying that we're going to win is not patriotism... I know you disagree with Mr. Dean's comments and feel he should can it... I don't fully disagree with you as I felt that he was doing what he does best and talking out of his butt... however his comment can not be taken as cowardice but rather his assumption of what is going on...
The second statement in which you equate the very same quote from Mr. Dean to "cut and run" which again falls short... mainly the reason the link is not there is due to the fact that Mr. Dean did not say anything in that quote about leaving...
As Iraq's polls are opening and we will see the latest in the great social and political experiment called Democracy, we will hear what a great triumph it is... and I can rightly say that it is a great achievement to push for such national elections so soon after the regime change... the course for Iraq has been set and now we have to see if it stays on track... so as the bells of freedom ring in Iraq, I find it so highly ironic that people in this country (the Beacon of Freedom) would be so high strung to kick those who offer dissent the policies of this country and mainly the actions that led up to this day in Iraq...
THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY
Alert! - Incoming enemy fire!
To all of you leftists, whiners, complainers, correctors, doubters, dissenters and explainers - a little self-control, please. Can't any of you just stop making your personal views so much more important than the well-being of our men and women in harm's way?
Why can't you put your election talking points aside for a while and feel proud of what your country is trying to accomplish? The military and the "war team" in DC are able to do what they are doing without individual personal opinions. Surely they are better able to conduct these affairs than any one of us. Try being happy for a new USA ally in the most troubled region of the world.
The USA is doing what was considered impossible only a few years ago. It'll be the most significant effort toward world peace that has ever been achieved. What does it matter who disagrees with the policy or the politics?
Iran and Syria will be neutralized just as effectively. If I was a betting man, I'd say in less than one year. Israel can't reach Iran to do the destroy job on the nuclear facilities. With our well-planned addition of permanent bases in Iraq, we can join our friends, in daring Iran to just try "eliminating" the state of Israel. Those ill-advised axis countries will cave-in even while they continue their bluster.
Elections are for dissenters. It is the only appropriate method in times of war. I can no longer tolerate self-obsessed "dissenters" putting my loyal American Marines in danger. Behave! When they come home victorious, you un-proud Americans are going to feel lost in your own country.
Many of us will be here to remind you of what you and the Democrat political icons did. Kiss that party goodbye! I suggest that you continue to enjoy your membership in this incredible "beacon of freedom" and be proud of what we are doing for THE WORLD!!!
Say goodnight, Gracie.
Today is a GREAT day for democracy Boymarine! Look out Iran, we said NO NUKES, and we mean it. To the President of Iran, "Look out, INCOMING!"
Today is a GREAT day for democracy Boymarine! Look out Iran, we said NO NUKES, and we mean it. To the President of Iran: Look out, INCOMING! Let Freedom ring!!
Sorry about the double post, xanga can be so annoying.
thanks for making my point boymarine... our understanding of what Freedom is seems vastly different as well as our ability to check the hyperbole at the door...
THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY - waah, waah, waah.
Heads up you anti-American, military-bashing, freedom doubting, stay at home critics. Of course your view of your country and our troops is distorted because you keep looking through those half empty glasses.
America and its role in the world is way above your petty and unsavory unpatriotic, politically oriented comments.
Get with the program!
The "Good night Gracie" salutation, I'm sure, was useful to you when the real nut, Dean, opened his mouth! Save it for the outrageous remarks from the other Democrat idiots who, while representing their country, constantly knock it and our brave troops to the world. What a classy group of statesmen ( yes, that includes the ever angry Hillary).
You guys are a disgrace to the honor, tradition and the sacrifices of the truly valiant Americans who are out there having to endure fire both from the enemy there and enemies like the Dems here. Shame on all of you horrible citizens of the greatest, most honest, most decent country there has ever been.
None of you will be invited to the victory parties. So there!
was it dime beer day at the VFW or something?
THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY - "Mommy, Mommy"
To the "boot" and leftists and other assorted Democrats.
It must be hell to have to defend such an ill-advised philosophy. Red flag! Red flag! Your put downs of military people and veterans are a dead give-away to any psychologist worth his salt. Think projection, self-hatred.
A dime beer with a patriot is a prouder and more rewarding moment for me than any I could ever spend with one unpatriotic citizen.
Most of my discomfort is having to live among "blame America" critics who have never entered the arena. Worse yet, to have to tolerate their criticisms of those who are in that arena, where they fight our enemies for their right to moan and groan.
These "make-believe" patriots can't even be counted on to offer any real support to these brave fighters. Their only real need is a selfish one - to be seen as "patriotic" and "supportive" so as to ease their own lack of loyalty, patriotism and guilt.
