Politicians representing Americans should know better

[Psychoblues]

Two weeks ago I mentioned Jean Schmidt briefly as part of an item on the disgraceful attack on Rep. John Murtha by House Republicans. It seems like a good idea to backtrack slightly and examine Schmidt's full idiocy in depth.

For those of you who live on another planet, Schmidt is the Republican congresswoman who during a recent debate over a resolution to withdraw American troops from Iraq said:

“A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.”

The remark caused an uproar and was eventually stricken from the record. But let's take a look at what Jean Schmidt's been up to since that fateful day.

First, Schmidt tried page one of the Republican playbook - she blamed the media and said she had been "misinterpreted." (1.) Nice try. Next, she announced that she had been invited to visit Iraq as part of a congressional delegation. During the announcement she demonstrated her breathtaking ignorance by saying “I’m not sure whether Congress should have a national debate on whether we should be there or not." (2.) Duh.

But this misunderstanding can all be cleared up quite easily - you see, it turns out that Jean Schmidt didn't actually know that Murtha was a Marine Corps veteran when she made the comments. At least,That’s what she says. (3.) This, of course, despite the fact that Murtha's service was mentioned several times during the House debate before she made her comments, and the fact that she used the phrase, "Marines never do." (That must have just been a coincidence.) "I did not know he was a Marine or I would not have said it," she said, adding that she didn't think that Col. Danny Bubp knew either.

Which would tie things up quite nicely, if it weren't for the fact that Danny Bubp subsequently announced that he never actually mentioned Murtha by name when he talked to Schmidt, and that he would never call a fellow Marine a coward anyway. (4.) Whoops.

1. http://www.daytonadailynews.com/localnews/content/daily/1123schmidt.html
2. http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051124/NEWS01/511240340
3. http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051123/NEWS01/511230359
4. http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051122/NEWS01/511220352



I didn’t care much for the remarks that Jean made at the time. Like most of our Congress, I thought her remarks completely out of line. But, she’s a junior Congressperson and subject to manipulation. I think she was manipulated beyond her control and educated beyond her intelligence. An also but, I think she’s fairly indicative of a warmongering bunch of heathens that don’t care one whit about the reputations and sacrifices that common Americans have fought for and earned and to this day believe in. Don’t you?


Psychoblues

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Two weeks ago I mentioned Jean Schmidt briefly as part of an item on the disgraceful attack on Rep. John Murtha by House Republicans. It seems like a good idea to backtrack slightly and examine Schmidt's full idiocy in depth.

For those of you who live on another planet, Schmidt is the Republican congresswoman who during a recent debate over a resolution to withdraw American troops from Iraq said:

“A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.”

The remark caused an uproar and was eventually stricken from the record. But let's take a look at what Jean Schmidt's been up to since that fateful day.

First, Schmidt tried page one of the Republican playbook - she blamed the media and said she had been "misinterpreted." (1.) Nice try. Next, she announced that she had been invited to visit Iraq as part of a congressional delegation. During the announcement she demonstrated her breathtaking ignorance by saying “I’m not sure whether Congress should have a national debate on whether we should be there or not." (2.) Duh.

But this misunderstanding can all be cleared up quite easily - you see, it turns out that Jean Schmidt didn't actually know that Murtha was a Marine Corps veteran when she made the comments. At least,That’s what she says. (3.) This, of course, despite the fact that Murtha's service was mentioned several times during the House debate before she made her comments, and the fact that she used the phrase, "Marines never do." (That must have just been a coincidence.) "I did not know he was a Marine or I would not have said it," she said, adding that she didn't think that Col. Danny Bubp knew either.

Which would tie things up quite nicely, if it weren't for the fact that Danny Bubp subsequently announced that he never actually mentioned Murtha by name when he talked to Schmidt, and that he would never call a fellow Marine a coward anyway. (4.) Whoops.

1. http://www.daytonadailynews.com/localnews/content/daily/1123schmidt.html
2. http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051124/NEWS01/511240340
3. http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051123/NEWS01/511230359
4. http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051122/NEWS01/511220352



I didn’t care much for the remarks that Jean made at the time. Like most of our Congress, I thought her remarks completely out of line. But, she’s a junior Congressperson and subject to manipulation. I think she was manipulated beyond her control and educated beyond her intelligence. An also but, I think she’s fairly indicative of a warmongering bunch of heathens that don’t care one whit about the reputations and sacrifices that common Americans have fought for and earned and to this day believe in. Don’t you?


Psychoblues

WHATEVER. I only have one thing to say:

Stay the course. send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do

 

[Stephanie]

Two weeks ago I mentioned Jean Schmidt briefly as part of an item on the disgraceful attack on Rep. John Murtha by House Republicans. It seems like a good idea to backtrack slightly and examine Schmidt's full idiocy in depth.

For those of you who live on another planet, Schmidt is the Republican congresswoman who during a recent debate over a resolution to withdraw American troops from Iraq said:

“A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.”

The remark caused an uproar and was eventually stricken from the record. But let's take a look at what Jean Schmidt's been up to since that fateful day.

First, Schmidt tried page one of the Republican playbook - she blamed the media and said she had been "misinterpreted." (1.) Nice try. Next, she announced that she had been invited to visit Iraq as part of a congressional delegation. During the announcement she demonstrated her breathtaking ignorance by saying “I’m not sure whether Congress should have a national debate on whether we should be there or not." (2.) Duh.

But this misunderstanding can all be cleared up quite easily - you see, it turns out that Jean Schmidt didn't actually know that Murtha was a Marine Corps veteran when she made the comments. At least,That’s what she says. (3.) This, of course, despite the fact that Murtha's service was mentioned several times during the House debate before she made her comments, and the fact that she used the phrase, "Marines never do." (That must have just been a coincidence.) "I did not know he was a Marine or I would not have said it," she said, adding that she didn't think that Col. Danny Bubp knew either.

Which would tie things up quite nicely, if it weren't for the fact that Danny Bubp subsequently announced that he never actually mentioned Murtha by name when he talked to Schmidt, and that he would never call a fellow Marine a coward anyway. (4.) Whoops.

1. http://www.daytonadailynews.com/localnews/content/daily/1123schmidt.html
2. http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051124/NEWS01/511240340
3. http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051123/NEWS01/511230359
4. http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051122/NEWS01/511220352



I didn’t care much for the remarks that Jean made at the time. Like most of our Congress, I thought her remarks completely out of line. But, she’s a junior Congressperson and subject to manipulation. I think she was manipulated beyond her control and educated beyond her intelligence. An also but, I think she’s fairly indicative of a warmongering bunch of heathens that don’t care one whit about the reputations and sacrifices that common Americans have fought for and earned and to this day believe in. Don’t you?


