What Constitutes "Spewing?"
March 29th 2008 22:20
It keeps coming up that I "spew" hate, bigotry and vitriol. Interesting accusation, isn't it? The accusation comes from people who call me names, make threats, and apparently think they're trying to "debate" with me. Be that as it may, one such "genius" compared me to Joe McCarthy. Thank you! I take that as a compliment!!
For those of you who aren't old enough to recall the early 1950's, Senator Joseph McCarthy found out that there were communist agents working in high level positions in the US government. He made every effort to bring that to the attention of the President (Eisenhower) and the Congress. They ignored him and kept the communists on the payroll. He demanded hearings to prove that we were being taken over by a group of people who were out to destroy us.
Am I the only one who remembers Nikita Krushev hammering his shoe on the table and yelling "We will bury you!" or can't others check their history books for the quote? Am I the only one who remembers the Cold War? It was against Communist Russia (aka the old Soviet Union, for those to young to know). For a time McCarthy's investigations and hearings were called "witch hunts" and spurned by the liberal media.
In subsequent years, information has come forth concerning the reasons for McCarthy's insistance that we were being overrun by communists and their sympathizers. Documents from the Kremlin now prove that he was right. Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot, folks. He was assisted by the fact that communism NEVER works. Sounds great on paper, but it NEVER works in the real world. If you doubt me, just ask the happy, prosperous citizens of Cuba, North Korea or Communist China. You know, the folks that keep risking their lives to escape to free countries.
But I digress... Calling me a McCarthy clone is hardly an insult. Now, as to the "hate and vitriol" I am accused of "spewing" oh, I almost forgot bigotry. Can't leave that out, can we?
I am accused of hating all Muslims. Not true at all. I hate Muslim extremists who murder innocent people (like those from 9/11). If the good Muslims would speak up and fight the bad ones, we would have a much more peaceful world. I don't approve of being forced to change my way of life to keep from offending Muslims. I don't like the fact that they want to re-write history and pretend that the Holocaust never happened. I don't think Muslims should be entitled to priveleges that nobody else gets (like special prayer rooms at sporting arenas and schools). I think it's wrong for Muslim cab drivers to refuse passengers who are drinking (isn't that one of the reasons we have cabs?) or are in the company of dogs (seeing eye dogs included) because it would be offensive to them. Christian cabbies can be fired for refusing to transport women to abortion clinics when it is offensive to them. I don't like the idea that wearing certain items of jewlery are prohibited in both schools and some workplaces if they contain a Christian message while Muslims are allowed to wear whatever their religion requires.
Illegal aliens are another source of my "bigotry and hate spewing" I guess. Illegal means illegal, doesn't it? Shall we welcome everyone from everywhere and hope they aren't drug dealers, killers or terrorists? Shouldn't everyone be checked for those little details before being granted citizenship? How can you check someone who snuck over the border? Why should we keep paying out the wazoo for people who don't respect our laws enough to obey them?
Could somebody tell me where my opinions are being "spewed" and exactly what "spewing" means? Or will some of you take this opportunity to engage in name calling and threats as usual before writing your own hate filled blog?
Wait, I think I understand now! Railing against someone who supports their country and believes in the difference between right and wrong is what spewing is all about, right? It certainly can't mean going to another person's blog and unloading every nasty thing you can think of, can it?
Maybe the term "spewing" is like "hate and vitriol and bigotry" and serves a very important purpose? Like getting lots of votes by bashing another blogger...
For those of you who aren't old enough to recall the early 1950's, Senator Joseph McCarthy found out that there were communist agents working in high level positions in the US government. He made every effort to bring that to the attention of the President (Eisenhower) and the Congress. They ignored him and kept the communists on the payroll. He demanded hearings to prove that we were being taken over by a group of people who were out to destroy us.
Am I the only one who remembers Nikita Krushev hammering his shoe on the table and yelling "We will bury you!" or can't others check their history books for the quote? Am I the only one who remembers the Cold War? It was against Communist Russia (aka the old Soviet Union, for those to young to know). For a time McCarthy's investigations and hearings were called "witch hunts" and spurned by the liberal media.
In subsequent years, information has come forth concerning the reasons for McCarthy's insistance that we were being overrun by communists and their sympathizers. Documents from the Kremlin now prove that he was right. Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot, folks. He was assisted by the fact that communism NEVER works. Sounds great on paper, but it NEVER works in the real world. If you doubt me, just ask the happy, prosperous citizens of Cuba, North Korea or Communist China. You know, the folks that keep risking their lives to escape to free countries.
