For all you boycotters. .

[springsteenmickey]

It is with Freedom of Speech that we can say so much and not worry about being prosecuted for it. It is with total ignorance that we allow ourselves to make stupid comments such as those comparing Bush to Hitler or Saddam. We all have our beliefs and opinions but let’s not say things that are total garbage. President Bush is now doing what almost all Americans were probably hoping for on 9/12, the Day After. Why is it that a man using a flying bomb with humans in it to knock down two building is not the one considered a Hitler? Why is it that the Leader of the Free World protecting his people is compared to Hitler? I really think that it is time that we all take a good look around us. Like Madonna I have been called names because the Prime Minister of Canada decided not to enter the war because it went against the UN. Why am I to blame?
I am as guilty as others for making some remarks that were uncalled for in a fun forum, but in something as serious as this, never.

Glo, that was an awesome response above.

 

[annemariec]

Originally posted by Saffron
annmariec -- maybe WillyJ should have replaced the word "nonsense" with "comments" or "jokes", maybe that would make sense then? That's what he was targetting. The comments, jokes and singling out of one or two nations to degrade. It seems a country's political stance on the war in Iraq has given some people the chance to say some nasty things about the people. They're not taking on the government of those countries, they making fun of and belittling the people of those countries. Here's an example. It was in answer to a question someone asked about how Canadians are being treated in the USA, if they were being denied food and fuel by people boycotting all things Canadian, because she had heard some stories and wanted to know if they were true. One poster was stating that he hasn't seen any Canadians being mistreated and then said this, "... although I refuse to sell computers to Canadians because they are not sophisticated enough to use them..."

Sometimes people aren't clear in what they post. I'm guilty of that and have to clarify what I mean at times. Those that know WillyJ, and read the remarks and jokes made about Canada and France and read the hurt that others are going through because of it, know what he meant. But -- in any case, he came back on page two and clarified things. Anyone who has any doubts about what he meant, please read that post.....

I certainly understand what you stated.

I think there are separate issues that have been discussed as one and the same in this thread. 1.) boycotting 2.) insulting language (past, present, all around), and therein lies the problem, IMO.

Annemarie

 

[glo]

We should judge people on their behavior and their own actions, and not by what others have done. People are starting to feel unwelcomed here and this is not acceptable. Madonna31 and WMCC should not have to feel unwelcomed because others from their country have said or done something we do not like. They did nothing, and if anything have been a part of this community for a long time. What has changed about them now?

The same with opinions. You may not like what is said, but be lucky you can say it, and get to read it.

People think when you write. I say that to my students. Points can be made without hurting others. This has been a wonderful place to come to, let's keep it that way.

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

I honestly cannot believe that some people are still whining over the Supreme Court's decision. You can't just accept rulings from them that you like, and not accept ones you don't. Anyone who brings the argument over the election of 2000 into the war debate immediately loses all credibility.

 

[AllyandJack]

Springsteen really hit it on the head with that one. Maybe the election is a sham. But, he was "awarded" the Presidency. All he did was go forward, with Gore, to the Court and let them decide. They decided in his favor and you can't lay blame on him for that.

You don't have to like him - I don't like a lot of people in government. You don't have to agree with this war, or war in general for that matter, but to compare him to Hitler and Saddam....it's just wrong and that's why I jokingly said that maybe, if we're all lucky, we'll have a Hitler or a Saddam as our President someday. Then we'll all be happy then, I suppose, so long as he was elected fairly. I just think its sad that anger at a President, who is doing the best he can in really tough times, runs so deep that you would compare him to a man who is using children as shields and hiding weapons in schools.

I just think we all need some perspective on the Hitler/Bush thing. I think one thing we can ALL agree on is that we have it pretty darn good in this country, with all of its faults and with all of it's leaders' faults. I think it's a huge insult to people who have had to live under Saddam and Hitler to whine about our President and make those comparisons because, thankfully, we'll never have to endure what they did and still do.

To be honest, I didn't vote for either of them. I didn't like either of them and didn't think voting for either of them was useful. I would be sitting here defending Gore the same way against the same attacks. Heck, I'd even be defending Clinton against those attacks! Don't vote for him next year. I might not, if I decide I like the other candidate better. That will remain to be seen. I might not vote for either of them again if I decided they cancel each other out!

 

[Robinrs]

Originally posted by JoeThaNo1Stunna
I honestly cannot believe that some people are still whining over the Supreme Court's decision. You can't just accept rulings from them that you like, and not accept ones you don't. Anyone who brings the argument over the election of 2000 into the war debate immediately loses all credibility.

Loses all credibility with who, you? And this is not a debate, it's people stating their opinions. It's not about credibility, it's about what we feel and what we believe. This is a discussion board, not a college course.

 

[Briar Rose 7457]

wow, repeat a Jay Leno joke and you get jumped on by the jingoists!

my opnion about Bush has nothing to do with the 2000 election. though my vote against him next year will be based, in part, on my dissatisfaction with the outcome of the election. my vote against Bush weill also be based on his diplomatic failures which create anti American sentiment in the world and cost us allies.

allyandjack resents the comparison of Bush to dictators such as Hitler and Saddam, yet doesn't know that the Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of speech. one has to wonder how allyandjack can support an effort to preserve our freedoms without knowing what those freedoms are.


