"However, my experience is that a lot of people from the left have given up trying to discuss the issues because of past abuse from the right"
I've posted here for a few years, and did not get this impression.
You're telling me you never noticed Cybernazi or Pilch or jallen et al trash liberals? Sorry but I ain't buying that one. The only reason I started posting on this thread was because of the unrelenting liberal bashing.
Mostly started posting on the 2000 election fiasco and saw constant accusations that Bush stole the election.
When a presidential election is that close, you don't run to the Supreme Ct. to get an edge. There was considerable controversy over the ballot count in FLA......complaints of corruption and refusing to register eligible voters.....particularly those who would have voted for Gore.
There should have been a revote.........our Constitution allows for such unusual procedures in the voting process. Instead, the GOP put the fear of God in the American public......suggesting that a leaderless America would be end up going to hell in a handbasket. Mr. Bush decided he wasn't willing to risk taking that any chances. With his decision to run to the SC, he insured there will always be a cloud over the 2000 election and his winning.
Nobody then, and nobody since has been able to back that up. When I challenge with the issues that need to be answered to back up thier dishonest claim, silence. Same with when I do put out thoughtful posts to the lefties to get a real discussion going. I get compliments from the right on a well laid out post. The guy on the left dissappears.
Stop! Enough! I AM discussing the issues so you can cut the ranting about the behavior of others.
"Criticisms by the left have been greeted with abusive responses and/or complaints of being unAmerican."
I don't see this too much. Because I do not see legitimate criticisms. Abusive personal attacks that are unsuported and passed off as "criticism".
Whether you have seen it or not, I have.......so for me its true. If you don't want to believe it, then that's your choice.
I for one will never attack an honestly held pov, but when the attack is Bush is a liar, Bush is Hitler, Bush is a racist, etc. with nothing to support, I believe the person is unAmerican. That is not what our country is based on, and not what made it great.
This is a repeat of past posts. Enough! I hate repeats.
"My God, the very lives of the Dixie Chicks were threatened....there were CD burnings throughout the South"
Good example. You call them saying they are ashamed to be from the same state as Bush a criticism. I say it is a disrespectful personal attack made worse by being on foriegn soil. Think if someone said that about your dad or someone that you love. Would you view that as criticism of your dad, or a personal insult on your family. I know how I would view it. And I can't support the death threats, but I would say the Dixie Chicks are pretty stupid if they don't think that kind of personal insult against our Commander In Chief at a time of war will piss off some country music fans. I won't buy any more of their cds, and don't listen to the two that I have. Didn't burn them though, so I must be moderate.
Whether the DC were stupid or irreverent or high as a kite is immaterial. Freedom of speech permits us to say what we like within reason.......including criticizing the president; that is the very essence of freedom of speech. I hate what Falwell or Limbaugh or Robertson have to say but I would never threaten their right to say it. I simply turn them off. You don't like what the DC have to say, turn off their music and don't buy their CDs. The right's reaction was much ado about nothing. If they are that thin skinned, they don't belong in a democracy.
And frankly, if you can't take it, then don't be dishing it............and the right is very good at dissing everyone that is left of center......from ex presidents on down.
"I intend to give money to the Dem. [a first] and actively campaign for Kerry.."
Probably a waste of money. Save it for some beer for the condolence party :0)
"What does the bible say......"
Rush and Hannity are not religious shows, although they are religious people. You don't have to listen to them. I don't listen to the haters on the left like Ivins and her ilk. Not going to worry about them too much though. The left seems seriously threatened by the two you mention. My guess is that it is the popularity of them that is bothersome. Some people truly are bothered (as they are) about generally dishonest former President Clinton.
Threatened by their popularity? Hardly. We find them offensive. If the right wants better relations with the left, you best call off your attack dogs........including Coulter. They are disgusting, abusive people. You say Hannity and Limbaugh are religious.......its the devil then that they worship. No God that I know would approve of their harshness.
"Americans let Bush manipulate them into this war."
Bullcrap. History will show that the world, and Iraq are better off without Saddam. Bush is trying to modernize a section of the world that will get more and more violent and desparate if left as is.
History knows nothing yet. You are theorizing and speculating based on your knowledge of the world. I am speculating and theorizing that you and Bush are wrong. Consequently, I am opposed to what Bush is doing.....EOM.
"In reality, they too rolled over and played dead......both Dems and the GOP"
You have a pretty high opinion of your intellect, and not much of an appreciation for others.
I have reason to be.........everything I said in March, 2003 has happened or turned out the way I expected.......from not finding the WMDs to the urban warfare currently underway in Iraq to not being greeted as liberators. What Bush told us would happen has not. Tell me why should I respect Bush's opinion over my own.
Bush is not stupid, many in congress are not stupid, and many Americans are not stupid. We believe that dangerous dictators that are in violation of international law that may aid terrorists should be dealt with. Not stupid at all. I would say stupid to let him be.
There are many dangerous dictators in the world....some worse than Saddam. Are you suggesting we take them all out?
"Iraq is probably the worst one to try and start up an democracy"
I disagree. They are one of the most educated. If their diversity can form a democratic system it will show that anyplace can. And they were in violation of international law and the terms of their surrender. Can't just pick and choose to attack anybody. They were a threat also.
Sorry but at this point, I see only a 50/50 chance that you will be right. Like I said above, to date, very little of what the right said would happen in Iraq has happened. Frankly, I see no reason to stay on a course that is not working. I think we would be foolish to throw good money after bad.
"Do we have less terrorists?"
The world surely will if the civilized folk stick together.
It seems Mr. Bush doesn't share your philosophy. When we needed our allies the most, he was abrasive and indifferent. Now he has to kiss their butts to get them to cooperate. And that means the American public is paying for his hubris and incompetency.
Let them be and they multiply. Killing them might make some want to become one, but others may think twice. Particularly if democracy and freedom produce results. We don't have too many terrorists here, because in general people have a lot of opportunity here. Not the case in the ME.
I don't think the way we are tracking down OBL and al Qa'ida has proven to be the best way......hence the increase in terrorist violence world wise. How long do you propose doing something when its not proving to be effective?
"Terrorist attacks are very much on the upswing throughout the entire world."
They are actually down if you take out Iraq. And they are getting whipped there.
That's not true.....the State Dep't misspoke and has put out a correction:
"US Corrects Terrorism Report, Says Attacks Went Up
Thu Jun 10, 2004 05:20 PM ET
(Page 1 of 2)
By Arshad Mohammed
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The State Department said on Thursday its April 29 report that the number of international "terrorist" attacks and resulting deaths fell last year was wrong and both figures had in fact risen.
The admission dented the claim by some U.S. officials that the report provided evidence that Washington was winning the "war on terrorism," whose success is critical to President Bush's reelection strategy."
reuters.com
"Al-Qaida has more than 18,000 potential fighters at large, think tank warns
LONDON (AP) - Despite losses around the world, al-Qaida has more than 18,000 potential terrorists, and its ranks are growing because of the conflict in Iraq, a leading think tank warned Tuesday. "
fox23news.com
"Calling someone a Bush hater suggests they are irrational and overly emotional"
When I do this, the poster has said something that can lead me to no other conclusion.
Like I said, suggesting someone is irrational allows you not to take the issue very seriously. I would suggest you stop labeling everyone who criticizes Bush as irrational and start listening to their criticisms more closely and carefully. |
