Hope you got a good deal of teflon spray, Jet: you're gonna need it when the righties cotton on to this one. And on Good Friday yet - fie on you! ;)

#1 Nancy.
Thanks, I stocked up at Wal-mart when I bought my copy of "Brokeback Mountain".

I intentionally wrote this to make people wince at the end of each paragraph, to get an intelligent (that's the hope anyway) discussion going.

To be honest, I started writing this last week, finished it this morning, and momentarily forgot about it being Good Friday and wouldn't have intended it to come out today, if I had.

I think I'll go hide in the hole the Easter Bunny's not using this Sunday.

Thanks for the worry, sweetie...

Not bad, but the late '90s just called -- they want their fresh material back.

I'm just happy that Jet has started using paragraphs...

But a couple of specific points need to be addressed.

First off, the direct linking of the religious and political right is erroneous. The division is very clear in the GOP these days and we all know that any alliance between the two is an alliance of convenience not principle.

Blacks and Hispanics can sometimes be included in this category, but only if they completely adhere to strict guidelines, and stay in the background as much as possible.

A common kneejerk comment from the left, which is belied by the fact that the GOP is running more black candidates for major office in 2006 than either party has ever run before. The new face of the Republican Party is increasingly dark-skinned.

Example: the "Patriot Act" has nothing to do with being patriotic, in the literal sense of the word.

I just have to point out that the Patriot Act was approved by a large majority of Democrats in Congress and that they continued to support it when it came up for renewal. In fact, the main efforts to limit the powers of the act came from Republicans, not Democrats.

Dave

Matthew, okay, guilty as charged, are you saying the problem isn't more pressing today?

Give me a break I just woke up! You mean this isn't the nightmare Reagan 80s????

Ok here's the flip side of the coin......word's in the liberal dictionary


Bigot: Anyone who does not believe that minorities deserve special treament in all aspects of today's American culture or in any other way does not hold liberal views regarding race issus


Offensive: Anything that runs contrary to liberal beliefs and/or leftist agenda. Derogatory and/or hateful speech directed toward religious people or conservative people does not qualify as offensive but rather "progressive."

Free Speech: The right for liberals to speak thier minds while telling conservatives they must shut up.

Morality: An illusion that seeks impart the idea that certain behaviors are in fact right or wrong when concerning cultrally accepted norms. There is no such thing as right or wrong there is only the ubiquitous subjectivity of life.

Racist: Similiar to bigot. Anyone who does not take the leftist liberal view of race relations all of the time.

Religion: Organized mythology followed by knuckley dragging neanderthals who are mentally, socially, and culturally inferior to enlightened progressive latte drinking athesit, secularists.

Evil: Anything that would attempt to pass judegmention using the aforementioned term "morality" which as all good porgressives know, is only an illusion.

Jet, on the other 'current' thread about gay marriage as well as other topics, you can see the forthcoming book being promoted by Ann Coulter is equating liberalism with godlessness.

WHile this might have started in the 90's, the conservative redefining of words definitely continues to this day and so is still relevant.

I am going to tend to agree with Dave, in that the religious right is no longer synonymous with the political right. The FAR politicial right, yes, but the moderate right is working to put a distance between themselves (and thank God, it's only about 8 years too late).

Equality: The liberal version gets it's own post, the conservative version is buried in the comments.

Also, lines at the BMV are still long, men still leave the toilet seat up, and the only thing in hockey that's black is still the puck. Guffaw!

You forgot:

Nazi - What you call anyone you disagree with in order to shut them up and marginalize their opinions.

Fascist - See Nazi.

Hitler - Who you compare people to in order to shut them up and marginalize their opinions.

Dave

Ambrose Bierce just channeled Darren Daulton who wanted me to say he's really pissed at all of you.

Dave #4. OOOOOOO got me right in the gut, good deflection though.

Hmmmm let's see.
My paragraphs, yes, since I've been so amaturish at it lately, one of your other editors gave me some constructive critisismsmsms.

Blacks and Hispanics are increasingly being pushed to the single thin front of all those great Republican Party publicity shots, but you and I both know that the men running the show are the white guys grinning in the 8 or 9 solid rows just behind them.

Regardless of WHO passed the Patriot Act (very good deflection from the point, bravo) the fact remains that the patriot act has nothing to do with being patriotic.

And while we're on the subject, sir, it was passed by a Republican controlled congress and a Republican President, that in the opening hours of the war, convinced america that any Senator or Representitive would be branded a Saddam lover and a traitor if they didn't go along with the herd mentality.

...but of course that's only my opinion

I am going to tend to agree with Dave, in that the religious right is no longer synonymous with the political right. The FAR politicial right, yes, but the moderate right is working to put a distance between themselves (and thank God, it's only about 8 years too late).

Well, they snuck up on us, Steve. When the religious right started to infiltrate the party it was run mostly by pro-business liberal northern elitists and their idea of religious conservatives was based on a post-puritan New England model which was very different from the version found in the bible belt, so they didn't quite see what they were getting into by allying with religious types who were much more extreme and crazy than the type they were familiar with. They had always thought that the really religiously extreme groups were naturally aligned with the Democrats who had the doctrinaire Catholics and the extreme religions which appealed to the poor classes in the south. For them religious conservatism was always associated with the lower classes and something they really didn't understand. It's taken some time to see it for what it is and to come to terms with how incompatible it is with the basic political goals of the GOP.

Dave

#11... Who?

#6 Ahhhhhh Arch conman, I knew I could count on you. There you have it folks!

Nancy, can you spare a can of that spray?

Steve #7&8... Amen

#10. Dave I don't seem to remember using those in my original rant. Hmmm, I'll have to add them to my thesaurus.

Thanks for keeping an eye on Arch, he can be forgetful sometimes in his zeal.

Dave, regarding #13.
And you were critisizing me about my paragraphs?????????

Addenda to #10:

Neocon - What you call people when they invoke Godwn's Law after you call them a Nazi.

And Jet...

U.S. A P.A.T.R.I.O.T. is just an acronym for "United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism." It's just a coincidence that the title happens to spell USA Patriot. Really.

Dave

Dave 13, unless I counted wrong there's only two sentences in that thing!

Dave 13, seriously now. The Religious right took possession of the Republican party when Reagan sold it to them in order to be elected in 1980.

Them and the NRA

Dave #19. I'm going to have to think a while to come up with a snappy retort to that, be patient!

Well, they snuck up on us, Steve.

You should know a person completely, before you get into bed with them.

It's taken some time to see it for what it is and to come to terms with how incompatible it is with the basic political goals of the GOP.

These last 8 years have given me grey hairs. The tide better be turning.

Jet, your paragraph problem is the opposite of mine. You tend to make very short paragraphs. I tend to make needlessly long ones.

And as for the NRA, they belong in both parties and always have. I can dig up a picture of almost every major democratic political figure pretending he's a hunter.

Dave

The Religious right took possession of the Republican party when Reagan sold it to them in order to be elected in 1980.

well, Jet I think one of the basic principles of conservatism is it's snail-like pace.

