Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
So the author cries about his freedom of speech while condeming the actions of a man who drove by and protested them protesting.
As for the rest, does anyone really think that Bushco isn't a bunch of criminals that have led this nation into a horrific war for nothing more than profit?
And does anyone really think the Dems are ever going to actually do something about it? Not just talk and posture but actually DO something?
And finally does anyone really think that 30 or so people chanting peace slogans are going to accomplish anything more than wasting their afternoon?
__________________ "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy".
Amazing that some can't resist even with a warning disclaimer. Whatever.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to post anything that can be discussed on point.
What is there to discuss? What's the point of the article? It's half pejorative, half euphemism. The author should have saved space, and simply wrote "Those who don't support W are smarter than those who do. And W's a fascist." It's more of the sophomoric ranting that the anti-W crowd has been spouting for the past six years.
What is there to discuss? What's the point of the article? It's half pejorative, half euphemism. The author should have saved space, and simply wrote "Those who don't support W are smarter than those who do. And W's a fascist." It's more of the sophomoric ranting that the anti-W crowd has been spouting for the past six years.
I agree with you about the article, it is almost worthless as anything but just a rant.
Maybe you could offer your reasons of support for GWB, what he's done that makes him worthy of support.
__________________
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
I agree with you about the article, it is almost worthless as anything but just a rant.
Maybe you could offer your reasons of support for GWB, what he's done that makes him worthy of support.
I wouldn't be among those who say they approve of the job he's doing, although I do like many of his policies. On tax and broader economic policy, he's been great. On corporate regulation, great. On security policy (Iraq war excepted), great. On judges, great.
On the border issue, he sucks. On his bigotted anti-gay marriage stance, he sucks. On his inability to ease our reliance on foreign energy supply (whether by domestic production or alternative fuels), he sucks. On his propensity to hire as administration officials either his unqualified friends, or the unqualified valedictorian of Jesus University, he sucks.
I used to be an ardent supporter of the Iraq war, but I've recently changed my tune. I excused the WMD hype as political gamesmanship, primarily because I knew that was never the real reason--all it took was reading any PNAC tract from the 1990's. And I'm realizing that the PNAC crowd had no clue how difficult things would be, and the mess we'd be in if we enacted their policy recommendations. I think the mess we're in was unavoidable if we invaded--those now arguing the policy was right but the war was mismanaged are covering their asses for being wrong on the policy. Clearly, something needed to be done with Iraq--the status quo wasn't working--but a wholescale invasion seems not to have been the right thing to do, in retrospect. I'm certainly not entirely intractable--as circumstances change, I'm willing to reconsider my position, and I have in this case.
We conservatives used to think W bungled the details, but got the big decisions right. It's becoming more and more clear that on Iraq, W got the biggest decision of his presidency wrong.
That said, I certainly don't buy into the hype that W wanted to fill Haliburton's coffers, or that he's a warmonger, etc... I think the PNACers thought their policy best equipped to stabilize the region economically and politically. In the end, it seems they got it wrong.
An interesting debate might be what should have been done--assassinate Saddam one way or another, and let the ensuing ****-storm play out? Ignore Saddam entirely, and concentrate our political and military capital where there are gains to be made, both in terms of fomenting liberalism where it does not exist and eradicating terrorism where it's possible (Lebanon? Kurdish Iraq?) I just don't know the answers.
I wouldn't be among those who say they approve of the job he's doing, although I do like many of his policies. On tax and broader economic policy, he's been great. On corporate regulation, great. On security policy (Iraq war excepted), great. On judges, great.
On the border issue, he sucks. On his bigotted anti-gay marriage stance, he sucks. On his inability to ease our reliance on foreign energy supply (whether by domestic production or alternative fuels), he sucks. On his propensity to hire as administration officials either his unqualified friends, or the unqualified valedictorian of Jesus University, he sucks.
I used to be an ardent supporter of the Iraq war, but I've recently changed my tune. I excused the WMD hype as political gamesmanship, primarily because I knew that was never the real reason--all it took was reading any PNAC tract from the 1990's. And I'm realizing that the PNAC crowd had no clue how difficult things would be, and the mess we'd be in if we enacted their policy recommendations. I think the mess we're in was unavoidable if we invaded--those now arguing the policy was right but the war was mismanaged are covering their asses for being wrong on the policy. Clearly, something needed to be done with Iraq--the status quo wasn't working--but a wholescale invasion seems not to have been the right thing to do, in retrospect. I'm certainly not entirely intractable--as circumstances change, I'm willing to reconsider my position, and I have in this case.
We conservatives used to think W bungled the details, but got the big decisions right. It's becoming more and more clear that on Iraq, W got the biggest decision of his presidency wrong.
That said, I certainly don't buy into the hype that W wanted to fill Haliburton's coffers, or that he's a warmonger, etc... I think the PNACers thought their policy best equipped to stabilize the region economically and politically. In the end, it seems they got it wrong.
An interesting debate might be what should have been done--assassinate Saddam one way or another, and let the ensuing ****-storm play out? Ignore Saddam entirely, and concentrate our political and military capital where there are gains to be made, both in terms of fomenting liberalism where it does not exist and eradicating terrorism where it's possible (Lebanon? Kurdish Iraq?) I just don't know the answers.
Keep to the point of the original article, which is what wally requested!
The point being.....you suck! And the author hates you and thinks you're stupid!
__________________
We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.
I wouldn't be among those who say they approve of the job he's doing, although I do like many of his policies. On tax and broader economic policy, he's been great. On corporate regulation, great. On security policy (Iraq war excepted), great. On judges, great.
On the border issue, he sucks. On his bigotted anti-gay marriage stance, he sucks. On his inability to ease our reliance on foreign energy supply (whether by domestic production or alternative fuels), he sucks. On his propensity to hire as administration officials either his unqualified friends, or the unqualified valedictorian of Jesus University, he sucks.
I used to be an ardent supporter of the Iraq war, but I've recently changed my tune. I excused the WMD hype as political gamesmanship, primarily because I knew that was never the real reason--all it took was reading any PNAC tract from the 1990's. And I'm realizing that the PNAC crowd had no clue how difficult things would be, and the mess we'd be in if we enacted their policy recommendations. I think the mess we're in was unavoidable if we invaded--those now arguing the policy was right but the war was mismanaged are covering their asses for being wrong on the policy. Clearly, something needed to be done with Iraq--the status quo wasn't working--but a wholescale invasion seems not to have been the right thing to do, in retrospect. I'm certainly not entirely intractable--as circumstances change, I'm willing to reconsider my position, and I have in this case.
We conservatives used to think W bungled the details, but got the big decisions right. It's becoming more and more clear that on Iraq, W got the biggest decision of his presidency wrong.
That said, I certainly don't buy into the hype that W wanted to fill Haliburton's coffers, or that he's a warmonger, etc... I think the PNACers thought their policy best equipped to stabilize the region economically and politically. In the end, it seems they got it wrong.
An interesting debate might be what should have been done--assassinate Saddam one way or another, and let the ensuing ****-storm play out? Ignore Saddam entirely, and concentrate our political and military capital where there are gains to be made, both in terms of fomenting liberalism where it does not exist and eradicating terrorism where it's possible (Lebanon? Kurdish Iraq?) I just don't know the answers.
Well certainly reasonable even if I don't agree with everything.
I don't have time to list what I disagree with but it's not all that important anyway.
The point is the article would never elicit anything close to that kind of a dialogue which was my point.
People disagree, it doesn't make them stupid or monsters and articles like the one above are parroting the behavior they disdain IMO.
Conservatives and GWB are not wrong on everything IMO, getting the other side to help with the major issues that are wrong requires that you don't paint their entire belief set as crazy and evil.
Both sides are guilty of this and we all need to tone it down and relate, not that we'll ever agree on everything but we need to work together to avoid things like Iraq in the future, we need to all realize when one side or the other is going too far and slow down.
__________________
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
Amazing that some can't resist even with a warning disclaimer. Whatever.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to post anything that can be discussed on point.
Well the article is an attack, a full frontal assault.
Posting a sign that says I'm about to kick your @$$ dosen't make the other guy happy about the kicking.
I agree with a lot of it, I think our society is horribly off kilter and it's whipsawing back and forth between uber conservative and uber liberal.
I could see the next phase as a liberal going to town spending oodles of money we don't have and making mistakes like I think FDR did that cost a host of generations to come.
There are plenty of evildoers in every administration, this one has the distinction of having fired tests shots that went more pleasingly in their favor than they imagined and they ran real far real fast aggregating power IMO.
The Dems don't seem to be bent on stopping that aggregation, simply taking over which is more human folly piled on previous ones IMO.
The part in red is the part the article fails to leave in, there are two sides, it's dangerous to overcorrect too much when driving and it defines being out of control, the danger we face is larger and larger corrective cycles that will turn into a full out civil war if we aren't careful.
__________________
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
Cosmic Defender Champion!
Linear Mode
