Fallback Options

"AstroPax" wrote in message
...

Certainly, there are times for dissent. However, IMO, undermining our
current war effort (Cindy Sheehan, Jane Fonda, for example) is
un-American.

I can't think of anything more American than the right to criticize the
goveernment, no matter what the issue.

Richard Henry wrote:

"AstroPax" wrote in message
...

Certainly, there are times for dissent. However, IMO, undermining our
current war effort (Cindy Sheehan, Jane Fonda, for example) is
un-American.

I can't think of anything more American than the right to criticize the
goveernment, no matter what the issue.

And currently we have the right to dissent, 7 miles from President
Bush's ranch. We wouldn't want to disturb his Thanksgiving dinner.

-klaus

AstroPax wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:21:39 +0000 (UTC), klaus
wrote:


Nazi was short for National Socialist.

Was? I thought it still is.

Dunno. Don't know many Nazis.

But you didn't say what made me
unamerican.

That's because I *never* said you are "un-American". Stop spinning my
statements.

You said, "so what else is new? Came across that way. So clarify. What
was the point. Not that I expect an answer. You never answer the hard
ones.


Furthermore, Thanksgiving is *not* consumer driven,
dumbass.

Really? What's the biggest retail day of the year? The friday we get
off after gorging ourselves? Not consumer driven?

The Friday after Thanksgiving shopping spree is more associated with
Christmas then it is with Thanksgiving itself. I don't know of anyone
that actually goes out and purchases Thanksgiving gifts on the Friday
after.

Well duh. Gotta have time off to shop for Christmas. We'll call it
Thanksgiving.

Is there a holiday
in the U.S. where we make do without anything? (Besides cigarettes.)

Like Ramadan?

Is that a U.S. holiday? Must have missed the memo.

No. Why? It doesn't sell.

I don't think Columbus Day, Veterans Day, or Presidents Day sell very
much. Oh, wait, I guess Presidents day does sell a lot of lift tics.

Oddly enough, since you bring it up, when I was a corporate wonk,
never got any of those days off. Weird that. I'm not much on
coincidence.

Yes. I said not gorging on TDay was unamerican. You implied it was a
pattern, so I assume you are speaking with regard to other things you
know about and was curious what these unamerican things were. So what
other unamerican things are there. Like I said above, is it speaking
my mind? Disagreeing with the president? Not buying in to the consumer
driven holiday? What is the pattern. I wanna be a good american. Help
me out.

Sure. You can voice your support for the troops currently serving in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to the same degree and effort that
you put into voicing your disdain for the leaders of those very same
troops, and your disdain for the war in general.

Ok. And the point was?

No. Military is different. When you signed up, you signed up for a
whole hell of a lot of ****, one of the most important being following
orders. I'm an army brat, my dad is a decorated Viet Nam vet, so don't
pull that **** on me. But guess what. I'm not in the service, so I'm
free to disagree with my leader, just like Cindy Sheehan.

My (deceased) father landed on a bloody Omaha Beach, and was involved
in the Battle of the Bulge, and beyond. He felt the same way as I do,
for the most part. He understood the importance of national unity in
the face of aversion, and the importance of avoiding the "cut and run"
mentality so prevalent in today's American society. Yes, he sometimes
disagreed with certain actions of this country, however, he did it
privately, and in a way which did not give aid and comfort to the
enemy.

Certainly, there are times for dissent. However, IMO, undermining our
current war effort (Cindy Sheehan, Jane Fonda, for example) is
un-American.

dOOd, you're even outside the conservative administration's
stance. The administration itself has said that it is *NOT* unamerican
or unpatriotic. You're out there on the extreme edge. You're
disagreeing with your Vice President.

I doubt that anyone would agree that Hanoi Jane's actions during the
Vietnam war can be characterized as pro-American, or as you put it,
*NOT* un-American. Maybe I am outside the administrations stance on
this one, but I'm an independent, so it should not surprise you. Do
you honestly believe that Jane Fonda's actions during the Vietnam war
where not un-American?

I wasn't talking about Viet Nam. That was like 30 years ago. Can we
get back to Iraq?

