Natalie, you are such an ingrate. We have a great country, with a great deal of freedom. We have in fact a government of the people and by the people. Not that the people aren't goddam stupid sometimes.

You've got a big chip on the shoulder over some gay rights stuff. You have some legitimate point with some of it. [My chips would concern drug laws and taxation of income.] Nonetheless, you do not face punishment and oppression. You just do not.

You're going on like Dubya is Hitler, with Ashcroft stomping his jackboots all over anyone who mutters a peep of protest. That's just palpable nonsense. I'm not real thrilled about every last thing the administration comes up with, but also consider all the things that they are responsible for.

You as much as called Bush a "terrorist" at one point. Bullshit. He and we are nothing of the sort. We are not purposely butchering women and children, causing suffering just for kicks. We go to great efforts to avoid such things.

You can bitch and moan all you want, but our country has been and remains under attack. Dubya has the responsibility of actually protecting us from people wanting to do us harm. You're crap about being for "peace" means nothing to the people who are attacking us.

And if you think you're oppressed now, how do you think you'd be doing living under any of the regimes we have hostile relations with? You go on about the little pea under the freedom mattress here. However, Miss Princess, over there they'd just summarily kill you.

We are both blessed to live in the freest and most prosperous country on earth. You should be more appreciative for what you've got.

Oooh, namecalling.

That's your opinion. I have mine. (You're damned right I called Shrub a terrorist. By my definition he is.) And you don't know enough about me or my life or my concerns to say anything meaningful about them. We will have to agree to disagree again.

Have a nice day!

Hey, what's this fourth of July thing? I know Americans (residents of the continents of the Americas) celebrate the 5th of May, the first of July, and so on. So what's so special about today? Is it because it is a Friday so you can slack off? Is it independence from The Man? Is it independence from the corporate oligarchy which rules the States down south?

Just wondering.

Hee hee hee!

There's an idea... I was working all day May 5, so maybe I can do my Cinco de Mayo celebrating today...

Or finish a review from which I've been sidetracked. Too damned hot, though.

Sooooo sick of the anti-Americanism on Blogcritics. Really, does the rant above make Natalie sound like a freedom fighter or just another paranoid loonie just out of the asylum? It's real easy for Americans to look at our own country and find faults. It's practically a hobby for some people. There are uncountable numbers of people dying, literally, to come to this country. Is it really so bad, or do you just want to find something to complain about? So pot isn't legal and you get taxed on what you earn. Big freakin' deal. It's no wonder no one likes the US, what a bunch whining weenies we are.

It is really so bad. My opinion; thanks for sharing yours.

Is namecalling de rigueur at Blogcritics? Just wondering.

Yes, name-calling is de rigueur here on Blogcritics, bitch. (Sorry--had to do it. It's required.)

The near-civility at the "Homos, Brian Flemming and me" thread was exceptional for a political discussion here, you terrorist lesbo.

For the most part, whenever a liberal says anything of substance here, the comments are immediately filled with insults shipped in fresh from the bowels of Free Republic. By and large, conservatives here seem to believe that reason is some kind of commie trick. You traitor.

But at least they are generally not as bad as, say, the last comment at the entry here on my blog.

Pinko.

I agree with your thoughts Natalie. However, I do not agree with the ideas proposed by the Poeple for the American Way.

The "American Way" rests upon the notion that we elect our President democratically (admittedly, this is arguable for this particular term). Unfortunately, it seems that ignorance and willful blindness is spreading, because Dubya's approval ratings are far from diminished.

Not only is President Bush trying to rip away the right to overtime for some workers, but he is also trying to implement a new law that allows "faith-based" organizations (who are funded by our government) to discriminate on hiring people on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. Currently, the law forbids this practice. All the while, he is dropping bombs all over the world on nations that supposedly treat their people "unethically." This wreaks of hypocrisy, especially considering that the Republican agenda strives to abolish welfare,, while allowing the indigent to rot to death. This man is a tyrant! If I saw George W. Bush right now I would spit in his repulsive face. No, he is not Hitler, but he may be the devil!

Only in America do we pride ourselves on being the "land of the free." Day by day we see our government creating law after law. Most of these laws are nothing more than a prohibition generated for the government to make more money. How is this freedom?

Only in America do we find a government that keeps legislating our freedoms away. "No helmet while driving a motorcycle, we'll take $100 for that." "No seatbelt while driving, we'll take $100 for that."

Only in America can we engorge ourselves with Big Macs and then turn around and sue McDonald's for it. It sounds like McDonald's may be losing some of its "freedoms" if the health insurance industry wins this political game.

Only in America can people move right next to an airport and then complain because the jets are too loud. Only in America can people move to cities and neighborhoods that have been zoned for nightlife and entertainment and then complain because the music is too loud or because the streets are too busy. Our government has abandoned its "coming to the nuissance" principles which is also a direct infringement on the "freedoms" we as Americans deserve.

Only in America do we pride ourselves on the deeply rooted freedom of religion and then legislate "morality" based on religious convictions. We have no problem forcing people to praise their "one nation under God" without any respect for atheists or agnostics. Somehow, "faith-based" freedoms seem to be favored these days. That does not sound like freedom to me.

Only in America do we champion our freedom of speech and then damn a hillbilly girl band for speaking out against the devil himself. Our nation has become so blinded with the September 11th tragedy that their patriotism has blinded them from our deceptive government. SO THEY DAMN US FOR SPEAKING OUT AGAINST ALL THE LIES!

I actually hate what the United States of America is becoming - it is becoming a LIE. What is so sad, is that people all over the place are endorsing this crap. I am ASHAMED to be an American these days. Not because I hate my country, but because my tolerance for my fellow American is waning.

