Ads |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
|
#163
|
|||
|
|||
|
#164
|
|||
|
|||
TritonRider wrote: From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS I personally hear far, far more of the right wing characterizing those who disagree with them as "un-American". I think they have been far more successful at wrapping themselves in the flag, and less tolerant of dissent. I'm not aware of any lefties promoting laws protecting the flag--are you? Generally, the right wants to protect the flag. The left wants to protect what they feel it stands for. If you don't agree with what the left believes the flag stands for, I guess we agree that the left and right are selective in just what rights they care about. But as far as labeling the other side anti-American? No contest. Steve Steve I'm going to conditionally disagree. I think that the right has at least as many people who are trying to twist what is American, but the left is doing exactly the same thing with different issues. My vision for the ideal "Main Street" Anytown would have a church, a mosque, a synagogue, an NAACP office, A Klan office with lawful protesters outside, a planned parenthood office, a decent shelter, a leftwing and rightwing news outlet, a park where everybody could speak and debate freely without intimidation...you should be able to add the rest for yourself. Bill C Bill-- There is probably a lot we could find to agree on. For me I guess the main thing is that JT, I and many others are very angry, very frustrated and very upset--partly (but not totally) for reasons you've already mentioned. You can tell us we shouldn't be angry, or we should suck it up, but that's not how it works. I can hear JT venting, but I don't hear him censoring anyone (as if he could). You and I view things differently, and that's perfectly OK with me. Steve Steve |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
TritonRider wrote: From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS I personally hear far, far more of the right wing characterizing those who disagree with them as "un-American". I think they have been far more successful at wrapping themselves in the flag, and less tolerant of dissent. I'm not aware of any lefties promoting laws protecting the flag--are you? Generally, the right wants to protect the flag. The left wants to protect what they feel it stands for. If you don't agree with what the left believes the flag stands for, I guess we agree that the left and right are selective in just what rights they care about. But as far as labeling the other side anti-American? No contest. Steve Steve I'm going to conditionally disagree. I think that the right has at least as many people who are trying to twist what is American, but the left is doing exactly the same thing with different issues. My vision for the ideal "Main Street" Anytown would have a church, a mosque, a synagogue, an NAACP office, A Klan office with lawful protesters outside, a planned parenthood office, a decent shelter, a leftwing and rightwing news outlet, a park where everybody could speak and debate freely without intimidation...you should be able to add the rest for yourself. Bill C Bill-- There is probably a lot we could find to agree on. For me I guess the main thing is that JT, I and many others are very angry, very frustrated and very upset--partly (but not totally) for reasons you've already mentioned. You can tell us we shouldn't be angry, or we should suck it up, but that's not how it works. I can hear JT venting, but I don't hear him censoring anyone (as if he could). You and I view things differently, and that's perfectly OK with me. Steve Steve |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 02:46:12 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield"
wrote: I would vote for John McCain ... Socially and fiscally conservative, but not a bull****ter like Bush/Cheney/Rove. I would consider voting for Rudy Giuliani; fiscally conservative and socially moderate, and another non-bull****ter. I wouldn't vote for any of these guys, but can respect anyone who supported them. I simply disagree with a lot of these politicians' policies. GWB is another lever from there guys -- incompetent, deceptive and a proven danger to the wellbeing of the US and people of the world. JT. **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com **************************** |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 02:46:12 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield"
wrote: I would vote for John McCain ... Socially and fiscally conservative, but not a bull****ter like Bush/Cheney/Rove. I would consider voting for Rudy Giuliani; fiscally conservative and socially moderate, and another non-bull****ter. I wouldn't vote for any of these guys, but can respect anyone who supported them. I simply disagree with a lot of these politicians' policies. GWB is another lever from there guys -- incompetent, deceptive and a proven danger to the wellbeing of the US and people of the world. JT. **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com **************************** |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
(TritonRider) wrote: From: John Forrest Tomlinson I still don't understand why you have dragged people who "hate" America into political discussions here. JT When those people are donating millions of dollars to the Democratic party, making numerous statements in support of the Democrats, and making propaganda films for the Democrats then they need to be part of the total discussion here, that should be as ovious to you as the need to discuss the SBVT guys, and Bush's ties to the Saudi monarchy. Well, if Michael Moore is considered to be a guy making propaganda films for the Democrats, isn't that countered by the daily barrage of propaganda out of Fox? Or the rest of the media, which dutifully reported what the admin. said, and chose to forego doing any actual investigating into the veracity of the info they were getting? In order to be propagandized by MM, a person had to actively go out of their house, search down a theatre showing F-911 and watch it. The other stuff comes right into one's home - you don't have to lift a finger. And don't forget the incident with Sinclair Braodcasting right before the election (the cancellation of regular programming to run a Kerry-bashing piece under the guise of "news"). As for being part of the discussion, many of the voices on the left were left hanging during the run-up to the war. The voices that dominated were the Hannitys, O'Reillys and the rest. -- tanx, Howard "You ain't having fun until you're dialing 911" Atomic 7 remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
(TritonRider) wrote: From: John Forrest Tomlinson I still don't understand why you have dragged people who "hate" America into political discussions here. JT When those people are donating millions of dollars to the Democratic party, making numerous statements in support of the Democrats, and making propaganda films for the Democrats then they need to be part of the total discussion here, that should be as ovious to you as the need to discuss the SBVT guys, and Bush's ties to the Saudi monarchy. Well, if Michael Moore is considered to be a guy making propaganda films for the Democrats, isn't that countered by the daily barrage of propaganda out of Fox? Or the rest of the media, which dutifully reported what the admin. said, and chose to forego doing any actual investigating into the veracity of the info they were getting? In order to be propagandized by MM, a person had to actively go out of their house, search down a theatre showing F-911 and watch it. The other stuff comes right into one's home - you don't have to lift a finger. And don't forget the incident with Sinclair Braodcasting right before the election (the cancellation of regular programming to run a Kerry-bashing piece under the guise of "news"). As for being part of the discussion, many of the voices on the left were left hanging during the run-up to the war. The voices that dominated were the Hannitys, O'Reillys and the rest. -- tanx, Howard "You ain't having fun until you're dialing 911" Atomic 7 remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
TritonRider wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Does not say freedom from religion. It does say will not prohibit free exercise of religion. You are violently opposed to people's freedom to practice their religion. I must have missed a post here as I didn't see where John expressed such an opinion, violently or otherwise. Being opposed to having others religious views foisted upon you differs from being 'opposed to people's freedom to practice their religion'. It does not matter whether these others are moslems trying to force women to cover their faces or christian fundamentalists (or catholics) trying to impose their views on for example abortion on everyone else. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
the final word on helmets | loki | General | 18 | November 15th 04 05:12 AM |
Sound familiar | Bob | Mountain Biking | 12 | March 9th 04 12:38 AM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | General | 17 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
FAQ | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 27 | September 5th 03 10:58 PM |
[OT] Speeding motorist - "It's unfair" | Tim Woodall | UK | 95 | August 9th 03 09:28 AM |