Yes, Cindy Sheehan has the right to effectively undermine the war
effort with her words and actions...but that doesn't make it the right
thing to do!

Contrary to what you might think and/or say, I don't see things in
black and white only. I look at it this way. The more public dissent
the enemy sees, the more that they are emboldened. Sheehan is doing
more to hurt things than she is doing to help things, regardless of
whether or not her actions can be characterized as "constitutional".

Ask most GI's returning from Iraq. I bet that 99 percent of them will
agree that she has the right to say what she is saying, and that they
are more than happy to protect and defend her right to do so.

Then we agree.

However, and I have several close active duty friends that are either
in-theater now, or have recently returned that are AF, Navy, and Army,
and they will tell you that they think she is a real bitch for doing
and saying what she is doing and saying!

So 99% support her right, but think she's a bitch for exercising
it.. Ummmmmmm.. Ok. Let's fight for our rights! As long as they agree
with my view! You're full of ****. And you don't give near enough
credit to those brave souls that are fighting for her right to
disagree. You should know better. Shame on you.

-klaus

AstroPax wrote:

Dunno. Don't know many Nazis.

Not knowing many implies that you know a few. Friends of yours?

BTW, just for the record, I don't know any.

That's the part that confuses me. No one knows any yet the term keeps
coming up. To the point of calling me one. shrug From your biggest
supporter BTW. But like I said, I'm not much for coincidences.

But you didn't say what made me
unamerican.

That's because I *never* said you are "un-American". Stop spinning my
statements.

You said, "so what else is new? Came across that way. So clarify. What
was the point. Not that I expect an answer. You never answer the hard
ones.

It's not hard. Answer this...when did I say you are un-American? I
don't care how it came across, because that's not what I said.

When you said, "what else is new?" Am I talking too fast or
something? What did you mean when you said that?

my guess at response.. silence.

Well duh. Gotta have time off to shop for Christmas. We'll call it
Thanksgiving.

I don't know of very many people that shop on Thanksgiving.

Then you don't know many people.

Besides, I think the Thanksgiving tradition pre-dates Friday
shopping sprees.

Try again. When was Thanksgiving made a holiday? Before or after god
went into the Pledge of Alliance? ;

Are you saying that Thanksgiving has been designated a national
holiday for economic reasons?

No. But that is what it has become.

Is there a holiday
in the U.S. where we make do without anything? (Besides cigarettes.)

Like Ramadan?

Is that a U.S. holiday? Must have missed the memo.

That's not what you said in the first place. You said "holiday in the
U.S.", *not* a "U.S. holiday". There are lots of holidays that occur
in the US (and elsewhere) that are not "US holidays". Just giving you
back some of your own medicine, Mr. word twister.

Hmm I guess I meant the usual english definition of holiday.. This
language thing keeps getting in the way.. Like when banks are closed,
post office closed, people are off work, ohhh, and maybe one you'd
know, when liquor stores are closed. you know.. a ****ing holiday!
Sorry, I just don't recall seeing the sign at the post office, "We
will be closed Monday in observation of Ramadan" Did I just miss it.

glorious silence

No. Why? It doesn't sell.

I don't think Columbus Day, Veterans Day, or Presidents Day sell very
much. Oh, wait, I guess Presidents day does sell a lot of lift tics.

Oddly enough, since you bring it up, when I was a corporate wonk,
never got any of those days off. Weird that. I'm not much on
coincidence.

Just replying to your holiday question with the facts.

Facts that support my view. You are an odd debator.

Sure. You can voice your support for the troops currently serving in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to the same degree and effort that
you put into voicing your disdain for the leaders of those very same
troops, and your disdain for the war in general.

Ok. And the point was?

You asked for the help, and I answered it with my suggestion.

That's not a point, that's a motivation. What was the point.

Oh, so in this case, history doesn't matter? What happened in the
past doesn't matter? Learning from the past doesn't matter? Wow, how
quickly you change your tune.

History matters a great deal. Jane Fonda does not.


So 99% support her right, but think she's a bitch for exercising
it.. Ummmmmmm.. Ok. Let's fight for our rights! As long as they agree
with my view! You're full of ****. And you don't give near enough
credit to those brave souls that are fighting for her right to
disagree. You should know better. Shame on you.

