State of the Union

Given the tone of your post, the ridiculous assumptions that I advocate breaking "every" law, there's no use in arguing the points.

...yes, the protests were "peaceful" in that voilence wasn't used, but there are most certainly varying grades of "peaceful". ...and some of the tirades she's gone on, heck, she might as well join PC and start arguing politics here, as I'm sure 95% of you would support her...

 

I am your echo and more...
MY 13 months as a "grunt" in Vietnam, a war I was drafted into. and did not believe in, lead me also to state " I support every mother's (and father's) son BUT! I also, with strong conviction, "... object to the military being sent on a fool's errand..." I too loathe COWARDS like Bush who send our sons and daughters to die. "Dulce et Decorum Est Pro Patria Mori." We agree on cars, but I am afraid my political views are antithetical to many on this wonderful, informative PRIUS site! If you support Bush, you support an imperialist regime. If one criticizes Bush, one becomes a Bush Basher!? Open forum, Free thought? TAX CUTS ... OH sure for the Ultra Rich... WOW!!! Obviously my start button has been pushed...

 

Wrong read my post again.

I said you were against following every law as in... blindly following every law. Not break every law, but against following them all no matter what. That's consistent with your mantra, if i remember correctly.

I agree with you. Many laws are there for political reasons, not for the public good.

My problem isn't you calling her a nut-job... but the part about how you would single her out and not let her in... implying that you would potentially violate her civil rights.

 

Jack, very gripping story again about your wife. I can only imagine the emotional intensity and I truly feel for her and you coping with such unexpected flashbacks. I will try to get my hands on National Geographic feature. Thanks for mentioning it. When I visited Angkor Wat and its vicinity the incredibly impressive beauty of its architecture completely overshadowed unfathomable atrocities committed in a beautiful nation of Cambodia.
My regards to your wife.

 

No, I read your post, you're the one that needed to clarify yourself.

"were an advocate against following every law no matter what it is"

Yes because she poses a greater risk than most of trying to pull some spectacle during Bush's speech. Bush has a right to speak without any threat of such, as is the same courtesy that has been extended to her.

C'mon get real, you know as well as I do you can't put it past her to try and make some statement in the middle of his speech.

 

Fine. I'll clarify. You hate people who follow the law no matter what.

That doesn't mean you want to break every law. That only means you don't want to follow every law blindly. If you read my sentence correctly, that's what I mean.

Are we clear yet?

Even if she is going to do so, let her break a rule before you haul her out. I think how she was handled yesterday was completely correct. She was allowed to enter, but when she broke a rule and refused to cooperate that's when they arrested her. Perfect.

We still live in a free country here, and the 1st Amendment still applies.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

That's my mantra.

 

I have no intention of submitting to your cheap rhetorical devices, Squid. ",,,in other words..." indeed.

I have spent hours researching Iraqi casualties. I've read everything available, including the bases in individual instances (neighborhoods that underwent saturation bombing) for the estimates, Iraqi demographic data, etc. I like to know what I'm talking about.

A "real" idea? It's more real to me than 40,000 or 100,000, and is not just "tossed off". Bush himself finally (and pretty casually) mentioned the number 30K a few weeks ago, catching the press corps off-guard. Bush did not cite his source(s), but of course the government has them.

George Bush is a sniveling coward who will never own up to the mayhem he caused. (Historians will catch up with him, though.) He's in a class with Clinton and Cheney in ducking Vietnam. He seems to me to possibly have residual brain damage from his days abusing various substances. Not the kind of man who should have been entrusted with the authority to send so many people to their deaths.

 

And as much as it would make you furious, there's nothing wrong with a little free speech.

To me it's democracy in action. That's why I love this country... Whoever you are, no matter how fringe, you have the inalienable right to talk yourself hoarse, and not even the President can stop you.

 

And the number expands daily.
We are being told that the so called “war on terror†is to last decades (wishful thinking). It’s a scary thought how many more people will perish.