Yeah Jet .....this is your post. You have to keep on top of all the responses. When Dave or I or someone else posts something contrary to your all knowing progressive conciousness you have to jump all over it like Bill Clinton on a White House intern on her first day on the job man.

SteveS #25 or as president Bush would put it, regarding your remark, "At the speed of thought"

#Dave Nalle, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Eric ask that we respond to each commenter as a matter of courtesy?

I'd quote it, as I copied and pasted it somewhere, but I'm sure I'm right. I feel it's a privilege to be able to post my thoughts here, and if I decide to give each response individual attention (even Archie's) instead of ignoring the ones I don't agree with, that's Arch's problem not mine.

Arch the conman, THANK YOU for comparing me to Bill Clinton, I'm honored and humbled.
{:^p~~~~~~

We could make a case that alternatively one could jump on a retort with the speed of W. Bush reading "My Pet Goat" when terrorists strike. Lessee...that gives Jet over 7 minutes, by my count!

There you go! Thank you Nancy, I knew I could count on you.

Or we could say Jet should respond with the amount of time it took that fat Ted Kennedy to report what happened at Chappaquiddac. Then he'd have almost 24 hours.

It's always interesting to note that when liberals and arch conservatives debate, liberals can point out current problems (like when Reagan was president we said things about Reagan, now that Bush is president, we say things about Bush, we talk about current Republican/conservative politicians, pundits, evangelists or whatnot), but arch conservatives alway go back to Clinton/Lewinsky and Ted Kennedy.

I guess that's all they have.

Arch 32,33,34 you're slipping, you didn't call him a liberal! Does Dave Nalle have to watch you every minute?

Dave, I'd love to see a picture of Senator Mrs. Bill Clinton sporting an orange vest and a rifle, off to shoot a deer in Harriman State Park...

Dave #24, in response to Dr. Pat #37, yeah, me too! I bet Bill would've behaved better if she'd have posed for it about 15 years ago.

So show us already!

Jet, I'm pretty sure there's no policy that says one ought to respond to every possible comment. If there was then I'd have to actually pay attention to MCH. Some comments aren't deserving of response or don't lend themselves to a meaningful response.

Dave

Yuck, no! Jet, m'ski, you misunderstood - I meant an orcnge vest OVER her clothes, not IN LIEU OF them!

(Washing out my mind's eye...)

Arch, in comment 31 you're talking about something that happened over 40 {expletive deleted} years ago you {personal attack deleted}!!
Kennedy was cleared of all wrong doing repeatedly.

Shirley, excuse me Surely you can come up with something that doesn't make you sound like a {expletive deleted} ex-wife digging up the dead and buried past can't you?

Come on! I'm very disappointed in you!

Dr.Pat - this one is faked, but it does show Hillary firing an automatic rifle. The Clintons are not known for their gun usage as a couple - unless you believe the Vince Foster conspiracy theories - I did say almost any democrat, didn't I?

Here's a picture of Kerry pretending to hunt geese.

Dave

#40 Dr.Pat. Oh THANKS Dr. Pat. Now that image will be stuck in my head all night!

How did you think I'd mean that?
Just remember if your erection lasts more than four hours to call a physician immediately

Love Jet

Oh Dave #42 but I want a real one. (Maybe I should rephrase that) Wherever did you find that? Did you make it yourself?

On a serious note I feel that anyone who takes the time, no matter what side they're on, to write me a note, deserves a response. Personally that's how I feel, and I have no intentions of apologizing for it here.

Contrary to what Arch Conservative seems to think,
I don't lie in waiting, so I can pounce on anything I disagree with, and as anyone can see, I've responded to everybody.

My sincere thanks to all of you for taking the time.

Jet

Dave #42, Wasn't Cheney "pretending to hunt Quayle (excuse me quaile) when he shot that lawyer?

No, I understand he was trying to shoot a potatoe...

(pa-dum-pum!)

I have this foolish wish that someone new I haven't heard from yet will comment on the original text of this string.

...Oh I know, I'm just being silly.

forgive me

It's always possible that someone will find it on google news and show up. It sometimes takes a day or so, though.

Dave

Oh. The picture of Hillary wearing only a hunting vest, or a new commenter?

"I have this foolish wish that someone new I haven't heard from yet will comment on the original text of this string."

Maybe if you wrote something more groundbreaking than "the right wing is mean", you'd get a broader response. There are too many places on the net to respond to similar statements. So it's just the same old gang replying to the same old thing. Your most provocative comment was that you forgot it was Good Friday.

'nuff said

sorry

WAIT! I TAKE THAT BACK, the problem still exists, damn it. Just because you pronounce it old news Baronius, doesn't mean it still doesn't warrant discussion.

There went another can of spray teflon Nancy.

Gay marriage, and a lying president?

Yeah you're right that is old news. Maybe that's the damned problem, we've gotten so used to it, we just don't care any more!

"We could make a case that alternatively one could jump on a retort with the speed of W. Bush reading "My Pet Goat" when terrorists strike. Lessee...that gives Jet over 7 minutes, by my count!"

That event really ticked a lot of people off, doesn't it.

a. He probably didn't want to freak the children out.

b. His staff (secret service) didn't wish to move him until they ensured themselves that he wasn't in immediate danger. (Pssst... it's their job).

Oh BTW.... the wall came crashing down during Ronnie's watch. I'm not a big fan, but there are a lot of souls in Eastern Europe who are eternally grateful for what America was able to do during that era. I know that for a fact, I am one of millions.

Oh, and I met Dan Quayle and Marilyn in St. Thomas back in 91 or 92. They actually were gracious to spend about 30 minutes conversing with me. We had a very plesent visit. I can only speculate that the press was in the target acquisition mode. I can't imagine that they actually knew that couple.

Oh, and BTW, I am a U.S. citizen now. I did it legally.

Dear Yuri #50. You've got a lot to learn about our president, and your new citizenship means you must learn the responsibility to "rock the boat" occasionally and exercize you own opinion. It's one of your duties to contribute your experiences to us as a whole, and not just "go with the flow"

I would like you to directly respond to the following, if you dare!

A. He didn't want to freak the children out
So what you're saying is that while the whole rest of our country was "freaking out", watching planes plowing into the World Trade Center in great explosions, live on telivesion, according to you, Mr. Bush sat motionless for seven minutes being careful not to freak out a classroom of children. So what you're saying is it was alright for his whole nation to sit stunned and panic stricken, as long as those kids were calm.

Now stay with me here... There were TV cameras there watching the president live. All he had to do was shift in his seat slightly, turn to look into the cameras and calm a "freaking out" nation down. Did he? No he didn't!. Instead, he sat there, and when he did finally look into those cameras, he sheepishly stammered out a useless prayer that didn't stop the towers from falling, nor all those people from dying in the aftermath now did it?

As I've said many times before. If someone just walked up to me and said quote "Mr. President, the nation is under attack", I'd grab the nearest cell phone, I'd have the classroom cleared, and have it set up as a command post immediately.
Instead our president sat quitely and numbly and did nothing, live and on television, for the whole world to watch.