Psychoblues

Digging up old rehased bullshit, that's you my friend.... :blah2: :blah2: Here's you :rotflmao:

 

[Psychoblues]

Thanks for keeping the thread bumped up, luverpgrl and Staphany.

Geesh

Psychoblues

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Thanks for keeping the thread bumped up, luverpgrl and Staphany.

Geesh

Psychoblues

we didnt bump it up, it was already on top, due to its such recent posting.
I guess you are like WJ and David Duke, just the opposite end, looking for anything and distorting without limit, anything, so it will fit your agenda first.

Hey, I got a good sig for you, "agenda first, truth later"

 

[Stephanie]

Thanks for keeping the thread bumped up, luverpgrl and Staphany.

Geesh

Psychoblues

Here let me bump it up again, so you don't feel like nobody is anwsering you soon enough. You see it's only 10:15 here in Alaska... bump,bump,bump..... :rotflmao:

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Here let me bump it up again, so you don't feel like nobody is anwsering you soon enough. You see it's only 10:15 here in Alaska... bump,bump,bump..... :rotflmao:

Its your bump now

 

[Stephanie]

Its your bump now

Oh shoot, isn't it back to him? hehe :alco:

 

[Psychoblues]

No question about it. Lovergpgrl and Stapanie do like the "Bumping" and are not interested in discussion. Are there others out there that have opinions rather than an animalistic need to "bump"?

Psychoblues

 

[Stephanie]

No question about it. Lovergpgrl and Stapanie do like the "Bumping" and are not interested in discussion. Are there others out there that have opinions rather than an animalistic need to "bump"?

Psychoblues

What was the question again? Oh the hell with it. let's just bump, bump bump... That's more fun than trying to anwser your silly post's sometimes ......

 

[Gem]

Psycho,

I, like you, was incredibly annoyed by Schmidt's backpeddling after her comment. Just like Durbin's "apology" after comparing US troops to Nazi's, Schmidt and Durbin stated their true feelings and then quickly tried to pseudo-apologize-backaway when it became apparent that their parties were not going to stand behind them.

However...(you knew there was going to be a "however," didn't you?)

I want to go back to Schmidt's comment and ask you what was so wrong with it. If, indeed, the Colonel in question did not use Murtha's name - which is doubtful...(it is far more likely that he used it assumming she wouldn't have the balls to say what she did on the floor, and then he backtracked when he started getting some heat for the comments)...then I agree, it was wrong for her to use his name...

But what is so wrong with a person saying, "Congressmen Murtha, you are wrong. What you are suggesting would be so incredibly harmful to the Iraqis and to the United States that to even consider it is unconscionable. Cowards cut and run from a difficult job...marines never do."

Why, simply because someone served their nation honorably in the past, are you so eager to give them a free pass to say whatever they want in the future without being equally open to criticism as a person who did not serve?

Would you be so willing to place his freedom of speech above those who did not serve if he was yelling for the outlawing of abortions? For how evil gay marriage is? For staying the course in Iraq?"

If Murtha had been a Republican and he had stated, "We MUST MUST MUST stay the course in Iraq." and Nanci Pelosi had stated that that position was what was causing troops deaths and that Murtha was misguided by Bush and making decisions that will cause young Americans to die...would you be here screeching about how Murtha is a hero...and Pelosi should be ashamed for insinuating that this war hero is a baby killer? I doubt it, Psycho....I doubt it very much.

Schmidt did not dodge a draft, she didn't pay someone to go to a war in her stead. She, and all the other Americans who have not served exercised one of the most wonderful rights our nation has afforded us...the right to serve OR NOT serve...while still enjoying all of the rights and privledges of a citizen of this country.

What is amazing about this nation, Psycho...is that MY opinion is just as valid as my husbands...even though he is serving his nation in the Air Force...and I never even considered joining the military.

I alternatively laugh or get very nervous when I see people like you, Psycho...people who I believe probably tout Freedom of Speech as an amazing gift...yet seem so eager to attack people for speaking out against people you agree with.

Schmidt did not call Murtha a coward. Did she imply it? Perhaps. But guess what...she is allowed to. People who are saying that we should leave Iraq now are, in my opinion, ignoring a MOUNTAIN of evidence of all of the negative consquences that action could take. Actions that would permanently and irrevocably damage the United States (not to mention, quite possibly, dooming Iraq). To me...that makes it a dangerous idea...a dumb idea...and yes, a somewhat cowardly idea.

I will respect Murtha and those like him for their service forever, I will teach my children to respect and honor them for their sacrifices. But that does not mean that their opinion is worth more than mine (even if perhaps, it should mean that...it doesn't...not in this country), nor does it mean that they are always right...or always have the right to be free from criticism, however harsh.

 

[nukeman]

Psycho,

I, like you, was incredibly annoyed by Schmidt's backpeddling after her comment. Just like Durbin's "apology" after comparing US troops to Nazi's, Schmidt and Durbin stated their true feelings and then quickly tried to pseudo-apologize-backaway when it became apparent that their parties were not going to stand behind them.

However...(you knew there was going to be a "however," didn't you?)

I want to go back to Schmidt's comment and ask you what was so wrong with it. If, indeed, the Colonel in question did not use Murtha's name - which is doubtful...(it is far more likely that he used it assumming she wouldn't have the balls to say what she did on the floor, and then he backtracked when he started getting some heat for the comments)...then I agree, it was wrong for her to use his name...

But what is so wrong with a person saying, "Congressmen Murtha, you are wrong. What you are suggesting would be so incredibly harmful to the Iraqis and to the United States that to even consider it is unconscionable. Cowards cut and run from a difficult job...marines never do."

Why, simply because someone served their nation honorably in the past, are you so eager to give them a free pass to say whatever they want in the future without being equally open to criticism as a person who did not serve?

Would you be so willing to place his freedom of speech above those who did not serve if he was yelling for the outlawing of abortions? For how evil gay marriage is? For staying the course in Iraq?"

If Murtha had been a Republican and he had stated, "We MUST MUST MUST stay the course in Iraq." and Nanci Pelosi had stated that that position was what was causing troops deaths and that Murtha was misguided by Bush and making decisions that will cause young Americans to die...would you be here screeching about how Murtha is a hero...and Pelosi should be ashamed for insinuating that this war hero is a baby killer? I doubt it, Psycho....I doubt it very much.