But I digress... Calling me a McCarthy clone is hardly an insult. Now, as to the "hate and vitriol" I am accused of "spewing" oh, I almost forgot bigotry. Can't leave that out, can we?
I am accused of hating all Muslims. Not true at all. I hate Muslim extremists who murder innocent people (like those from 9/11). If the good Muslims would speak up and fight the bad ones, we would have a much more peaceful world. I don't approve of being forced to change my way of life to keep from offending Muslims. I don't like the fact that they want to re-write history and pretend that the Holocaust never happened. I don't think Muslims should be entitled to priveleges that nobody else gets (like special prayer rooms at sporting arenas and schools). I think it's wrong for Muslim cab drivers to refuse passengers who are drinking (isn't that one of the reasons we have cabs?) or are in the company of dogs (seeing eye dogs included) because it would be offensive to them. Christian cabbies can be fired for refusing to transport women to abortion clinics when it is offensive to them. I don't like the idea that wearing certain items of jewlery are prohibited in both schools and some workplaces if they contain a Christian message while Muslims are allowed to wear whatever their religion requires.
Illegal aliens are another source of my "bigotry and hate spewing" I guess. Illegal means illegal, doesn't it? Shall we welcome everyone from everywhere and hope they aren't drug dealers, killers or terrorists? Shouldn't everyone be checked for those little details before being granted citizenship? How can you check someone who snuck over the border? Why should we keep paying out the wazoo for people who don't respect our laws enough to obey them?
Could somebody tell me where my opinions are being "spewed" and exactly what "spewing" means? Or will some of you take this opportunity to engage in name calling and threats as usual before writing your own hate filled blog?
Wait, I think I understand now! Railing against someone who supports their country and believes in the difference between right and wrong is what spewing is all about, right? It certainly can't mean going to another person's blog and unloading every nasty thing you can think of, can it?
Maybe the term "spewing" is like "hate and vitriol and bigotry" and serves a very important purpose? Like getting lots of votes by bashing another blogger...
| 115 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Fellow Orbler / Orblite / Orblian/ Etc....
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
That is priceless.
Oh Bradish, you have truly outdone yourself this time!
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
Does this qualify as spewing?
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
Does this qualify as spewing?
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
Funny, you don't surprise me at all, Ruby. You must be in favor of communism in order to think Joe Mccarthy was wrong. That's no shocker at all. People without conscience or morals often fall for the allure of communism. That describes you to a "T". Isn't it odd that you didn't have anything to say about the rest of the post...? Odd, but not surprising... You poor thing...
and admittedly so does this:
Comment by S.L.Bradish
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
You're in to necrophilia at the mortuary?
That's just wrong,SL ~ you've got to get some mental health help.
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Ah, yes , there you go again with your 'with us or against us mentality'.
Bradish, Bradish, Bradish, can you really not see that men like McCarthy are just as much a danger to freedom as the most hardline communists? Extremism is always dangerous Bradish, be it Muslim, Christian, Communist, Capitalist or BMX.
Sweetie, you must stop calling other people ignorant as it only serves to highlight your own shortcomings.
Pot...kettle...black.....
Comment by Don Lee
White Line Philosophy
It's comical to watch this show. SL says something and you turn into an idiot, onthe spot. Are you really planning to kill yourself? I'll buy the rope.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Are you sure you are a buddhist?
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
He is yet another blight in the often sordid history of your country. You do realise they called his round up of so-called communists "witch-hunts" right? And for good reason too.
But why am i surprised? You still defend the Iraq war...
Comment by Don Lee
White Line Philosophy
My load is ready, gotta go. I'll be back tomorrow.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
But Don, the monks in Tibet are fighting for their freedom. You are fighting...for what exactly?
Why is Raven wrong? Why am I wrong? See, you ridicule us, you put down our opinions, you tell us we are crazy, but you never say why exactly.
Do you even know what you are fighting for Don?