B. Psssst, The president had an armoured limo parked right outside, designed to and capable of better withstanding an attack on the country, than sitting in the classroom of a 30+ year old school with single-pane non-bullet proof windows, and walls that would've probably collapsed if anything bigger than a grenade went off outside.
Yeah, the secret service were certainly doing their job that day, weren't they?

"the wall came crashing down during Ronnie's watch". Sorry, the wall came down after Ronnie's conveniently timed speech, after the CIA informed him of the pending revolt in East Germany, If you were from that region as you say, you'd KNOW it'd take a hell of a long time to bring down a nation as mighty as the Soviet Union in the little amount of time it took between that speech and when the wall came down. The wall came down because of a revolt of an oppressed people due to years of being under a communist rule. Ronnie's speach made for a nice "sound bite" but the fall of the wall was long in the works before he was even elected... and he knew it before hand
By your very same logic, are we to also blame the fall of the World Trade Center on George Bush because it was during "his watch"???

As for Dan Quayle, this is the man who "Freaked out" about a fictional character on TV thinking about having an abortion, and tried to talk her out of it.

It has been a long standing tradition for decades for the press to make fun of the vice president. I'm ashamed to say that recently the stammering, stuttering, and seeming to forget what he's saying in mid-sentence, has transfered that tradition to our president instead.

I'm proud that you've become a U.S. citizen, welcome to the club my friend. You've taken several major steps that others won't. Not only do you speak English, but more difficult, you read and write english. Not many people bother when coming from another country. You can take pride in that

Basically, kids, I suggest you all watch out when George Bush is reading "My Pet Goat." You all may be the goats he leads to sacrifice...

Ruvy #52 Indeed, and well put!

VoleKiller#54: Coming from an oppressed or depressed country, yes your right a newcomer would appreciate the freedoms he's gained vs what he left, while we would take them for granted because we've had them all our lives. However, while I agree with you in principle, it'd depend a lot on the biases of who teaches the immigrant about our political system.

Wouldn't you agree?
Jet

VoleKiller#56 I believe the operative phrase of your opinion above would be "Some people". In the Political state that our country is in right now, only fifty percent would agree with that view.

If the latest polls are any indication of the people's view, and strong evidence that's been presented lately to the contrary, I'd say that 70 percent disagree.

That fact that we can each freely express our opinions is the halmark strength of this country.

#58 VoleKiller. Using words like shenanigans, laughable, left-wing, abuse of power etc. lead me to believe that you're not a persone to be reasoned with.

In fact, I'd go as far as to say that your only purpose in being here is baiting me into an argument that neither side will concede.

So I won't... I respect your opinion, and your right to your opinion. All are welcome here.

Nancy, More spray please!!!!!

Obviously I have a few more terms to add to my original article.

What I see is that immigrants who have experienced real oppression look at what our left-wing calls abuse of power and laugh at them. Try to step into their shoes for a minute. We have an opposition party trying to persecute a president for trying too hard to protect the people from terrorism. To some people that would just look insane.

You are saying that immigrants who come from oppressed nations support Bush. Polls indicate otherwise. Also, Bush has the lowest approval rating of any President in history, both here and abroad.

To pull one of your sentences out of your statement:

We have an opposition party trying to persecute a president for trying too hard to protect the people from terrorism.

No, he is not being 'persecuted' to use your term, for trying to hard to protect us, but for dismal failures like a botched, illegimate war. Unsafe borders, nothing being done in regards to the immigration crisis, a bad economy for many Americans, etc.

The fact that you say he's being persecuted for trying to protect us reveals your bias because you know that is not the case.

SteveS#60 Thanks for your dialogue, but I doubt if he's listening.

Sometimes I wonder if we are.
Have we become as closeminded as them?

"Dear Yuri #50. You've got a lot to learn about our president, and your new citizenship means you must learn the responsibility to "rock the boat" occasionally and exercize you own opinion. It's one of your duties to contribute your experiences to us as a whole, and not just "go with the flow""

It looks as if Yuri has already rocked someone's boat.

I doubt that Yuri has "a lot to learn" from petulant, psycho-ninnies, who are so obsessed with their deviant sexuality, and phantom oppression, that they perversely fail to recognize they are blessed with birthright membership in a land that has been the greatest force for human rights and opportunity the world has ever seen.

Yuri could probably *teach* many of us.

Immigrants are known to be as a group more politically astute than the general populace, so I think lecturing Yuri for holding views you see as backwards may be a bit much.

But Dan, your comments about psycho-ninnies is completely uncalled for. Your attitude is what makes it possible for those on the left to paint the entire right as bigots, no matter how far that is from the truth for most of the reasonable right.

Dave

Dan, I'm the one who suggested he rock the boat in #51 (which I think you might need to read again) I'm the one that said that while he had the right to his opinion, and that I respected it, that it depends greatly on who taught him about our system of government and the current political environment, as to what his attitudes would be. I'm also the one who freely admitted in #61 that I might just be as closed-minded about the subject as you apparently are-at least I admit it and welcome other opinions.

You're a fine voice for the right-wing, and I'm sure that they are glad that they found you to speak for them.

I challenge you to read his comment #50, then read my reply on #51, and INTELLIGENTLY answer each one of my points. He couldn't can you?

...but that's only my opinion

Gays and lesbians face many undue hardships in this country, leading to a suicide rate among gay youth that is 5 times the national average. The FBI website tracks hate crimes among our group, oddly Dan, no one has ever been brutally assaulted for being straight. Gay people are unfairly taxed, we pay into systems that we do not get the same amount back as you do, the list is endless.

When I call this stuff oppression it is. But that does not mean it is on the level of oppression that say a woman in Saudi Arabia or the old Iraq endured.

While we are grateful that we don't face the oppression of other countries, that doesn't mean we are just going to clam up and allow our civil liberties in this country to be trampled on under the guise of religious bigotry.

There is no logic in telling Americans to just accept the violation of their liberties because other countries have less. That's not how America operates.

You don't tell a rape victim that people who are murdered have it worse. Your logic is callous and flippantly disregards the proven and documented ostracization and stigmatization that violates gay and lesbians civil liberties.

We gay and lesbians are VERY aware of our birthright in this country, for it is that birthright that enables us to not hide in fear but tell bigots like you where to stick your opinion.

Jet, you have been described as lecturing.

I do not agree, I am not in need of lecturing. I am a survivor, been there, done that, don't want to talk about it.

I learned english at a young age, I may know grammer better than many english speaking Americans, but I still have to translate in my head on many occasions. It is difficult, especially when drinking.

I appreciate everyone's kindness and thoughts regarding my life long challenge. But I do know this. I am here, I am safe, I am healthy, I am free, I am earning a good living, I am happy.

I also know that armored cars cannot withstand hand held missiles such as a LAWS or HARP or even an RPG. You are misinformed regarding the presidents limosine, it's beefed up but High Explosive compounds are very powerful.

I also know executive protection protocol, and you are misinformed in your assumptions.