I don't know your history, but neither do you know mine. my grandmother lost her sister, her mother, and many other relatives in the Holocaust. in the 1950's my father was turned down for a job to work in West Germany because he had cousins in the Soviet Union.almost everyone I know lost "someone" ( a friend, a relative, a business associate) in the WTC.

I also have a degree in European hisotry. Hitler was elected in free elections, you know. and one by one he dismanted civil rights in Germany based on fear and poverty.

that's why it is so important that American exercise their freedoms and not sacrifice their rights. we should not blinding follow our presidnet whereever he chooses to go. we should be allowed to question without being labelled "iunAmerican" or being told that we have no clue what life is like in a dictatorship.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by Briar Rose 7457
first of all, the court that decided the 2000 election had 5 Republican appointees and 4 Democratic appointees. the court's decision was very much along party lines. the 5 who fored the majoirty opinion almost always favor state's rights over federal law, but in the Bush v. Gore case trampled over Florida state law and adopted a much more federalist approached that was intellectually dishonest in light of their prior positions and decisions. most legal scholars -- even those who agree with the decision -- will recognize the flaws in it.

you're also misreading the polls. while most Americans support the war, the President's popularity has been decliniing. right now he's got about a 62% approval rating. http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

the elder President Bush was very popular in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War. Yet he lost the election to Bill Clinton.

Polls are only a snapshot in time, so I don't put a lot of stock in them, but I really can't let BR's misinformation go unanswered. Here is a composite of all the latest polls from the last week or so:

George W. Bush - Job Approval Ratings

Poll Date Approve Disapprove Spread

CNN/Gallup/USA Today 3/29 - 3/30 71% 26% + 45%
NBC News/WSJ 3/29 - 3/30 66% 29% + 37%
Newsweek 3/27 - 3/28 68% 26% + 42%
CNN/Time 3/27 62% 34% + 28%
CBS News/NY Times 3/26 - 3/27 68% 26% + 42%
FOX News 3/25 - 3/26 66% 24% + 42%
CNN/Gallup/USA Today 3/24 - 3/25 69% 27% + 42%
CBS News/NY Times 3/24 70% 26% + 44%
Zogby** 3/24 57% 43% + 14%
NBC News/WSJ 3/23 67% 28% + 39%
ABC News/Wash Post 3/23 68% 27% + 41%
CNN/Gallup/USA Today 3/22 - 3/23 71% 25% + 46%
Pew Research 3/20 - 3/24 67% 26% + 41%

**Harris and Zogby - Instead of Approve or Disapprove these polling firms group Excellent and Good responses versus Fair and Poor.

Also, in regard to the SCOTUS ruling on the 2000 election, the decision was actually 7-2.

The court agreed 7-2, with Souter and Breyer joining the majority, that the differing standards for conducting the recount created an equal-protection problem.

The 5-4 decision was in regard to the remedy offered. A 5-4 majority said there was no time to conduct a lawful recount.

 

[Leota]

For those of you who want to call me "stupid" for posting my OPINION - fine, have at it - You & I sit on vastly different sides of this argument & n'er the twain shall meet....

Bush is acting in opposition to thousands of people, millions of people around the World - Like it or not, that is the Truth. He appears to be acting from Paranoia, Fear & Conceit - He is NOT acting like a Democratically ELECTED leader of our so called "Free World" I say so called, because I believe this Grand Country was founded upon the principles of Democracy, which I FEEL, have been trampled under-foot by the Bush Regime... He has flown in the face of the UN, which was formed to ensure that the World would not be plunged into this type of turmoil - That our Great Nations would work together to resolve situations as peacefully as possible, rather than face a Divided World....I am Grateful to live in this Fine Country & I hope our Country survives the Damage I see being done to it by Bush, whom I BELIEVE to be mentally un-stable.
According to the Tenants of Freedom - I am ALLOWED to say what I think, feel & believe..... And while I believe that those of you who resort to name-calling in the midst of a political discussion to be morons who can't debate on the merits of their beliefs without resorting to childish tactics, I won't say it here - I'll just continue to think it.....

 

[AllyandJack]

Wow....Briar Rose was nice to me here. He didn't criticize me and my education like he did in the PM he sent me.

OK....I do recognize the rights of this country. My statement merely said that the right to PROTEST was Court-created based on the language of the First Amendment of the Constitution guaranteeing the right to free SPEECH. Last time I checked sitting in the middle of traffic and marching was not speech. I never said there was no right to Protest. I never said that the Constitution wasn't involved. There is also no right to abortion, but that right is Court-created based on the Constituional right to privacy. It's the same thing...it's a right based on the Constitution. The Courts are always dealing with cases about free speech and interpreting them. That doesn't make it any less of a right or any less important, but we can't pick and choose which Court decisions we like and which we don't and then go on with life like the ones we don't like aren't real.