 

so what if she did? ...isn't that her right as an American?

That's the same "what if" you brushed off when I said "what if" a family of 4 was driving down the same road as you while you were exceeding 100 mph.

Can you see me? I'm holding up the hypocrite card.

It's easy to glorify war and think you have the answers when it's been fought via an X-box. I've studied war, the history of war, been to war, fought in war...and thankfully, came home. For every single death reported, whether it be enemy or friendly, there are 10-20 unreported deaths.

I followed the orders of the Commander in Chief even though I questioned the motives for the orders. It did not matter. I question those orders now - but I no longer am in the position that I have to follow.

Squid, I believe it was you who said you couldn't serve a single day in the military because you couldn't follow an order and told me to think "outside the box" because I supported the cause to obey the law. Listen to you now. You blindly follow and expect others to do the same....and scoff at those who think "outside the box". If GW right now made the Executive Order to immediately draft those males who qualify - and you happen to qualify - would you question his authority or change your tune?

Again, can you see me? I'm holding up the hyprocrite card.

 

...and this is exactly what kills off any shred of integrity...

...next!

 

Squid,

Yes. I forgot the mention the Baltic states. It was there but then I got distracted. Actually the Germans recruited well there. Most of 5th SS Panzer was from that area.

The german small arms were excellent, particularly their medium machine guns. Their orginial tanks were hopelessly outclassed by the T-34 but they designed even better tanks. They just couldn't produce enough of them.

They were totally outclassed in the N. Atlantic by 1943.

The Germans never grasped the importance of the long-range, 4 engine bomber. The only Luftwaffe general in favor of them (forget his name) died in a plane crash in 1936. The idea died with him.

As far as mass production... In Germany production of weapons was left to the armaments firms. They knew who to design things but did have mass production know how. On the other hand, GM, Ford and Chrystler manufactured all kinds of weapons because they knew a lot about assembly line production. Even though the weapons weren't as well designe they were reliable and there were a LOT of them. The german tanks suffered from a lot of reliablilty issues. Many were just abandoned and not always for want of petrol.

 

No one is arguing this point. My point was (had you read and comprehended my prior post) was that Bush has a right to speak without the risk of being interrupted. You know laughingman, I was wrong about you, seems you too can't separate the Bush hate from logic...

 

See responses to laughingman...

 

HAHAH...

I said nothing about bush in the past however many posts.
I merely said a blanket statement regarding freedom of speech and someone's right to expect not to get descriminated against. if it were a radical right winger, i'd say the same thing.

My talk about Sheehan has nothing to do with bush, and i never said i agreed with her or her tactics, but that she is free to do so, and shouldn't be denied the right.

MS, you crack me up.

 

Excellent post!

I fully agree on the Luftewaffe, Goering was a total idiot in that respect (and in many others).

 

Likewise...

Why do you think I've been chipping away at this all day???

:lol:

HOURS of pure entertainment.

 

those responses are not related - and I didn't ask for a response - just pointing out to some of the other folks who may be new here that though you are clever with words, your debates are filled with flaws and hypocracies.

 

Bush has the right to speak, but you can't proactively treat someone that way (refusing to let them in) if they've done nothing wrong (yet).

I honestly have had no Bush hate in this discussion regarding Sheehan, only general statements about freedom of speech. It's amazing isn't it?

I also urge you to be less reactionary in labeling everyone as bush haters... a casual observer may think you're labeling me an idiot bush hater because i'm speaking out for free speech.

 

No, the posts were directly related, the core issue being her right speak/protest/whatever. That, I dont' have a problem with. As I've stated before, Bush, Sheehan, 2hybrids, whomever has the right say what they want, without risk of interruption, or stupid stunts pulled by people who don't agree with them.

...as for debates filled with flaws and hypocracies, yes, I suppose from the various standpoints, I can see where that would be a popular opinion.