Schmidt did not dodge a draft, she didn't pay someone to go to a war in her stead. She, and all the other Americans who have not served exercised one of the most wonderful rights our nation has afforded us...the right to serve OR NOT serve...while still enjoying all of the rights and privledges of a citizen of this country.

What is amazing about this nation, Psycho...is that MY opinion is just as valid as my husbands...even though he is serving his nation in the Air Force...and I never even considered joining the military.

I alternatively laugh or get very nervous when I see people like you, Psycho...people who I believe probably tout Freedom of Speech as an amazing gift...yet seem so eager to attack people for speaking out against people you agree with.

Schmidt did not call Murtha a coward. Did she imply it? Perhaps. But guess what...she is allowed to. People who are saying that we should leave Iraq now are, in my opinion, ignoring a MOUNTAIN of evidence of all of the negative consquences that action could take. Actions that would permanently and irrevocably damage the United States (not to mention, quite possibly, dooming Iraq). To me...that makes it a dangerous idea...a dumb idea...and yes, a somewhat cowardly idea.

I will respect Murtha and those like him for their service forever, I will teach my children to respect and honor them for their sacrifices. But that does not mean that their opinion is worth more than mine (even if perhaps, it should mean that...it doesn't...not in this country), nor does it mean that they are always right...or always have the right to be free from criticism, however harsh.

What a great post!!! He wont reply though because your post has been well thought out and articulated very well. I dont see how he can argue with any of it.... :usa:

 

[ScreamingEagle]

But what is so wrong with a person saying, "Congressmen Murtha, you are wrong. What you are suggesting would be so incredibly harmful to the Iraqis and to the United States that to even consider it is unconscionable. Cowards cut and run from a difficult job...marines never do."

Why, simply because someone served their nation honorably in the past, are you so eager to give them a free pass to say whatever they want in the future without being equally open to criticism as a person who did not serve?

This is a good question. I am still looking for the answer to this because so many Republicans as well as Democrats seem to fall for the same stupid free pass idea.

However, it is pretty apparent that Dims will defend the statements of a military man and give them a free pass ONLY if he is ON THEIR SIDE.

What pains me is the fact that stupid Republicans still give a POLITICIAN a free pass if he was formerly decorated. Bowing before a politician with a military record is plain stupid when the politician is wrong. Even stupid loud-mouthed Murtha voted against himself. After you answer Gem, why don't you explain that one Psycho.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Schmidt did not call Murtha a coward. Did she imply it? Perhaps. But guess what...she is allowed to. People who are saying that we should leave Iraq now are, in my opinion, ignoring a MOUNTAIN of evidence of all of the negative consquences that action could take. Actions that would permanently and irrevocably damage the United States (not to mention, quite possibly, dooming Iraq). To me...that makes it a dangerous idea...a dumb idea...and yes, a somewhat cowardly idea.

QUOTE]

What sickens me is I believe they oppose the war purely for political reasons. And that they are using the soldiers as pawns. They are willing to have more soldiers than is necessary, die, just for their own political gain.

How do we know its a political issue and not a strategy or moral one to them? Because the percentage of dems/libs against it is simply too high.
I would think if the dems were thinking the issue through, and sincerely gave their moral opinion, and their opinion about its effectiveness as a strategy to fight the war on terror, many more would have to agree with it.

I mean, strategically, there really are many options, and we cant really know what the best one is, but we do know this one is working to keep the terrorists out of the US, so far. How can so many dems/libs be lined up and opposed to the strategy if its proving sucessful? Because its for political gain.

Even Hillary, who voted for funding the war, and is trying to gain moderate repub votes for the presidency, says she thinks ousting saddam was good, but she has to criticize the president somehow, or take the wrath of the political structure of the DNC. So she claims Bush is making a huge mistake by not getting the UN or a true coalition in Iraq NOW, to oversee the elections and transistion of the govt.

Can you believe that? what a fucking loser mentality. Yea, our marines go over and sacrafice their lives, then just hand it over to the UN to take credit when the transistion happens.

Yea, the same UN that sent its armed units there, but when actual violence broke out, they RAN lickidy split outta there.

Yea, the same UN filled with corruption in the oil for food/weapons scandals.

the same UN that has Sudan at the head of the human rights commission.

the same UN that cant provide troops for afghanastan, so the US is picking up the slack.

yea, that makes alot of sense, NOT! Its simple, she knows Bush wont attempt it, so its her free reign to criticize him. And the liberal press wont question her about it, not once. If I were in the press, I would dog her with questions about the above statements of the UN.

and its also evident by the DNC's constant harping, We support the troops, but not the war. Thats like saying, we support legalizing marijuana, but not smoking it.(although I think they are! )

 

[Psychoblues]

I, like you, am incredibly annoyed by anyone that claims a right to freedom of speech but at least tacitly attempts to limit it. My remarks are of mostly my own opinion, that's it. Do you wish that I should just shut up? Sorry, I don't agree. Have I ever even intimated that I wish YOU should just shut up? NO.

I would, however (there's always a however, isn't it) encourage you to diversify your reading and listening habits as far as news and public information are concerned. I would further encourage you to find factual faults in my argument and opinions and specify them so that I might be able to understand and properly debate the differences.

Here's for starters:
1. "I, like you, was incredibly annoyed by Schmidt's backpeddling after her comment. Just like Durbin's "apology" after comparing US troops to Nazi's, Schmidt and Durbin stated their true feelings and then quickly tried to pseudo-apologize-backaway when it became apparent that their parties were not going to stand behind them."

I am not aware of any apology of either candidate mentioned. Why would their parties not stand behind them? The subject refered to statements made by Congressman Murtha. Has he apologized for his service in the United States Marine Corp or anything else? Please don't obfuscate the subject.

2. "I want to go back to Schmidt's comment and ask you what was so wrong with it. If, indeed, the Colonel in question did not use Murtha's name - which is doubtful...(it is far more likely that he used it assumming she wouldn't have the balls to say what she did on the floor, and then he backtracked when he started getting some heat for the comments)...then I agree, it was wrong for her to use his name..."

I told you what I think is wrong with it, you intimate you find nothing wrong with it. That's it. Are you trying to defend it because you agree with it or are you just testing the waters?

3. "But what is so wrong with a person saying, "Congressmen Murtha, you are wrong. What you are suggesting would be so incredibly harmful to the Iraqis and to the United States that to even consider it is unconscionable. Cowards cut and run from a difficult job...marines never do."

Congressman Murtha never made such a statement and would never have made such a statement. But as a former military type, I'll say that our military deserves much better than lies, innuendo and bullshit before going in to risk their lives.

4. "Why, simply because someone served their nation honorably in the past, are you so eager to give them a free pass to say whatever they want in the future without being equally open to criticism as a person who did not serve?"

