's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Question for the board's Anti-American creeps(47 posts)

Question for the board's Anti-American creepsOldEdScott
May 16, 2003 9:24 AM
Do you take grave offence at being told your politics is 'Anti-American' and 'an insidious cancer consuming this country'?

Or do you think it's funny?

I would answer, but I've just recently learned that my long service to this country has not earned me any particular immunity from criticism for being such a cancer. More's the pity, but there you are ...
Question for the board's Conservative Authoritarian NazisDougSloan
May 16, 2003 9:28 AM
Do you take offense at being told your politics is authoritarian and equivalent of Nazi Germany's Thousand Year Reich? Do you think that you are just short of murdering millions of people? If you are conservative, you must then be a murderer, right?

Or, do you think it's funny?
Good show! I like it! nmOldEdScott
May 16, 2003 9:31 AM
May 16, 2003 9:42 AM
I really hope no one is taking this too seriously.

May 16, 2003 9:48 AM
Oh well. Things needed livening up. I miss the war.

That's a JOKE.
If you are feeling nostalgic....Alpedhuez55
May 16, 2003 10:13 AM
Well there may not be a war, but the Front Page of the Boston Herald is all about a President having Sex with an intern. It is like Deja vu all over again to quote my favorite Yogi ;-)

You can pretend it is 1999 again ;)

Mike Y.
If you are feeling nostalgic....Live Steam
May 16, 2003 10:35 AM
The King has new clothes or does he? It was always known that Kennedy had all types of extramarital affairs, but no one could speak of them. The monarchy would tremble and shake should anyone have the audacity to publicly acknowledge them. Who do you think Clinton wanted to model himself after right down to his indiscretions? :0)
I AM!!!!!bnlkid
May 16, 2003 9:49 AM
LOL. While I know much of this is meant to be light hearted, the discussion below shows why it's important to have disagreements. If everyone was of the far-right thinking, we would take over the world, becoming really rich and get bored after we're done. If everyone was on the far-left, we would give all our money away, be freinds with everyone(but like noone), and run out of causes to fight for.
Question for the board's Conservative Authoritarian NazisAlpedhuez55
May 16, 2003 9:53 AM
I don't have a good sense of humor, I guess that means I can say Old Ed sounds stupid ;-)

Mike Y.
Hell, you thought that before the R!ich comment! nmOldEdScott
May 16, 2003 10:00 AM
You should know by know you can't argue with conservatives.bnlkid
May 16, 2003 9:33 AM
They don't play fair. Just witness what's happening in Texas. The Republicans are pulling out all tricks they can to get their way. Including invoking homeland security to track down the terroristic Democrats.

I think it's funny to be called Anti-American. Not in a humorous way, but more of an ironic way. I thought America was built on individual freedoms, including being able to think for yourself. People don't realize that it has been social refroms headed by Democrats(or liberals if you prefer) that have given rights to minorities, woman being allowed to vote, etc.......I'm starting to get frustrated so I will stop....
You should know by know you can't argue with conservatives.rufus
May 16, 2003 9:39 AM
People don't realize that it has been social refroms headed by Democrats(or liberals if you prefer) that have given rights to minorities, woman being allowed to vote, etc.......I'm starting to get frustrated so I will stop....

yep, all the bad things. ;)
In the most literal sense,sn69
May 16, 2003 9:52 AM
the very concept of rebellion against the crown was liberal by the cultural standards of colonial times. Furthermore, the majority of colonists were not openly supportive of the revolution, not from the start and not at the end.

You're right. The concepts fronted by a few insightful people have long heralded great social change within our country, and as Republican, I think it's unfortunate that the term "liberal" has been used with spiteful negativity by so many other Republicans. I don't/won't use it in that context.

I think that speaks volumes towards the ends that some people, right or left, will go to in order to gain and maintain power within our political system.

To that end--as both a Republican and a so-called defender of the Consitution--I find it abhorrent that anyone would label those with different opinions as anti-American. Being anti-war does not define one as being anti-American. Being anti-Bush or anti-Wolfie does not define one as being anti-American. (Likewise, being a Republican does not define one as being a card carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan or as being sexist or any of the other characterizations that left extremists like Shroeder loved to throw around.) I think it was disgraceful how that term was used by forces within the executive branch during this period, and I think it disgraced the freedoms, liberties and ideals for which our military served/serves.

