I have two bones to pick with you guys. One for the left and one on the right.

[logical4u]

I just got home from work and the headline rolling across the ticker on the news channel is...

20 dead in Anti US riots

I can guaranty you they aren't rioting about our apology. And when I mentioned public perception I wasn't only referring to American citizens.

Would love, LOVE to see the President tell the Afgani people that these qurans had been desecrated, by islamists. The qurans were destroyed by burning as prescribed by "islam". Now please explain why the Afgani people are not rioting against those that desecrated the "holy books", originally. This President will not name the people that have declared war against us as the enemy. He wants to play their deceitful games, when only the truth will expose them for deceit, dust, destruction and death that they peddle all over the world.

When you try to out lie a liar, it makes you a liar, also.

 

[HUGGY]

And YOU missed the reference...Brevity...is the soul of WIT.

You Fail.

Good Job.

Never read "Hamster".

Hamlet was ambivalent. He couldn't even decide with any conviction to kill himself.

The Taming of the Shrew! Excellent play. Excellent.

The British are loser snobs that hang on to the belief that they are more important than any people on earth. Listening to them talk is painful. They have perfected the art of talking down to the rest of the world. I watch their parliment on occasion and want to go in there armed like Rambo and lay waste to the useless fuckers. We should have let Hitler level their stupid little island before we entered the war. Then they would have a true appreciation of what it cost to save their sorry asses.

I cringe and get nauseous every time I see reference to their "royalty". A gaggle of inbred stooges if there ever was one. The British are a culture of resignation to authority. We are a culture founded on the distrust of authority...although you wouldn't know it from listening to many that claim they are patriots.

Oh ya....Shakespear.. Blah...Blah...Blah... Piss on him. Never heard a lick of that punks writing that compared with Kahil Jibran..

Just saying..

 

[Sunshine]

Never read "Hamster".

Hamlet was ambivalent. He couldn't even decide with any conviction to kill himself.

The Taming of the Shrew! Excellent play. Excellent.

The British are loser snobs that hang on to the belief that they are more important than any people on earth. Listening to them talk is painful. They have perfected the art of talking down to the rest of the world. I watch their parliment on occasion and want to go in there armed like Rambo and lay waste to the useless fuckers. We should have let Hitler level their stupid little island before we entered the war. Then they would have a true appreciation of what it cost to save their sorry asses.

I cringe and get nauseous every time I see reference to their "royalty". A gaggle of inbred stooges if there ever was one. The British are a culture of resignation to authority. We are a culture founded on the distrust of authority...although you wouldn't know it from listening to many that claim they are patriots.

Oh ya....Shakespear.. Blah...Blah...Blah... Piss on him. Never heard a lick of that punks writing that compared with Kahil Jibran..

Just saying..

Gibran is one of my favorites particularly this:

Khalil Gibran - The Prophet title of the book

And a whoman who held a babe against her bosom said,
- Speak to us of children!

And he said:
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come trough you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of to-narrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the Archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable.

Speak to us of Children, author Gibran Khalil Gibran

 

[Sunshine]

I was talking with my SIL last weekend about the 'muslim situation' over the world. He is from the UK. He is a staunch libertarian and is irritated that they have been allowed to gain such a foot hold there. And he doesn't try to elevate them in order to knock Christians in the nose.

As we were talking, it occurred to me that their biggest weakness is also their biggest strength, and that would be the monarchy. According to their laws the monarchy can abolish the government at any juncture and take over. I think that is how they will solve the 'muslim problem' in the UK. And it will be perfectly legal.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Equating the Westboro Church to the 9/11 killers is absurd.

Equating the 9/11 killers to Islam is equally absurd.

Terrorists are criminals, nothing more, nothing less; their faith incidental and irrelevant.

The same would be true of a Christian who committed a crime motivated by faith, such as someone killing an abortion provider, such a person can not be considered representative of Christianity overall.

 

[HUGGY]

Hamlet was ambivalent. He couldn't even decide with any conviction to kill himself.

The Taming of the Shrew! Excellent play. Excellent.

The British are loser snobs that hang on to the belief that they are more important than any people on earth. Listening to them talk is painful. They have perfected the art of talking down to the rest of the world. I watch their parliment on occasion and want to go in there armed like Rambo and lay waste to the useless fuckers. We should have let Hitler level their stupid little island before we entered the war. Then they would have a true appreciation of what it cost to save their sorry asses.

I cringe and get nauseous every time I see reference to their "royalty". A gaggle of inbred stooges if there ever was one. The British are a culture of resignation to authority. We are a culture founded on the distrust of authority...although you wouldn't know it from listening to many that claim they are patriots.