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Of course I still defend the Iraq War. It's called the War on Terror by people with intelligence, Ruby. But I suppose you (like so many others without morals or convictions) consider the Iraqi people like pre-born children. Niot entitled to the life and freedom you take for granted every day. The Coalition freed the people of Iraq and gave them the chance to build their own government and have freedom. Sort of like allowing a baby to survive, right? Their government is still young, but is making strides to get ready to defend their country from the terrorists who are still killing them. Those of you pitiful, empty creatures who want us to pull out immediately assume that Iraqi's are less than human and not deserving of life or liberty. Be very glad, Ruby that you aren't an Iraqi civilian with someone like you in charge.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
McCarthy used the 'threat' of Communism as a way of dealing with people he did not like, whether they were Communists or not.
The Iraq war was based on a lie.
There is more terrorism in the world now than there ever was before the "War on Terror'.
Bush is the least popular President in the history of your country.
Most Americans want out of Iraq.
Facts, Bradish. The above are facts.
Now compare them to your own statements above, and should you get a clear head for once, you will be able to understand exactly what "spewing" is.
Answer, your own question Bradish. In fact, you already have.
Comment by Lori - Tampa FL.
Comment by Lorna
OKAY, OKAY, YOU HAVE CONVINCED US- NO IS MORE OF AN IGNORANT IDIOT THAN YOU..... YOUR POINT IS MADE!!!!!!
Please feel free to go back to lonely town with your cronies and leave the educated ones alone. And please no more family portraits-lol- (I mean really, what is the point to remind us how immature you are--- point made) LMAO
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Terrorists kill far more iraqis than Americans.
McCarthy knew the names of the communists and they were never stopped. Kremlin records prove that he was right, name by name.
The Iraq war was not based on a lie. It was based on the FACT that Saddam Hussein had WMD's and had already used them on his own people. Al Qieda was in Iraq as were other terrorist groups, and even the totally impotent UN agreed that Saddam was a threat and a danger to the entire region.
Terrorism, like a snake tends to strike when threatened. The War on terror threatened their reign over Iraq and Afghanistan so they struck out more. They weren't created by the War on Terror and they are now beginning to be turned in by people who really want peace and are willing to risk their lives to bring peace about.
Bush is only unpopular with a bunch of cutandrun morons. His poll levels are higher than those of the dem/lib congress.
Most Americans care about our troops and don't want to throw away everything they have sacrificed to come as far as we have. Most Amwericans don't have the pretty fantasy that the terrorists will "play nice" if we just leave. The only Americans who are that stupid are in the mainstream media and a few photogenic nutcases.
Those are the REAL facts, Ruby. It must be hard to be as ignorant of reality as you obviously are. Maybe the Conmic Chick can help you in figuring things out, huh?
But you have something right in all the foolishness. I have seen spewing and it is yours.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
And what about Blair? He lost the top job in the UK over this whole mess, are you aware of that?
What information do you have Bradish, that your own government is not aware of? I am sure they would like to know. Because you know, they have been trying to wipe the egg off their faces for the last five years.
600 000 Iraqi children died in the 1990's alone as a result of the sanctions imposed on Iraq by Bush senior and upheld by Clinton. Now, Bradish if you will, please inform me how many have been killed by terrorists.
If it is more than 600 000 I will become a card-carrying member of the GOP!!! I will fly an American flag in my front yard. I will tattoo Ron Reagan's face on my left breast.
I will rename my own blog Conservatives R Us. I will agree with you on every single little issue you ever bring up. i will never disagree with you again...ever. I may even become an evangelical Christian. After all, if I can be made to believe that there were WMDs in Iraq, then believing in God can't be too much of a further stretch.
All you have to do is show me where you have dug up this little 'fact' of yours.
Can you do it?
Oh and maybe you need to check the opinion polls? last I heard Bush was at approx 30%.
It might also interest you to know that the Presidential candidates with the highest amount of military donations are the two that are most against the war- Ron Paul and Barrack Obama. And I saw this on Fox News, so even you must agree it's real news, not just liberal revisionism.
'Smart folks' that instruct others to 'lick their own asses'. Oh, yes, life is intelligent in Conservative land. Too funny. What would Jesus say, I wonder?
Comment by S.L. Bradish
To start at the biginning of your tirade. Rumsfeld resigned because of the pressure that was brought to bear by the newly elected libs/dems. You'd have to ask Colin Powell why he resigned, I don't know.
Tony Blair said ahead of time that he was leaving office before they even held their elections. It wasn't news then and it's not now.