I'm not giving anyone a "free pass" on anything. Are you intimating that we as American people should give Jean Schmidt a free pass on her personally disparaging and untruthful remarks? I'm open to truth. Bullshit like as was espoused by Jean Schmidt is not welcome in my thought train. PS. She is not stupid, she is merely ignorant. That's all I would intimate.

4. "Would you be so willing to place his freedom of speech above those who did not serve if he was yelling for the outlawing of abortions? For how evil gay marriage is? For staying the course in Iraq?"

First off, this subject doesn't address or in any way intimate the subjects of abortion or of evilness of "gay marriage." For the record, I don't agree with abortion as a means of birth control. In addition, I am not convinced at all that "gay marriage" is in any way evil or unconstitutional. Marriage is by definition is a legal arrangement in this country with religious considerations notwithstanding. Argue with that. I think the argument is whether or not we should "stay the course" in Iraq. Congressman Murtha and I are opposed to "staying the course" as it is presented to us at this time. Do you have a problem with that?

Also for the record, I am a married man of some 36 plus years. I have 3 well educated and societally well adjusted children. We all disagree on particular issues but we all agree on the preservations of American freedom as promised in our Constitution. We all wish to preserve the Democracy that the Constitution and it's amendments guarantee us. We all resent misrepresentations and downright lies. Don't you?

5. "If Murtha had been a Republican and he had stated, "We MUST MUST MUST stay the course in Iraq." and Nanci Pelosi had stated that that position was what was causing troops deaths and that Murtha was misguided by Bush and making decisions that will cause young Americans to die...would you be here screeching about how Murtha is a hero...and Pelosi should be ashamed for insinuating that this war hero is a baby killer? I doubt it, Psycho....I doubt it very much."

IF my aunt had balls, she would have been my uncle. Is this what you are saying with all those "if's?" I haven't heard the "baby killer' accusation since Viet Nam. What in hell are you insinuating, Gem?

6. "Schmidt did not dodge a draft, she didn't pay someone to go to a war in her stead. She, and all the other Americans who have not served exercised one of the most wonderful rights our nation has afforded us...the right to serve OR NOT serve...while still enjoying all of the rights and privledges of a citizen of this country."

"the right to serve or NOT serve", what are you trying to say? This in combination with your assertion that someone may "dodge a draft" or "pay someone to go to war in her stead" is certainly confusing. We have a present pResident that certainly didn't serve in any war that I am aware of except perhaps those wars he created trying to dodge WAR itself. One of us just ain't getting it.

7. "What is amazing about this nation, Psycho...is that MY opinion is just as valid as my husbands...even though he is serving his nation in the Air Force...and I never even considered joining the military."

And your opinion, like the opinion of your husband, is no more valid than my own and I am only an American that has done his duty repetitively in both military and civilian avenues of American opportunity and responsibility. I would only suggest that GWB and Jean Schmidt have not. You figure that out for yourself.

8. "I alternatively laugh or get very nervous when I see people like you, Psycho...people who I believe probably tout Freedom of Speech as an amazing gift...yet seem so eager to attack people for speaking out against people you agree with."

Yes, and I never think it's funny when people like you so misrepresent people like me. But, you don't make me nervous. You energize me to continue my fight for the American principles and doctrines I was raised to both understand and respect.

9. "Schmidt did not call Murtha a coward. Did she imply it? Perhaps. But guess what...she is allowed to. People who are saying that we should leave Iraq now are, in my opinion, ignoring a MOUNTAIN of evidence of all of the negative consquences that action could take. Actions that would permanently and irrevocably damage the United States (not to mention, quite possibly, dooming Iraq). To me...that makes it a dangerous idea...a dumb idea...and yes, a somewhat cowardly idea."

Schmidt shat on the ideology as espoused by Congressman Murtha and all other inquiring minds of Americans. She was not allowed to do so from the halls of our United States Congress. Her remarks were stricken from the record and her intents were admonished both from her own party and the party in opposition. Only her ignorance has been excused but not without admonition. What is it about all this you continue to not understand?

10. "I will respect Murtha and those like him for their service forever, I will teach my children to respect and honor them for their sacrifices. But that does not mean that their opinion is worth more than mine (even if perhaps, it should mean that...it doesn't...not in this country), nor does it mean that they are always right...or always have the right to be free from criticism, however harsh.[/QUOTE]"

I don't know where you got that "quote" from. But, it makes no sense to me at all. Would you please extrapolate and give me an understanding your problem with America?

Psychoblues

Psycho,

I, like you, was incredibly annoyed by Schmidt's backpeddling after her comment. Just like Durbin's "apology" after comparing US troops to Nazi's, Schmidt and Durbin stated their true feelings and then quickly tried to pseudo-apologize-backaway when it became apparent that their parties were not going to stand behind them.

However...(you knew there was going to be a "however," didn't you?)

I want to go back to Schmidt's comment and ask you what was so wrong with it. If, indeed, the Colonel in question did not use Murtha's name - which is doubtful...(it is far more likely that he used it assumming she wouldn't have the balls to say what she did on the floor, and then he backtracked when he started getting some heat for the comments)...then I agree, it was wrong for her to use his name...

But what is so wrong with a person saying, "Congressmen Murtha, you are wrong. What you are suggesting would be so incredibly harmful to the Iraqis and to the United States that to even consider it is unconscionable. Cowards cut and run from a difficult job...marines never do."

Why, simply because someone served their nation honorably in the past, are you so eager to give them a free pass to say whatever they want in the future without being equally open to criticism as a person who did not serve?

Would you be so willing to place his freedom of speech above those who did not serve if he was yelling for the outlawing of abortions? For how evil gay marriage is? For staying the course in Iraq?"

If Murtha had been a Republican and he had stated, "We MUST MUST MUST stay the course in Iraq." and Nanci Pelosi had stated that that position was what was causing troops deaths and that Murtha was misguided by Bush and making decisions that will cause young Americans to die...would you be here screeching about how Murtha is a hero...and Pelosi should be ashamed for insinuating that this war hero is a baby killer? I doubt it, Psycho....I doubt it very much.

Schmidt did not dodge a draft, she didn't pay someone to go to a war in her stead. She, and all the other Americans who have not served exercised one of the most wonderful rights our nation has afforded us...the right to serve OR NOT serve...while still enjoying all of the rights and privledges of a citizen of this country.

What is amazing about this nation, Psycho...is that MY opinion is just as valid as my husbands...even though he is serving his nation in the Air Force...and I never even considered joining the military.