Oh ya....Shakespear.. Blah...Blah...Blah... Piss on him. Never heard a lick of that punks writing that compared with Kahil Jibran..

Just saying..

Gibran is one of my favorites particularly this:

Khalil Gibran - The Prophet title of the book

And a whoman who held a babe against her bosom said,
- Speak to us of children!

And he said:
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come trough you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of to-narrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the Archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable.

Speak to us of Children, author Gibran Khalil Gibran

The elevation of Shakespear says more about British self engrandising and the lack of depth in British thinking and writing than anything. Imagine if Shakespear had been in any other country. Crickets...

 

[Foxfyre]

We'll start with the left.

All the hate and mockery topics about Santorum and his religious beliefs. You scream about tolerance in all areas until a devout Christian speaks his mind. He has made it clear they are his beliefs and that is the extent of it. But you all post hate topics non stop. I'm not a believer but I am of the mind that to each his own. Many of you on the other hand can't seem to grasp the hypocrisy of your positions.

Now the right....

We have both soldiers and captives (omg Egypt) in harms way. Yet many of you are all to happy to jump on the Obama is a **** up bandwagon and critique or even slam the way he is dealing with the holy book situation. Lives are at stake and NO ONE knows if the way he is handling it may end up saving lives or torture of captives. We have plenty of reasons to want Obama out and this isn't one of them.

Playing in the mud can be fun on here but to me both of these issues are over the top when they are addressed in such a frivolous manner.

President Obama IS a **** up.

There were ALWAYS lives at stake and that would be true even if we had no military there and no hostages there.

The "apology" is dangerously misguided.

To criticize him over it is not to play politics. It is to criticize him, as we have the right to do, in the hope that maybe he will start to buy a clue sooner or later. It is one thing to be just wrong. It is another thing to be dangerously, stupidly and avoidably wrong.

In my opinion I don't consider his position or my opinion of it dangerously stupid. And while you are correct about the people in harms way the soldiers get paid for the risk. The others not so much. And we haven't even touched on the topic of public perception.

There are certain components of government that we have to leave to the best judgment of those we elect to high office because we simply are not privy to all the facts, information, and nuances involved in the situation.

I have been one of President Obama's harshest critics but I do try to maintain strict integrity to criticize him for what he actually does, says, believes. If we all were absolutely meticulous in doing that no matter who we criticize, we might not have as much Junior High-ish fun, but it would be a far more civil world and satisfying world that we live in.

When we have Americans in harms way, when there are American hostages whose lives are at stake, when we cannot know what negotiations behind the scenes are taking place, public denigration of those engaged in those negotiations is not appropriate or productive and could likely increase the danger of those we want to protect.

 

[Sunshine]

President Obama IS a **** up.

There were ALWAYS lives at stake and that would be true even if we had no military there and no hostages there.

The "apology" is dangerously misguided.

To criticize him over it is not to play politics. It is to criticize him, as we have the right to do, in the hope that maybe he will start to buy a clue sooner or later. It is one thing to be just wrong. It is another thing to be dangerously, stupidly and avoidably wrong.

In my opinion I don't consider his position or my opinion of it dangerously stupid. And while you are correct about the people in harms way the soldiers get paid for the risk. The others not so much. And we haven't even touched on the topic of public perception.

There are certain components of government that we have to leave to the best judgment of those we elect to high office because we simply are not privy to all the facts, information, and nuances involved in the situation.

I have been one of President Obama's harshest critics but I do try to maintain strict integrity to criticize him for what he actually does, says, believes. If we all were absolutely meticulous in doing that no matter who we criticize, we might not have as much Junior High-ish fun, but it would be a far more civil world and satisfying world that we live in.

When we have Americans in harms way, when there are American hostages whose lives are at stake, when we cannot know what negotiations behind the scenes are taking place, public denigration of those engaged in those negotiations is not appropriate or productive and could likely increase the danger of those we want to protect.

So we are to assume the Greyhound stance: Take the bus and leave the driving to us.

Not in this lifetime or the next. That shithead of a president we have needs to know what his 'constitutents' think about him and his useless apologies.

 

[Sunshine]

Equating the Westboro Church to the 9/11 killers is absurd.

Equating the 9/11 killers to Islam is equally absurd.

Terrorists are criminals, nothing more, nothing less; their faith incidental and irrelevant.

The same would be true of a Christian who committed a crime motivated by faith, such as someone killing an abortion provider, such a person can not be considered representative of Christianity overall.

You are wrong. Their so called faith incites them to this kind of killing. As a lawyer you should know that incitement is VERY relevant. Or did you skip school the day they covered that.
And BTW, save your breath on Timothy McVeigh. He was an agnostic.

