The other side of the coin...

"But thanks for painting all dissenters with the same brush, how unpatriotic of us. I see the light now."

Yep, being patriotic means just sucking in the government line and turning off your brain. No bumper stickers now with "my country right or wrong" like in the VietNam days--it's just assumed our country is always right, no matter what. "Love it or leave it" is back in style, however. No questioning allowed.

Just keep shopping and everything will be fine.

I just wish people would turn off Fox news and do some reading, and I don't mean Ann Coulter! Try Chalmers Johnson for starters, dated as he is.
 
Yep, being patriotic means just sucking in the government line and turning off your brain.
Click to expand...
Claptrap... There is a very big difference between mannerly dissent and Liberal screeching at EVERY little thing... accomplishing nothing...
what about the very american trait of dissent? Or doesn't that play second fiddle to shutting up & getting out the way?
Click to expand...
Of course not... but shutting up and staying out of the way is a thought which should at least cross the mind of the dissenter...

I don't like a good many things about the Bush administration and I have actively let my dissent be known...

I don't like a good many things about the NRA and I have actively let my dissent be known...

However, when I dissented I carefully considered whether or not by dissenting, would I cause more damage than the little bit of good I might be doing?

I am a Life Member of the NRA and I support the President of the United States... even if it is "W"...

When my family "dissents" about something, done or not done, by a member of the family we do not suddenly forget that the offender is a member of the family... We air our "dirty laundry" privately and not in front of our adversaries...

If we can't make a "meaningful" contribution... we still support each other, and lacking that... we at least try to stay out of the way. :cool:
 
Not to beat a dead horse's bones but those 10-15 minutes reading children's books on 9/11 spoke volumes. Presidents with polio could/would have stood and done something before he did.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but this was an oft repeated bit of leftist crap that has, thankfully, dropped off the radar. It dropped off because it is pointless, baseless and without merit and was indefensible even by those who don't believe logic or facts should ever deter them from yammering on.

The fact is Bush was given an unconfirmed piece of data while in a location that allowed him to do nothing, immediately. There were two things he could have done at that point: Throw his hands in the air, the book across the room and run around in circles, Leftist style, while accomplishing nothing, looking the fool and terrorisizing a room full of kids, or, Sit and wait until further data came in and secure communications and transportation was at least semi-assured. He did what any rational non-lefty would have done.

The fact the left fixated on this without being able to grasp it is one more priceless insight into both their political, social and moral idiocy. Don't fall in that trap.
 
To Pointer...

I do think the American government would be great, if it actually represented people instead of businesses. Call me lefty if you will, but I really don't feel like supporting a president who's administration condones violations in the Geneva Conventions (as in Rumsfeld trying to justify torture. A "war on terror" yet they are called detainees not prisoners of war?) and attempts to push "security" bills that violate our Bill of Rights. I'm not going to bring up the "lefty" argument of Bush doing nothing for 10-15 minutes the day of 9/11. I will however, bring up the fact that because of his actions he has come off to me as someone who likes to toot the horn of religion in a country that should be secular, ie: "God told me to go to Iraq" etc. I guess Bush wants to jihad it his own way.:D The setting up of puppet governments like Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai (a former Unocal employee and this was stated by the Christian Science Monitor before Michael Moore's crapfest movie.) Iraq's puppet democracy (what would've been wrong if the Iraqis chose to have a theocracy and left us alone as long as we freed them of their dictator? Also, if they were truly free wouldn't that mean very few to no attacks from insurgents?) and no American forced capitalism (since U.S. contractors and companies are allowed whereas Iraqis have to compete against U.S. companies they really don't get the chance to build their own enterprise or economic system. After all freedom is awesome when you can't choose what kind of government or economic system you want.:rolleyes: ) and the fact that the now defunct "axis of evil" conveniently leaves North Korea out of our attack plans as well because let's face it, businesses dont find any money in taking up North Korea. I do understand terrorism is a concern, no doubt about that, however, there has to be a way to stop it WITHOUT stripping away our rights. So with all that said, I would think a TRUE conservative would be one who wants to keep the Constitution unadulterated by partyline politics, extremes to the left and right, and especially avoid letting business and religion even touch government. I am a firm believer in that we should only allow rights, not take them away. I also believe that it is possible to have your social views be different from your political views.


Epyon

EDIT: The Bush family IS a supporter of terrorism and dictatorial regimes. During World War 2 it was known that the Bush family violated the sanction that American businesses CANNOT sell to the nazis, guess who broke that rule. "Dubya" does business with the Saudis who treat their people like $4!7, might I add the Saudis are VERY anti-Semetic, it is their NATIONAL LAW to not let Jews into the country. Bush does business with bin Laden's family in oil, well for those who are uneducated in Arab custom, family comes before EVERYTHING. Just because Osama bin Laden is exiled from Saudi Arabia doesn't mean mommy and daddy aren't sending him money to help fund his terrorism.
 