The children who died in Iraq in the 1990's can be attributed to a combination of things. The UN sanctions and "OIL FOR FOOD" that they imposed and Kofi Anan's son made so much money on. The fact that Saddam took all the money that was intended for the starving Iraqi people and built new palaces for himself, not to mention paying scientists to beef up his killing ability are well known facts... just not to you, obviously.
I don't have a precise accounting of every child that has been killed. But I do know that nearly a million men, women and children were killed by Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War and we can only estimate that millions died altogether during his sadistic, brutal regime. He used WMD's in the form of gas to kill an entire village of Kurds, just to see if the weapon worked. Guess you missed that one, huh?
Concerning the opinion poll that rates Bush at somewhere around 30%... the same poll rated the lib/dem congress at 11%.
Now, where will that tatoo be going? Made the appointment yet? And how about the American flag you're going to fly? Got it ordered yet? Or are you just as full of hot air as you have always been before?
By the way, Ruby, this is just a tiny biit off track again, don't you think?
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
The 600 000 children died because the US refused to let in medical aid and food into Iraq. When questioned about the deaths of these kids on 60 minutes, Madeleine Albreight said "it's worth it'. It was the US sanctions. Bradish, America killed those kids and admitted it. But, of course because they were only Iraqi's you don't care do you?
One fetus aborted= tragedy!
600 000 Iraqi kids starved to death= who cares?
Sorry, no tattoo yet. Bradish. I think you need to look up the definition of the word 'terrorist" as well as the definition of the word "fact" as well as the definition of the word "smart" as well as the definition of the word "ignorant".
Comment by S.L. Bradish
First of all, Madeline Albright was Sec. of State in the Clinton regime. She only cared about pleasing her boss, not how many children (or even adults) died. She was as much in love with abortion as you are, so her care for human life was non-existent.
Ever hear of a country called Kuwait, Ruby? When Saddam sent his army to attack Kuwait and they begged for help to stop him, they considered his aggression to be a terrorist act.
He terrorized his own people with random murders (they're still finding mass graves, in case you didn't know), rape rooms, torture rooms, people starving to death because he kept all the food that they were supposed to be getting, same with the medicine. It may well be that Iraq had so few abortions because the people found out that life is a precious thing, not to be wasted or taken for granted when a monster like Saddam (and he sons) could have them killed at any moment. Sort of sounds like dear old Saddam was just a bit of a terrorist after all, doesn't it?
Shall I call a tatoo artist for you?
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Let me put this is as simply as I can:
1. America is America. It makes little difference to me if a Democrat or Republican is in charge. Well, I would prefer a Dem as I think they do slightly less damage...
2. The sanctions were put in place by Bush senior and continued by Clinton. But, this is beside the point. See above. I do believe I said "America has killed more children than terrorists". So sorry, but I win that one.
3. "Terrorizing" people and "terrorism" is not necessarily the same thing. A serial rapist can "terrorize" a neighborhood, Jack the Ripper 'terrorized' London in the 19th Century. The Son of Sam killer "terrorized" young women in New York in the 1970s. Does that makes them "terrorists"? No!
"Terrorism" has a specific meaning Bradish. But don't take my word for it. Go the web page of the US Dept of Defense or the Terrorism Research Center or Wikipedia. Educate yourself.
Saddam Hussein was not a "terrorist".
4. We have not even discussed the amount of Iraqi's killed by America's offensive since 2003. Somewhere in the vicinity of 650 000 I believe. I think terrorists are responsible for about 50 000. These are approx. So yeah, sorry, America still wins on that one.
More Iraqi Kids killed by Americans than terrorists. You lose. Well actually, Iraq loses, but that's nothing new.
Sorry, no tattoo. My left breast shall remain untainted by your Conservative poster boy. Thank goodness. Can't imagine I'd be too popular at the topless beach with that face tarnishing my chest. Oops...there I go with my loose morals again.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Since 911 there have been about 3000 deaths due to terrorism WORLDWIDE.
The 50,000 I mentioned above were the amount of terrorists America claims it has killed in Iraq.
3000 deaths due to terrorism.
Now how many people has America killed again?
Comment by S.L. Bradish
To answer...
1. Democrats have been in charge of several aspects of our government for fifty years and those aspects are dismal at best. Every election they run on Education (the system they created is a wreck and they throw money at it to fix the problem without ever accomplishing anything.) Welfare is another of their disasters. Democrats got us into Korea and Viet Nam, too. Still think they do less "harm" than republicans?