I alternatively laugh or get very nervous when I see people like you, Psycho...people who I believe probably tout Freedom of Speech as an amazing gift...yet seem so eager to attack people for speaking out against people you agree with.

Schmidt did not call Murtha a coward. Did she imply it? Perhaps. But guess what...she is allowed to. People who are saying that we should leave Iraq now are, in my opinion, ignoring a MOUNTAIN of evidence of all of the negative consquences that action could take. Actions that would permanently and irrevocably damage the United States (not to mention, quite possibly, dooming Iraq). To me...that makes it a dangerous idea...a dumb idea...and yes, a somewhat cowardly idea.

I will respect Murtha and those like him for their service forever, I will teach my children to respect and honor them for their sacrifices. But that does not mean that their opinion is worth more than mine (even if perhaps, it should mean that...it doesn't...not in this country), nor does it mean that they are always right...or always have the right to be free from criticism, however harsh.

 

[Gem]

Psycho Wrote:

I, like you, am incredibly annoyed by anyone that claims a right to freedom of speech but at least tacitly attempts to limit it. My remarks are of mostly my own opinion, that's it. Do you wish that I should just shut up? Sorry, I don't agree. Have I ever even intimated that I wish YOU should just shut up? NO.

If you were referring to someone else, I apologize for responding to this section...if you were referring to me, however, I cannot imagine where you got the idea that I was asking you to shut up. If I was going to ask you to shut up, Psycho, I would not have wasted as much time posting as I did. I would have simply told you to shut up, instead I have attempted to engage you in dialogue about an idea that we have differring opinions about...I was under the impression that this is what you were requesting in your original post.
Psycho Wrote:

I would, however (there's always a however, isn't it) encourage you to diversify your reading and listening habits as far as news and public information are concerned. I would further encourage you to find factual faults in my argument and opinions and specify them so that I might be able to understand and properly debate the differences.

I, to date, read daily my local newspaper, and USA Today (its what comes to work for free). Online I read Mother Jones, and Democratic Underground, as well as National Review and Newsmax...the Drudge Report and Townhall.com. I check CNN and FoxNews and I love Google News's ability to give me a variety of sources from around the world. I read the Nation and Time at home, occassionally I buy NewsWeek if the cover interests me, but I am often disappointed by the magazine as a whole. I have subscribtions to Rolling Stone, The Nation, National Review, and Conde Naste Traveler (what can I say...I can't read about politics all the time).

If you would like to recommend some other sites or publications, I would consider them. At the moment, I would say that I have a very balanced media diet however.

Considering that the only thing I have done in this post so far is politely disagree with you when you wrote: "I think she’s [Schmidt's] fairly indicative of a warmongering bunch of heathens that don’t care one whit about the reputations and sacrifices that common Americans have fought for and earned and to this day believe in. Don’t you?" and stated that I do not think that questioning Murtha's statement is automatically an attack on his patriotism, it seems a bit out of line and/or unneccessary for you to immediately assume I am not looking for a variety of news sources. Are you interested in discussing ideas with people whose views differ from yours or are you simply interested in attacking/insulting those who have differing opinions?

Psycho Wrote:

Here's for starters:
1. ...I am not aware of any apology of either candidate mentioned.

I'm sorry...I thought these apologies had been covered by a number of news sources. Here are some links to articles that discuss Durbin's "apology" and Schmidt's "apology":

Durbin's Apology
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/21/guantanamo.durbin/index.html
The highlight: "I offer my apologies to those that were offended by my words."

Schmidt's Apology:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/23/schmidt.ap/index.html
The highlight: "While I strongly disagree with his policy, neither Representative Bubp nor I ever wished to attack Congressman Murtha," she said in a statement. "I only take exception to his policy position."

Psycho Wrote:

Why would their parties not stand behind them?

The Democrats stopped supporting Durbin when it became clear that the American people were not pleased with American soldiers being compared to Nazi's or the Khmer Rouge. The Republicans backed away from Schmidt even faster than the Dems left Durbin...fearful at being accused of insulting a war hero.

Psycho Wrote

The subject refered to statements made by Congressman Murtha. Has he apologized for his service in the United States Marine Corp or anything else?

I can see no reason at all why Murtha would have to apologize for an honorable and praise-worthy service record, don't be silly.

Psycho Wrote:

2. "I want to go back to Schmidt's comment and ask you what was so wrong with it. If, indeed, the Colonel in question did not use Murtha's name - which is doubtful...(it is far more likely that he used it assumming she wouldn't have the balls to say what she did on the floor, and then he backtracked when he started getting some heat for the comments)...then I agree, it was wrong for her to use his name..."

I told you what I think is wrong with it, you intimate you find nothing wrong with it. That's it. Are you trying to defend it because you agree with it or are you just testing the waters?

It was quite obvious that you found her comment disgraceful...what I was asking for it for you to explain why. I'm sorry you found that difficult to comprehend.

I found her comment unneccesarily aggressive, but I think her point was sound. As I expressed clearly when I said: "Schmidt did not call Murtha a coward. Did she imply it? Perhaps. But guess what...she is allowed to. People who are saying that we should leave Iraq now are, in my opinion, ignoring a MOUNTAIN of evidence of all of the negative consquences that action could take. Actions that would permanently and irrevocably damage the United States (not to mention, quite possibly, dooming Iraq). To me...that makes it a dangerous idea...a dumb idea...and yes, a somewhat cowardly idea."

Psycho Wrote:

3. "But what is so wrong with a person saying, "Congressmen Murtha, you are wrong. What you are suggesting would be so incredibly harmful to the Iraqis and to the United States that to even consider it is unconscionable. Cowards cut and run from a difficult job...marines never do."

Congressman Murtha never made such a statement and would never have made such a statement. But as a former military type, I'll say that our military deserves much better than lies, innuendo and bullshit before going in to risk their lives.

Congressman Murtha is calling for the immediate (within 6 months is immediate...it will take that long to put into place a large scale withdraw) removal of US Forces. Pelosi has now publically agreed with him. To many people, that means we are "cutting and running."

Please note, Psycho, I did not state that Murtha has said, "WE SHOULD CUT AND RUN." I have only asked what would be the problem of someone who believes that removing all troops from Iraq anytime soon IS cutting and running exercising their freedom of speech to ask Murtha using that language. Does Murtha's previous service somehow grant him immunity from being asked tough and/or mean questions in your opinion?

Psycho Wrote:

4. "Why, simply because someone served their nation honorably in the past, are you so eager to give them a free pass to say whatever they want in the future without being equally open to criticism as a person who did not serve?"

I'm not giving anyone a "free pass" on anything. Are you intimating that we as American people should give Jean Schmidt a free pass on her personally disparaging and untruthful remarks? I'm open to truth. Bullshit like as was espoused by Jean Schmidt is not welcome in my thought train. PS. She is not stupid, she is merely ignorant. That's all I would intimate.

She expressed an opinion, that "cutting and running," which was how she (and/or the person she was "speaking for") viewed Murtha's plan...was a bad idea. She expressed that opinion forcefully and, to you, rudely. But she has every right to express that opinion.

Am I giving her a free pass? No. If I was I would be telling you to shut up and stop criticizing her, which - please note - I have never done. Instead, I respect and listen to your criticisms of her (which are, in many ways, harsher than the ones she expressed to Murtha) and then respectfully have disagreed and tried to discuss them with you. Thats called freedom of speech. I respect Murtha's right to express his opinion regarding this war...I respect Schmidt's right to disagree...I respect your right to hate what she said and say so...

My point was and still is, Psycho: She did not say anything that was so terrible, and that I think those that are spazzing out about her statements are being disingenous. People do not get to be free of ever being disagreed with or criticized harshly, even if they are war heroes.

Psycho Wrote:

4. "Would you be so willing to place his freedom of speech above those who did not serve if he was yelling for the outlawing of abortions? For how evil gay marriage is? For staying the course in Iraq?"

First off, this subject doesn't address or in any way intimate the subjects of abortion or of evilness of "gay marriage." For the record, I don't agree with abortion as a means of birth control. In addition, I am not convinced at all that "gay marriage" is in any way evil or unconstitutional. Marriage is by definition is a legal arrangement in this country with religious considerations notwithstanding. Argue with that.

Why would I argue with that? I think that your point is sound. I was not mentioning abortion or gay marriage in an attempt to change the subject to those topics, only to illustrate that I do not believe we would be seeing you protesting so vehemently if Murtha was stating something you did not believe in.

Psycho Wrote:

I think the argument is whether or not we should "stay the course" in Iraq. Congressman Murtha and I are opposed to "staying the course" as it is presented to us at this time. Do you have a problem with that?

That is the argument at hand, yes, I am glad you are still on topic. I have never gotten off topic. Again, if you go back and re-read my post you will see that.

And yes, I do have a problem with Murtha - and you - if you feel that removing US troops from Iraq now would be the right move at this time. I think such an action would be devestating. I have stated this several times, in my last post and in this one.

Psycho Wrote:

Also for the record, I am a married man of some 36 plus years. I have 3 well educated and societally well adjusted children. We all disagree on particular issues but we all agree on the preservations of American freedom as promised in our Constitution. We all wish to preserve the Democracy that the Constitution and it's amendments guarantee us. We all resent misrepresentations and downright lies. Don't you?

Speaking of getting of topic...I have no clue why you felt the need to add this. But yes, I agree completely that preserving democracy and the Constitutional rights this country was founded on is absolutely integral...hence why I respect Schmidt's right to speak her mind...and do not feel that Murtha should somehow be free from criticism because he fought in Vietnam.

Oh...and since we're sharing...I'm a 26 year old married woman. I have no children, but I do have 3 dogs that I love VERY much. My husband is a Captain in the Air Force and we both feel very strongly that we need to preserve democracy and protect the Constitution and its Amendments.

Psycho Wrote:

5. "If Murtha had been a Republican and he had stated, "We MUST MUST MUST stay the course in Iraq." and Nanci Pelosi had stated that that position was what was causing troops deaths and that Murtha was misguided by Bush and making decisions that will cause young Americans to die...would you be here screeching about how Murtha is a hero...and Pelosi should be ashamed for insinuating that this war hero is a baby killer? I doubt it, Psycho....I doubt it very much."

IF my aunt had balls, she would have been my uncle. Is this what you are saying with all those "if's?" I haven't heard the "baby killer' accusation since Viet Nam. What in hell are you insinuating, Gem?

I am stating, not insinuating, that if Murtha had been a pro-Iraq war Republican and had stated that staying the course in Iraq was the right thing to do...and Nanci Pelosi and called him a name or two because of that...I do not believe you would be here calling Nanci an ignorant pawn.

Again...that was perfectly clear from my statement above.

Psycho Wrote:

6. "Schmidt did not dodge a draft, she didn't pay someone to go to a war in her stead. She, and all the other Americans who have not served exercised one of the most wonderful rights our nation has afforded us...the right to serve OR NOT serve...while still enjoying all of the rights and privledges of a citizen of this country."

"the right to serve or NOT serve", what are you trying to say? This in combination with your assertion that someone may "dodge a draft" or "pay someone to go to war in her stead" is certainly confusing. We have a present pResident that certainly didn't serve in any war that I am aware of except perhaps those wars he created trying to dodge WAR itself. One of us just ain't getting it.

Yep, the person not getting it is you, Psycho. Don't worry. I'm a patient soul. I'll try again.

I in NO way said or implied that someone has the "right" to dodge a draft. I stated that Schmidt did not dodge a draft. I in NO way stated that someone had the "right" to pay someone to go to war in their place. I stated that Schmidt did not do that.

With me so far?

The reason I stated that was because, again, I am making the point that Schmidt has every right to criticize Murtha - whether she served or not. She may not be a Vietnam vet, like Murtha...but she is an American citizen and therefore has the right to speak her mind. You can disagree, which you obviously do, but she has the right to say what she said.

Psycho Wrote:

7. "What is amazing about this nation, Psycho...is that MY opinion is just as valid as my husbands...even though he is serving his nation in the Air Force...and I never even considered joining the military."

And your opinion, like the opinion of your husband, is no more valid than my own and I am only an American that has done his duty repetitively in both military and civilian avenues of American opportunity and responsibility. I would only suggest that GWB and Jean Schmidt have not. You figure that out for yourself.

I have in no way implied that my opinion, or my husbands, is more valid than yours. In fact...this entire section of my post was celebrating the point that you and I have an equal right to speak our mind. That Bush and Murtha have an equal right to speak their minds. That we all should have equal access to this right.

By stating that people who disagree with Murtha should not criticize him because he is a war hero - it is implied that Murtha's freedom of speech supercedes his critics because he is a veteran. This is wrong.

Psycho Wrote:

8. "I alternatively laugh or get very nervous when I see people like you, Psycho...people who I believe probably tout Freedom of Speech as an amazing gift...yet seem so eager to attack people for speaking out against people you agree with."

Yes, and I never think it's funny when people like you so misrepresent people like me. But, you don't make me nervous. You energize me to continue my fight for the American principles and doctrines I was raised to both understand and respect.