Last edited:
As little as fifty years ago, Israel was called Palestine. If you want to know how the name got changed, do some research. The Isralies are unwelcome in the geographic location that they are in for many reasons. Not the least of which that without massive US funding, there would be no Israel as we know it. It's just another version of the Balkans now.

Israel deserves to be politically isolated for their recent actions as does Iran and to a lesser extent Lebanon. Let 'em duke it out. Big problem here is that the world oil supply is on a razors edge and any big disturbance will easily de-stabilise the world economy. That means a big fat recession.
 
Benonymous...

The only reason America gives a rat's @$$ about the Middle East is because of oil, it's absurd that people think it's for world peace and helping those who need it, just a convenient blanket to shield us from what's really going on. Washington was right when he told us to stay neutral, I forget which Founding Father also warned of political parties being a danger to freedom, well I guess they're all rolling in their graves faster than a log down a hill.:(


Epyon
 
"would you agree that suicide bombing is an act of desperation done by people who have lost all hope, and have nothing to lose by doing it?"

Desperate people often act rashly. History is full of them. They seldom win.
They lose the high ground...aka the moral high ground. If their goal is simply revenge then maybe terrorizing civilian targets with suicide bombings will make them feel better. If their goal is to win something - land, hearts, political control - then it is a counterproductive tactic.

"If Native Americans did bomb schools, busses, and marketplaces obviously they'd be despised, but would they still be right? (Considering the terrible things that were done to them.)"

I believe killing is wrong. Of course, sometimes it is necessary. Would they be bombing out of necessity, or simply to get even? If out of necessity, then what would be the expected outcome? I don't know what they would expect to receive in return, but I would expect they would be wiped out in the same way you or I would kill a rabid animal that is threatening our children.

John
 
I do think the American government would be great, if it actually represented people instead of businesses.
Click to expand...
The people ARE the government...:rolleyes:

The way the people go... so goes the government...

The make up of society is the make up of the government...

The governmental system was meant to reflect the values, and the manners, and the moral fibre of it's citizens... The system is working precisely as it was intended. The only thing that has changed is the quality of the citizens.

If the people want a better nation then the people had better change their ways...

Stop suing for spilling their own coffee...
Stop awarding a$$holes that sue for spilling their own coffee...
Stop finding fault without offering a viable solution...
Keep your word...
Seek after virtuous traits like honor, honesty, objectivity, fairness, reliability, and doing and honest day's work for an honest day's pay...

Economics makes the whole world go 'round...
It is the one and only thing that ALL societies have in common...
"Trade" is the ONLY reason various societies have come together at all...
And trade is often the ONLY thing that keeps the doors of communication open...

You should say, "Let there be peace in the world...and let it begin with me."

Avoid conflict... yes... but don't be slow to respond to it's benefits "when the balloon goes up".
 
Last edited:
Here's the way I see Israel's reactions and why i support them...

Someone slaps me in the face, and I give them $10 - what are they going to do next time they want money?

Someone slaps me in the face again, and I slap them back - then we have a pissing contest that will go on and on.

Someone slaps me in the face a third time, and I punch his teeth down his throat and break his jaw, he will think twice about slapping me again. He may get pissed, he may want revenge, but it will have to wait till he gets out of the hospital and gets his strength back.

Someone slaps me yet again, this time saying they want me totally destroyed and my country wiped off the face of the earth, and I put a .40 between his eyes, that is the LAST time he will ever slap me (or anyone else.)

THAT is where Israel has found itself - and the US too. How many more slaps are they supposed to take before they use their power and end the BS once and for all? How many more of THEIR people have to die due to the hatred of their enemies? And how many threats and hits does the US have to take before WE go on the offensive (and justifiably so)? It is their right to fight, to defend THEIR people, and not just fight to restore the status quo (which is anything but peace), but to win - and win convincingly!

When you understand that the animals calling the shots over there DON'T want to just live in peace, but ARE bent on Israel's distruction, & on OUR distruction - then you will realize the time for appeasement and chosing the middle ground is over. You must see the evil at work (and it isn't coming out of Israel). The Muslim citizens may be puppets dangling on the strings If they can't, or WON'T do something about the Islamic facists running things, the same bastards demanding and commanding our destruction - it is up to us, and our allies like Israel..
 
Well, well, well. Epyon started this thread to encourage an unbiased look at both sides of the conflict between the Israelis and Arabs. And Epyon declared that he had no agenda... well, except maybe the views he expressed against the positions of the US government in general, and of the current US administration in particular. But I digress, so back to the original issue.