 

[Foxfyre]

In my opinion I don't consider his position or my opinion of it dangerously stupid. And while you are correct about the people in harms way the soldiers get paid for the risk. The others not so much. And we haven't even touched on the topic of public perception.

There are certain components of government that we have to leave to the best judgment of those we elect to high office because we simply are not privy to all the facts, information, and nuances involved in the situation.

I have been one of President Obama's harshest critics but I do try to maintain strict integrity to criticize him for what he actually does, says, believes. If we all were absolutely meticulous in doing that no matter who we criticize, we might not have as much Junior High-ish fun, but it would be a far more civil world and satisfying world that we live in.

When we have Americans in harms way, when there are American hostages whose lives are at stake, when we cannot know what negotiations behind the scenes are taking place, public denigration of those engaged in those negotiations is not appropriate or productive and could likely increase the danger of those we want to protect.

So we are to assume the Greyhound stance: Take the bus and leave the driving to us.

Not in this lifetime or the next. That shithead of a president we have needs to know what his 'constitutents' think about him and his useless apologies.

Fine. But does he have to know publically, in full view of all our enemies, when we still have people in harm's way? Can't we wait until our people are safely home to do the critique in the media and/or on publc message boards? When what gives us personal satisfaction in fact gives justification and/or encouragement to all our enemies, we should really rethink that. Past generations have fully understood that. Had the Vietnam generation fully understood it, that would have been far less of a useless blood bath. If the current generation understood that, I think this would be a less dangerous world.

 

[Sunshine]

There are certain components of government that we have to leave to the best judgment of those we elect to high office because we simply are not privy to all the facts, information, and nuances involved in the situation.

I have been one of President Obama's harshest critics but I do try to maintain strict integrity to criticize him for what he actually does, says, believes. If we all were absolutely meticulous in doing that no matter who we criticize, we might not have as much Junior High-ish fun, but it would be a far more civil world and satisfying world that we live in.

When we have Americans in harms way, when there are American hostages whose lives are at stake, when we cannot know what negotiations behind the scenes are taking place, public denigration of those engaged in those negotiations is not appropriate or productive and could likely increase the danger of those we want to protect.

So we are to assume the Greyhound stance: Take the bus and leave the driving to us.

Not in this lifetime or the next. That shithead of a president we have needs to know what his 'constitutents' think about him and his useless apologies.

Fine. But does he have to know publically, in full view of all our enemies, when we still have people in harm's way? Can't we wait until our people are safely home to do the critique in the media and/or on publc message boards? When what gives us personal satisfaction in fact gives justification and/or encouragement to all our enemies, we should really rethink that. Past generations have fully understood that. Had the Vietnam generation fully understood it, that would have been far less of a useless blood bath. If the current generation understood that, I think this would be a less dangerous world.

So your answer to the murder of Americans by foreign governments and people is for all other Americans to give up their Constitutional rights. Groovy.

 

[Foxfyre]

So we are to assume the Greyhound stance: Take the bus and leave the driving to us.

Not in this lifetime or the next. That shithead of a president we have needs to know what his 'constitutents' think about him and his useless apologies.

Fine. But does he have to know publically, in full view of all our enemies, when we still have people in harm's way? Can't we wait until our people are safely home to do the critique in the media and/or on publc message boards? When what gives us personal satisfaction in fact gives justification and/or encouragement to all our enemies, we should really rethink that. Past generations have fully understood that. Had the Vietnam generation fully understood it, that would have been far less of a useless blood bath. If the current generation understood that, I think this would be a less dangerous world.

So your answer to the murder of Americans by foreign governments and people is for all other Americans to give up their Constitutional rights. Groovy.

Is that what you got from my post? I don't find that concept in there anywhere. I don't think I have suggested that anybody give up anything related to our rights. I thought I was expressing our right to exercise self control, restraint, and common sense in the best interest of those in harm's way. But oh well.

 

[Sunshine]

Fine. But does he have to know publically, in full view of all our enemies, when we still have people in harm's way? Can't we wait until our people are safely home to do the critique in the media and/or on publc message boards? When what gives us personal satisfaction in fact gives justification and/or encouragement to all our enemies, we should really rethink that. Past generations have fully understood that. Had the Vietnam generation fully understood it, that would have been far less of a useless blood bath. If the current generation understood that, I think this would be a less dangerous world.

So your answer to the murder of Americans by foreign governments and people is for all other Americans to give up their Constitutional rights. Groovy.