Now....in order to avoid anymore hostility by Briar I won't return to this thread. Now I see why people here feel they aren't welcome. I've been nothing but polite to everybody here and I've enjoyed the debate with everyone and everyone else has been really nice. I'll see you guys around the other threads....be nice to each other.

 

[madonna31]

Now what if Bush didn't go after Saddam???

What if Bush *waited it out* and DIDN'T attack Iraq....then God forbid that another Sept 11 attack happens against the US this time lead by Saddam and his *weapons*...

Hummm somehow I think that if that were to happen; many of these present day Bush-Protestors will then say "Ya moron Bush - you should have invaded Iraq when you had the chance..."

My point is - Bush did this in hopes to prevent what MAY happen if he didnt...I don't think he wants to be caught with his *tail between his legs...* and I DONT BLAME HIM!!!

 

[annemariec]

Originally posted by Leota
..... And while I believe that those of you who resort to name-calling in the midst of a political discussion to be morons who can't debate on the merits of their beliefs without resorting to childish tactics, I won't say it here - I'll just continue to think it.....

No debate here. I don't participate in name calling. Just wanted to point out the above is an oxymoron.

Annemarie

 

[Serena]

....be nice to each other.

Let me repeat, be NICE to each other.

Think about what you are saying, and before you say something that will hurt someone, delete it.


We don't want anyone to feel unwelcome here. This is a world wide community and I happen to like it that way.

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by Briar Rose 7457
the election of 2000 was decided by a court that put political considerations ahead of sound legal doctrine. not quite the same as having a gun pointed to your head and being told vote for the only candidate on the ballot, of course, but the whole process left a bitter taste in an overwhelming number of voters. you will see a backlash from it in the election next year.

We saw the backlash from it in 2002, remember? That was the year Bush was supposed to lose in Florida, when the Democrats were to retake the Senate and the House. The reality is that moderates see it that the court that put political considerations ahead of sound legal doctrine was the Florida Supreme Court. If the Democrats attempt to use this as an issue again, they will lose even more. I hope they don't. As it is, the two different parties are swinging further and further away from the center, which means that those who seek common sense are out of luck, since that is a quality that neither extreme has in abundance.

 

[glo]

We've always defended the Israelis and supported them. They get more foreign aid from the US than any other country on earth. We have been active in making sure that the Scud missles and other weapons that Saddam could use on the Israelis have been knocked out. And we've been supportive of Israel when they went after the homicide bombers that target civilians.



Briar Rose 7457, do you think we should stop doing this?

MJames41 I so agree with you. I am a Republican, but I am not blind, and a middle ground is always best.

Again, and probably for the last time. I am going to ask that you respect eachother and continue this conversation in a POLITE MANNER.

 

[manchurianbrownbear]

IMHO all of us would be MUCH better off if we worked on becoming a little more thick-skinned. In this thread I've agreed with many of you and disagreed with many of you. But I still respect the opinions of you folks with whom I don't see eye to eye. And, I don't take it personally when you disagree with me. It hurts a little to hear about my National Anthem getting booed before a hockey game in Montreal, but I don't hate Canada or Canadians.

What really frustrates me is people/politicians/nations that lack principle and ALWAYS vote the party line. How many Republicans are generally "hawks", but questioned military action in Bosnia? Why are there so many Democrats who have opposed all military action other than that taken while a Democrat was in the White House. How silly is it to suggest that when the Supreme Court ruled on 2000 presidential election questions the republican appointees all made partisan choices while democratic appointees strictly abided by the rule of law?

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by manchurianbrownbear
How many Republicans are generally "hawks", but questioned military action in Bosnia?

This would be me!

Why? Because, unlike Iraq, we had absolutely no national security interests involved in Bosnia. And while the humanitarian effects of removing Saddam's regime are laudable, I wouldn't be hawkish about military action in Iraq if I didn't strongly feel that our national security interests are the most vital reason for that action!

This is JMHO, of course, and I respect the right of any and all who might disagree.

 

[catsrule]

Well, I am going to St. Martin/St. Maarten in May. I am asked all the time, 'Are you going/staying on the French side?' I'm staying on the Dutch side, going to the French side, eating on the French side, shopping on the French side, spending money on the French side, going to the beaches on the French side. After all, the French side has the topless beaches..... Will be doing the same on the Dutch side too. I'm on vacation, I'm having a good time!

 

[manchurianbrownbear]

bsnyder

A valid point! I would agree that the situation in Bosnia was much less of a direct threat than that of Iraq. However, any time a region is becoming dangerously unstable, there is a very clear "bad guy" and we can probably squash the problem with relatively few casualties among the oppressed population and our troops, I have trouble opposing that action.

But, of course, I don't think any less of you if you disagree

 

[Briar Rose 7457]

Originally posted by manchurianbrownbear

How silly is it to suggest that when the Supreme Court ruled on 2000 presidential election questions the republican appointees all made partisan choices while democratic appointees strictly abided by the rule of law?

frankly I think the minority was also guided by political expediency. you never asked me that.