Wrong! You obviously have an interpretation problem.

yah, well, I'm old school. Commas used to mean "and", but I'm catching
on. Still, running the Astro filter is tough. Sometimes it's what you
say, sometimes it's what you meant.... I'm doin' my best. But the
hardest part is all the dead ends, like "what was the U.N. mission and
how did it fail?" They just hang there, unanswered, blowing in the wind
(oh, those are "and" commas, not "and/ors", see I can learn.)

but won't hesitate to call
bull**** when the see or hear it!

Hey!.. we have something in common! I love those guys.

-klaus

AstroPax wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:54:30 +0000 (UTC), klaus
wrote:

Bob Lee wrote:
AstroPax wrote:

"It is better to allow those who preach racial hatred to expend
their venom in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking
on the dangerous course of permitting the government to decide
what its citizens may say and hear ... The ability of American
society to tolerate the advocacy of even hateful doctrines ... is
perhaps the best protection we have against the establishment of
any Nazi-type regime in this country."

Pretty admirable for such an "idealized liberal" organization to stand
up for the rights of everyone.

That ruling is one of the best things I've seen in a long time. Thanks
Astro. We need that dOOd on the Supreme Court. Beautiful. I'm gonna
frame that.

I didn't type any of that. Why does it say "AstroPax wrote" at the
top? I don't think you are allowed to do that.

Follow the carets and count. It's obvious if you do that. HTH. Old
school. Sorry. Let me help.. You have three carets from your reference
line, so anything with four is yours. I don't see four carets, so
you're safe. Feel better? I cut the top to where I think is relevant,
the carets speak for themselves. I don't have time to go back through
the thread to see who cut what where. Geezzus. Is that what you're
left with in this discussion? Must be out of ideas. I knew Pigo runs
out of stuff pretty quick, but I had higher hopes for you.

Gads man... Don't be so ****ing lame. I'll get bored.

-klaus

klaus wrote:
AstroPax wrote:
OJ Simpson got off too.

Welcome to America.

As he should have. Phillip Vanatter carried OJ's blood sample to the
crime scene and the lab ultimately could not account for all of it. No,
I don't think it's a vast right wing conspiracy. Vanatter was probably
lazy and the crime lab prolly washed the extra blood down the drain.
Some will call it a "technicality" but America places the burden on the
state, NOT the accused. That's one reason why so many of us love this
country.

Jeff

"AstroPax" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:42:37 +0000 (UTC), klaus
wrote:

AstroPax wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:51:07 +0000 (UTC), klaus

That's not what they did. If the court doesn't find on their behalf,
they didn't have a case.

I think you are missing the point. It's irrelevant if NAMBLA won or
lost the case, but rather, that the ACLU even defended them in the
first place!

So a lawyer defending a murderer supports murder?

I don't know, but I guess we agree on something, and that is, NAMBLA
(members) are probably no better than a murderer.

Just another example of the ACLU agenda, which appears
to have more to do with an idealized liberal agenda of highly
selective tolerance and civil rights for a carefully chosen few, then
it does with protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That's their business as long as they stay within the law. Just
because I disagree with a lot of what they do doesn't mean I don't
support their right to do it. That's the difference between you and
me. Just cause I disagree, doesn't mean they don't have a right to
state their case. That's simply american.

I've never said they don't have the right to do so. WTF? There you
go again, making inaccurate assumptions. IMO, it's was not the right
thing to do, in that case. Plain and simple.

Look, please stop twisting my statements into something that I did not
say as a means to support your points. You just did it (above), and
it really isn't fair. I can't debate someone that continuously
distorts my position.

So is it your position that NAMBLA and its members have the right to free
speech, or that they don't?

Is it your position that the ACLU should support their right to free speech,
or that they shouldn't?

I am confused by your statements and don't want to put words in your mouth.

...

Yup. See. Now individuals will be held accountable for their actions,
not an association for words. Thank you ACLU. Is this a great country
or what?

Glad to see that you agree that these individuals should be held
accountable, no thanks to the ACLU...because, evidently, they are
defending them (pro bono) also.