Is that what you got from my post? I don't find that concept in there anywhere. I don't think I have suggested that anybody give up anything related to our rights. I thought I was expressing our right to exercise self control, restraint, and common sense in the best interest of those in harm's way. But oh well.

Common sense is to let that jackass in the White House know we are NOT impressed. You know, like use our freedom of speech.

 

[Foxfyre]

So your answer to the murder of Americans by foreign governments and people is for all other Americans to give up their Constitutional rights. Groovy.

Is that what you got from my post? I don't find that concept in there anywhere. I don't think I have suggested that anybody give up anything related to our rights. I thought I was expressing our right to exercise self control, restraint, and common sense in the best interest of those in harm's way. But oh well.

Common sense is to let that jackass in the White House know we are NOT impressed. You know, like use our freedom of speech.

Is it? What do you accomplish with that other than making yourself feel self righteous if the net effect is to increase the danger to those in harm's way? Does not the right to free speech include the right to exercise discretion in what we say and the effect of what we say?

It has been maybe ten years ago that a high ranking Viet Cong officer, in a visit to the USA, thoughtfully reported that we had them whipped in the Tet offensive. What kept the Viet Cong fighting was the images of American flags burning, obscene signs insulting our national leaders including President Johnson, and rioting protestors night after night on television. Most of those people were exercising their rights to free speech too. But their activities and the media reporting it with little coverage of the considerable support our troops had gave considerable aid and comfort to the enemy who were encouraged by it. And so we blinked first and ultimately sneaked out of Saigon in the dark of night leaving our Vietnamese allies to ruthless slaughter and/or torture and imprisonment.

But I'm sure the protestors and the media who gave them such extensive television time to this day feel righteous in their exercise of their rights.

You might feel better and be perfectly justified in voicing your opinion of President Obama and any inappropriate action he has taken in the current situation. But if making a public display of our contempt and objection to that gives aid and comfort to the enemy and/or encourages them to do harm to our fellow Americans, is that not something that responsible Americans should consider? Is it not worth a bit of voluntary self restraint to wait until our people are safely out of harm's way to publically air our contempt?

 

[Paulie]

I do not believe in any god or afterlife.
However True Christians are fine folks.
People that use religion for their own personal gains are scum.

You're getting close to the end of your life. It's time to make peace with your maker or death is going to be quite a lonely and empty experience for you.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Many people think their personal feelings outweigh the possible safety of others

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Many seem content just to hear themselves *****. And I bet you most of them haven't even written their congressman to voice an opinion that may actually have an impact.

 

[Foxfyre]

Many people think their personal feelings outweigh the possible safety of others

But I think for most, it isn't intentional. Sometimes it is a kind of blindness that allows us to block out the negative consequences of the choices we make or the words we choose.

One thing is for sure, if the Viet Cong were encouraged by the very public and visible contempt heaped upon the government, and al Qaida, the insurgency, and anti-democracy Iraqis were encouraged by the contempt heaped upon our leadership beginning as early as 2003, there is no reason to think our enemies won't be encouraged by public contempt against our leaders now too. They sure as hell won't treat their captives any better or be any more merciful to our fighting forces.

 

[Paulie]

Many seem content just to hear themselves *****. And I bet you most of them haven't even written their congressman to voice an opinion that may actually have an impact.

No doubt people don't write their reps. The easiest way to tell that they don't is that these reps KEEP ******* US. If the pressure was actually on from the electorate, the people would be getting what they want instead of the opposite.

 

[Foxfyre]

Many seem content just to hear themselves *****. And I bet you most of them haven't even written their congressman to voice an opinion that may actually have an impact.

No doubt people don't write their reps. The easiest way to tell that they don't is that these reps KEEP ******* US. If the pressure was actually on from the electorate, the people would be getting what they want instead of the opposite.

Well I write, telegraph, e-mail, and telephone my reps on a pretty regular basis. I feel that is my responsibility as a patriotic American. And whether Republican or Democrat they get an earful of what I think about what they are doing about this or that. Sometimes I hear back from them. Most times I don't.

I also write Letters to the Editor and express my very strong opinions about this and that. Some are published. Most aren't. I sometimes call radio talk shows. Sometimes I get on. Usually I don't (mostly because I can't get through.)

I have no qualms or reservations in expressing my opinions about what I think our elected leaders should be doing when the issue is something I feel I have a good grasp of.

I do NOT have any knowledge of what our government is doing in hostage negotiations or troop movements or war initiatives, etc. So I keep my mouth shut re any criticism in those areas UNTIL our people are safely out of harm's way. THEN I might let the government people and/or the President have it if I think they/he screwed up. But I'm not going to give the enemy ammunition to use while the negotiations are going on.