A fellow poster mentioned that he is sick of all of the anti-American crap he reads these days. Obviously, if there has been an increase in this sort of commentary, then there is obviously something wrong. However, people will not listen, not right now! But in time, people will look back and regret not opening their ears - just wait and see.

Brian: Wow, that Warchief comment practically melted my computer screen. If you're engendering that kind of abuse, you must be on the correct track. Perhaps we can launch a campaign to help those folks learn to spell and craft a paragraph, so that they can abuse lefties and progressives and be more readily understood. You Benedict Arnold. :)

Dave G.: The US is not becoming a lie -- it has always been a mirage, a figment of the collective imagination. "Equality for all?" Just a PR slogan not rooted in truth.

I agree, Dave, people probably will wise up one day. By then, it may be too late. In fact, I suspect it will be too late.

And we all have something that makes us sick: The Right is made nauseated by progressives' expressions of their first-amendment right. We are made nauseated by the gummint's hypocricies and terrorism and by the otherwise intelligent people who go along with the gummint's trouncing of all that is decent, honorable, and truthful. I pray one day we will all feel nausea no more.

PFAW is a little mainstream for my taste. I keep telling my acquaintances there that they should change the group's name, anyway. Why, I ask them, would they want to be tied by name -- even if the "American Way" to which PFAW refers is the nonexistent, genuine equality-for-all kind -- to something that the government has turned into a malicious, damaging lie?

If you don't like the present administration, be sure to thank every Naderite you know.

It is kind of ironic that just a few years ago the first Bush was denied a second term in the White House due to a third party candidate (Buchanan) splitting the conservative vote.

But what goes around, comes around.

'Tis true, that.

But don't blame Nader -- for whom I, a non-Democrat and non-Republican, cast my vote. To do so is part of the Amerikkkan way, and it is based on the notion that we don't have the right to vote for the candidate of our choice. How dumb is that?

Who should you blame for having a Resident rather than a President? Blame the Democrats for not pulling off what should have been a slam dunk. It was up to them to convince voters to support their candidate. They didn't and don't convince this progressive Independent. And I vote on principle, not for pragmatism's sake.

If I am still within these borders next year (doubtful), I suspect I again won't be voting for a Democrat. I dislike the party -- as I do the GOP -- intensely. But I do research all those running, out of fairness, because every now and again a decent person shows up even in the vile ranks of the Dems and GOPs. I'm focusing here, however, on the Dems, for reasons that should be obvious:

Dean's great (though I consider civil unions a Jim Crow slap in the face), but he's OK with war, which I consider unacceptable and immoral. SCRATCH.

Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, Gephardt... ugh. SCRATCH. SCRATCH. SCRATCH. SCRATCH.

Moseley-Braun, not qualified. SCRATCH.

Sharpton, insane and too danged "race"-focused. SCRATCH.

For the Dems, that leaves Dennis Kucinich, the peace candidate, and what are the odds that his candidacy will make it to the 2004 general election? SCRATCH.

Calling all Greens and Independents...

I voted for the person who was, in my estimation, the best candidate and the only one who had any redeeming qualities and shared my vision. Any other choice for me would have been immoral and unforgivable. That same philosophy would govern my vote in 2004, as it has every vote I have ever cast.

But bottom line: It is not my fault -- or Ralph Nader's -- that your vile system put an undeserving loser and terrorist into the White House. That "blame the Naderite" whine from the go-along-to-get-along set is just useless, stupid noise.

Hey, what's with all this "Benedict Arnold" slander. He was a Loyalist, a brilliant military commander, and an officer and gentleman who upheld his oath to the monarchy.

Y'know, you Yanks should look into monarchy, it's accountable (if it isn't there's always the regicide button, Bob), it's stylish, it has a proven track record for peace and prosperity and it is Socialist approved!

And the House of Windsor wasn't headed by murderous tyrants, the American rebellion was a pissing contest.

Jim: With all due respect, please re-read your British history books. Their is probably more blood on England's hands when compared to any other nation in the world.

Natalie: I think it is quite legitimate for Bob to blame the Naderites. Going into the election, everyone knew that Nader's chances were next to impossible. Just because Nader did not throw in the towel does not mean that his supporters should have stayed in the game too. Voting for Nader was nothing more than polical martyrdom.

Upon assessing the realistic outcomes at stake, the Naderites should have realized that their candidate was a loser. He failed to run a legitimate campaign (albeit - he was denied a fair debate). Beacuse of this, the Naderites should have analyzed each viable candidate (Bush and Gore) and then decide whether they wanted somebody who supported their views 70% of the time (Gore) or someone who voted against them 70% of the time (Bush).

By not casting a vote to the "better of the two evils" the Naderites undoubtedly handed the Florida vote to Bush (minus the missing ballot boxes from precincts heavily populated with Democrats).

I am more of a Libertarian than I am a Democrat. However, if I am going to vote at an election where my own party's candidate has no chance of victory, then I would rather cast my vote for the one who MOST supports my overall views.

I would rather be in purgatory than in hell. Wouldn't you?

They're all the same to me, really. Honestly, I would rather be dead. Principle -- doing what is right rather than what is expedient, convenient, or pragmatic -- is, to me, uber alles.

I do not support Gore and the Democrats. I do not support the two parties in your two-party system. I am not a Democrat. Therefore, in good conscience, I could not vote for the man. Period.

You'll toss blame wherever you think it goes; I will do my best to ignore it.

Hello

You are a googlewhack!!!!!

I have found your website by typing in two random words into google and it has led me here.

The words were:
Regicide & Pastie

Congrats

certainly glad to hear that - thanks.