I also know that the president does not jump into a phone both and turn into a superhero, they require information, both collected and analyized. I am not stupid.

and I was in Czech republic during the fall of the Berlin Wall, of course we did not know about it during the occurance. Television and radio was not broadcasting the events, until later when patriots dared to break the news.

The CCCP was broke. America outspent the the Supreme Soviet with an outlandish ruse. The Soviet was so concerned with countering the threat that they went broke dealing with the information they had acquired. The economic structure of the Soviet was weak anyway, it was pushed over the the limit by American plans to sack the bloc economically. We did not have goods and services, we did not have reliable infrastucture, we did not even have transportation. Our trucking lost 25% of crops going to market because things like the the tailgates did not close and grains leaked out. Milk rotted because refridgeration was not properly maintained. The roadways were horrible. You do not have any idea. We were not permitted to travel, and did not know how widespread this condition existed. But it was everywhere! The whole marxist concept was failed. The food lines, the lack of basic needs. Can you imagine washing on a cold morning with your visable breath and cold water? Owning 2 pairs of underwear, socks with holes, ill fitting pants, not a dungeree to be had? Can you? We grew up hard in my land. We and everyother country dominated by the Soviet grew up very poor and needing many things. Health care? What was that? You drank to feel better, medicine was not seen at the store. But neither was bread, or milk. Complain? Quietly or you would suffer. You have know idea, and I reject any insinuation that you do. You just don't know. Yet, you argue and lecture to me as if I'm the one who is out of touch. It is insulting.

steveS #65 Thanks. I'm glad there are calm heads around, because I'm going to let loose, if I don't stop for a moment and take a breath...

Yuri, giving me your inventory of socks and underwear doesn't come close to answering my question.

Bush was better off in a small armored moving target, than a large stationary building and you know it. For a foreigner you seem to know a lot about terrorists, but you definately don't know about tactics.

You still haven't answered why Bush couldn't turn to the cameras that were pointed directly at him and make a statement to the country. Any Idiot seeing two jets plowing into two adjacent buildings almost simultaneously, could figure out that that was no accident. Bush didn't need more information, nor did he need to wait until someone confirmed it, because he was too stupid to see the evidence right before his eyes live and on television. Why did he wait so long, BECAUSE HE WAS WAITING FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO MAKE HIS DECISION FOR HIM!!! That's why.

A jet plowing into the pentagon might have given him a clue too!

Sideways moaning about leaking grain and rotten milk have nothing to do with the subject of this string, and you know it. The fact that you haven't plausibly addressed the issues that I raised in #51 proves that you can't come up with an argument, and that you know I'm right, and attempting to distract us with your storied, troubled, and possibly fictional past isn't swaying me. Nor is your inventory of hand-held shoulder fired missiles.

You can self-righteously pontificate, and vigorously demand an apology till you're blue in the face, but that only proves that I'm right about the points I made in #51.

To sum up.
Bush had no business sitting there while his country was being attacked. Solid proof, or lack of information be damned. He is our leader and even the hint of danger to this country would've sent Bill Clinton into IMMEDIATE action.

You want to smuggly compare Bush to Clinton? Have you ever seen a president take more vacation time? You had to practically pry Clinton out of the White House.
What was the deficit when Clinton left office in 2001 and what is it now?

Instead of real action during a crisis, our leader, mumbles, stutters and then goes into public prayer, instead of offering real solutions to the problem at hand.

His useless public prayers didn't stop the twin towers from falling before everyone got out.
His useless public prayers didn't help find anyone in the rubble.
His useless public prayers and irresponsible inaction didn't get jets into the air fast enough to stop an airline from crashing into the pentagon.
His useless public prayers didn't help the miners in West Virgina
His useless public prayers didn't stop Hurricane Katrina.
His useless public prayers only catered to the religious right, and made him look like a fool.

Anyone else would've taken decisive action FIRST, and prayed to thank god for his wisdom and guiding hand later, not the other way around.

Yes Yuri, you can teach us a few things alright, like standing around whining and demanding apologies when you lose control of your life, and when your feelings get hurt from a perceived lecture. You pout there at your keyboard, and instead of standing up for your own country and fighting like you should have, to make it better from within, you fled like a scared rabbit to another country.

You nicely prove the point of my original writing in spades, and I thank you for it.

But thank you so much for contributing to our little conversation here.

love Jet

OK Jet, I think Yuri had already given his thoughts on why GW did what he did during the attack. But I'll give you mine:

Point A: You say the "whole nation" was stunned and "panic stricken". I wasn't. Interestingly, I was on my way to Indianapolis airport to board a United Airline flight to Las Vegas with my life partner. During a lapse in our giddy conversation, she turned on the radio. When we heard the report, I pulled off the side of the road, and we turned and headed back. It was early but we realized all flights would be cancelled. We weren't panicked.

You suggest that the President's reading of a goat story was being broadcast "live" and that he should have turned to the camera and calmed a "freaking out" nation. I don't think it was being broadcast at all. I think an obscure tape of the event was made for the future use of students and faculty, which eventually got into the hands of anti-American propagandists.

You say that, if you were GW. you would have cleared the classroom and turned it into a "command post". Why not strap on pearl handled revolvers and run out into the street firing bullets into the air like general Patton?

Thankfully, there is a strict protocol for handling this event that required the president, any president, to sit for 7 minutes and look stupid, to you, while qualified people performed their roles to get the president into a position to perform his.

Point B: I guess your saying that Reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Please give it up. The most memorable event for me was when Reagan walked out on the SALT talks. Reagan wasn't going to compromise, and that pissed the liberal media offfffff. They were wrong, he was right. I was a liberal before Ronald Reagan, but I bought in to what he was selling. When he bluffed the commies with strategic air defense (and unprecedented defense spending) I assumed it was true. The most intelligent people come here. And it's plausible that that type of technology would be possible. When the Soviets finally folded, it was because of Conservatives. Not Liberals. If you can't thank Reagan, at least you can thank conservatives.

Dave, I've never been edited for personal attacks. I'm proud of it. I've suffered personal attacks that have been edited, but it's never bothered me. (so I havn't really suffered). I think "psycho-ninnies" is harsh, however, I'm going to let it stand only as a reflection on me, and not as a reflection on the "reasonable right" such as yourself.

Jet, reread what Dave Nalle said about the astuteness of immigrants. And then reread it again.

He didn't have it as hard as my own dad did 90 years ago when the Germans invaded Russia-Poland, but he didn't go through any cakewalks when Gorbachev's perestroika and Reagan's spending bluffs brought about the end of the Soviet Union.

Yuri, just a thought for you - not a pleasant one, but not lecturing by any means. You dealt with a rough time in Russia and now that you are an American citizen, you might be inclined to think that the troubles are all over. That is a reasonable inclination.

Your new nation may be in for one hell of a time in the not too distant futre. So don't forget all those survival skills you learned in Russia. You may very well need them again.

Thankfully, there is a strict protocol for handling this event that required the president, any president, to sit for 7 minutes and look stupid

Sounds like something only a secretary of defense like Rumsfeld would concoct.