I am thrilled that I energize you. We need some lively debate around here. Now if I could only get you to read my posts completely and coherantly.....

As for misrepresenting you, I apologize sincerely if you feel that way. However, since you started this post by perhaps stating falsely that I asked you to shut up, then insinuating that I did not research issues completely or widely enough...and then continuing to misrepresent almost every other thing I said...I can't get too worked up about this.

Psycho Wrote:

9. "Schmidt did not call Murtha a coward. Did she imply it? Perhaps. But guess what...she is allowed to. People who are saying that we should leave Iraq now are, in my opinion, ignoring a MOUNTAIN of evidence of all of the negative consquences that action could take. Actions that would permanently and irrevocably damage the United States (not to mention, quite possibly, dooming Iraq). To me...that makes it a dangerous idea...a dumb idea...and yes, a somewhat cowardly idea."

Schmidt shat on the ideology as espoused by Congressman Murtha and all other inquiring minds of Americans. She was not allowed to do so from the halls of our United States Congress. Her remarks were stricken from the record and her intents were admonished both from her own party and the party in opposition. Only her ignorance has been excused but not without admonition. What is it about all this you continue to not understand?

I think that Schmidt was smacked down because the Democrats have chosen to make criticizing their war heroes a hanging offence. I think that it is dangeous to tell someone that they can not express their opinion because they are disagreeing with the wrong person, in this case, someone with an exemplary war record.

Do I think Schmidt was an idiot for saying what she did on the floor? Absolutely. She should have known better.

But I continue to be bothered by anyone who would rather silence speech they do not respect than listen to it and disagree, or ignore it.

Psycho Wrote:

10. "I will respect Murtha and those like him for their service forever, I will teach my children to respect and honor them for their sacrifices. But that does not mean that their opinion is worth more than mine (even if perhaps, it should mean that...it doesn't...not in this country), nor does it mean that they are always right...or always have the right to be free from criticism, however harsh. /QUOTE]"
I don't know where you got that "quote" from. But, it makes no sense to me at all. ?

This last section seems to be entirely a misunderstanding caused by your mistake when copying and pasting.

If you go back to my original and unedited post, you will see that there is no "quote" around my statement regarding respecting Murtha and his service. This quote obviously was placed there by you or someone else, and was transferred when you responded to my post. It is a small issue, something that happens frequently when cutting and pasting large sections of text, no biggie, I am sure that you will be more careful next time.

What I'm unsure of is why you felt the need to make such a large and somewhat hostile point of it? Your last statement - "Would you please extrapolate and give me an understanding your problem with America" is silly and juvenille, especially considering that you are supposedly basing it on a mistake YOU made when responding.

I have numerous issues with America. As a citizen of this country, I would wonder and worry about any person who didn't have at least a few problems with the country...if you would like me to extrapolate on my concerns regarding the United States I will, but I do not think that this thread (which as you pointed out several times is about Murtha and Schmidt's disagreements with his views on the War in Iraq) is the appropriate place for it. Have a good night!

 

[Psychoblues]

Gem, you are indeed a jewel. Thanks for the attention but no thanks for the obfuscated argument.

Jean Schmidt absolutely attempted to impugn the character and integrity of John Murtha. She was soundly ostrasized and even her words were stricken from the record for very good reasons. But, you can argue with the United States Congress on that issue.

As far as the rest of your argument is concerned, I would suggest you read the entire Murtha statement and make a polite decision. Ms. Schmidt's words are no longer available for public viewing. I believe John Murtha has a much better handle on what is going on in Iraq than our president or his administration. Even this week, much is being said from them about the forthcoming withdrawal. I'm not convinced this was previously planned. It, however, took the words of John Murtha to force the issue.

I'm only going to go a little further in this conversation with you. I did not serve my country only to see it's power and influence so abused and misrepresented by such an incompetent and self aggrandising administration as we now have. Americans, by their own strength, will continue on despite the faults and failures of such as we are now expected to accept as leadership. I would however, admit that my faith in America was much greater than the results of the last election would suggest.


Psychoblues

Psycho Wrote:

If you were referring to someone else, I apologize for responding to this section...if you were referring to me, however, I cannot imagine where you got the idea that I was asking you to shut up. If I was going to ask you to shut up, Psycho, I would not have wasted as much time posting as I did. I would have simply told you to shut up, instead I have attempted to engage you in dialogue about an idea that we have differring opinions about...I was under the impression that this is what you were requesting in your original post.
Psycho Wrote:

I, to date, read daily my local newspaper, and USA Today (its what comes to work for free). Online I read Mother Jones, and Democratic Underground, as well as National Review and Newsmax...the Drudge Report and Townhall.com. I check CNN and FoxNews and I love Google News's ability to give me a variety of sources from around the world. I read the Nation and Time at home, occassionally I buy NewsWeek if the cover interests me, but I am often disappointed by the magazine as a whole. I have subscribtions to Rolling Stone, The Nation, National Review, and Conde Naste Traveler (what can I say...I can't read about politics all the time).

If you would like to recommend some other sites or publications, I would consider them. At the moment, I would say that I have a very balanced media diet however.

Considering that the only thing I have done in this post so far is politely disagree with you when you wrote: "I think she’s [Schmidt's] fairly indicative of a warmongering bunch of heathens that don’t care one whit about the reputations and sacrifices that common Americans have fought for and earned and to this day believe in. Don’t you?" and stated that I do not think that questioning Murtha's statement is automatically an attack on his patriotism, it seems a bit out of line and/or unneccessary for you to immediately assume I am not looking for a variety of news sources. Are you interested in discussing ideas with people whose views differ from yours or are you simply interested in attacking/insulting those who have differing opinions?

Psycho Wrote:

I'm sorry...I thought these apologies had been covered by a number of news sources. Here are some links to articles that discuss Durbin's "apology" and Schmidt's "apology":

Durbin's Apology
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/21/guantanamo.durbin/index.html
The highlight: "I offer my apologies to those that were offended by my words."

Schmidt's Apology:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/23/schmidt.ap/index.html
The highlight: "While I strongly disagree with his policy, neither Representative Bubp nor I ever wished to attack Congressman Murtha," she said in a statement. "I only take exception to his policy position."

Psycho Wrote:

The Democrats stopped supporting Durbin when it became clear that the American people were not pleased with American soldiers being compared to Nazi's or the Khmer Rouge. The Republicans backed away from Schmidt even faster than the Dems left Durbin...fearful at being accused of insulting a war hero.

Psycho Wrote

I can see no reason at all why Murtha would have to apologize for an honorable and praise-worthy service record, don't be silly.

Psycho Wrote:

It was quite obvious that you found her comment disgraceful...what I was asking for it for you to explain why. I'm sorry you found that difficult to comprehend.

I found her comment unneccesarily aggressive, but I think her point was sound. As I expressed clearly when I said: "Schmidt did not call Murtha a coward. Did she imply it? Perhaps. But guess what...she is allowed to. People who are saying that we should leave Iraq now are, in my opinion, ignoring a MOUNTAIN of evidence of all of the negative consquences that action could take. Actions that would permanently and irrevocably damage the United States (not to mention, quite possibly, dooming Iraq). To me...that makes it a dangerous idea...a dumb idea...and yes, a somewhat cowardly idea."

Psycho Wrote:

Congressman Murtha is calling for the immediate (within 6 months is immediate...it will take that long to put into place a large scale withdraw) removal of US Forces. Pelosi has now publically agreed with him. To many people, that means we are "cutting and running."

Please note, Psycho, I did not state that Murtha has said, "WE SHOULD CUT AND RUN." I have only asked what would be the problem of someone who believes that removing all troops from Iraq anytime soon IS cutting and running exercising their freedom of speech to ask Murtha using that language. Does Murtha's previous service somehow grant him immunity from being asked tough and/or mean questions in your opinion?

Psycho Wrote:

She expressed an opinion, that "cutting and running," which was how she (and/or the person she was "speaking for") viewed Murtha's plan...was a bad idea. She expressed that opinion forcefully and, to you, rudely. But she has every right to express that opinion.

Am I giving her a free pass? No. If I was I would be telling you to shut up and stop criticizing her, which - please note - I have never done. Instead, I respect and listen to your criticisms of her (which are, in many ways, harsher than the ones she expressed to Murtha) and then respectfully have disagreed and tried to discuss them with you. Thats called freedom of speech. I respect Murtha's right to express his opinion regarding this war...I respect Schmidt's right to disagree...I respect your right to hate what she said and say so...

My point was and still is, Psycho: She did not say anything that was so terrible, and that I think those that are spazzing out about her statements are being disingenous. People do not get to be free of ever being disagreed with or criticized harshly, even if they are war heroes.

Psycho Wrote:

Why would I argue with that? I think that your point is sound. I was not mentioning abortion or gay marriage in an attempt to change the subject to those topics, only to illustrate that I do not believe we would be seeing you protesting so vehemently if Murtha was stating something you did not believe in.

Psycho Wrote:

That is the argument at hand, yes, I am glad you are still on topic. I have never gotten off topic. Again, if you go back and re-read my post you will see that.

And yes, I do have a problem with Murtha - and you - if you feel that removing US troops from Iraq now would be the right move at this time. I think such an action would be devestating. I have stated this several times, in my last post and in this one.

Psycho Wrote:

Speaking of getting of topic...I have no clue why you felt the need to add this. But yes, I agree completely that preserving democracy and the Constitutional rights this country was founded on is absolutely integral...hence why I respect Schmidt's right to speak her mind...and do not feel that Murtha should somehow be free from criticism because he fought in Vietnam.

Oh...and since we're sharing...I'm a 26 year old married woman. I have no children, but I do have 3 dogs that I love VERY much. My husband is a Captain in the Air Force and we both feel very strongly that we need to preserve democracy and protect the Constitution and its Amendments.

Psycho Wrote:

I am stating, not insinuating, that if Murtha had been a pro-Iraq war Republican and had stated that staying the course in Iraq was the right thing to do...and Nanci Pelosi and called him a name or two because of that...I do not believe you would be here calling Nanci an ignorant pawn.

Again...that was perfectly clear from my statement above.

Psycho Wrote:

Yep, the person not getting it is you, Psycho. Don't worry. I'm a patient soul. I'll try again.

I in NO way said or implied that someone has the "right" to dodge a draft. I stated that Schmidt did not dodge a draft. I in NO way stated that someone had the "right" to pay someone to go to war in their place. I stated that Schmidt did not do that.

With me so far?

The reason I stated that was because, again, I am making the point that Schmidt has every right to criticize Murtha - whether she served or not. She may not be a Vietnam vet, like Murtha...but she is an American citizen and therefore has the right to speak her mind. You can disagree, which you obviously do, but she has the right to say what she said.

Psycho Wrote:

I have in no way implied that my opinion, or my husbands, is more valid than yours. In fact...this entire section of my post was celebrating the point that you and I have an equal right to speak our mind. That Bush and Murtha have an equal right to speak their minds. That we all should have equal access to this right.

By stating that people who disagree with Murtha should not criticize him because he is a war hero - it is implied that Murtha's freedom of speech supercedes his critics because he is a veteran. This is wrong.

Psycho Wrote:

I am thrilled that I energize you. We need some lively debate around here. Now if I could only get you to read my posts completely and coherantly.....

As for misrepresenting you, I apologize sincerely if you feel that way. However, since you started this post by perhaps stating falsely that I asked you to shut up, then insinuating that I did not research issues completely or widely enough...and then continuing to misrepresent almost every other thing I said...I can't get too worked up about this.

Psycho Wrote:

I think that Schmidt was smacked down because the Democrats have chosen to make criticizing their war heroes a hanging offence. I think that it is dangeous to tell someone that they can not express their opinion because they are disagreeing with the wrong person, in this case, someone with an exemplary war record.

Do I think Schmidt was an idiot for saying what she did on the floor? Absolutely. She should have known better.

But I continue to be bothered by anyone who would rather silence speech they do not respect than listen to it and disagree, or ignore it.

Psycho Wrote:

This last section seems to be entirely a misunderstanding caused by your mistake when copying and pasting.

If you go back to my original and unedited post, you will see that there is no "quote" around my statement regarding respecting Murtha and his service. This quote obviously was placed there by you or someone else, and was transferred when you responded to my post. It is a small issue, something that happens frequently when cutting and pasting large sections of text, no biggie, I am sure that you will be more careful next time.

What I'm unsure of is why you felt the need to make such a large and somewhat hostile point of it? Your last statement - "Would you please extrapolate and give me an understanding your problem with America" is silly and juvenille, especially considering that you are supposedly basing it on a mistake YOU made when responding.

I have numerous issues with America. As a citizen of this country, I would wonder and worry about any person who didn't have at least a few problems with the country...if you would like me to extrapolate on my concerns regarding the United States I will, but I do not think that this thread (which as you pointed out several times is about Murtha and Schmidt's disagreements with his views on the War in Iraq) is the appropriate place for it. Have a good night!