You will never know how good it feels to be a completely loyal American and to share in the fact that we fight for freedom - ours and any other country in distress.
Semper Fidelis - the few, the proud.
Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays or whatever any one of the extremist PC groups that make up the Democrat Party will allow you.
" Think projection, self-hatred."
-Watching you seethe this invective, that's exactly what I think.
-But I urge you, let it all out. It's great fun to watch!
I have to agree with WSR... you have completely decided some idea of what I and others believe in without ever really looking at it or in most cases even listening to us... you have labeled us and trounced on our ideas without regard... but so be it... don't let me get in the way of your fist pounding exercise in "my way or the highway" patriotism...
Continue on, sir... it has been a long time since I have heard an Archie Bunker monologue...
::Applause:: Go Boymarine!!!
THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY "ooh, ooh!"
More incoming for you pseudo-intellectuals. Look out! In your delicate state, you might be offended.
Ann Coulter had said that the way to make a lib mad is to defend/praise our country. And here I thought she was being extreme. I rest my case.
My biggest joy is to watch people like you guys fidget when the flag comes by, or when you hear the glorious sound of our national anthem. Is it because you don't know what to do or is it that these things represent the "values" that your party has dismissed?
One last comment about the "religious left": I watched those idiots try to invent their own God (Manson, Jones, et al), their own code of morality (have sex with everybody's daughters) and their own country (communes). Another example of citizens who are were trying to be non-AMERICANS, but were too cowardly to either grow up or get out. You can recognize them even today from the reddish glow around their Democrat Party badges. OK, some are only pink.
Many of them are now known as "baby boomers". They haven't changed much. They remain the moaning, groaning citizens who are so critical of their own nation. They must really feel weird to watch the arrival of beautiful, loyal new citizens from so many countries who are anxious to pay homage to this wonderful country.
BTW - the best way to handle those gunpowder burns is - never mind.
My very best PC relativistic moral greetings.
de·men·tia Audio pronunciation of "dementia" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mnsh)
n.
1. Deterioration of intellectual faculties, such as memory, concentration, and judgment, resulting from an organic disease or a disorder of the brain. It is sometimes accompanied by emotional disturbance and personality changes.
2. Madness; insanity. See Synonyms at insanity.
[Latin dmentia, madness, from dmns, dment-, senseless. See dement.]de·mential adj.
keep it coming... the laughs here are almost unbearable... adding in the comment from Ann Coulter was brillant!! The ability to go from someone with a rational discussionary mode to moonbattiness in just a few hours is something to behold... I applaud your ability to do so...
Because I was studying for finals, I seem to have lost a lot on the already on-going conversation. All I know is that boymarine made a lot of unsubstatiated claims e.g "Is it because you don't know what to do or is it that these things represent the "values" that your party has dismissed?" What does your party mean? I mean from what I know WSR and Altshiftdelete are independent. They have no loyalty to a single party. They tend to see both sides of the debate. Now I'm not sure how to substantiate these claims but Im simply inferring from past convos here on morrison's site.
One last comment about the "religious left": I watched those idiots try to invent their own God (Manson, Jones, et al), their own code of morality (have sex with everybody's daughters) and their own country (communes). One last comment about the "religious left": I watched those idiots try to invent their own God (Manson, Jones, et al), their own code of morality (have sex with everybody's daughters) and their own country (communes).
Yes because Manson and Jones are the best representation of the whole "religious left" as you like to call them. You were probably better off using Jesse Jackson and/or Al Sharpton.
"They [the baby boomers] must really feel weird to watch the arrival of beautiful, loyal new citizens from so many countries who are anxious to pay homage to this wonderful country"
So yes the baby boomers are unpatriotic especially since they went through that cold war phase and mccarthyism. Oh yes and I agree questioning one's country really is a bad crime. I think we should consider it treason to even question one's leader. You know what I say...bring back the SS. That'll take care of that.
"BTW - the best way to handle those gunpowder burns is - never mind."
Oh and another thing, you're always so fast to claim victory by thinking you have beaten the other side to a bloody pulp with your logic and cries of patriotism.
I'm sure Alt and WSR are the last people to need advice for treating gunpowder burns...
Well maybe WSR could use that advice in case he is ever hunted by enemies and forced to live off the flora and fauna of the land (Rambo, anyone?)
Oh and same with Altshiftdelete because you never know what he will do in his drunken state.
And my finals are over...so YAY!!!!
Now I'm off to celebrate by finishing my rum that I've been saving for this occassion.
I think you guys finally broke his brain.
THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY
"morrison" - It's time to get another column up on your site while I pull back to reload and acquire some heavier caliber weapons.
God, I love the smell of gunpowder and spent ammunition.
Semper Fidelis.
and by reload, you clearly mean that you need to reingest whatever psychotropics inspired the last series of posts, because they have probably since worn off (for the most part). are you sure the nurses are giving you the right pills?
"morrison" - It's time to get another column up on your site while I pull back to reload and acquire some heavier caliber weapons.
To which I reply:
It is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
My apologies to the Bard... but it seems an appropriate sentiment.
THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY -
LIONS AND TIGERS AND BEARS - OH MY! Where's my Mommy?
I have detected continued enemy sniping so OK, bring up some more ammo - commence firing! INCOMING!
Yep, it's true - what we have here are "pseudo-intellectuals" and ego-driven "independents". They want so badly to be seen as "objective" people. Gosh, they must be right 'cause they humbly report that they "weigh both sides of any issue", then with Solomon-like brilliance always make the right decision. Phooey!
Lying to the world to get approval is pathetic - lying to one's self is dysfunctional. Look at yourself honestly and see what others can see so clearly. The proof of who and what you stand for is revealed and evident in almost every exchange.
The truth is that when you finally "decide" on a position, you invariably come down within one ideology, that is, when you do decide on anything. It is not a stance that is ever "for" something -- it usually ends up only on positions that are "against" something. How very revealing that is. Look around, you're not in Kansas anymore!
Your positions are consistently liberal, extremist, Democrat, anti-American, and they smell of rancid left over political campaign mottos and socialist demagoguing.
Doctor, I suspect that these people may be educated way beyond their intelligence. No, that can't be so, sir, they sound so confident, so articulate, so knowledgable. Doctor, you are letting their comments fool you into thinking that they are emotionally mature. Hey wait just a minute - that's unfair.
After all, they went to some fine schools and they seem to be of age. Doctor, remember that they were taught by anti-American socialists with revised texts. I guess you can't blame 'em.
The heck with that - this guy blames 'em. That child-like, immature style is definitely a sign of irresponsible behavior. Bang, bang!
OK, stand up straight and be proud as the American flag passes us. What do you feel inside? Do you have a lump in your throat or are you thinking you'd like to burn it? Very bad choice - - -
Bang, bang!
"Look around, you're not in Kansas anymore! "
Not until Wednesday, at least.
Doctor, I suspect that these people may be educated way beyond their intelligence. No, that can't be so, sir, they sound so confident, so articulate, so knowledgable. Doctor, you are letting their comments fool you into thinking that they are emotionally mature. Hey wait just a minute - that's unfair.
Hearing voices.
Having conversations with himself.
This does not bode well for your mental health.
"Your positions are consistently liberal, extremist, Democrat, anti-American, and they smell of rancid left over political campaign mottos and socialist demagoguing."
Hardly, I mean truly you have misunderstood their positions. Are you automatically programmed to think that just because someone doesn't have that patriotic, ask-no-questions, and obey those even if they are wrong attitude, that they are anti-American?
"They want so badly to be seen as "objective" people."
Funny, I kinda see you the same way. After all didn't you say something along the lines of being right is always RIGHT. Or something like that? I mean to me it seems that everything rightist is correct while everything leftist is completely wrong. That is such a black and white, all or nothing attitude really. Which means that you sir, are acting as an objective person. NOT THEM.
"Doctor, remember that they were taught by anti-American socialists with revised texts. I guess you can't blame 'em."
Oooh evil socialist professors spreading their plague every where to American children! Scary stuff. I'm guessing right now that you're sort of the anti-intellectual, anti-institutions of higher learning, type of guy. Well guess what, anti-intellectualism and your uber-patriotism, are both signs of a fascist way of thinking.
"OK, stand up straight and be proud as the American flag passes us. What do you feel inside? Do you have a lump in your throat or are you thinking you'd like to burn it? Very bad choice - - -
Bang, bang!"
I'll be glad to salute the flag. Just because we disagree with the way it is going (such as this huge polarization and division among us, though it may not be as strong as 1860s or 1960s America, but still nevertheless hurting us) does not mean we simply trash it.
And whats is more important to you? The constitution or the American flag? Remember the American flag doesn't really protect those rights of yours that you fought for as a marine. If people decide to burn the American flag, and if it is protected by the constitution...then so be it. I have no right to be taking a person's right to express themselves.
But thats just my way of thinking.
Oh and next time boymarine...
Cover your flank
INCOMING!!!
*BOOM*
Comments are closed.