2. Nope, you lose again. Bush (41) didn't put the sanctions in place without the UN. As I mentioned earlier, the UN "Oil for Food" program (sanctions) made Kofi Anan's son a millionaire and built grand palaces for Saddam instead of feeding the Iraqi people and providing the medicines it was supposed to do. The sanctions were put in place because Saddam was killing his own people and threatening his neighbors (not just Kuwait, either, he was making plenty of threats at Israel and other countries as well). I don't deny that Bush (41) should have finished what he started and not backed off until Saddam was in custody and the Iraqi people had freedom. But he did and left the job for his son to finish. Sad but true.
3. I agree that there is a fine line between terrorizing and being a terrorist. One who is terrorizing has a specific name ( "Son of Sam", "Jack the Ripper", "Saddam Hussein") while terrorists have group names like "Islamic Jihad", "al Qieda" and several others that are well known enough not to require specific mention. Many of them were in Iraq before the invasion. al Qieda Iraq, for example.
4. I don't know where you get your information, but it's not accurate. I don't doubt that 6500,000 Iraqis have died in the war, but the coalition isn't out to kill civilians, Ruby. Ocassionally the terrorists surround themselves with civilians (mostly women and children) in the hopes that they can continue to kill from behind their "human sheild". It worked for a time, but nobody wants to keep getting shot at and sooner or later, you fight back. It's sort of like when the terrorists use their own mosques to hide weapons and snipers and then whine like crazy if we go into the mosques after them. Maybe you don't get the same news that we do, but we get to hear a lot about suicide/homicide bombers and how many civilians they kill with every attack. 20 here and fifty there add up in time. Coalition soldiers don't strap on bombs and go to market places to blow themselves up. Terrorists do. They don't target women and children. Terrorists do. They don't target weddings, funerals and religious events. Terrorists do. Whoever is feeding you a line of crap about Americans killing 650,000 civilians is lying to you and you're eating it up. Terrorists are killing and wounding Coalition troops, too. Shouldn't they be allowed to fight back? The Iraqi people want us there, their new government needs us there until they can take care of things on their own. Only the pantywaist libs/dems want to cut and run, and that's only because they want to make Bush look bad.
C'mon, Ruby, how about that tatoo, now?
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
1. Dem/Repub: don't care. America is America. Anyway, I did say slightly less damage.
2. I don't recall saying that Bush put the sanctions in place without the UN. Anways, as I have already stated, it is a moot point. See point 1.
3. Al-Qaeda was not actually in Iraq before the fall of Saddam. But that is also beside the point. Terrorism refers to ideologically driven groups (or individuals but usually groups), who commit acts of "terror" in order to draw public attention to their cause and use fear as a weapon. Thus Saddam was not a terrorist.
4. A funny thing about invading and bombing a country Bradish- civilians die! America bombed civilian areas Bradish. Yes, terrorists do target civilians and no-one in their right mind would defend their actions, but, the truth is, America started this war under false pretenses.
Bradish, the statistics on the war are available for anyone to see. Just search for it on the net.
As for coalition troops being allowed to fight back, keep in mind it is not their country! They invaded the Iraqi's. It's the Iraqi's who are fighting back. Defending their country. If a foreign power invaded America, would you guys sit there and take it?
Nope, sorry, no tattoo for you!!
Ah, this could go on all day, couldn't it?
I'm actually kind of enjoying this. Maybe you're not such a bad old bird after all?
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Having already gone over most of your previous comment, I'll only address the last part.
Yes, we (the Coalition) did invade Iraq. It was not under false pretenses as I've already said. Apparently you aren't aware of the millions of Iraqis who risked their lives to vote? Something which never could have happened under the Saddam regime. Maybe you didn't hear about the Iraqi civilians who were killed by terrorists for welcoming Coalition troops? Did you see the film of Iraqis tearing down the enormous statue of Saddam and throwing their shoes at it? (a sign of disrespect, by the way). Did you miss the part about the Iraqi courts trying, convicting and executing Saddam and some of his co-horts? Have you heard that most of the terrorists are NOT Iraqis "defending" their country? There are a few, granted, but the majority of the terrorists come from Iran (where lots of weapons come from, too), and other Arab countries to keep the war going. Iraqis are now (since the Surge has done so well) turning in terrorists to try to help stabilize their country. Do you know how many Iraqi policemen and troops have been killed by the terrorists?