Some people see right and wrong in the world around them while others apparently can't discern a difference. Claiming a balanced viewpoint of careful neutrality in the face of clear right versus wrong only demonstrates a lack of certitude to take a moral position.

One thing that Epyon is correct about is that oil has loomed large in the events of the Middle East in the last century. Rather than continuing the practice of external intrigues to influence the governments of the Middle East, it might be better (and certainly more efficient) for the Middle East's major oil fields to be seized jointly by America, Europe, Russia, and China and held in a mutual trust for the benefit of all mankind.
 
Very well put gc70...

As much abudant or important oil is right now, I am a firm believer that at some point when it runs out especially with a growing world population increased consumption is already happening, it's going to cause more strife politically, economically, and environmentally. Therefore no matter how you divide oil ownership, whether it's one country or a group of countries in control, it's going to cause more good than harm and I think it'd be better if we found a better and RENEWABLE source of energy.


Pointer, your statement of government changing because the quality of people, I'd have to say I can't argue there. It is disappointing to see ordinary citizens not participate in politics actively in order to improve things here. However part of the reason why I feel that business owns government is because of companies that lobby our officials in order to get favors done for them. Even when there are average citizens who are right about an issue, the companies more than likely win out because they funded those officials. I think that's why most people are disenfranchised and don't even bother to try to be politcally active, which is dangerous and foolish, I think people shouldn't give up just because they fail once. Example of business lobbying on a local level: Car insurance is a law in Florida because the companies lobbied the state government to make it mandatory. I do understand the importance of insurance, but insurance should be a choice for the driver and how much risk they want to take on whether or not to have it. Another example is also of the drilling for oil in the Alaskan interior, it's a very heated topic of people trying to stop the government to allow drilling of a refuge vs. big oil who want to drill it and "assure" the public that it'll do no harm to the habitat there, however oil companies having the money, pay off government to get the green light to drill. The idea of eminent domain being used by businesses in order to open shopping centers at the cost of taking people's homes for "public use". In that issue the people won, and I believe Bush issued an exective order that followed the Constitution well. (Yeah surprised that Bush did something, and I agreed with it. I don't remember if this is true but one of the judges was at first okay with business abusing eminent domain until a contractor used it to take over the judge's neighborhood including his property, someone please confirm that if you can find that story.) Which brings me to the idea of; if you're an official who wants to genuinely do good for the people, regardless of the quality of the people, wouldn't it be best to not be bought out by companies and do what is right for the people and not for the sake of business under the guise of "for the good of the people"? If your job is to serve the people, then I would think that honesty, integrity, and justice should be taken to the highest degree. Then again, human nature being what it is, people are corrupted by power and money. Sure you and me don't exactly seem to share every topic in agreement, but at least people like you and me want to make some kind of positive difference, and are willing to speak out about it publically whether it's on a forum or out on the streets.


Epyon


P.S: It is important that everyone do their part even if it's on a local level to make sure their rights are preserved.
 
Oil? In Israel? Where? Nearby... sure. Not about oil. Oil is just another tool in someone's arsenal.

The Israel/Palestine conflict centers about land... and the religious center contained therein known as Jerusalem... and semitic tribal warfare going back a few thousand years...

Everyone has a fish to fry and it's a fine line for our government to balance between the American populace, a goodly number of whom are either Jewish or Christian with a smattering of Muslim thrown in for good mix and want some type of open access to a Holy City (not to mention World Peace), those American business/trade/merchants who, like it or not, need access to oil, (cheap oil) and those in our nation who only want "Peace At Any Price".

However, it seems that those in the region who happen to be sitting atop the reservoirs of the commodity in question, have little love for the newcomers to the region, but do seem to like the wealth they gather from US business (and gov't)... and have no reeeal issues with supporting the few now homeless bedouins who want to regain control of the entire region pre 1948 maps, who have no oil and will never have oil.

Is there a right or a wrong side here? Some believe so fervently. It's wrong to kill innocent bystanders, for survival sake. So says who?... oh yeah, our religious leaders and moral high grounders. OK, I personally accept part of that. If I had to, I'd kill for survival, most here would... I'd think. Maybe not innocent bystanders... just whomever it takes for survival.

As for the initial post "The other side of the coin..." Coins have three sides. Obverse, reverse and the rim or edge, whose function is to keep the two larger sides joined together, yet opposed. (there's probably also an "inside" v. "outside", but since I can't see or touch it...)

Morals? They come and go. Evolve from the simple (survival in the prehistoric wild) to the complex (survival in 21st century urbania). Culture? It's a learned thing. One thing we've learned... They clash. With regularity. Based on... survivial. That is, both morals and cultures.

One group is fighting for survival. Or is it each group? Isn't that always the way? Be it politics, religions, business, cultures, morals. Be strong, stay strong, sieze the day. For tomorrow may bring...