America is for all Americans, not just for those who hold power at any given time. We would all do well to remember that.
Here, Here!!!Jon Billheimer
May 16, 2003 10:07 AM
As usual, Scott, you represent the voice of reason and common sense. And your views are in the best sense of the word quintessentially American.
Gosh, Jon...that really is nice.sn69
May 16, 2003 10:12 AM
I mean that; thanks.

Ironically, as I wrote that the results from the latest O-5 (Commander) selection board came out. I wasn't up for promotion this time around, but I scanned the list eagerly looking for some friends. What I saw was horrifying: perhaps the most incompetent officer/pilot I've ever encountered.

Thus, I am now in a thoroughly foul mood and I can't even look at that photo that Spirito posted yesterday to cheer myself up.

Your compliment was very meaningful, though. Thanks. As Ed would say, Ahm drinkin' on the stoop tonight...heavily.
Gosh, Jon...that really is nice.Jon Billheimer
May 16, 2003 10:46 AM
Termites, no coffee, and now this. Life really is hard, then you die:)- There WILL be better times.
As a panty-waste lefty creep, I can only ask why...Dale Brigham
May 16, 2003 11:20 AM
...why, sn69, are you calling S(c)hroeder a "left extremist." How can you in good conscience accuse that lovable Peanuts character, he of security blanket and toy piano with Beethoven bust, of being, well, of being like me?

Sadly, it seems that even cartoon characters cannot now escape the grinding jack-booted heel of oppression.

Dale ("This one goes to 8")

P.S. What's a "silly seppo?" Is it a good thing?
JACK boots? Oh my God ... nmOldEdScott
May 16, 2003 11:25 AM
Sing with me Ed: "These jack boots were made for walkin'..."sn69
May 16, 2003 11:35 AM
Now THAT made me laugh.sn69
May 16, 2003 11:34 AM
And to think, he has always been my second favorite Peanuts character, right behind the WW1 Flying Ace.

Pat, oh Pat, how do I hate thee even a decande since you left office, you lazy-eyed, social engineering freak?.... Rarely to I harbour such resentment towards a politician, but she still raises my dander when I think about the witch-hunt that she led. From hell's heart I spit my last breath at thee...but only in a sexually ambiguous, non-confrontational, self-aware and emotionally sensitive way.

Seppo? For some reason, I thought I remembered you using Lymie ideosynchratic language once or twice. Thus, it came to mind...'sides, I was drinking Bigfoot and sporting a buz.

it's funny...mohair_chair
May 16, 2003 9:45 AM
It's only funny in the ironic sense. If I question the actions of the American government, I must be anti-American. It's funny that knee-jerk flag waving yahoos out there insist on conformity and dogma (their own) while expounding the freedom that this great country grants to everyone. Now that's funny.

It reminds me of a great line from the TV show M*A*S*H, where Frank Burns says "Unless we all conform, unless we follow our leaders blindly, there is no possible way we can remain free." Well said.
You all...Jon Billheimer
May 16, 2003 9:59 AM
have hit on what to me is the central irony of American life: freedom vs. intolerance. America is perhaps the greatest advocate of individual freedom in the world, yet in certain circumstances Americans can exhibit unbelievable levels of intolerance and insistence on political and social conformity. The patriotism issue, when Americans perceive an external threat, is front and centre here. And American politicians, particularly since WWII, have increasingly played on the external threat "mechanism" to wind up support for their power schemes and dreams of world dominance.