This is NOT a case of Iraqis defending themselves from the "evil Americans". Ruby. It's a case of terrorists losing ground and fighting to keep the civilians under their thumb.
How about a US flag on your chest if you don't like Reagan?
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
Up to your ears in it again I see *chuckle* ... well I was going to chime in with my two cents worth ... and say;
I have to agree with you on this one, especially when they contribute nothing but insults for their hosts and cause inter-racial issues within their host countriles. Stay home in your own country if we are such dogs...
I guess that is like spewing up on your hosts table, isn't it?
Lilla ...
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by Nomad
Awesome Food
well i just found out that the american death toll is up to 4000 (i know thats nothing compared to the 600,000 iraqi's) but i was just wondering how you feel about 4000 of your fellow americans dying in vain so your greedy president can get cheap oil, cos i've seen a few doco's on the iraqi war, and i'm not saying i know a whole lot about the war, but it seems the amercan troops dont really want to be there, i think they're sick of seeing their buddies go home missing limbs from random suicide road bombers... it just seems wrong, didnt a few years ago president bush declare "Mission Accomplished".
Anyway you dont have to answer my question i didnt put a question mark there on purpose.
Alright then have a good one!!!
Nomad (the most awesome dude on the planet)
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Downwrite
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
Being correct isn't a measure of justification for all sins. It's hard to be smug when the air reeks of dead witches.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Our troops aren't ready to quit, Nomad. A few of them have made news by lying or joing "Code Pink" to get their 15 minutes of fame. Recently a soldier named "Spanky" lost his leg. He went through the recovery, got a prosthesis and managed to return to Iraq. My neighbor's grandson is trying to do the same thing. Another soldier won a million dollars in the lottery and signed up to go back to the war instead of staying home and spending it (this will be his third trip). On the Reno radio station KOH, a young man and his family were interviewed last year. They talked about how hard it was for the wife and kids to wait for him while he was gone, but he was going back because he believed in the mission. He talked about seeing, first hand, the good that is being done for the Iraqi people. The new hospitals and schools that are going up every month, the Iraqi people beginning to lose their fear and fight for their country. He said it was sort of like helping give birth to a whole country!
There was a big to-do in all the news last year (inCanada, at least) about a young Canadian soldier who had lost a leg in Afghanistan and the Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Company had built a bike specially for him. His landlord tried to have it towed away because it wasn't in a carport. He was only going to be home for a short time before returning to his job. Enough hell was raised that he got to keep the bike until he returned to the war.
There are far more stories about troops wanting to return and "finish the job" than there are of those who lie about it (like Jesse MacBeth) or join anti-war groups.
Our president isn't "greedy" and getting cheap oil, either, Nomad. We were attacked and he fought back, unlike our previous president who was too busy being "serviced" in the Oval Office to bother with terrorists.
The "Mission Accomplished" sign on the aricraft carrier wasn't his idea, Nomad. And it didn't mean that the war was over. It was because Baghdad had fallen and our troops were in Saddams palaces. The accomplishment was notable because of all the threats Saddam had made and the fact that we took his capitol so quickly. Nobody expected the war to end the following day!
Any more questions?
Comment by Influential Aren't you?
I just got done reading this post and yor other one on links. Are you really happy about public school teachers planning on letting teen kids read the pro-life stuff? If you are in favor of it tell me why. I can see your point and all but do u think parents might be pissed about it? I wouldn't necessarily but some others might be.
-- Curious
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by Influential Aren't you?
Okay, I see yur point. thanks.... i was curious - i mean the schools feel free to teach gay stuff when parents object so yeah, this isn't that bad. Cool.
good point of view. thanbks for writing back so quickly.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Schools used to be places where knowledge was important and the ability to think was treasured. These days it has degenerated into "public indoctrination centers." No wonder so many parents home school their kids!
Comment by David
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by Jake
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Downwrite
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
I.e, if we permit people to walk witohut shirts in summer, soon we'll have public nudity, and see sexual liasions in the streets.
If we allow people to hold communist ideology as credible, soonb they will take up arms and violently overthrow the government.
If we allow children to yell, they will become more and more rebellious and end up as violent and ruthless morally bankrupt vagrants.
Simply because a threat exists at some level does not justify this kind of panic button.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
I could go on, but you should be able to see a pattern, right?