But that's just one moron's point of view. It's all about salesmanship... and survival. Kind of an eternal struggle sorta thing. Some blame this side, others that. I like to place blame on the serpent... or maybe Prometheus... it varies day to day. It couldn't just be inherent in mankind, could it?

Carry on.
 
When Hammas and Iran stop having mass demostrations with thousands chanting Death to Israel and Death to America, maybe I start to care what the other side of that coin looks like.
 
...part of the reason why I feel that business owns government is because of companies that lobby our officials in order to get favors done for them.
Click to expand...

Now we're getting somewhere... ;)

Try putting the emPHAsis on another syllABle... :)

It is not the big businesses who corrupt the government...
It is the people and their values...or lack thereof... that corrupt the government... and "sell" it to the businesses and other special interests...

It ain't the Lobbyist's fault

The Public Servants have been corrupted since long before they became public "servants" ... It has become the nature of the common and natural man.

The flim-flam-man (con artist) is quoted as saying...
"It's impossible to cheat an honest man."
 
Other side of the coin indeed. You sir might be undecided on who is at fault here, but I am not. Iran, Syria, and their surrogate, Hezbollah, planned this for years. The aim is to promote the Shiite Iranian State as a power broker in the Middle East. It goes hand in glove with Iran's refusal to stand down over the UN demands to stop working on Atomic weapons.
 
Is this thread STILL going?!

Oil is a bunk point. I use ethanol, 199.5 proof. I am working on making bio-deisel with 100% rate of success, but I am not quite there yet. But I bet a company could on a large scale.

The point is, if you really wnt to set this country free of the B.S. in the Middle East, you should be using solar, wind, nuclear, or hydro power, and be encouraging your representatives to push for realistic alternate sources of fuel (ethanol and bio-deisel, they DO work and burn clean). Then the middle east could turn off their wells, and start racing camels again, or what ever it was they did before the need for oil gave them money and power.

Israel has the right to defend against agression. So does any other country. What a country does not have the right to do is to instagate agression against another country.

Terrorists should be scorned, hunted down, and killed world wide by all countries, and any goverment that allows terrorists to use their country as a haven or a base of operations does not have the right to be in charge any more.

Any thing less is a defeatist liberal stance that only creates victims of our selves. America is our country, and we should place her and her intrests first, our real allies second, and everyone else can kiss our ---!

Edited to include this- Nuf Said
 
To Mikeyboy...

I think at this point Hezbollah is a bigger problem over there than Hamas, if Mahmoud Abbas can prove that Hamas no longer has violent intentions there may be a chance for the Palestinians to have some sort of resolve with the Israelis. As for Iran... they've been awfully quiet at least in the public eye. I do believe something just may happen if their lid is blown open.

To The Guy, it's ineteresting you're experimenting with alternative fuels America definately needs more people like you. I think if more farmers/alternative energy groups formed some kind of alliance to push legislation to get it done soon we could have more economic security. Honestly, I am really sick of paying an arm and a leg for gas. Heck, what if you formed some kind of company? After all isn't this the land of opportunity? I'm sure if you and a group of like-minded individuals could somehow get together we could get the pendulum swinging harder. Power to green fuels!


Epyon

P.S: Pointer, would you say that partyline politics is a problem when it comes to having ineffective officials? I know one of the Founding Fathers definately warned of partisan politcs being bad for freedom. (Can't remember if it was Washington, Franklin, or Jefferson.)
 
Founding Fathers definately warned of partisan politcs being bad for freedom. (Can't remember if it was Washington, Franklin, or Jefferson.)
Click to expand...

I've that attributed to Jefferson... I don't know... but it has a Jefferson flavor.

Be that as it may... the partisan politics we see today are between the extreme Left (Jackson and Sharpton and "Teddy" and Biden and "Schweinstein" on one hand...

and the Religious Right on the other...(I can't think of any but Falwell... and Robertson? :rolleyes:

Those elements are polarizing the citizenry and turning them against each other... Hence, blue States vs. Red States. :barf:

We are all one America and the social polarization really pisses me off because AFTER the damned election EVERY DAMNED ONE OF US should rally together and accept the FACT that Bush is the President...

Then we should be working against the enemies of the US and it's Allies...instead of against the US and it's Allies...:barf: :mad:

Does lending aid and comfort (and encouragement)... ring any Fonda bells?
Shades of Vietnam... THEY wouldn't let us win that flipping war... and they won't let us win this one because we are fighting half the war on the HOME FRONT.

If they had freed our military to do it's job that war would have been over in half the time and we would have suffered somewhat less than a third of the caualties and there never would have been a Tet Offensive and the people of Vietnam would be still be free...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top