P.S. Did I do good, Old Ed Scott and Cory??:)-
May 16, 2003 10:03 AM
you didn't use the word N!zi once, so I have to admit I'm a little disappointed,
What's up with your exclamation points?Captain Morgan
May 16, 2003 10:27 AM
Is your keyboard messed up or are those typos??
he's acting like he'd otherwise be censoredDougSloan
May 16, 2003 10:29 AM
Like writing b!tch. He's facetiously implying that what he's saying are dirty words, or would otherwise be taken that way. Very clever. :-)

You can see why my campaigns areOldEdScott
May 16, 2003 10:36 AM
so successful. High wit. I can even get l!berals elected!
You must have taken 2000 and 2002 off! (nm)Captain Morgan
May 16, 2003 10:39 AM
They're coming for you OEd. Best circle the wagons...nm128
May 16, 2003 10:43 AM
I f!rt in their general direction. 'Tis but a trifle.OldEdScott
May 16, 2003 10:56 AM
I've tangled with the Mitch McConnell machine here in Kentucky. Them old boys knows how to play ROUGH.
unrelated question for EdDougSloan
May 16, 2003 10:56 AM
Ed, have you ever considered providing consulting for jury selection? You must have somewhat of a line on what people tend to think, right? I might be able to use something like that. Seriously.

That's something that always interested me, but I'veOldEdScott
May 16, 2003 11:00 AM
don't know much about it never done it. I've tried to imagine what you'd do. You sit there during voir dire and profile 'em?
more of it is ahead of timeDougSloan
May 16, 2003 11:39 AM
Well before trial, you try to determine what sort of people would be likely to be for or against your client's position. You develop a profile of good and bad characteristics. For example, generally, union teachers are very pro-plaintiff. During jury selection, you fine tune your profile and fit what they potential jurors are saying to the profile. Say you are a plaintiff on a personal injury case, and one member of the panel states that he thinks FDR was the greatest president ever. Good or bad? That sort of thing.

May 16, 2003 11:41 AM
Also, they are used to conform your "position" to what will sell to your potential jury pool, "spinning." Like Dr. Phil in the Oprah beef case.

I had a friend who did jury selection...Matno
May 16, 2003 11:56 AM
for a firearms violation trial. They asked the potential jurors just one question on initial screening: Who is Charleton Heston? Those who knew him as "Moses" were selected, while those who knew him as the NRA president were not. Kind of funny.

Seems to me like profiling would be pretty easy. I'm quick to pass judgment and classify people into stereotypes. You might even say that I'm an intolerant N@zi...

;^) This was a non-serious thread, right?!
he's acting like he'd otherwise be censoredLive Steam
May 16, 2003 10:38 AM
Maybe he's trying to prevent his "indiscretions" from turning up in some right wing witch hunt search of the Net ;0)
I take offense... and as a panty waste, I think it's funny...PdxMark
May 16, 2003 10:42 AM
I find some humor in the unAmerican sentiments of self-appointed patriots toward political dissent. The same folks who assert the right to bear arms in case they decide they need to shoot some future US soldier or employee would just as soon deport someone else who expresses disagreement with their man in the Big House.

I was invited to move to Iraq and accused of loving Saddam and France over the US simply because I (correctly) implied that W. was lying about the reasons and rationale for the war. Wow - Just think what would have been said if I was wrong!? I do cherish though being dubbed a panty waste. Too bad no-one outside this Board would have any idea what that was all about.
I take offense... and as a panty waste, I think it's funny...Jon Billheimer
May 16, 2003 10:56 AM
Hey PW-Pdx,

Perhaps no one but us Panty Waste liberals have noted that all the Iraqi scientists being interrogated are consistently telling the Americans that Iraq discontinued its WMD programs years ago and that there really aren't any. Never mind the fact that nobody can find any, either. Also, reportedly all the Bubbas who've supported Bush's Big-Lie-War now don't think it matters that he lied because this was a good war to have anyway. It got rid of a bad man and gave The New Rome another "W" in the win column. Besides which it gave the generals a chance to try out their new toys and sure taught those #&* A-rabs a lesson they'll never forget!
It just goes to show...PdxMark
May 16, 2003 11:59 AM
Lying was not the reason they hated Clinton. It was his being President that they hated. So much for supporting the President in a time of conflict.

So riddle me this... How do we know before the dust has settled that an organizaton we can't find committed the Saudi bombing on verbal orders from a guy who has disappeared?
Jack boot replysn69
May 16, 2003 12:03 PM
Although it hurt my feelings that OldEd went off to drink and didn't sing with me.

I won't/can't debate stuff about the President. Rules is rules even if you want to call that a cop-out.