If the school building was under attack, would the President have had to sit there stupidly for 7 minutes as well while everybody got into their battle stations? What exactly is it that he waited 7 minutes for, for everybody to do, before he could act? Get in the car and leave? Because that's what he did.

however, I'm going to let it stand only as a reflection on me

Call someone an insulting name and then play the martyr for it. Bill O'Reilly would be proud.

Your new nation may be in for one hell of a time in the not too distant futre. So don't forget all those survival skills you learned in Russia. You may very well need them again.

care to elaborate? For two years, here in the comment section, I've been saying we're heading for either civil war (haves vs. have nots) or an economic collapse and get called chicken little for it. I'd love to hear you elaborate.

Steve:"Gays and lesbians face many undue hardships in this country, leading to a suicide rate among gay youth that is 5 times the national average."

You confuse persecution with mental instablility. I had a bi-sexual friend who commited suicide. It wasn't because of his sexual orientation. Or at least it wasn't because he was persecuted for his sexual orientation. He was just plainly depressed. He was well liked, yet unhappy. He was a good singer. He had lot's of things going for him, and nobody that mattered to him, including me, held his sexuality against him.

"You don't tell a rape victim that people who are murdered have it worse. "

What if the rape victim tells you that they've had it worse.


"We gay and lesbians are VERY aware of our birthright in this country, for it is that birthright that enables us to not hide in fear but tell (bigots like you) where to stick your opinion"

You've violated the personal attack comment policy, yet I'm not offended, (and don't expect you to be edited) Just remember I don't condemn you.

You've violated the personal attack comment policy,

well then that makes us even. You tell a gay man that a gay orientation is mental instability. Sounds like a far more insulting attack than just telling you where to stick it.

Steve, please be honest, you called me a bigot, not "where to stick it".

yet, I expect that from you. Name calling is all you've got.

I only say that gay orientation is positively correlated with mental instability. Of course you'll say that it's because of persecution. But then, that serves your purpose. It's a cause and effect thing.

and for the record, and to the editor...I never told anybody where to stick it, I just said in this country we have that freedom. I can't help it if someone's imagination runs rampant with comments like that.

However, telling a gay person that being gay is due to mental instability IS a personal attack without mistake and far more vitrolic than I've been accused of.

I only say that gay orientation is positively correlated with mental instability.

So you disagree with 100% of all medical establishments out there, like the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Pediatric Association, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

Being so close minded is the definition of a bigot, correct? Whatever. Remove the 'like yourself' phrase from the comment if you need, the point is still clearly there for all to see.

I had a bi-sexual friend who commited suicide.

and so you define an entire group of people by that?

Steve, I think Dan was out of line earlier, but describing homosexuality as a whole as a mental disorder isn't technically a personal attack, it's a blanket attack on all gays, so I suspect it's okay under the comment policy if not in any way that's actually meaningful.

Back to the irrelevant digression at hand. 7 minutes is no time at all. It's the time it takes to get the driver into the armored limo and pull it around to the front of the school. The whole argument over that 7 minute delay is ridiculous. In the context of all the things that were going on at the time it's so trivial that those who attempt to exploit it make themselves look like fools. The Secret Service told Bush what was happening and told him to wait until they were ready to go. He used that time to keep reading so as not to alarm the kids. End of story. You or I would do EXACTLY the same thing, because there was nothing else that could be done.

Dave

isn't technically a personal attack, it's a blanket attack

Dave, use the 'n' word to describe all African Americans, TO an African American and ask them if it's personal. Now how exactly is what Dan just said any different? It's not Dave.

Use the 'b' word, or the 'c' word to describe women, to a woman, and ask her if it's personal. Ask a Muslim, if a slam against their religion is personal. Ask a Jew.

I think this is what's problematic with a lot in this country and why so many people of all genders, races, religions, ethnicities, orientations and cultures are at odds. I think a lot of 'YOU GUYS' don't understand what a personal attack is. It doesn't always have to include a direct name.

Steve S. comment #65: "We gay and lesbians are VERY aware of our birthright in this country, for it is that birthright that enables us to not hide in fear but tell bigots like you where to stick your opinion."

If you wouldn't have added the "like you" you wouldn't be guilty of a personal attack. But seriously, I don't think calling people "bigot" is all that bad is it? Like I said, no harm, no foul.

Steve S comment #77: "However, telling a gay person that being gay is due to mental instability IS a personal attack without mistake and far more vitrolic than I've been accused of."

Actually it's more a personal opinion than a "personal attack" but it's not what I said anyway, so your being irrelevent.

I said that mental instability is *positively correlated* with gay orientation. This is simply true.

If it makes you feel any better, genius is also positively correlated with gay orientation. Not to say that all geniuses are gay.

Steve S.

You write,

"care to elaborate? For two years, here in the comment section, I've been saying we're heading for either civil war (haves vs. have nots) or an economic collapse and get called chicken little for it...."

I lean toward economic collapse topped with a massive flu epidemic. The economic collapse can be foreseen in one of Kathy Gil's articles about the overspent condition of the country and the fact that the US national debt is enough to wipe out every American (including broke ex-pats like me!).

Essentially it is premised on the "every bubble must burst eventually" concept. You guys have at least one bubble artificially inflating your economy, that being home prices, with two others being the huge credit overhang of the government, and the even huger credit overhang of consumers. Think of three huge beer bellies about to be popped by a needle.

In spite of recent news that the bird flu has not yet developed an "easy" route to human to human transmission, I have faith that "life will find a way."

A civil war between haves and have-nots could well follow an economic collapse, a natural consequence of the collapse.

Anybody minded to call me "chicken little" should remember that it's a rooster, not a chicken - as in Ruvy's Roost.

I said that mental instability is *positively correlated* with gay orientation. This is simply true.

link please.

Ruvy, anybody who has read me for awhile now can tell you that's something I've been saying here for several years. One of the things I wonder about, when I see people hoarding their wealth in this country, is what good it will do them when the economy collapses. Only the tangible assets they've been able to accumulate up to that point will be any good and then it becomes a matter of defending it and the more you've got to defend, the harder it's going to be. There's going to be a lot of hungry people out there. Survival of the fittest and all that. A lot of CEO fatcats won't survive that.

I do see a war between the haves and the havenots, from the blue collar workers who get screwed over by the CEO who makes 100 million, down to the illegal immigrants, but that belongs on another thread.

As for the bird flu, I've read it will take 8 months from initial outbreak until the damage is primarily over, (that was on discovery channel I think), so if you're not vaccinated, look to survive on your own and avoid human contact for a minimum of 8 months. Of course vaccinations will go to the rich who can afford it (but in a collapsing economy, I imagine you'll have to have something other than money to bargain with. Food perhaps). That's getting a little out there (in a chicken little sense), so I hope that the outbreak doesn't happen. I can only imagine that most other parts of the world would fair even worse given that many of them have even fewer resources.

And another thing we need to remember is that if the U.S. economy collapses, a lot of other economies around the world will follow suit. I also think that with the way Bush has been spending, bankrupting the economy has been the agenda of many neocons.

"My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." - Grover Norquist, President of the Heritage Foundation, a huge think tank that gives Bush many of his ideals.

Dave Nalle: "so I suspect it's okay under the comment policy if not in any way that's actually meaningful."

Of course it's OK Dave. Speaking truth is almost always meaningful. I'm not happy that gays suffer disproportionatly from mental illness. Nor have I said that gayness is a mental illness. (although I might logically hold that opinion) I only challenge Steve S's assertion that persecution drives gays to suicide.

Mentally ill people have a higher rate of suicide. Gays have a higher rate of mental illness. Thus, gays have a higher rate of suicide.

If persecution is the primary cause of suicide, why is it that white men are much more likely than black men or women of any color to commit suicide? Surely, from the liberal viewpoint, they are the most priviliged members of society.

Oh, and please continue with the personal attacks, or the willful ignorance of such. It's a wonderful demonstration of rank hypocricy to fair-minded Blog Critics readers.

Ladies and Gentlemen: Please confine your debate to the topic at hand and it's conversational spinoffs.

It's my unfortunate lot ;-) to be the one currently tasked with what is acceptable comment policy and as long as that's the case, I'd appreciate you all butt out of let me get on with my job.

When I first started doing it, I was inclined to delete far more than now, being unfamiliar with your mostly American ways and insistence upon freedom of speech and other such frivolities (JOKE!).

The Blogcritics' house is however a very tolerant one and people as diverse in their views as Mr Nalle and say, co-owner Phillip Winn have urged me to be as lighthanded and low profile as possible. That may well include not doing this, but I'm only human too!

I'm finding my own way through dealing with this but it seems clear that to totally erase all personal characterisation would be wrong. Similarly, tolerating too much of it is unhelpful to enjoyable debate.

The point is, until you all make my role redundant through your own exquisite good judgement, I'm probably going to offend all of you some of the time and possibly some of you all of the time. Sorry about that!

On the subject of Jet's post, I'd like to add that people who use the word liberal as an insult are not actually attacking liberalism, they are attacking tolerance. If you substitute the words, you can see how truly ugly these ideas are and how ludicrous they sound. "Commy-loving tolerant" et cetera.

It's a stunning victory for the politics of hate regardless of it's location on the political spectrum and all decent people ought to recognise that.

Okay Dan, I'll conceded that the whole nation was stricken about the death and destruction in New York and Washington DC except you. You know, that's very telling, that while thousands were dying and suffering, you were only pissed that your flight had been canceled.
I'd say bin Laden owes you an apology

You're living with a "life partner" without being married? How immoral!

I'm saying that Nixon and Ford had more to do with the eventual fall of the Soviet Union. I'm saying that Kennedy's speech had more to do with rallying east German resolve to oppose the Russian imposition of a divided Berlin. I'm saying the Kennedy, Nixon and Ford had more to do with the fall of the Soviet Union... Reagan just took credit for it.

I'm saying that those cameras could've, should've been utilized immediately to make a statement to the country. Instead, they might have broadcasted to the world be it live or on tape, that the president was taking action, not sitting like an ineffective pawn, reading a kid's book.

Dave Nalle, your theory of him just passing time while the limo pulled around to a door, doesn't hold water. If that were the case, Bush would've been whisked to or at least near that door, so he could board the vehicle the moment it arrived.
Truth be told, one of the most modern and effective military command and control posts in the world, capable of handling any emergency, is aboard AIR FORCE ONE. The fact that he wasn't moved there immediately, is telling. It meant that his generals and experts, were handling the situation, because they didn't trust Bush to do it. So, they left him to read a kid's book and offer useless prayers.

Yuri, your assertion that the limo wasn't a good idea because it wouldn't withstand a rocket attack is telling also. A rocket attack, now that requires planning, but if it was planned, shoulder fired rockets wouldn't have been used in the first place. Another airliner would've been hijacked to crash into the school, a rather large target and easily recognized. The limo would've been a little harder to spot.

I wrote about the bible and dinosaurs, and one of the responses I got, is as preposterous as some of the protestations I've heard so far out of Dan and Yuri. A reader couldn't come up with a reasonable explanation for it, so he asserted that God intentionally created dinosaur bones, and placed them where man could find them to test his faith, proving that dinosaurs never existed, thus they wouldn't have been mentioned in the bible.

My original statement stands.

You say plate
I say dish

As I look over the field of battle, and view all the bodies and blood, all I can do is feel sorrow at how useless it all was.

I didn't change anything
You didn't change anything
No minds or views were changed.

Ruvi, I respect your views, but don't share your apocolyptic view, except on one point. As the economic classes further divide and the middle class vanishes, creating a country of haves and have nots, there will be an uprising.

I'm praying it's at the voting booth and not on the field of battle. You see the widening cultural divide in this country is weakening this country. While we're busy fighting eachother, someone's going to get the idea to strike at us while we're distracted with our little "my dick's bigger than your dick" fight...

This country has accumulated one hell of a financial debt totalling into the billions in the space of only 6 years. Where is that money that all of us spent. It's sitting in the hands of companies that took "no bid" contracts, charging a fortune for items worth one tenth of what we paid for. It's in the pockets of the Oil Companies that Bush owes props to, because they knew that a crisis in the middle east would raise gas prices and generate obscene profits for them. It's in the pockets of "Sweet deal" thieves like the company that Chenney use to run... Haliburton.
All it's done is buy a still loose bin Laden, a defiant Saddam, laughing at us in a courtroom on television, it bought us thousands of dead soldiers, and an Iran on the verge of civil war.

... but you see that's only my sick minded, feeble minded, in dire need of a shrink before I commit suicide minded, and bigotted opinion.

Christopher #87. Very well put, I stand chastized. I'm glad to see calmer minds prevail, whether they agree with me or not

Thanks
Jet

By the way Chris #88 was written and rewritten while you posted your well-put comments, and was posted without knowledge of what you were writing, nor was it in response to it.
Jet

Jet,

You wrote,

"but you see that's only my sick minded, feeble minded, in dire need of a shrink before I commit suicide minded, and bigotted opinion."

Don't waste your money on a shrink - you don't need one. If you decide to commit suicide, just don't do it before I get there to watch - if I can't affored to make the trip, you'lll just have to wait.

Bigoted is spelled with one "g and one "t"."

Since you've appointed yourself my spell checker you'll be interested to know that it's spelled you'll, not you'lll. See we're all prone to making mistakes my friend

but you see that's only my speeling-challenged, sick minded, feeble minded, in dire need of a shrink before I commit suicide minded, and bigotted opinion.

I'm curious Ruvy, are you anxious for me to commit suicide, or just to watch?

Yuri, I'm curious, in my article Have I Become A Bigot Regarding Fundamentalists?, you wrote...

No matter who or what offends. Don't be a hater. Love is a masterful tool, not possessed by many.

After reading your comments here, my question is did you write that, or did someone using your name write it?

If persecution is the primary cause of suicide, why is it that white men are much more likely than black men or women of any color to commit suicide? Surely, from the liberal viewpoint, they are the most priviliged members of society.

Right wingers on this site have a very bad habit of throwing out claims and then when asked to substantiate them, just disappear. I hope I'm not the only one noticing this trend of numerous right wingers. Dan is still unable to substantiate a correlation between mental illness and orientation.

Suicide statistics: 73 percent of all suicide deaths are white males. If you look at the causes for suicide, Dan, it's pressure. The pressure on the white male is assumed to be greater. If you look at a datasheet showing the income levels of a white male and the income levels of a black woman across the nation, you can see they aren't even. The pressures of the white male to get into that world of privilege is much greater.

The pressure/condemnation that drives a gay person to suicide is the same. A gay teenager might be thrown out of the house, if he comes out of the closet, the pressure to hide is immense and so he will kill himself, even though to outsiders he seemed to live in a comfy world of privilege.

Note this from my link:
there are an estimated 8-25 attempted suicides for each suicide death; the ratio is higher in women and youth and lower in men and the elderly.
more women than men report a history of attempted suicide, with a gender ratio of 3:1.

So it can also be said that more women TRY suicide but more men are successful at it. Further blowing your unsubstantiated rationalization completely out of the water.

Jet,

You wrote, "I'm curious Ruvy, are you anxious for me to commit suicide, or just to watch?"

Look at it this way. If you have to wait to commit suicide until I get to America again, you'll die of natural causes.

Some words Arch Conservative missed in his expanded liberal dictionary.

Stereotype: Something used by the losing side of the argument to present a straw man they can more easily defeat.

Right-wing Dictionary: see Stereotype.

SteveS, as always, thanks for the research. He's going to ignore you, until he can find some slanted study that supports his point of view.

Be patient, it could be a long wait.

Ruvy #96 That's a relief, you had me worried there.

#97... I'm running out of space to write things in the margins there Mark. Thanks for your thoughts

Jet

Good post Jet. The issue, once again lost on people such as Arch and even David ISN'T a THEM v. US thing... It is the intolerance of the Right to ANY point of view OTHER than theirs.

I certainly wouldn't characterize myself as liberal - not by a long shot - but the Religious Right's attitude is revolting...

And should lead to revolting..

Alethinos

Alethinos, I've been looking forward to a comment from you. Thanks, and where've you been?

"Good post Jet" -- #101

Okay what did I miss? A veiled attempt at humor, or a conditional submission of less than thought provoking agenda? No need to reply, as the author will undoubtedly speak his mind, as always (yawn) and inevitably cross into territorial agenda yet once again. Baiting is always so obvious.

We need to change the caveat of "personal attacks are not allowed... " to "articles which insult the readers intelligence (or show a lack thereof on behalf of the wrtiers....." (I had better quit before I cross that imaginary line in the sand).

Has anyone observed that entrance into the realm of insult is a one way street? The writers can exercise free will, while the readers have to endure?

Joey, I raised this question on my other string. You seem like a nice enough guy, but why raise hell about, or even read an editorial on a subject that has no interest to you.

The fact that we all have different viewpoints in this world is a good thing. If we all thought alike it'd be a damned boring place to live.

Do a little contributing to the string with your thoughts (other than yawning), and you might learn something, and I might learn something from you!

Alethinos, in #101 you make the fundamental mistake of thinking that the right has a monopoly on being intolerant of any views other than their own. The same is just as true of the dogmatic left. It's not a characteristic of political ideology, it's a characteristic of being a dogmatic true believer regardless of what those beliefs are.

Dave

Thanks for clarifying that Dave. I've been saying all along that I get my views out so I can see other's views, whatever thay are. I like being proven wrong, because I learn from it.

I just don't like self-righteous jerks who profess "I'm right because I said so."

Give me a plausible reason for your views, not smart-ass remarks.

I write in the style I do and push the envelope a little, to cause people to think, even get a little riled up enough to put their thoughts down, so I can learn from them.

I'm not tryint to insult anyone, just get them to think, and maybe allow me to learn from them.

Jet

"Joey, I raised this question on my other string. You seem like a nice enough guy, but why raise hell about, or even read an editorial on a subject that has no interest to you."

Because I can. Maybe it's a habit developed from obtaining 2 degrees.... I read a lot things that I had no interest in... but had to.

Do I have to read this? No, but sometimes when I take a glance at something, the article and thread just cries out for me to smash and twist it so it issues the essence of the underlying vomitus muck from whence it spawned.

"to smash and twist it so it issues the essence of the underlying vomitus muck from whence it"

Well... thanks for clearing that up

I thought you would appreciate that one. It just sort of came out of my fingertips.

Actually I don't, but that's only my opinion

BTW refer to the FCC article... I actually took a break from my the Mao book I am engaged in (note that engaged is quite different from reading) and replied at length. I will admit that often my comments are somewhat in the drive by mode, but I mean well.

Yes it is only your opinion.

Okay I'll change my tag line to "That's merely my opinion." What polling company do you work for?

Funny you should ask. I keep reading about all these polls... how someone polled this or that and the respondents....

I have never been polled. Ever.

Hmmmm. Maybe it's my look. I need a make over.

Aside from making Polish jokes, do you have anything to contribute to the subject of this string, or is this going to degenerate into a pissing contest, that frankly I don't have time for?

Joey #114 "I have never been polled. Ever." Don't knock until you've tried it! since we're trading sarcasms

Can we somehow get back to the subject?

Jet, this "subject" is one that needs renewing every few news cycles. Each new buzzword introduced by each new spinmaster makes your work above - and those on the other side - oudated. So you may wish to consider this as a series. You lucky boy, you.

If you are able to separate yourself from your beliefs (tricky, but can be done) you can cover both sides of the fence every 6 weeks or so with a brand new bunch of bullshit from the American political spin scene. And given that busllshit is Ameerica's most abundant resource, you should have plenty to write.

From the former publisher of BSI Inc. (Bullshit International)

Hmmmmmmmmmm thanks for the suggestion...

actually, I think Ruvy has a good idea.

And if what we've seen of the other commenter's 'smashing and twisting' is the best it gets, then you have nothing to worry about, Jet.

Stay tuned for the sequel folks!

You know, while I'm at it, I'm thinking of doing one about words that you stare at, know they're spelled right, but just can't convince yourself that they are...

like sequel

Just give the Devil's Dictionary his due, because that's really the bit you're stealing.

Dave Nalle, help me out on this one. Matt I write from the heart, and I didn't even know that text existed, or I would've plagarized it better. As you can read early on in this, I had no idea who the man was.

I am not a thief
and I do not steal,

I resent the implication

I'm interested that you had to go all the way back to the early 1900s to find something resembling my writings. I suppose if I did enough research, I could google texts that would vaguely show plagarisms for everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Ted Kennedy.

If you're out and out, plain as day accusation of my stealing is true, you don't know me very well.

(In creepy possessed child voice) "Dave's not here."

Relax. Good artists copy, great artists steal.

By not attributing that great quote I stole it and looked smart. The circle is complete.

I will assert, good or great I didn't steal anything and I resent the insinuation that I did.

or am I just taking this whole thing all wrong?

"It is the intolerance of the Right to ANY point of view OTHER than theirs."

I might actually laugh at that comment, if it wasn't so old and tired. The Left is no different, as this article and the ensuing comments so perfectly demonstrate. The Left is just as full of hate, venom and self-righteousness as the Right has ever been.

In fact, this article (and many of the comments) highlights the very reason that many of us who stand somewhere in the middle (having willfully distanced myself from the Right) have not, and likely will not ever, be swayed by the Left. We look one way and see intolerance, arrogance and hate, then look the other and are greeted by the same.

Tired hyperbole and rehashed rhetoric do nothing to convince those astute enough to see past it, no matter which side the tripe issues forth from.

Relax, Jet. I do a lot of quoting, too, but can't always remember the attribution; I just figure someone who's got a wide spread of info, like Gonzo or Dave or Eric will eventually either correct it or identify it for me. Point is, you've got to WORK at plagarism, and I don't think anyone here thinks you have; Matt is just tweaking you, it seems to me. If he wanted to slam you, you'd know it. He pulls no punches when he thinks someone's a dork.

"It is the intolerance of the Right to ANY point of view OTHER than theirs."

I might actually laugh at that comment, if it wasn't so old and tired.

Yeah... the left wants to FORCE people to have sex with members of the same sex. FORCE people to use birth control. FORCE people to abandon religion, FORCE people to consume media they find offensive...

Oh wait... that's not true at all.

The right on the other hand wants to FORCE people to conform to their vision of sexual and religious morality.

If you believe that the left is "intolerant" of the right (and you understand the difference between "is intolerant of" and "disagrees with") please feel free to actually give a warrant supporting your position.

Beyond that, who'da'thunk that '7 minutes' thing would be so sensitive with a certain crowd?! Wow. Talk about pressing buttons, to where they go all the way back to Teddy The Chappaquiddick Menace. Actually 7 minutes is more than enough time to do the old "I should'a said..." routine. 24 hours is 'way too long. And not many of us are as quick on our, uh, feet as ol' Bill.

Progged #126 Finally someone made my point for me. This nation has become so totally divided that we stand on opposite sides of the room pointing blaming fingers and calling eachother childish names.

Bring back the era when the left and right came together as one nation after an election, instead of the loser trying to bring down the winner before he's even sworn in!

bravo

Alright Nancy, how many times do I have to ask you to send me some more teflon spray?

None

You just did.

Thanks
Jet

TA Dodger 128, should the occasion arise when I need it, may I quote you?

Bring back the era when the left and right came together as one nation after an election, instead of the loser trying to bring down the winner before he's even sworn in!

Hmmm... Bipartisanship and cooperation are nice and all, but I just don't know if it's possible with the "social" right. I don't want to run their presonal lives. They do want to run mine. How is compromise possible? Why on earth would it be desireable?

Nancy 129 It pushes buttons because they can't admit that they're as embarrassed about as we as a nation have been for almost five years now.

Thanks

re: 132 Sure

"He pulls no punches when he thinks someone's a dork."

Nobody's harder on me than myself. But this is more or less accurate.

TA, you make friends with someone by learning their strengths and appreciating them, not by constantly critisizing everything you disagree with.

That's why I take the time to answer all commenters. You make a valid point, my friend, but "they" are so far against the right wall of the gymnasium and so far away, they can't hear any of our attempts, or maybe they're just self-righteously ignoring us, since they're in a position of power and don't need to listen to us.

I always wonder what's wrong with people who refuse to or can't admit they were wrong. Which means I spend a lot of time wondering about the "I'm never wrong" mentality of W & his cronies like Rummy & Hairtrigger Dick. There's a difference between loyalty to buddies, and rigidity to the point of an insane level of hubris, which W passed long ago. Problem is, he (W) can't understand that while it takes a big man to be right, it takes a bigger, more mature & intelligent one to admit he was wrong & make changes while he still can, a level it seems unlikely W will ever attain.

Thanks Nancy, as is evident all over every article I post, I'm constantly admitting I'm wrong, maybe that's why not many people take me seriously...

I used to think it was a male thing; you know: like why they will never stop to ask for directions?

Nancy, the trick to not asking for directions is having a magnet in your head, like I do. I never ask for directios - until I'm so totally lost that I ask for directions. But when I do, I make sure my wife is there, so that she can see I did.

Ain't that a grand thing to do? Makes me just a loveable ol' bear, right?

Of course, it is really fun to ask directions in Hebrew. Then, the trick is understnding the answer...

No offense Nancy-please prepare yourself I am labeling this a joke so those less fortunate know I'm making a ha ha.

to quote Rita Moreno. "Women never get lost, they just change their minds where they want to go!"

So Jet wants increased participation, just not people who disagree with him. I sense a few definitions of my own coming on:

Open Forum - a place for everyone but bigots. An open forum allows all voices to express themselves.

Bigot - a person who doesn't agree with a liberal.

And how about this definition, which is a staple of the Democratic Party:

International Community - Bush-bashers of every nation. The international community doesn't include those people or nations who have actually suffered under totalitarianism. Such survivors have a lot to learn. Someone who's seen the tanks descend on Prague in 1968 cannot understand what true brutality is. They've never experienced a government that taps phone calls from terrorist camps.

Baronius, go back and count how many people I've thanked on just this string alone, for opposing viewpoints, and then resubmit you comment.

If there's been any narrowminded bullshit out of anyone's mouth it's been yours

You think you can do better... let's see it.

Jet has admitted he's wrong on numerous occasions, he's thanked people on the left and the right for contributing, he said he loves opposing viewpoints because he loves to learn.

Conservative - A person who sees what they want to see and can see nothing more.

You know SteveS several people including Ruvy, whom I respect, has suggested I write a sequel to this, I may just to piss him off.

I assume you mean piss Barionus off. If you write it for that reason, you will fail.

If you write it to show people the dangers of relabeling and show brilliant examples, and explain consequences THEN you will piss him off.

Thanks for the advice Steve, I'll keep that in mind.

"Bring back the era when the left and right came together as one nation after an election, instead of the loser trying to bring down the winner before he's even sworn in!"

Forgive me if I can't believe you have any interest in that at all when your entire article is simply one long example of:

"calling each other childish names."

Ahem... Progged #149 makes a very valid point.

I tried... but was buried alive by the very statement I made in #103

"Has anyone observed that entrance into the realm of insult is a one way street? The writers can exercise free will, while the readers have to endure?"

It's your article Jet. You take a sarcastic article and pawn it off as a serious literary achievment. Then lambast anyone who questions the intent, or perhaps doesn't see your point.

So I'm enduring. I don't happen to agree, but that's not okay in your world. You've let several contrasting viewpoints know this in no uncertain terms.

I'm done... this thread is starting to resemble the top 100 guitarists of Rock and Roll.... it's getting lengthy.

BTW... would someone invoke Godwin's law and be done with it.