I never heard of this case before today, but you have caused me to do a
little reading. Do you know NAMBLA has a website?

What I have read boils down to this - 2 men kidnapped, raped and killed a
10-year-old boy. The police found NAMBLA literature in their possession.
The family of the boy sued NAMBLA. ACLU defended NAMBLA on free speech
grounds. Do you agree with that statement of the facts? If not please feel
free to correct me.

I dodn't find any link that said the ACLU was defending or supporting the
murderers. Your use of the word "evidently" leads me to believe that you
have some, err, "evidence" of that. If so, can you provide a link?

AstroPax wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:49:36 -0700, "pigo"
wrote:

I saw a story yesterday about al frankin. Seems he has 112 employees,
including ONE black person. As a raving liberal don't you think he
should have at least as many as there are represented in NY
population. The US % is 13 but I would think that NY is 2-3 times
that.

On a similar note:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=47174


Neither Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Barbara Streisand nor Ralph Nader
holds a political office but that doesn't prevent the right wing press
and Bush defenders from attacking them as part of the liberal
establishment. Beyond that, I've seen little to indicate that any of
them were actually liberal. They'd be a better fit in the Progressive
Era.

Jeff

"Jeff" wrote in message
oups.com...
klaus wrote:
AstroPax wrote:
OJ Simpson got off too.

Welcome to America.

As he should have. Phillip Vanatter carried OJ's blood sample to the
crime scene and the lab ultimately could not account for all of it. No,
I don't think it's a vast right wing conspiracy. Vanatter was probably
lazy and the crime lab prolly washed the extra blood down the drain.
Some will call it a "technicality" but America places the burden on the
state, NOT the accused. That's one reason why so many of us love this
country.

I didn't pay much attention to the trial, but my impression is that OJ got
off because the defense was able to get a cop on the investigating team to
admit under oath that he is a racist. That and the gloves that didn't fit
(which goes against the old trial lawyer's proverb - "Never ask a witness a
question if you don't know what his answer will be) gave the jury the hooks
they needed to hang an aquittal on.

AstroPax wrote:
"Respond to what I meant, not what I said." As weasels go, that's a
classic.

Weasels, all of them:

I wonder what Senator Ted Kennedy (D - MA) *meant* when, in 2002 he
said: " Let me say it plainly: I not only concede, but I am convinced
that President Bush believes genuinely in the course he urges upon
us."

Well Bush is a believer so I'm sure he believes in his crusade. He
doesn't rely on old-fashioned data points, he conjures his own reality.
To this day - I swear - he thinks Hussein had WMD in the spring of
2003.

I wonder what Senator Jay Rockefeller (D - WV), the ranking Democrat
on the intelligence committee *meant* when, in October 2002 he said:
"But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and
chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now.
Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies
and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems
like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these
deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle
East."

Note the date: October 2002. Iraq had biological weapons as late as
1992 and the contemporary record - and particularly the
Administration's santized NIE - was less that clear. But only a fool
still thought Iraq had WMD in the spring of 2003 after teams of weapons
inspectors provided first hand evidence to the contrary. It doesn't
matter what Rockefeller thought in 2002. Bush pulled the tripper in
2003 as his rationale for war was evaporating before his eyes.

I wonder what Representative Nancy Pelosi (D - CA) *meant* when, in
February 2003 she said: "Any decision about going to war against Iraq
must reflect the fact that the clear and present danger to our
national security is terrorism. The presence of al Qaeda operatives in
Iraq and in so many countries in the Middle East and the rest of the
world is troubling."

see Rockefeller above

I wonder what former Vice President Al Gore *meant* when, in September
2002 he said: "We know that he has stored secret supplies of
biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

ibid

I wonder what Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D - NY) *meant* when, in
October 2002 she said: "In the four years since the inspectors left,
intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild
his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery
capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort,
and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. . . ."


Here Hillary Klinton is demonstrates her ignorance of Middle Eastern
politics. Anybody with half a brain realized the al Qaeda connection
was bull**** at first mention. AQ are the sworn enemies of Saddam
Hussein. They plan to include his territory in their calliphate.

Jeff