Still, WRT WMDs, don't believe everything you're hearing. (For that matter, you don't have to believe me either.) Still, there's a puzzling piece to this that has those of us in uniform scratching their heads, particularly about disclosure and press releases being scrutinized and worked-over by DOS and the executive branch.

As for those scientists, of course, they're denying everything. If they say yes, then they are subject to prosecution persuant to UN mandates.

Finally, um, I think it a bit off to suggest that the "generals" wanted to try their new toys. You know us military types...the ones who actually have to go over and do the fighting.... Why would we do something knowing that it was going to break our backs financially and in terms of resource allocation over the next FYDP cycle? You should see the resultant panic inside the beltway regarding funding for things as simple as food for our deployed troops, much less recapitalization for all of those "toys." If the voting public ever had the wherewithall and the No-doze to plow through the resource allocation process, they'd be shocked to learn how the Unified Commanders (generals and admirals formerly known as Theater CINCs) worry about things like food, fuel and supplies when contingency ops are mandated but not funded.
the "toys" referenceDougSloan
May 16, 2003 12:51 PM
What these people imply when using these "toys" references is that military types are insane, cold-hearted, saddistic, war-mongers who enjoy unleashing destruction on enemies to get their jollies -- that their reason for being is pure destruction and killing, and if they can't get out and exercise the legs a little bit once in a while, they'll implode.

Some people obviously have no respect for the military, nor any understanding for how deeply concerned our people are about doing their job with minimal loss of life on both sides, humanitarianly, and with compassion, actually. Sure, on the front lines it's kill or be killed, but that's a far cry from characterizing military brass as nutty or evil.

To be clear... I was referring to the CiC...PdxMark
May 16, 2003 2:15 PM
And his level of candor. From what I can see here, everyone in uniform (for more than a single joy ride) did the job they were commanded to do with professionalism and compassion.
I was referring to Jon's comment, actuallyDougSloan
May 16, 2003 2:32 PM
But then I'm linking his comment to many similar ones, too.

I was referring to Jon's comment, actuallyJon Billheimer
May 16, 2003 5:06 PM
I certainly do think that there are military types--generals or otherwise--who like to try out their hardware and who view war as a competitive game. Not all or probably most, but I think those types exist, and I think there are hawkish politicians who share the same mentality. I of course don't know how many or which ones. But look at history and some of the well-known military personalities such as Patton, Rommel, et al. These people were not compassionate Gandhi-types.

I don't think run-of-the-mill career types like Scott are like that at all. Nor do most enlisted soldiers probably really think or hope that they'll get actively involved in killing other people. I do recall though from my own basic training 40 years ago that there were some real psychopathic types hanging around training units in the army. To suggest that these types also don't exist in the command structure is simply naive in my opinion.
"characterizing military brass as nutty or evil"filtersweep
May 19, 2003 11:18 AM
"characterizing military brass as nutty or evil"

I trust you've never spent a second in the military?

The "nuttiness" is so institutionalized that it is barely noticed...
Nutty without a doubt,sn69
May 19, 2003 12:09 PM
although a large part of it is actually forced upon us by the legislative oversight system that is, in and of itself, an entire order of magnitude more nutty. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the nuttiosity quotient up in their rarified air is off the scale.

Still, somehow we lowly drones in uniform manage to get by and to work with alarming efficiency in most facets of our tasks. Given the limitations imposed on us and the lack of a profit based focus with which to drive the organization, our results can be astounding at times.

Of course the rest of the time we're mostly retarded. So we've got that going for us....
There are ironies everywhere...Matno
May 16, 2003 12:00 PM
Like why is it that the same people who oppose capital punishment usually support abortion? (Not counting the Catholics who oppose both). Kind of a "free the guilty and kill the innocent" approach if you ask me.

Not that I disagree with you on Bush's "logic" behind the war. I don't think we've had an honest "reason" for war since WWI. Not ONE. That's not to say that good things haven't been accomplished, but it would be nice to have leaders who tell it like it is.
I look to the source.Charlie Amerique
May 20, 2003 8:47 AM
In the case of people who don't actually know me, I ignore their comments as the yhave no idea about how "anti-american" or "pro-american" I really am.

People who actually know me, and whom I respect, I respect their opinions.