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Downwrite
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
The ponit is moot at any cost - you have your enemies, i have my views. I feel that McCarthys attacks on those with communist views were simply not appropriate as to hold such views is little more than an ideological right. I feel the same about holding Nazi views, Abortion views and all such views - Governments are to protect by all means - i don't hold issue with that. But they have no place to instruct what is right to think. And surprisingly, neither do you.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Downwrite
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
Well if the world really was so black and white the second would work perfectly every time.
The problem comes where we beging treading 'an enemy' and 'your people' as one.
If questions like that refelcted the complexity of situations than I'm sure it could all be solved by Throwing the ring of Power into Mt Doom.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
It's the same philosophy that enables incremental take-overs of neighborhoods, businesses and whole countries.
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Downwrite
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
Hitler sure as hell calls the carpenter.
Ideas are only leaks if we think they're damaging by their very nature. I don't hold to this view.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
By the time the German people realized what was happening, it was too late for them to stop him. It never occured to anyone that such a thing could possibly happen! Before the rest of the world understood the real threat, he was moving on Poland, France and the rest of Europe. Incrementalism at it's "finest" Brenton. Like a frog in warm water, by the time the water gets hot enough to kill, it's too late for the frog to escape. Good and evil both begin with ideas. The trick is to know which ones are which.
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Downwrite
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
You a clearly able to debate sensibly, make good points and not target certain groups in an ignorant way. It's a shame this doesn't come out in your posts more.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Downwrite
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Downwrite
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
I only brought it up as this post is speciffically cmaiming that you do not act in a way that it bigoted.
You are obviously very bright I'm I'm sure you can appreciate the views that would indicated you as a bigot but instead you indulge in this show of confuision.
Uless you are genuinely at a loss in which case I suggest you ask without insult the casue of others angst, and keep an open mind to their pint of view.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
For example, where do the bigot notions come from? I'm probably the least biggoted or prejudiced person around. It isn't race, color, politics or religion that make me mad. It's behavior. Disapproving of bad (or criminal) behavior isn't a sign of biggotry, it's common sense.
Comment by Anonymous
No offense made, whose language do you refer to? Yours or other? Simply curious.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
The language barrier I spoke of has to do with computer-eze and certain slang terms from Australia that I'm not familiar with. My best friend is in his 20's and generally keeps me up on the new ways of saying things, but sometimes I forget to ask him what something means. For example "the shit" sounds like an insult, but he says it's a compliment.
Comment by Bettany
You claimed to Brenton that you started out this conversation reasonably. Ok, I went back and checked. You're right. You were very polite and kind to the person that agreed with you.
The, Ruby said she can't believe you just defended Joe McCarthy. To which you replied by saying that she is a communist sympathizer. You also said she had no conscience or morals. This is after she did no name calling. So....this is how you respond to things. You can't handle criticism. And you defend your unchristian behavior by simply giving yourself a pass, while taking others to task.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by Bettany
I understand how blogging works. I'm a paid blogger myself, and I understand how within blogging communities relationships both good and bad can be formed. I understand how prior conflicts can be carried from post to post. I get how it works, S.L. I don't need to have it explained to me.
I was simply using this post and the comments within as an example of some of the things I've been seeing in other posts. I have read some of your earliest posts. I've spent a lot of time reading your stuff. I think you seem to be a very intellegent person with a passion for what you believe in, which is admirable, and part of the reason I stick around to see what you'll write next.
I can leave your blog, or stop commenting if you like. My intent was never to make you feel uncomfortable or under attack. And I never meant to have my comments be interpreted as "blasting away".
Perhaps you are connecting some bad experiences you've had with non Orble users with some of the things I am saying, and for that, I apologize. i really like to engage in spirited debates, and obviously I picked the wrong person.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by stu-kicks
stu kicks
this mccarthy sounds like a good guy
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by stu-kicks
stu kicks
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by stu-kicks
stu kicks
have you seen them?
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by stu-kicks
stu kicks
i think you have too you just said they were very funny i dont understand
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by stu-kicks
stu kicks
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by stu-kicks
stu kicks
oi dont call me dense i am actully very smart probably the smartest writer on orble besides you
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by stu-kicks
stu kicks
i know lots about history not as much you but i probly more about movies than you do so just take my word on the mccarthy movies ok? keep up the good work SL
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief