OT: Citizens Against Celebrity "Pundits"
VoxofaFox
I urge you to sign this petition.
chica...@nowhere.com
Will Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh be included? I might be interested. ;)
bj
Teapot Mom
"VoxofaFox" wrote:
> As one who finds the glitteri of Hollywood to be all schlock and no
substance,
> I urge you to sign this petition.
This will come as no surprise to you, but I would never dream of signing
this petition. Like it or not, even celebrities have the right to speak out,
whether or not you agree with their politics. No one has the right to try to
stifle another's voice simply bc of their job...and being a celebrity is
their profession.
I read the petition and thought it was amusing that only Democrats are
listed. Could that be because republican celebrities don't reach out to the
public to lift a hand? Did Tom Sellick ever sleep with a homeless person to
bring attention to them? Did Arnold Schwartzeneger ever jump a fence to
protect 3600 school children from being poisoned? Did Rush Limbaugh ever
drive across the state on his own to pay respect to a family grieving over
the loss to cancer of one of their loved ones? I bet the answer to all these
questions is a big fat NO!
That's more than enough reasons for me to pass. But thanks for the good
laugh.
Teapot
Rizzo219
everyone's pining for what they will say about something as if Susan Sarandan
or Tom Selleck knows more about Iraq than we do. Republican, Democrat, let them
write a letter to the editor like we do, they know a lot about acting and
that's what I'll listen to them about.
DizzyD
bj,
You read my mind. (Don't try it again--there are some mysterious
places there.)
They fit the profile. They're pundits because of their celebrity, not
because of their vast experience and knowlege.
If they'd add a few more to the list like Laura Ingraham, Bill
O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity, I'd be thrilled to sign.
Diane
Lord Zorn
Lady D:
Come on!!! Bill O'Reilly is great!!! And so is Ann Coulter(at least in
the looks and loyalty departments...she could use a muzzle and a valium
at times, though<G>.) Besides, Ingraham, O'Reilly and Hannity *are*
journalists and pundits by trade, making them different from Sarandon,
Streisand<shudder> and Penn<apoplectic fit>!!!
Lord Zorn, who trust bill O'Reilly more than some folks on here
Brenda
It really irks me these rich brats abuse their celebrity status to use it to
spout propaganda when they have *no* classified information about whats
really going on, the politicans and our government know more than we do!
Brenda
--
http://www.brendabythebay.com/index.html
"VoxofaFox" <voxo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030221113952...@mb-fk.aol.com...
Jo Ann
news:3e56d5e...@news.earthlink.net...
Hi,
Last Sunday, my "baby" brother (he's 37) gave me Sean Hannity's book "Let
Freedom Ring". Right now, it's in my nightstand drawer. I'm waiting to
read it, trying to get through some fiction books which have been
backlogged.
Has anybody read it? and is it worth my time?
Jo Ann,
who listens to some S. Hannity, when bored with NPR, and wanting both points
of view.
Brenda
news:3E56DAD...@earthlink.net...
> Lady D:
>
> Come on!!! Bill O'Reilly is great!!! And so is Ann Coulter(at least in
> the looks and loyalty departments...she could use a muzzle and a valium
> at times, though<G>.) Besides, Ingraham, O'Reilly and Hannity *are*
> journalists and pundits by trade, making them different from Sarandon,
> Streisand<shudder> and Penn<apoplectic fit>!!!
Ya mean "Sean Pencilhead"???? *smirk*
Credit to Michael Savage - reading Savage Nation right now and almost done
and LOVIN IT!
Brenda
DizzyD
wrote:
Yep, they get paid for their opinions. You'd think that would give
them greater responsibility to check out the facts behind their
assertions.
Each has had to repeatedly trim back repeatedly on their statements
when challenged by facts.
But, then as Reagan slipped, "facts are stupid things."
BTW, as someone who actually has ancestors with legitimate
aristocratic titles, I'm proud to be a titleless commoner. We left
that sort of thing long ago to be Americans citizens.
Diane
DizzyD
wrote:
>
>Hi,
>
>Last Sunday, my "baby" brother (he's 37) gave me Sean Hannity's book "Let
>Freedom Ring". Right now, it's in my nightstand drawer. I'm waiting to
>read it, trying to get through some fiction books which have been
>backlogged.
>
>Has anybody read it? and is it worth my time?
>
>Jo Ann,
>who listens to some S. Hannity, when bored with NPR, and wanting both points
>of view.
>
>
I'm a big believer in listening to all points of view. But, I prefer
those that show there was some thought involved. Many issues are
complex, and the more information, the better.
However, it isn't always easy to tell when someone is blowing smoke or
not. The presence of footnotes don't help. Authors, like students,
assume no one will check up on them. (Unfortunately for Ann Coulter,
someone did, and found them to be bogus. Oh well.)
Anyhow, let me reccomend this article to keep his book in perspective
as you read it:
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020826.html
You'll note the authors are also critical of Michael Moore, hardly a
liberal pundit. Their interest is in accuracy, not ideology.
Diane
Teapot Mom
"Brenda" wrote:
> It really irks me these rich brats abuse their celebrity status to use it
to
> spout propaganda when they have *no* classified information about whats
> really going on, the politicans and our government know more than we do!
I would hardly call them rich brats abusing their celebrity status. Since
when does having money or fame mean you can't be educated on political
matters? Why did you people put Reagan in the White House when he was
nothing more than an actor?
I don't claim to know more about what's going on in our gov't with today's
issues, but I do read and listen to all sorts of news. I can have an opinion
and share it if I choose.
I can also tell you for a fact that people like Martin Sheen, Ed Begley, Jr.
and Danika (whose last name I can't remember as Winny from Wonder Years)
don't allow their names to be used or their presence lent to a cause unless
they are fully aware of ALL the facts. Martin Sheen had his attorney here
investigating our issues long before Martin came here. He spent a lot of
time getting to know the people personally before hopping that fence arm in
arm with us. The same can be said for the others I mentioned. To this day,
they stay in touch with us and lend their support whenever or where ever
they can.
Now do you mean to tell me that they have no RIGHT as an AMERICAN citizen to
protest or speak out about things they don't agree with in this country?
Does the constitution not cover them, too? I think their efforts should be
applauded, not frowned on. Instead of giving lip service, they put
themselves on the line. They choose to do something good with their
celebrity or status.
Teapot
Captain America
>Yep, they get paid for their opinions. You'd think that would give
>them greater responsibility to check out the facts behind their
>assertions.
Well Bill O'Reilly was responsible for getting some terrorists off of
the street. How's that for facts?
Brenda
> I would hardly call them rich brats abusing their celebrity status. Since
> when does having money or fame mean you can't be educated on political
> matters?
Because they simply are not privy to the classified information that our
government has when it comes to what the freaky terrorists are up to.
Why did you people put Reagan in the White House when he was
> nothing more than an actor?
Reagan didnt go from actor to president. Thats a fallacy.
> I don't claim to know more about what's going on in our gov't with today's
> issues, but I do read and listen to all sorts of news. I can have an
opinion
> and share it if I choose.
Yup thats all we can do, you and I, what little tidbits the news gives us,
but we have to make a diligent effort to view both sides and then judge.
> I can also tell you for a fact that people like Martin Sheen, Ed Begley,
Jr.
> and Danika (whose last name I can't remember as Winny from Wonder Years)
> don't allow their names to be used or their presence lent to a cause
unless
> they are fully aware of ALL the facts.
They cant be possibly aware of all the facts because they arent' privy to
it. Get it? There's confidential information that our top security
personell has and we arent allowed to have that for national security
reasons. WE have to accept that to a certain degree and trust the people we
have votedinto office and those that have been dispatched to serve our
county.
>Martin Sheen had his attorney here
> investigating our issues long before Martin came here. He spent a lot of
> time getting to know the people personally before hopping that fence arm
in
> arm with us. The same can be said for the others I mentioned. To this day,
> they stay in touch with us and lend their support whenever or where ever
> they can.
> Now do you mean to tell me that they have no RIGHT as an AMERICAN citizen
to
> protest or speak out about things they don't agree with in this country?
Nope, any citizen can question what they want and they deserve an answer.
> Does the constitution not cover them, too? I think their efforts should be
> applauded, not frowned on. Instead of giving lip service, they put
> themselves on the line. They choose to do something good with their
> celebrity or status.
>
> Teapot
But what I'm talking about is totally unsubstantiated facts, like the rich
actors with their pretty little mansions on Beverly HIlls have forgotten the
fact they they are part of what the religious freaks hate so much!
Remember, it was these totally freak religious Muslim zealouts that attacked
us becuase they hate our life, our lifestyle. How hypocritcal is it for
those that participate in that lifestyle to speak *in support of the freakin
terrorists*????
OK, take for a concrete example, Martic Scorcese (sp?). Every frickin film
he has put out has had violence of some kind. Now, he goes off to Germany
and preaches anti-violence, anti-war, and Anti-Americanism. Doesnt that
piss you off???? He made his money on what exactly pisses off the
terrorists, what makes them hate our culture, and he has the cajones to flit
off to Germany to slander our country??? Our leaders??? What a hypocrite!
And do you stop to consider our troops abroad, ready to take action with
full patriotism to our country, full loyalty to our leaders. HOw do you
think they feel when they hear the femi-fascists in this country spouting
lies against our government? How do you think they *feel* when they are out
there ready to give their lives in sacrifice for the greater good of all?
I'm all for the Sedition Act (of 1918) in time of war. IF you cant support
our leaders and our country and what we stand for, then get out. There is
no double talk allowed at this time.
Ugh. SOrry to vent. My heart is with the troops and with our leaders. Its
so obvious why the few countries that deter us, their reasons why its
already come out. IF you are an American, please, why cant you you show
some support for our country or just get out?
Tea, I love you, this isnt directed at you personally, you're a voice of
good in the midst of evil when things get out of hand. I'm just asking you
to consider these issues.
:)
Brenda
>
>
Lord Zorn
Brenda wrote:
>>Lady D:
>>
>>Come on!!! Bill O'Reilly is great!!! And so is Ann Coulter(at least in
>>the looks and loyalty departments...she could use a muzzle and a valium
>>at times, though<G>.) Besides, Ingraham, O'Reilly and Hannity *are*
>>journalists and pundits by trade, making them different from Sarandon,
>>Streisand<shudder> and Penn<apoplectic fit>!!!
>
>
> Ya mean "Sean Pencilhead"???? *smirk*
Lady Brenda:
Yes, I *do* mean that proto-Eminem who never outgrew his role as
Spiccolli, the "hey-dude" from "Fast Times At Ridgemont High", and who,
I guess, mistook Lady Liberty for his ex-wife Madonna<LMAO>!!!
>
> Credit to Michael Savage - reading Savage Nation right now and almost done
> and LOVIN IT!
>
> Brenda
>
>
Unfortunately, I am such a slow reader, I have, to my shame, stopped
reading(in favour of other things, being here among them). Besides,
Michael Savage scares me just a bit. It is as if the Gods took Michael
Moore, spun his heart to the right, and put him in the body of Cameron
Lewis after a year of lost weekends<LOL>!!! But, I may check him out
again, if I can.
Lord Zorn, who did not sign Lady Vox's petition, not out of meanness, but
out of a desire for good "targets" such as "Spiccolli", Baldwin,
Clooney, Gere, and Streisand<LOL>
>>
>
>
>
Lord Zorn
DizzyD wrote:
<huge Zorn-snip>
>>Lady D:
>>
>>Come on!!! Bill O'Reilly is great!!! And so is Ann Coulter(at least in
>>the looks and loyalty departments...she could use a muzzle and a valium
>>at times, though<G>.) Besides, Ingraham, O'Reilly and Hannity *are*
>>journalists and pundits by trade, making them different from Sarandon,
>>Streisand<shudder> and Penn<apoplectic fit>!!!
>>
>>Lord Zorn, who trust bill O'Reilly more than some folks on here
>>
>
> Yep, they get paid for their opinions. You'd think that would give
> them greater responsibility to check out the facts behind their
> assertions.
>
Lady D:
I think O'Reilly and Hannity do OK fact-wise. And I am not so naive as
to swallow everything I hear in the "No-Spin-Zone" whole. I know that
they spin to the right as fast as Carville & Co. spin to the left. As I
said, when I can, I watch Dan Rather for straight news. It balances
out(as far as I wish it to<G>)
> Each has had to repeatedly trim back repeatedly on their statements
> when challenged by facts.
Give an O'Reilly example, please.
>
> But, then as Reagan slipped, "facts are stupid things."
>
> BTW, as someone who actually has ancestors with legitimate
> aristocratic titles, I'm proud to be a titleless commoner. We left
> that sort of thing long ago to be Americans citizens.
>
Although I like the some people's populism(O'Reilly, Springsteen,
(Stephen) King), I like to set myself apart/above others who have, IMJ,
an unfair advantage over me in other ways.
To put it more acerbically, are you proud to be the equal of OJ and the
"mules" on "Street Smarts"???
Lord Zorn, who wouldn't mind being primus inter paribus in a world of
kewl people
> Diane
>
>
Mary McCool
> "Teapot Mom" <este...@attbi.com> protested>
>
>>I would hardly call them rich brats abusing their celebrity status. Since
>>when does having money or fame mean you can't be educated on political
>>matters?
>>
>
> Because they simply are not privy to the classified information that our
> government has when it comes to what the freaky terrorists are up to.
So you are saying that only the handful of people in our government who
are privy to all of the classified information should be allowed to
state their opinions. The other 200 plus million of us are supposed to
just shut up and follow in line behind them and let them decide our
fates and what is to become of our lives? No thanks! That's not how it
works in the country in which I was born and have lived for nearly 50 years.
> Why did you people put Reagan in the White House when he was
>>nothing more than an actor?
>>
>
> Reagan didnt go from actor to president. Thats a fallacy.
She didn't say that he went *directly* from actor to president, but his
stay in the California governor's mansion was on a direct route from
actor to president. As an aside, I find it rather interesting that the
last president, besides pappy bush, who wasn't previously a governor was
Gerald Ford, who wasn't really elected, and Richard Nixon who lost his
one gubenatorial bid (anyone remember "you won't have Nixon to kick
around anymore?).
>>I don't claim to know more about what's going on in our gov't with today's
>>issues, but I do read and listen to all sorts of news. I can have an
>>opinion and share it if I choose.
>>
>
> Yup thats all we can do, you and I, what little tidbits the news gives us,
> but we have to make a diligent effort to view both sides and then judge.
Teapot is allowed, in your world, to state her opinion, but you don't
want the "rich brat" actors to do the same. You assume that because
their opinion does not coincide with your's that they haven't studied
both sides, which is pretty darned arrogant on your part. I give you
credit for at least saying that you have studied both sides, and I think
that you sincerely believe what you post here. I don't agree with the
vast majority of it, but I'll defend your right to post it here.
>>I can also tell you for a fact that people like Martin Sheen, Ed Begley,
>>
> Jr.
>
>>and Danika (whose last name I can't remember as Winny from Wonder Years)
>>don't allow their names to be used or their presence lent to a cause
>>
> unless
>
>>they are fully aware of ALL the facts.
>>
>
> They cant be possibly aware of all the facts because they arent' privy to
> it. Get it?
She understands that, don't be so patronizing. She also knows that you
aren't privy to that information, but that you are stating your opinion.
Do we have a double standard here?
> There's confidential information that our top security
> personell has and we arent allowed to have that for national security
> reasons. WE have to accept that to a certain degree and trust the people we
> have votedinto office and those that have been dispatched to serve our
> county.
I trust people, politicians and others, until they have given me a
reason not to. I don't trust Bush or most of his top advisors, and I
fully believe that they have not only hidden information from us, but
have lied to us.
>>Does the constitution not cover them, too? I think their efforts should be
>>applauded, not frowned on. Instead of giving lip service, they put
>>themselves on the line. They choose to do something good with their
>>celebrity or status.
>>
>>Teapot
>>
>
>
> But what I'm talking about is totally unsubstantiated facts, like the rich
> actors with their pretty little mansions on Beverly HIlls have forgotten the
> fact they they are part of what the religious freaks hate so much!
> Remember, it was these totally freak religious Muslim zealouts that attacked
> us becuase they hate our life, our lifestyle. How hypocritcal is it for
> those that participate in that lifestyle to speak *in support of the freakin
> terrorists*????
That's a very simplistic attitude. You are suggesting that the
terrorists would not have attacked out country if not for the ultrarich.
That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.
> And do you stop to consider our troops abroad, ready to take action with
> full patriotism to our country, full loyalty to our leaders. HOw do you
> think they feel when they hear the femi-fascists in this country spouting
> lies against our government? How do you think they *feel* when they are out
> there ready to give their lives in sacrifice for the greater good of all?
Okay, you know what, Brenda? You greatly devalue your arguments every
time you call the "other side" names. Using some cutsey name like
"femi-fascists" tells most thinking people that you are either repeating
someone else's opinion or not willing to even listen to the other side
of debates (or both).
> I'm all for the Sedition Act (of 1918) in time of war. IF you cant support
> our leaders and our country and what we stand for, then get out. There is
> no double talk allowed at this time.
Why the hell should I leave a country I've lived in for half a century,
where I am a citizen? Where do you suggest I go? I love my country. I
am a patriot. My country stands for democracy and a government of the
people, for the people, and by the people. My country is not a place
where you must support those in charge or leave. If that were the case
we'd have millions of people coming and going every four years. People
who spout the rhetoric that you do are getting more and more out of
control, and that is going to be one of the biggest tragedies of this
war, when we go back to citizens hating one another because they are
being egged on by people with your attitude.
>
> Ugh. SOrry to vent. My heart is with the troops and with our leaders. Its
> so obvious why the few countries that deter us, their reasons why its
> already come out. IF you are an American, please, why cant you you show
> some support for our country or just get out?
In Germany people sat back and let the government do what they wanted,
and look where it got them. If they spoke up against the governement or
against what the soldiers were doing, they were considered traitors. I
haven't, and won't, say a word about the soldiers as individuals, but I
will speak out against what they are being asked/told to do. I support
our country, and in my mind the best thing I can do for the land I love
is to tell those in charge that I think what they are doing is wrong.
Mary
peggo
"Brenda" <Brendab...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:KaF5a.197656$tq4.4642@sccrnsc01...
> "Teapot Mom" <este...@attbi.com> protested>
>
> > I would hardly call them rich brats abusing their celebrity status.
Since
> > when does having money or fame mean you can't be educated on political
> > matters?
>
> Because they simply are not privy to the classified information that our
> government has when it comes to what the freaky terrorists are up to.
>
> Why did you people put Reagan in the White House when he was
> > nothing more than an actor?
>
> Reagan didnt go from actor to president. Thats a fallacy.
>
Right. He went from actor to comercial spokesman to govenor of California
to president.
> > I don't claim to know more about what's going on in our gov't with
today's
> > issues, but I do read and listen to all sorts of news. I can have an
> opinion
> > and share it if I choose.
>
> Yup thats all we can do, you and I, what little tidbits the news gives us,
> but we have to make a diligent effort to view both sides and then judge.
>
And you know that actors don't because.........?
>
> > I can also tell you for a fact that people like Martin Sheen, Ed Begley,
> Jr.
> > and Danika (whose last name I can't remember as Winny from Wonder Years)
> > don't allow their names to be used or their presence lent to a cause
> unless
> > they are fully aware of ALL the facts.
>
> They cant be possibly aware of all the facts because they arent' privy to
> it. Get it? There's confidential information that our top security
> personell has and we arent allowed to have that for national security
> reasons. WE have to accept that to a certain degree and trust the people
we
> have votedinto office and those that have been dispatched to serve our
> county.
>
Maybe YOU do, but I don't.
Just because I vote for someone, doesn't mean I have to give them free reign
on all all issues.
I don't vote for someone and then just sit back and forget about it.
> >Martin Sheen had his attorney here
> > investigating our issues long before Martin came here. He spent a lot of
> > time getting to know the people personally before hopping that fence arm
> in
> > arm with us. The same can be said for the others I mentioned. To this
day,
> > they stay in touch with us and lend their support whenever or where ever
> > they can.
> > Now do you mean to tell me that they have no RIGHT as an AMERICAN
citizen
> to
> > protest or speak out about things they don't agree with in this country?
>
> Nope, any citizen can question what they want and they deserve an answer.
>
What? I thought we were supposed to just trust them.
>
> > Does the constitution not cover them, too? I think their efforts should
be
> > applauded, not frowned on. Instead of giving lip service, they put
> > themselves on the line. They choose to do something good with their
> > celebrity or status.
> >
> > Teapot
>
>
> But what I'm talking about is totally unsubstantiated facts, like the rich
> actors with their pretty little mansions on Beverly HIlls have forgotten
the
> fact they they are part of what the religious freaks hate so much!
> Remember, it was these totally freak religious Muslim zealouts that
attacked
> us becuase they hate our life, our lifestyle. How hypocritcal is it for
> those that participate in that lifestyle to speak *in support of the
freakin
> terrorists*????
>
Again, What? Just because I'm against war, I *support terrorists*? That's
wrong, Brenda. I'm surprised a smart woman like you would write such a
stupid thing.
> OK, take for a concrete example, Martic Scorcese (sp?). Every frickin
film
> he has put out has had violence of some kind. Now, he goes off to Germany
> and preaches anti-violence, anti-war, and Anti-Americanism. Doesnt that
> piss you off???? He made his money on what exactly pisses off the
> terrorists, what makes them hate our culture, and he has the cajones to
flit
> off to Germany to slander our country??? Our leaders??? What a hypocrite!
>
Okay. Now you're dissin Marty? He makes MOVIES!
Some of the very best movies ever made. The violence in his movies isn't
REAL.
How do you like your oranges?
> And do you stop to consider our troops abroad, ready to take action with
> full patriotism to our country, full loyalty to our leaders. HOw do you
> think they feel when they hear the femi-fascists in this country spouting
> lies against our government? How do you think they *feel* when they are
out
> there ready to give their lives in sacrifice for the greater good of all?
>
They are doing their job. That's what they signed up to do. They have my
full support.
It's my job as an American to judge whether their sacrifice is really for
"the greater good".
> I'm all for the Sedition Act (of 1918) in time of war. IF you cant
support
> our leaders and our country and what we stand for, then get out. There
is
> no double talk allowed at this time.
>
And maybe all us anti war folks should wear a star on our sleeve?
> Ugh. SOrry to vent. My heart is with the troops and with our leaders.
Its
> so obvious why the few countries that deter us, their reasons why its
> already come out. IF you are an American, please, why cant you you show
> some support for our country or just get out?
>
Love it or leave it, huh?
I don't think so.
Every American has a voice to be heard. That's what terrorists hate.
> Tea, I love you, this isnt directed at you personally, you're a voice of
> good in the midst of evil when things get out of hand. I'm just asking
you
> to consider these issues.
>
Tea's a smart lady. I'm sure she has considered the issues that are
important.
I'm not so sure you have.
> :)
>
> Brenda
>
peggo
VoxofaFox
<< Well Bill O'Reilly was responsible for getting some terrorists off of
the street. How's that for facts? >>
It's way more than what Sean Penn did. Oh wait, Sean Penn did nothing.
VoxofaFox
<< This will come as no surprise to you, but I would never dream of signing
this petition. Like it or not, even celebrities have the right to speak out,
whether or not you agree with their politics. No one has the right to try to
stifle another's voice simply bc of their job...and being a celebrity is
their profession.>>
Yes but its a profession that comes inherit with a louder voice than the rest
of us. Give me a break here! If **I** call CNN and say I want to voice my
opinion, they'd hang up on me. If I went to Iraq no one would cover my visit.
If Oprah calls CNN and has an opinion, they'd shout it from the rooftops and
make it a headline story. Sean "Idiot" Penn goes to Iraq and it makes news. Of
course celebrities have a right to their opinions....however a lot of people
give their opinions more weight than other folks. ANd they are hands down,
some of the most fucked up individuals on the universe. Look at the percentage
of people in frigging REHAB who are in entertainment!!!
<<I read the petition and thought it was amusing that only Democrats are
listed. Could that be because republican celebrities don't reach out to the
public to lift a hand? Did Tom Sellick ever sleep with a homeless person to
bring attention to them? Did Arnold Schwartzeneger ever jump a fence to
protect 3600 school children from being poisoned?>>
You have no idea what these people did. For one, I would suggest that perhaps
they would have the taste to not publicize their social endeavors. All your
vegan hysteric liberals want to make sure everyone KNOWS what they
do...oooh....
<<Did Rush Limbaugh ever
drive across the state on his own to pay respect to a family grieving over
the loss to cancer of one of their loved ones? I bet the answer to all these
questions is a big fat NO!>>
How do you know?
<<That's more than enough reasons for me to pass. But thanks for the good
laugh.>>
I am laughing at you for taking the liberal bait form movie stars, hook, line
and sinker. You should come to L.A. and hear how people make fun of your
blessed Martin Sheen. He is a joke on the radio here.
VoxofaFox
<< As I
said, when I can, I watch Dan Rather for straight news. It balances
out(as far as I wish it to<G>) >>
DAN RATHER!?!?! Now, that's fair and balanced....egads. They dont' come any
more biased than that goon.
VoxofaFox
<< Last Sunday, my "baby" brother (he's 37) gave me Sean Hannity's book "Let
Freedom Ring". Right now, it's in my nightstand drawer. I'm waiting to
read it, trying to get through some fiction books which have been
backlogged.
Has anybody read it? and is it worth my time?
>>
We have it too. I haven't read it yet, but from skimming through it, it looks
wonderful. Hannity is a ***little** too religious for me, but other than that
I love him. I love him on the radio....I listen to him a lot.
Mary McCool
I'm always afraid that Dan is either going to fall asleep or start
crying while he is delivering the news. I don't mind a news reporter
getting teary eyed during extremely, seriously, emotional times, I don't
want to see it on a regular basis. of course, I couldn't do that job
because I am a very emotional person, and cry over things such as tv
commericals!
Mary McCool
> Teapot wrote:
>
> << This will come as no surprise to you, but I would never dream of signing
> this petition. Like it or not, even celebrities have the right to speak out,
> whether or not you agree with their politics. No one has the right to try to
> stifle another's voice simply bc of their job...and being a celebrity is
> their profession.>>
>
> Yes but its a profession that comes inherit with a louder voice than the rest
> of us. Give me a break here! If **I** call CNN and say I want to voice my
> opinion, they'd hang up on me. If I went to Iraq no one would cover my visit.
> If Oprah calls CNN and has an opinion, they'd shout it from the rooftops and
> make it a headline story. Sean "Idiot" Penn goes to Iraq and it makes news. Of
> course celebrities have a right to their opinions....however a lot of people
> give their opinions more weight than other folks. ANd they are hands down,
> some of the most fucked up individuals on the universe. Look at the percentage
> of people in frigging REHAB who are in entertainment!!!
But signing that petition or shutting them up is not the solution. The
problem is not with them speaking out, but with the people who listen to
them. You're putting the responsibility on the wrong shoulders. It is
up to me, and everyone else, to decide who to listen to, who is full of
crap, and whose opinions I agree with and value. If you don't want CNN
to tell you what Sean or Barbra or Martin are doing or thinking, then
you should respond to that by telling CNN either through direct
communication, or with your pocketbook (ratings count). What I'm saying
is that the problem lies with the "lot of people" who "give their
(celebrities) opinions more weight than other folks". If a celebrity
has been in rehab, that fact does make me reconsider their opinion.
> I am laughing at you for taking the liberal bait form movie stars, hook, line
> and sinker. You should come to L.A. and hear how people make fun of your
> blessed Martin Sheen. He is a joke on the radio here.
And that should color our opinion why? LA is not the center of the
universe, nor even the center of the country! (hey, I'm there!)
Mary
Captain America
He had me scratching my head as well with that comment.
DizzyD
wrote:
>
>
>
>I think O'Reilly and Hannity do OK fact-wise. And I am not so naive as
>to swallow everything I hear in the "No-Spin-Zone" whole. I know that
>they spin to the right as fast as Carville & Co. spin to the left. As I
>said, when I can, I watch Dan Rather for straight news. It balances
>out(as far as I wish it to<G>)
I don't put a lot of stock in punditry, regardless of ideology. This
is particularly true for the electronic media. It's cheap and easy for
the networks to put on a talk show. It's expensive and hard to report
news.
In addition, with the electronic media, tossed-off half-baked opinions
disappear in the ether. At least in print they can come back and bite
when proven wrong.
I'm not defending Carville. Indeed, journalism used to be a profession
where you worked your way up from the trenches until you had proven
yourself knowlegable enough to spout opinions.
I don't like Alexander Cockburn, either. You'll have to twist yourself
in a pretzel to include him in the poor misuderstood conservative
pundit group.
I enjoy silliness as much as the next person. I just don't mistake it
for thoughtful substance.
>
>> Each has had to repeatedly trim back repeatedly on their statements
>> when challenged by facts.
>
>Give an O'Reilly example, please.
Just one? With pleasure.
The source for this is Peter Hart, on behalf of Fairness and Accuracy
in Reporting:
On 2/5/02, during an interview with former NOW president Kim Gandy,
O'Reilly claimed that "58 percent of single-mom homes are on welfare."
When Gandy questioned the figure, he replied, "You can't say no, Ms.
Gandy. That's the stat."
On 2/6/02, he claimed that 52% of of families receiving public
assistance are headed by a single mom. Of course that's a different
number entirely, but he didn't bother to clarify that it was not what
he had said the night before. No matter, it's also incorrect.
The following night (2/7/02), he finally came up with the right
figure, without apology or explanation. About 14% of single mothers
receive federal assistance of any kind, not just welfare. (School
loans, etc.)
As the man said the first time, "that's the stat."
>> But, then as Reagan slipped, "facts are stupid things."
>>
>> BTW, as someone who actually has ancestors with legitimate
>> aristocratic titles, I'm proud to be a titleless commoner. We left
>> that sort of thing long ago to be Americans citizens.
>>
>Although I like the some people's populism(O'Reilly, Springsteen,
>(Stephen) King), I like to set myself apart/above others who have, IMJ,
>an unfair advantage over me in other ways.
>
>To put it more acerbically, are you proud to be the equal of OJ and the
>"mules" on "Street Smarts"???
You can call yourself whatever you want. Indeed, you can call me what
you want. I was simply stating my preference for myself.
It seems to me that people prove their worth by what they do, not what
they call themselves. Of course people plot their own ways and do what
they feel best. But good qualities don't have to advertise. They are
self-evident.
Hard to believe, but most of the world doesn't know and doesn't care
who either one of us are.
DizzyD
I thought this was about speech, not law enforcement. Didn't you
chastise me when I joked that Steve Case should use his money to track
down terrorists saying it was not the role of a private citizen?
Actually, I wouldn't sign any petition to stop anyone's right to speak
no matter the worth or lack thereof there is. The response to bad
speech is good speech, not censorship.
We have entered into an agreement called the Constitution that we
believe that free speech is a universal human right. Universal means
universal, whether it is you and me or Sean Penn or Rush Limbaugh or
anyone else.
However, I'd point out that having a talk show, column or book deal is
not included in that right.
Diane
VoxofaFox
<< I'm always afraid that Dan is either going to fall asleep or start
crying while he is delivering the news. I don't mind a news reporter
getting teary eyed during extremely, seriously, emotional times, I don't
want to see it on a regular basis. of course, I couldn't do that job
because I am a very emotional person, and cry over things such as tv
commericals! >>
I don't like Dan Rather at all. Brokow I can handle better.
I cry over tv commercials too. I also cry at the card store when I read
emotional cards. I remember after my dad died, I had to go into a card store
for something and saw all the Father's Day cards. I fell completely apart.
VoxofaFox
<<
But signing that petition or shutting them up is not the solution. The
problem is not with them speaking out, but with the people who listen to
them. You're putting the responsibility on the wrong shoulders. It is
up to me, and everyone else, to decide who to listen to, who is full of
crap, and whose opinions I agree with and value.
If you don't want CNN
to tell you what Sean or Barbra or Martin are doing or thinking, then
you should respond to that by telling CNN either through direct
communication, or with your pocketbook (ratings count). What I'm saying
is that the problem lies with the "lot of people" who "give their
(celebrities) opinions more weight than other folks". If a celebrity
has been in rehab, that fact does make me reconsider their opinion.>>
I don't think a lot of people are as discerning as you are, Mary. People think
that just because someone like Sally Field appears in a film about the plight
of farmers, that makes her an expert in that field (no pun intended).
> I am laughing at you for taking the liberal bait form movie stars, hook, line
> and sinker. You should come to L.A. and hear how people make fun of your
> blessed Martin Sheen. He is a joke on the radio here.
<<And that should color our opinion why? LA is not the center of the
universe, nor even the center of the country! (hey, I'm there!)>>
Of course it isn't the center of the universe. But Sheen has become a parody
of himself. Not only has HE been in rehab, but so has his spawn.
Additionally, his spawn is a joke because of he had one of the highest amounts
paid to the likes of Heidi Fleiss for sex. The whole picture is hilarious.
Brenda
some (maybe not all but a lot of) of those in the entertainment industry are
grasping at this issue to jump on a popular bandwagon and get some free PR.
I dont think we should yank anyone's right to state their opinion.
I didnt mean the "Get it" to sound the way it did. I meant it like, see
this is why some people are pissed at the hypocrisy of Hollywood - they say
one thing and do something completely different (Like Scorceses speaking
against violence and he makes violent films; Like many of them going "oh we
need to understand the poor fanatical Muslims" when those ultra orthodox
Muslims believe its ok to kill those that dont believe what they do and
those fanaticals hate our culture.) I meant the "Get it" on that issue not
the war issue. More like a "Ya See?" not as in "yer stupid" which I would
never say to Tea.
Sometimes I think we worry more about their right (the terrorists and Saddam
is one of em even to his own people) to believe what they believe in and act
on it, then our own innocent civilians here. And I get carried away
sometimes (sorry for ranting) so I'll end this one right now!
Brenda
--
http://www.brendabythebay.com/index.html
"Brenda" <Brendab...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:KaF5a.197656$tq4.4642@sccrnsc01...
DizzyD
wrote:
>"Teapot Mom" <este...@attbi.com> protested>
>
>> I would hardly call them rich brats abusing their celebrity status. Since
>> when does having money or fame mean you can't be educated on political
>> matters?
>
>Because they simply are not privy to the classified information that our
>government has when it comes to what the freaky terrorists are up to.
>
Odd how people who don't believe the government can do anything right
in regards to things like health care, education, etc. are ready to
give them carte blanche in something much more important.
Intelligence is, at best, a murky thing. And somewhat beside the
point. The debate isn't whether terrorism is good or bad, or whether
Saddam is a nice, misunderstood guy. It's about how you deal with the
problems, not what the problems are.
<snip Reagan rehash>
>> I don't claim to know more about what's going on in our gov't with today's
>> issues, but I do read and listen to all sorts of news. I can have an
>opinion
>> and share it if I choose.
>
>Yup thats all we can do, you and I, what little tidbits the news gives us,
>but we have to make a diligent effort to view both sides and then judge.
Okay, here's one of my my problems--the "both sides" thing. Issues are
seldom black and white. Decisions are seldom between what is obviously
all good and what is obviously foolish. Our soundbite society has
created an false atmosphere of "he said, she said" (or whatever gender
pronouns you'd like). Pick sides. Right now.
>
>
>> I can also tell you for a fact that people like Martin Sheen, Ed Begley,
>Jr.
>> and Danika (whose last name I can't remember as Winny from Wonder Years)
>> don't allow their names to be used or their presence lent to a cause
>unless
>> they are fully aware of ALL the facts.
>
>They cant be possibly aware of all the facts because they arent' privy to
>it. Get it? There's confidential information that our top security
>personell has and we arent allowed to have that for national security
>reasons. WE have to accept that to a certain degree and trust the people we
>have votedinto office and those that have been dispatched to serve our
>county.
There are other sources besides our elected leaders. Like, oh, the
elected leaders of other democracies who have access to classified
information and see things differently. Instead of writing them off,
it might be a good idea to listen to what they say. They could be
wrong about some things, but so could our folks.
<snip again>
>
>
>But what I'm talking about is totally unsubstantiated facts, like the rich
>actors with their pretty little mansions on Beverly HIlls have forgotten the
>fact they they are part of what the religious freaks hate so much!
>Remember, it was these totally freak religious Muslim zealouts that attacked
>us becuase they hate our life, our lifestyle. How hypocritcal is it for
>those that participate in that lifestyle to speak *in support of the freakin
>terrorists*????
Who spoke out in support of terrorists? Did anyone say 9/11 was a good
thing and we deserved it?
>
>OK, take for a concrete example, Martic Scorcese (sp?). Every frickin film
>he has put out has had violence of some kind. Now, he goes off to Germany
>and preaches anti-violence, anti-war, and Anti-Americanism. Doesnt that
>piss you off???? He made his money on what exactly pisses off the
>terrorists, what makes them hate our culture, and he has the cajones to flit
>off to Germany to slander our country??? Our leaders??? What a hypocrite!
People often use violence in art to show how horrible it is. Even if
that's not their goal, violence is a part of life and art is about
life.
Making a movie is different than bombing a country and perhaps setting
off on a road to endless war.
Since when is disagreement with policy "slander"?
Yes, our American hearts are pure and we never make mistakes. Germany
knows nothing about war, of course. But, we do and have all the right
answers.
>
>And do you stop to consider our troops abroad, ready to take action with
>full patriotism to our country, full loyalty to our leaders. HOw do you
>think they feel when they hear the femi-fascists in this country spouting
>lies against our government? How do you think they *feel* when they are out
>there ready to give their lives in sacrifice for the greater good of all?
How did Scorcese become a "femi-facist"? Did he have a sex-change
operation I'm not aware of?
My heart is always with the troops. They go where they are told and do
what they are trained to do. They don't make policy. It's the
policymakers sacrificing them in a cause that will probably not lead
to the "greater good of all" that I'm angry at.
If al Qaeda is the first priority, why are we focused on Iraq? Because
our military is designed to fight with nations, not scattered isolated
cells. Why not North Korea or Iran? Too dangerous.
In other words. we're doing it because they are the weakest, easiest
target. We're doing it because we can.
>
>I'm all for the Sedition Act (of 1918) in time of war. IF you cant support
>our leaders and our country and what we stand for, then get out. There is
>no double talk allowed at this time.
Free speech is only appropriate when it doesn't matter. That makes a
lot of sense.
What happened to listening to "both sides" in your earlier paragraph?
Listen first. Then toss out anyone who disagrees?
Ask yourself who is doing the double talk. Our best friend Pakistan
provided North Korea with the technology for uranium enrichment and
other nuclear military equipment in exchange for missiles, continuing
to do so after 9/11.
We won't support anyone who aids and shelters terrorists, except Saudi
Arabia and Pakistan, of course.
We spent 50+ years building alliances we now call "irrelevant." Or
compare to Cuba and Lybia.
Waging pre-emptive war was a war crime at the Nuremberg Tribunals.
(Remember them? The real Nazis?)
Every postwar president from Truman on rejected the idea of a
pre-emptive war on the Soviet Union, a more significant threat.
To quote that pinko President Eisenhower:
"All of us have heard this term 'preventative war' since the earliest
days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In
this day and time...I don't believe there is such a thing; and,
frankly, I wouldn't listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked
about such a thing."
>
>Ugh. SOrry to vent. My heart is with the troops and with our leaders. Its
>so obvious why the few countries that deter us, their reasons why its
>already come out. IF you are an American, please, why cant you you show
>some support for our country or just get out?
A leader is not just someone who makes the tough decisions. A leader
is a person who convinces others that the tough decision is the
correct one. There is no free ride, automatic "snap and salute" clause
in a democratic system.
If it's too messy for you, I'm sorry. A little messiness is worth it
for the liberties we treasure.
Diane
chica...@nowhere.com
>
> Yup thats all we can do, you and I, what little tidbits the news gives us,
> but we have to make a diligent effort to view both sides and then judge.
What makes celebrities any different? They are entitled to free speech the
same as the rest of us; and the right to fight for what they believe in.
Their opinions don't matter to most people anymore than yours does to me,
or my opinions to you. They are not responsible for how the media responds.
> Get it? There's confidential information that our top security
> personell has and we arent allowed to have that for national security
> reasons. WE have to accept that to a certain degree and trust the people we
> have votedinto office... <>
This brings to mind a quote I saw the other day:
"Naturally, the common people don't want war, neither in Russia, nor
England, nor for that matter Germany. That is understood. But after
all, it is leaders of the country who determine the policy; and it
is always a simple matter to drag people along, whether it is a
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a
communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can be brought
to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is
tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for
lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in every country."
--Hermann Goering at the 1946 Nuremburg Trials
> Remember, it was these totally freak religious Muslim zealouts that attacked
> us becuase they hate our life, our lifestyle. How hypocritcal is it for
> those that participate in that lifestyle to speak *in support of the freakin
> terrorists*????
"In support of terrorists"... please quote ALL parties you have found guilty
of this.
> OK, take for a concrete example, Martic Scorcese (sp?). Every frickin film
> he has put out has had violence of some kind. Now, he goes off to Germany
> and preaches anti-violence, anti-war, and Anti-Americanism. Doesnt that
> piss you off????
No, because wanting to avoid a war if at all possible, does not in any way
justify a label of "Anti-Americanism".
> And do you stop to consider our troops abroad, ready to take action with
> full patriotism to our country, full loyalty to our leaders.
I think of them first; I do not want their lives to be lost or wasted, if
there is any possibility of a peaceful resolution; or any way to remove
Saddam, without killing so many innocent people and our troops.
> HOw do you think they feel when they hear the femi-fascists in this country
> spouting lies against our government?
What lies??? And who are the "femi-fascists"? Anyone who thinks we haven't
considered all our options?
> I'm all for the Sedition Act (of 1918) in time of war. IF you cant support
> our leaders and our country and what we stand for, then get out. There is
> no double talk allowed at this time.
You don't want to hear what I think about that, because I'm staying[with my
opinions] and I have just as much right to be here as you, Madam. There is
no "double talk" allowed by you??? I would ask you what you mean by double
talk, but I really don't care.
> Ugh. SOrry to vent. My heart is with the troops and with our leaders. Its
> so obvious why the few countries that deter us, their reasons why its
> already come out. IF you are an American, please, why cant you you show
> some support for our country or just get out?
>
> Brenda
Because you aren't ruling this country yet. And loving and supporting my
country is not synonymous with supporting ALL decisions made by our leaders.
bj
Rizzo219
>Jo Ann wrote:
>
><< Last Sunday, my "baby" brother (he's 37) gave me Sean Hannity's book "Let
>Freedom Ring". Right now, it's in my nightstand drawer. I'm waiting to
>read it, trying to get through some fiction books which have been
>backlogged.
I have it too. If you are conservative, you will love it. If you are liberal,
gives another line of thought.
chica...@nowhere.com
>
> >Will Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh be included? I might be interested. ;)
>
> You read my mind. (Don't try it again--there are some mysterious
> places there.)
LOL... but lots of intelligence too! ;)
> They fit the profile. They're pundits because of their celebrity, not
> because of their vast experience and knowlege.
>
> If they'd add a few more to the list like Laura Ingraham, Bill
> O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity, I'd be thrilled to sign.
>
> Diane
I know you're kidding as I was, I didn't even bother to read it. Have no
interest in suppressing political speech, even from the comedians/celebs.
bj
Brenda
news:3e57a269...@news.earthlink.net...
> There are other sources besides our elected leaders. Like, oh, the
> elected leaders of other democracies who have access to classified
> information and see things differently. Instead of writing them off,
> it might be a good idea to listen to what they say. They could be
> wrong about some things, but so could our folks.
>
I'd like to point something out here. France & Germany (socialists not
democracies arent they?) have sold Iraq nuclear arms as well as information
and components to build nuclear arms and other chemical weapons that are
nonos as far as the UN is concerned. They did this in return for oil for
which they have not fully been paid back, meaning they have a *huge*
investment in Iraq. They know what Saddam has up his sleave (they helped
put it there) - doesnt it make sense they are afraid to go to war against
him now? Does that mean its right to sit back and let Saddam go on his merry
way trying to take over other countries (lets see, he has invaded & bombed
Kuwait, Saudi, Israel, Iran, am I forgetting anyone? probably because he has
gone after just about all of his neighbors and none of them are supporting
him.)
>
> <snip again>
> >
> >
> My heart is always with the troops. They go where they are told and do
> what they are trained to do. They don't make policy. It's the
> policymakers sacrificing them in a cause that will probably not lead
> to the "greater good of all" that I'm angry at.
>
How is making the world a safer place not the "greater good of all"? Its
unfortunate, but sometimes it takes war to remove an evil. One of the anti-
Anti-war demonstrators had a sign last weekend, it said something like
this... in small letters "except for removing slavery, genocide, etc" then
in big letters WAR DOES NOTHING. LOL cracked me up.
> If al Qaeda is the first priority, why are we focused on Iraq? Because
> our military is designed to fight with nations, not scattered isolated
> cells. Why not North Korea or Iran? Too dangerous.
>
Terrorists are the first priority, not just al Qaeda. Iraq is a country who
does not conform to the UN rules about weapons of mass destruction, or UN
rules about anything for that matter. Its Saddam and what he does that irks
us and we're trying to stop this madman from reaching the point that he does
have weapons of mass destruction.
> In other words. we're doing it because they are the weakest, easiest
> target. We're doing it because we can.
> >
No we're doing it because someone has to and we do have a lot of support.
The countries that arent supporting us right now are countries that have
helped arm Saddam and they have a financial interest in Iraq.
> >I'm all for the Sedition Act (of 1918) in time of war. IF you cant
support
> >our leaders and our country and what we stand for, then get out. There
is
> >no double talk allowed at this time.
>
> Free speech is only appropriate when it doesn't matter. That makes a
> lot of sense.
>
OK we have the right to question our leaders. Like saying, ok what info do
you have that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction? And they answer, here
ya go (insert Powells speech as an example.) Just look, for years Saddam
says he has nothing and then the inspectors find some! Saddam says he didnt
try to make a nuke and then IRaqi scientists that have escaped come forward
and say yeah, he forced us to try and invent a nuke! Now at this point,
there are some people that will ignore all this and say "America just wants
IRaq's oil, America is an imperialist country, Bush is just a war-monger"
Thats what I mean by slander. AND say we are at war and CNN puts on the news
"US troops are now positioned 'here'" or "a US plane just left here and is
headed there" thereby giving the enemy information against us. I think the
Sedition Act should be used against CNN in that scenario.
I dont think Bush is ever going to be able to convince 100% of the people
that war is the right response. I think he's going to have to just take the
support (and we do have a lot of it) he has and just do it.
Hungoverdly,
Brenda
DizzyD
>DizzyD wrote:
>>
>> >Will Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh be included? I might be interested. ;)
>>
>> bj,
>> You read my mind. (Don't try it again--there are some mysterious
>> places there.)
>
>LOL... but lots of intelligence too! ;)
There are places even I haven't explored yet. ;-)
>
>> They fit the profile. They're pundits because of their celebrity, not
>> because of their vast experience and knowlege.
>>
>> If they'd add a few more to the list like Laura Ingraham, Bill
>> O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity, I'd be thrilled to sign.
>>
>> Diane
>
>I know you're kidding as I was, I didn't even bother to read it. Have no
>interest in suppressing political speech, even from the comedians/celebs.
>bj
>
Somewhere above I clarified that. The remedy for bad speech is good
speech, not censorship.
But let's get to the big question: Are you a Cubs or White Sox fan?
Diane
Lori
"Mary McCool" <mmc...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3E577D2F...@prodigy.net...
> Brenda wrote:
>
> > I'm all for the Sedition Act (of 1918) in time of war. IF you cant
support
> > our leaders and our country and what we stand for, then get out. There
is
> > no double talk allowed at this time.
>
>
> Why the hell should I leave a country I've lived in for half a century,
> where I am a citizen? Where do you suggest I go? I love my country. I
> am a patriot. My country stands for democracy and a government of the
> people, for the people, and by the people. My country is not a place
> where you must support those in charge or leave. If that were the case
> we'd have millions of people coming and going every four years. People
> who spout the rhetoric that you do are getting more and more out of
> control, and that is going to be one of the biggest tragedies of this
> war, when we go back to citizens hating one another because they are
> being egged on by people with your attitude.
>
>
Mary, I was just saying the same thing to my husband yesterday. The
terrorists (or anti american factions) are winning because they are pitting
us against each other. There are so many of us who are confused. The
bottom line is we HAVE to believe our government knows something they are
not sharing with us. We can do all the "research" we want but we still will
not know the whole truth. I think it is important that we have the freedoms
to think and say how we feel. The only people I think should leave are
those that are not born here, but come here and put our government and
people down. They can go home.
Lori
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Lori
> I'm all for the Sedition Act (of 1918) in time of war. IF you cant
support
> our leaders and our country and what we stand for, then get out. There
is
> no double talk allowed at this time.
> Ooooh ouch, I withdraw the drunken rant from last nite.
That explains alot. I thought something was a little off. This didn't
sound entirely like you. I was going to go back and check the properties to
make sure we didn't have someone pretending to be Brenda.
Lori ;)
JFlynn
"Mary McCool" <mmc...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3E577D2F...@prodigy.net...
>
> > "Teapot Mom" <este...@attbi.com> protested>
> >
> >>I would hardly call them rich brats abusing their celebrity status.
Since
> >>when does having money or fame mean you can't be educated on political
> >>matters?
> >>
> >
> > Because they simply are not privy to the classified information that our
> > government has when it comes to what the freaky terrorists are up to.
>
>
> So you are saying that only the handful of people in our government who
> are privy to all of the classified information should be allowed to
> state their opinions. The other 200 plus million of us are supposed to
> just shut up and follow in line behind them and let them decide our
> fates and what is to become of our lives? No thanks! That's not how it
> works in the country in which I was born and have lived for nearly 50
years.
>
> > Why did you people put Reagan in the White House when he was
> >>nothing more than an actor?
> >>
> >
> > Reagan didnt go from actor to president. Thats a fallacy.
>
> She didn't say that he went *directly* from actor to president, but his
> stay in the California governor's mansion was on a direct route from
> actor to president.
IMJ a major factor in Regan's election was that the party felt he would come
across well on TV.
because his first profession had been....a celebrity.
The above is my position as well. It is my opinion that some of the motives
and information that is being hidden from us is not *soley* for the good
purpose that it would compromise our national security alone. I truly
believe that there are things we don't know simply because it suits the
*personal agendas* of those in power to keep the American people ignorant .
I'm very concerned for, and proud of any soldier in combat that goes and
does the job they are told to do.
It is the ones in power who decide that *this particular job* needs to be
done that I am concerned with.
I support
> our country, and in my mind the best thing I can do for the land I love
> is to tell those in charge that I think what they are doing is wrong.
>
> Mary
>
>
>
You go Mary. Very well spoken.
Jean
chica...@nowhere.com
>
> >I know you're kidding as I was, I didn't even bother to read it. Have no
> >interest in suppressing political speech, even from the comedians/celebs.
> >bj
>
> Somewhere above I clarified that. The remedy for bad speech is good
> speech, not censorship.
Well spoken...
> But let's get to the big question: Are you a Cubs or White Sox fan?
>
> Diane
BEARS and Cubs[I know, I'm a masochist] and love the city too!!! :)
bj
DizzyD
wrote:
>"DizzyD" <dmo...@uplink.net> wrote in message
>
>I'd like to point something out here. France & Germany (socialists not
>democracies arent they?) have sold Iraq nuclear arms as well as information
>and components to build nuclear arms and other chemical weapons that are
>nonos as far as the UN is concerned. They did this in return for oil for
>which they have not fully been paid back, meaning they have a *huge*
>investment in Iraq. They know what Saddam has up his sleave (they helped
>put it there) - doesnt it make sense they are afraid to go to war against
>him now? Does that mean its right to sit back and let Saddam go on his merry
>way trying to take over other countries (lets see, he has invaded & bombed
>Kuwait, Saudi, Israel, Iran, am I forgetting anyone? probably because he has
>gone after just about all of his neighbors and none of them are supporting
>him.)
>
First, your mixing up economic and political systems. Socialism and
capitalism are economic. Democracy is political. Every democratic
system in the world today is a "mixed" system with elements of both
economic systems. Yes, even ours. We have tariffs, regulations, etc.
Second, we fully supported Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war, though it
was under the table (just like in Pakistan during the Soviet
occupation). We provided them with both nuclear and chemical
technology.
Third, Saddam informed our Ambassador how he considered Kuwait as part
of Iraq just before he invaded. We did not protest. Indeed, she told
him that he was a sovereign nation, implying that that was his
business. When she cabled her report back to the US, we took no action
to disuade him.
>
>>
>> <snip again>
>> >
>> >
>> My heart is always with the troops. They go where they are told and do
>> what they are trained to do. They don't make policy. It's the
>> policymakers sacrificing them in a cause that will probably not lead
>> to the "greater good of all" that I'm angry at.
>>
>How is making the world a safer place not the "greater good of all"? Its
>unfortunate, but sometimes it takes war to remove an evil. One of the anti-
>Anti-war demonstrators had a sign last weekend, it said something like
>this... in small letters "except for removing slavery, genocide, etc" then
>in big letters WAR DOES NOTHING. LOL cracked me up.
>
Are you sure the world will be a safer place? I'm not.
War is sometimes necessary, but it is an admission that everything
else has failed. And we sure pick and choose.
Genocide? Burma today. Rwanda and the Congo a few years ago. Cambodia
in the Pol Pot era (where we ended up in later years supporting Pol
Pot after he had been deposed by the Vietnamese.) Iraq when it
actually did gas the Kurds decades ago? I could go on.
Slavery? the Ivory Coast today where there is a civil war going on.
France has stepped in to mediate, however. Don't know why, they don't
know anything.
And of course China. Check out the labels on your products.. If it
says "Made in China" chances are it was made by forced (i.e. slave)
labor. But, it keeps the prices down for us, so I guess that's okay.
While you're checking your clothes labels, check out the "entitlement
zones" that have been carved out in the Philippines, Indonesia, and
others that make most of our clothes. They are exempt from all
national laws, run by foreign contractors (primarily South Korean) and
are as bad as any sweat shops have ever been. What brands? Just about
everthing in American stores.
>
>> If al Qaeda is the first priority, why are we focused on Iraq? Because
>> our military is designed to fight with nations, not scattered isolated
>> cells. Why not North Korea or Iran? Too dangerous.
>>
>
>Terrorists are the first priority, not just al Qaeda. Iraq is a country who
>does not conform to the UN rules about weapons of mass destruction, or UN
>rules about anything for that matter. Its Saddam and what he does that irks
>us and we're trying to stop this madman from reaching the point that he does
>have weapons of mass destruction.
>
>> In other words. we're doing it because they are the weakest, easiest
>> target. We're doing it because we can.
>> >
>
>No we're doing it because someone has to and we do have a lot of support.
>The countries that arent supporting us right now are countries that have
>helped arm Saddam and they have a financial interest in Iraq.
Glad you've read what you can. Can't have been much.
Countries are not supporting Saddam. They are concerned that the US is
resorting to war as a first solution, not a last one. They worry that
this will inflame those who only moderately dislike us to outright
hatred. This is your "safer" world.
>
>
>> >I'm all for the Sedition Act (of 1918) in time of war. IF you cant
>support
>> >our leaders and our country and what we stand for, then get out. There
>is
>> >no double talk allowed at this time.
>>
>> Free speech is only appropriate when it doesn't matter. That makes a
>> lot of sense.
>>
>
>OK we have the right to question our leaders. Like saying, ok what info do
>you have that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction? And they answer, here
>ya go (insert Powells speech as an example.) Just look, for years Saddam
>says he has nothing and then the inspectors find some! Saddam says he didnt
>try to make a nuke and then IRaqi scientists that have escaped come forward
>and say yeah, he forced us to try and invent a nuke! Now at this point,
>there are some people that will ignore all this and say "America just wants
>IRaq's oil, America is an imperialist country, Bush is just a war-monger"
>Thats what I mean by slander. AND say we are at war and CNN puts on the news
>"US troops are now positioned 'here'" or "a US plane just left here and is
>headed there" thereby giving the enemy information against us. I think the
>Sedition Act should be used against CNN in that scenario.
>
What part of "free" in free speech don't you get?
The Supreme Court (with Scalia and Thomas) decided long ago that it is
virtually impossible to slander public figures.
CNN has the information because the government wants it to. The one
hope they have of not going to war is to convince Saddam they can.
(And yes, I do believe they wish they could avoid war--I don't think
they are madmen. But, noting their surprise unpleasant consequences
that have already happened--North Korea, NATO, UN, peace marches,
etc,--I don't have total faith in their ability to judge the outcome
of their actions.)
The inspectors have found missiles, not chemical, biological or
nuclear weapons. Yes, the missiles violate the distance limits and
should be destroyed. But they don't go much further than the permitted
missiles. They couldn't reach us. They couldn't reach Israel.
100% isn't necessary. Some nations will go along because they agree,
Some will go along because they have to--they need our support in
other areas. Some will just throw up their hands.
But the American people show enough doubt that if things go wrong,
support at home will erode. This is a failure of leadership as much as
anything. Before you go marching off, be sure your folks are behind
you.
Diane
chica...@nowhere.com
>
> Intelligence is, at best, a murky thing. And somewhat beside the
> point. The debate isn't whether terrorism is good or bad, or whether
> Saddam is a nice, misunderstood guy. It's about how you deal with the
> problems, not what the problems are.
Precisely! Great response Diane. Debating *which* actions we should
take, in no way supports dictators and terrorists.
> Every postwar president from Truman on rejected the idea of a
> pre-emptive war on the Soviet Union, a more significant threat.
>
> To quote that pinko President Eisenhower:
>
> "All of us have heard this term 'preventative war' since the earliest
> days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In
> this day and time...I don't believe there is such a thing; and,
> frankly, I wouldn't listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked
> about such a thing."
Thanks for the quote... I knew there were good reasons I liked Ike.
Nice to be reminded. :)
bj
DizzyD
My brother used to live in Chicago, as did one of my oldest and
closest friends. Another close friend lives in Champaign, but grew up
in Chicago.
But, that not the reason for the following statement.
I, too, am both a Bears and a Cubs fan. Even when I was a kid in
Philadelphia and a big Phillies fan, I loved it when the Cubs came to
town. I even met Ernie Banks once, and I adored him.
As for the Bears, that was a later thing and had a lot to do with
Walter Payton.
Talk about quality people!
Diane
Brenda
>>. AND say we are at war and CNN puts on the news
> >"US troops are now positioned 'here'" or "a US plane just left here and
is
> >headed there" thereby giving the enemy information against us. I think
the
> >Sedition Act should be used against CNN in that scenario.
> >
> What part of "free" in free speech don't you get?
>
The part where "free" puts out troops in danger and works against out
military actions.
Brenda
Captain America
wrote:
>Mary, I was just saying the same thing to my husband yesterday. The
>terrorists (or anti american factions) are winning because they are pitting
>us against each other. There are so many of us who are confused.
You must be really confused if you actually believe that the
terrorists are winning. That would be funny if it were not so sad.
Lori
"Captain America" <weydi9...@intel.net> wrote in message
news:3e57bb4c....@news.cis.dfn.de...
I don't mean the terrorists are winning the "proverbial war" just one of the
battles.
If we went to war it could very well divide us as a country. Which is one
of the terrorists goals. I told you I was confused.
Captain America
wrote:
>
>I don't mean the terrorists are winning the "proverbial war" just one of the
>battles.
>If we went to war it could very well divide us as a country. Which is one
>of the terrorists goals. I told you I was confused.
>
>Lori
First, we are at war and the country is not "divided". If you don't
believe that ask anyone that is old enough to remember the Vietnam
war. Second, the terrorist may have an occasional success but they are
not going to win, period. Third, what number of people do you accept
as having recently protested against going to war with Iraq? Lets say
it is five million, which is very generous. Do you know that there are
aprox 5 billion people in the world? Excluding those that do not have
the right to protest gives you around 3 to 4 billion people (the
Chinese alone have a population in excess of 1 billion people). In
other words, the percentage is so small as to be insignificant in the
grand order of things. Even if all the people that do not have a right
to protest managed to do so somehow, the total number that did
relative to the total world population is still insignificant. Lastly,
Bush is on the right course, history will prove us right.
Mary McCool
> First, we are at war and the country is not "divided". If you don't
> believe that ask anyone that is old enough to remember the Vietnam
> war. Second, the terrorist may have an occasional success but they are
> not going to win, period. Third, what number of people do you accept
> as having recently protested against going to war with Iraq? Lets say
> it is five million, which is very generous. Do you know that there are
> aprox 5 billion people in the world? Excluding those that do not have
> the right to protest gives you around 3 to 4 billion people (the
> Chinese alone have a population in excess of 1 billion people). In
> other words, the percentage is so small as to be insignificant in the
> grand order of things. Even if all the people that do not have a right
> to protest managed to do so somehow, the total number that did
> relative to the total world population is still insignificant.
You seem to be saying that only those people who protested that day are
against the war (ignoring those that for whatever reason are unable to
protest). Besides those five million (and I believe the number was
double that) people, many, many more agree with their cause and don't
believe we should go to war. If you count all of those people, the
percentage becomes more and more significant.
Mary
Brenda
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/2/20/112709
LMAO
Brenda
--
http://www.brendabythebay.com/index.html
"VoxofaFox" <voxo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030221113952...@mb-fk.aol.com...
> As one who finds the glitteri of Hollywood to be all schlock and no
substance,
> I urge you to sign this petition.
>
> http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/hollywoodceleb/
VoxofaFox
<< Hey Vox, check this one out LOL - to send Hollytwits & Sheen a message...
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/2/20/112709
LMAO >>
Thanks, Brenda...what a twit. Sorry, Teapot, but I find Sheen terribly
offensive.
Brenda
Dizzy,
I love debating with you, you get me all off researching new stuff. Can I
ask what you do for a living?
Brenda
--
http://www.brendabythebay.com/index.html
DizzyD
wrote:
Research. Writing. Editing.
Mostly for small businesses and the University, but I've been doing
the same sort of thing for most of my working life. Just out of
college, I worked in DC for nearly a decade doing the political
thing.( And for the GOP, btw.) Went back to grad school. Did some
other things like owning a bookstore (whose name should have been "The
Money Hole"). Managed a garden center for a change of pace. And then
started my own business.
I went to DC not for the power (I was pretty sure *that* wouldn't
happen) but because I believe public service is an honorable
profession as well as the fact so much darn interesting stuff goes on
there.
I showed up just as the Vietnam War protests really got rolling, Then
came Watergate. (If you think the Democratic Party is adrift these
days, the GOP came out of that just about moribund. If the present two
party system wasn't so well entrenched in law and practice, there
wouldn't be a GOP today). Anyhow, after a while, I decided things were
a bit more interesting than I could stand.
I'm still active in local governmental affairs. I've never stopped
thinking that public service and civic participation are worthless.
Just the opposite.
Diane
Mary McCool
> PS
>
> Dizzy,
>
> I love debating with you, you get me all off researching new stuff. Can I
> ask what you do for a living?
>
> Brenda
I think it's the "teacher" in her!
DizzyD
wrote:
You may be right.
As I was logging on, I was thinking about the promise I made to myself
NOT to discuss this issue here. I just think the forum is so
constricted, it's hard to examine things in a nuanced way, and not end
up resorting to tired sloganeering.
Then I realized that when I read some of the posts, I reacted as
though they hadn't listened to me in class! The fact no one here ever
took a course from me had little to do with the logic.
Great, now both you and chicagofan have read my mind. I'm not sure how
I feel about that. ;-)
Diane
Dish1991
>Again, What? Just because I'm against war, I *support terrorists*? That's
>wrong, Brenda. I'm surprised a smart woman like you would write such a
>stupid thing.
i think brenda's reading too much right wing stuff.
you have to think for yourself in life.
'right' books or 'left' books...
they're there to take your mind from you.
JFlynn
"Dish1991" <dish...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20030222185334...@mb-cp.aol.com...
Ideologies are tricky stuff. Many do seem to ask you to shut of your brain
as a passport to membership.
My brain's all I have thanks. I'm keeping it
Jean
Brenda
news:20030222185334...@mb-cp.aol.com...
Recipe for an Oops Post. One grandiose bottle of Merlot. A massive dose of
Michael Savage reading. A dollop of newsmax.com. A perusing of the news
coverage of the day. A dash of patriotism. *sigh*
What can I say but yeah, yer right, I've definitely swung from liberal to
conservative in the space of say, a couple months, and will probably
continue to morph but hey at least I'm paying attention and reading whatever
I can get my hands on. But I did post a retraction this morning while
cringing as I read my own words.
Stepping off the soapbox,
(momentarily LOL)
Brenda
Dish1991
>I don't mean the terrorists are winning the "proverbial war" just one of the
>battles.
>If we went to war it could very well divide us as a country. Which is one
>of the terrorists goals. I told you I was confused.
they're only winning if more than half of america bought duct tape last week,
and i doubt that more than 50% of americans did.
there are A LOT of people in america.
who here bought duct tape et al..?.
come on...spill it!
Dish1991
> Lastly,
>Bush is on the right course, history will prove us right.
i hope you're right captain, i really do.
VoxofaFox
<< i think brenda's reading too much right wing stuff. >><BR><BR>
No she isn't. And I am not saying this just because I am happy about hearing
about what she is reading...she admitted she was going through a conversion
from being liberal to conservative. It's an exciting thing to join the "other
side". I did it 12 years ago. It was one of the most amazing times of my
life.
Rightly,
Vox
Dish1991
>From: (DizzyD)
>Every democratic
>system in the world today is a "mixed" system with elements of both
>economic systems. Yes, even ours. We have tariffs, regulations, etc.
>
mdicare, welfare, charity care.....
>Slavery? the Ivory Coast today where there is a civil war going on.
>France has stepped in to mediate, however. Don't know why, they don't
>know anything.
maybe they think there's some cheap oil to be found ;)
>CNN has the information because the government wants it to. The one
>hope they have of not going to war is to convince Saddam they can.
..and iraqi citizens have access to cnn.
>They couldn't reach us. They couldn't reach Israel.
i am inclined to think they could reach israel d.
> Before you go marching off, be sure your folks are behind
>you.
and like i have said before, becaue of w's family history in the oil industry
(as well as cheney's,) there are doubts.
Brenda
industry
> (as well as cheney's,) there are doubts.
hasnt Cheney been strangely quiet lately??? Are they keeping him holed up in
a bunker somewhere? Or did he have some kind of medical issue going on they
dont want the public to know about?
Brenda
Captain America
>
>>CNN has the information because the government wants it to. The one
>>hope they have of not going to war is to convince Saddam they can.
>
>..and iraqi citizens have access to cnn.
Iraqi citizens do not have access to CNN or any other international
media unless they have satellite, which very few do. Iran, on the
other hand, is full of satellites.
Dish1991
>Recipe for an Oops Post. One grandiose bottle of Merlot. A massive dose of
>Michael Savage reading. A dollop of newsmax.com. A perusing of the news
>coverage of the day. A dash of patriotism. *sigh*
lol!
sounds like a recipe for a republican!
(J/K!)
>What can I say but yeah, yer right, I've definitely swung from liberal to
>conservative in the space of say, a couple months, and will probably
>continue to morph but hey at least I'm paying attention and reading whatever
>I can get my hands on. But I did post a retraction this morning while
>cringing as I read my own words.
being republican in itself isn't the problem imo brenda. it's the attitude that
your way IS the only and right way of dealing with issues.
Dish1991
>hasnt Cheney been strangely quiet lately???
yes he has brenda.
Teapot Mom
"DizzyD" wrote:
> Actually, I wouldn't sign any petition to stop anyone's right to speak
> no matter the worth or lack thereof there is. The response to bad
> speech is good speech, not censorship.
Absolutely right again. To whom would one even direct such a petition? It's
stupid and unfair. We don't have to agree with another person, celebrity or
not, but each has a right to speak.
> We have entered into an agreement called the Constitution that we
> believe that free speech is a universal human right. Universal means
> universal, whether it is you and me or Sean Penn or Rush Limbaugh or
> anyone else.
Yep again. I knew you were a smart lady. : )
Teapot
Teapot Mom
"VoxofaFox" wrote:
> Of course celebrities have a right to their opinions....
So if they have a right to their opinion and freedom of speech, why do you
want to shut them up?
>however a lot of people give their opinions more weight than other folks.
ANd >they are hands down some of the most fucked up individuals on the
universe. >Look at the percentage of people in frigging REHAB who are in
entertainment!!!
That's only bc you hear about every celebrity entering rehab. Drug abusers
or alcoholics come in every shape and form and profession.
> You have no idea what these people did. For one, I would suggest that
perhaps
> they would have the taste to not publicize their social endeavors. All
your
> vegan hysteric liberals want to make sure everyone KNOWS what they
> do...oooh....
The truth is, they lend themselves or their names to a cause or action in
order to BRING ATTENTION to the cause! Martin Sheen first told us he
wouldn't give money but we could use him in any way WE thought would be
benificial to our cause. WE ASKED him to stand at the gates of this plant
with us, he agreed and was the first to hop over the fence and get arrested.
The result of this action was MAJOR news crews came to this little pissant
town and first saw Mr. Sheen, and then saw the horror of what was going on
here and the first stepping stone was laid to halt this monster from
burning.
And if you don't mind my asking, what is "vegan hysterical liberals"? Sorry,
but I had to laugh when I read that.
> I am laughing at you for taking the liberal bait form movie stars, hook,
line
> and sinker. You should come to L.A. and hear how people make fun of your
> blessed Martin Sheen. He is a joke on the radio here.
I could care less what you or any other Californian thinks of my friend,
Martin Sheen. You won't change my mind. Perhaps if you knew the real man
instead of listening to someone else's opinion, you'd feel the same. See, I
CHOOSE to base my opinion of him on what I have witnessed in him, not by
what someone else 'said'.
Teapot
Teapot Mom
"VoxofaFox" wrote:
> Of course it isn't the center of the universe. But Sheen has become a
parody
> of himself. Not only has HE been in rehab, but so has his spawn.
> Additionally, his spawn is a joke because of he had one of the highest
amounts
> paid to the likes of Heidi Fleiss for sex. The whole picture is
hilarious.
So the man got help for a problem? Who hasn't??? And why is that anyone's
business? His 'SON' has been in rehab, too? Again I ask, who cares? Martin
never has claimed to be perfect. And I don't really think any of us would
want to be judged by something a member of our family has done or become,
don't you think? I bet if you looked at your own family, you'd find one
member who perhaps made you a little uncomfortable or embarrassed. I know I
could name more than a couple in my family or hubby's family. Heck, he's got
two uncles who are totally whacked. We're just glad we don't share a common
last name. Would I want anyone to judge me by their actions? I think not.
Teapot
Teapot Mom
"Brenda" wrote:
> "Teapot Mom" <este...@attbi.com> protested>
>
> > I would hardly call them rich brats abusing their celebrity status.
Since
> > when does having money or fame mean you can't be educated on political
> > matters?
>
> Because they simply are not privy to the classified information that our
> government has when it comes to what the freaky terrorists are up to.
But, Brenda, we aren't only talking about terrorist information or this
impending war. We're talking politics and gov't in general.
> Why did you people put Reagan in the White House when he was
> > nothing more than an actor?
>
> Reagan didnt go from actor to president. Thats a fallacy.
It's where he started out and it's what got him recognized. Most voters cast
their vote on name recognition. That's a fact.
> Yup thats all we can do, you and I, what little tidbits the news gives us,
> but we have to make a diligent effort to view both sides and then judge.
Can't argue with that.
> They cant be possibly aware of all the facts because they arent' privy to
> it. Get it? There's confidential information that our top security
> personell has and we arent allowed to have that for national security
> reasons. WE have to accept that to a certain degree and trust the people
we
> have votedinto office and those that have been dispatched to serve our
> county.
Again, you are only focusing on this war. That is NOT what we're talking
about. It is any politics and any gov't issue, in general.
> OK, take for a concrete example, Martic Scorcese (sp?). Every frickin
film
> he has put out has had violence of some kind. Now, he goes off to Germany
> and preaches anti-violence, anti-war, and Anti-Americanism. Doesnt that
> piss you off???? He made his money on what exactly pisses off the
> terrorists, what makes them hate our culture, and he has the cajones to
flit
> off to Germany to slander our country??? Our leaders??? What a hypocrite!
The point is, like what he says/does or not, he has a right to do it, as
guarenteed by the Constitution.
> And do you stop to consider our troops abroad, ready to take action with
> full patriotism to our country, full loyalty to our leaders. HOw do you
> think they feel when they hear the femi-fascists in this country spouting
> lies against our government? How do you think they *feel* when they are
out
> there ready to give their lives in sacrifice for the greater good of all?
I think it was these very soldiers who fought so we could have the right to
freedom of speech. They fought to give us our Constitution and freedoms. How
we choose to exercise those freedoms and rights is up to us.
> I'm all for the Sedition Act (of 1918) in time of war. IF you cant
support
> our leaders and our country and what we stand for, then get out. There
is
> no double talk allowed at this time.
That's abserd. There may be a time when your gov't leaders aren't right or
aren't doing the right thing for the betterment of all. We have the right to
question them and their actions whenever.
> My heart is with the troops and with our leaders.
And mine isn't?
>Its so obvious why the few countries that deter us, their reasons why its
> already come out.
It's not obvious to me....yet.
>IF you are an American, please, why cant you you show
> some support for our country or just get out?
This is MY country, too, and I'll act any way I choose and that doesn't
make me a better or worse patriot than you. I don't have to like the idea of
my gov't sending young men and women into battle with some unknown force for
unknown reasons and seeing them die and leave families and loved ones
behind. No, I don't think I can support that. Will I stand behind every
soldier on the line???? You bet I will. I would do anything for them, if I
could, including finding a better way to settle things, or showing my
displeasure to the leaders of this country with their decision to fight.
I have close family members over there right now and numerous friends, too.
Most of them are only in their very early 20's. I hate it. It scares me and
I don't want them there. It's wrong.
> Tea, I love you, this isnt directed at you personally, you're a voice of
> good in the midst of evil when things get out of hand. I'm just asking
you
> to consider these issues.
Brenda, thanks for your kindness, but I think you and I are not talking
about the same kinds of things. You are only looking at this war issue. I'm
looking at all sorts of issues and reasons stars speak out. Some may choose
the plight of the homeless, or take on raising money to find a cure for a
disease, or fight toxic waste burners, or fight AIDS....the list is endless.
You can't only address a petition like this on one subject. It did not say
"celebrities cannot share their views on the war in Iraq". It was very vague
and that's what's not fair about it. Everyone has a right to voice an
opinion, right or wrong. Respecting the constitution....that is the point I
am asking you to consider.
Teapot, who loves you, too, and really really enjoys reading your
intelligent and well thought out comments on this and many other subjects!
Teapot Mom
"Brenda" wrote:
> Hey Vox, check this one out LOL - to send Hollytwits & Sheen a message...
And just what kind of message do you suggest we send them? Should we call
them names for telling our gov't that we don't want to go to war? How dare
they do such a brazen thing! How very Un-American!!! I am shocked that
people would take such a stand. Afterall, if "W" had his way, we'd all bury
our heads in the sand and let him continue to do whatever he wants in
running this country. No thank you!
I think people who fall for crap like this website are scared. It is so sad
that you have given so much power to a few well intentioned citizens who
want to protect the lives of our sons and daughters. They don't want them to
march on foreign soil to kill people who they have no firt with and destroy
their homes and nation. Yeah, that's something to be proud of, huh?
Teapot, not finding this website funny at all
Teapot Mom
"VoxofaFox" wrote:
> Thanks, Brenda...what a twit. Sorry, Teapot, but I find Sheen terribly
> offensive.
Why? Don't bother answering, I really don't care. As I said before, you are
judging a man on what you hear others say about him. You have had no contact
or interaction with the man and don't know him at all. You have no clue what
he is about.
Teapot
Captain America
wrote:
> As I said before, you are
>judging a man on what you hear others say about him. You have had no contact
>or interaction with the man and don't know him at all. You have no clue what
>he is about.
>
>Teapot
Aren't you doing the same thing? Seriously.
Captain America
wrote:
>And just what kind of message do you suggest we send them? Should we call
>them names for telling our gov't that we don't want to go to war? How dare
>they do such a brazen thing! How very Un-American!!! I am shocked that
>people would take such a stand. Afterall, if "W" had his way, we'd all bury
>our heads in the sand and let him continue to do whatever he wants in
>running this country. No thank you!
>I think people who fall for crap like this website are scared. It is so sad
>that you have given so much power to a few well intentioned citizens who
>want to protect the lives of our sons and daughters. They don't want them to
>march on foreign soil to kill people who they have no firt with and destroy
>their homes and nation. Yeah, that's something to be proud of, huh?
>
>Teapot, not finding this website funny at all
Tea, I didn't look at the web site so I am not going to comment on
that. What I want to know is what do you propose that we do regarding
the situation in Iraq? I really want to hear your opinion on this
because, and I don't mean this as a slam, because I have not heard one
cogent argument from your side yet and it distresses me to see
otherwise intelligent people be roundly led down the garden path. I
guess you would probably say that about my position also but I know I
am right, as you probably think you are. One of is most definitely
wrong and history will prove which one that is. I honestly want to
know what you think are the alternatives to the course of action we
are most assuredly going to pursue. Please understand that all I am
trying to do is understand your position, nothing more.
Linn
From: dish...@aol.comNOSPAM (Dish1991)
who here bought duct tape et al..?.
come on...spill it!
>>
I bought "poster tape" for my daughter! $5 worth of it!! Does that count?
Linn
Linn
<< First, your mixing up economic and political systems. Socialism and
capitalism are economic. Democracy is political. Every democratic
system in the world today is a "mixed" system with elements of both
economic systems. Yes, even ours. We have tariffs, regulations, etc.
Second, we fully supported Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war, though it
was under the table (just like in Pakistan during the Soviet
occupation). We provided them with both nuclear and chemical
technology.
>>
I snipped most of your articulate and informative post for brevity, but as
usual it is great to read your concise and well thought out posts.
Linn
Linn
<< hasnt Cheney been strangely quiet lately??? Are they keeping him holed up in
a bunker somewhere? Or did he have some kind of medical issue going on they
dont want the public to know about?
>>
SHHHHH!! YOu're not supposed to ask things like that - if we aren't seeing much
of Cheney it must be because the government , in their infinite wisdom and
knowledge, have deemed it in our best interest as a nation that we do not know
these things!
Linn
; )
VoxofaFox
<< hasnt Cheney been strangely quiet lately??? Are they keeping him holed up in
a bunker somewhere? Or did he have some kind of medical issue going on they
dont want the public to know about? >>
i am sure he's fine. He is usually "quiet".
VoxofaFox
<< I could care less what you or any other Californian thinks of my friend,
Martin Sheen. You won't change my mind. Perhaps if you knew the real man
instead of listening to someone else's opinion, you'd feel the same. See, I
CHOOSE to base my opinion of him on what I have witnessed in him, not by
what someone else 'said'. >><BR><BR>
I have heard Sheen speak many times. To me, that is witnessing him. I am not
going by what others say at all.
Glad you laughed at the "vegan hysteric liberal". I stole it from Ann Coulter
who used it to describe Kim Bassinger, a particularly stellar individual and
poltical genius. When hubby was on the Special Enforcement Bureau he headed
the team to watch over the Academy Awards ceremony. He had to have Basinger
escorted out she was so coked up.
VoxofaFox
<< Would I want anyone to judge me by their actions? I think not. >><BR><BR>
I am judging him by his own actions...and the kind of son he himself raised is
part of his own actions. I think judging someone on a distant uncle is
competely different. You can't make the comparison.
Teapot Mom
"Captain America" wrote:
> Aren't you doing the same thing? Seriously.
No, I'm not. I've met Martin personally about four or five times now. He
came to our town and took part in protests against this incinerator and met
at my house beforehand. He has come back here several more times and stays
in touch with us by e-mail and personal phone calls. If you don't believe
me, I'd be more than happy to send you a picture of him with me and my
children.
Teapot
Teapot Mom
"Captain America" wrote:
> What I want to know is what do you propose that we do regarding
> the situation in Iraq? I really want to hear your opinion on this
> because, and I don't mean this as a slam, because I have not heard one
> cogent argument from your side yet and it distresses me to see
> otherwise intelligent people be roundly led down the garden path. I
> guess you would probably say that about my position also but I know I
> am right, as you probably think you are.
I don't mind answering you at all, Captain. And you are right about one
thing, I don't understand why you think you are right and me wrong. I
suppose with you being a military guy, you have more knowledge of current
things going on that I'm not privvy to, but the average person doesn't have
that advantage. I think we need to give this more time. Not only do I not
know fully what this 'war' is about, I don't understand the need to rush
into it. With the threat of serious military action looming over Saddam's
head, I don't think he'd be foolish enough to do anything, nor do I think
he'd want to lose face in the eye's of the world. I think the inspectors
need time to do their job fully. The US may certainly know of the hidden
weapons Iraq possesses, but they are not sharing that information with the
rest of the world, nor are they sharing it with the UN or its inspectors.
They just cannot continue to say "trust us" and expect the world to blindly
follow. Right now, the United States looks like an aggressive, war hungry
nation, instead of one trying to save the world from mass destruction by a
madman. The rest of the world hates us. We must remember that we are not in
this alone, we don't rule the world, as much as some would like to believe
that and we NEED the UN's backing for this to be successful. It is entirely
possible that Iraq has these weapons and Saddam is up to no good. So I think
we need to point the inspectors in the right direction so they'll find them
and THEN prove to the world that the problem of Saddam Hussein must be dealt
with and we are willing to do just that. We look like bullys now and that's
not a good image for us. With so much at stake, what's the harm in waiting
a bit longer? We all will know if Saddam tries anything beforehand, so I say
'we wait'.
>I honestly want to know what you think are the alternatives to the course
of action >we are most assuredly going to pursue. Please understand that all
I am
> trying to do is understand your position, nothing more.
I never doubted or questioned your intentions, Captain. You are an honorable
man and I'm glad you asked to hear me out. I hope you know that I have the
most respect for our military. All four of my brothers served, as well as my
father in law and many of my male relatives. In fact, my father in law
belongs to a Korean War vets group that goes around to local schools doing
programs with the kids to inform them of what happened in that war. Many of
the kids had some strange but glorified ideas of what 'war' really means and
they came away from these programs with a more respectful understanding of
it. I admire anyone who is willing to put their life on the line to protect
our constitution and our very lives. I would support soldiers any time and
in any way I could in a wartime situation. It is the least I owe them. But I
don't want to ask them to put their lives on the line right now, until we
know more with a certainty, what exactly we are fighting over.
I hope this helps a little.
Teapot
Captain America
wrote:
>
I belive you. Thanks for explaining.
VoxofaFox
<< No, I'm not. I've met Martin personally about four or five times now. He
came to our town and took part in protests against this incinerator and met
at my house beforehand. He has come back here several more times and stays
in touch with us by e-mail and personal phone calls. If you don't believe
me, I'd be more than happy to send you a picture of him with me and my
children.
>><BR><BR>
I know he has been good to you and your causes, Teapot. I'll definitly give
him that.
Brendabythebay
wrote:
>
>I don't mind answering you at all, Captain. And you are right about one
>thing, I don't understand why you think you are right and me wrong.
I hope you know that if I debate this with you Tea, its not that I
Think you are "wrong" perse, just that I am putting another side to
the argument out there. And while we sometimes disagree, I still love
ya and have fun discussing things like this with you.
>I
>suppose with you being a military guy, you have more knowledge of current
>things going on that I'm not privvy to, but the average person doesn't have
>that advantage. I think we need to give this more time. Not only do I not
>know fully what this 'war' is about, I don't understand the need to rush
>into it.
Rush? This has been an issue for 12 years. How is that rushing?
We're just getting firm with him now. Personally, I hope this is all
a big show to force him to disarm, but I'm afraid its not working and
empty threats wont work either.
>With the threat of serious military action looming over Saddam's
>head, I don't think he'd be foolish enough to do anything, nor do I think
>he'd want to lose face in the eye's of the world. I think the inspectors
>need time to do their job fully. The US may certainly know of the hidden
>weapons Iraq possesses, but they are not sharing that information with the
>rest of the world, nor are they sharing it with the UN or its inspectors.
Thats true and I wish they could come out with more of what they have
without putting the sources in danger. I think they are doing this
privately with other countries leaders. Its a tricky thing because
some of those sources are Iraqi ones that are on our side and they are
trapped in their own country and we'd be endangering their lives by
exposing them. Nevermind our own military thats their "undercover."
WE cant really blow their cover for their own safety. To some extent,
I think we do need to trust our military but at the same time (I know
it sounds contradictory but its not) we have every right to ask
questions.
>They just cannot continue to say "trust us" and expect the world to blindly
>follow. Right now, the United States looks like an aggressive, war hungry
>nation, instead of one trying to save the world from mass destruction by a
>madman. The rest of the world hates us. We must remember that we are not in
>this alone, we don't rule the world, as much as some would like to believe
>that and we NEED the UN's backing for this to be successful. It is entirely
>possible that Iraq has these weapons and Saddam is up to no good. So I think
>we need to point the inspectors in the right direction so they'll find them
>and THEN prove to the world that the problem of Saddam Hussein must be dealt
>with and we are willing to do just that. We look like bullys now and that's
>not a good image for us. With so much at stake, what's the harm in waiting
>a bit longer? We all will know if Saddam tries anything beforehand, so I say
>'we wait'.
>
>I never doubted or questioned your intentions, Captain. You are an honorable
>man and I'm glad you asked to hear me out. I hope you know that I have the
>most respect for our military. All four of my brothers served, as well as my
>father in law and many of my male relatives. In fact, my father in law
>belongs to a Korean War vets group that goes around to local schools doing
>programs with the kids to inform them of what happened in that war. Many of
>the kids had some strange but glorified ideas of what 'war' really means and
>they came away from these programs with a more respectful understanding of
>it. I admire anyone who is willing to put their life on the line to protect
>our constitution and our very lives. I would support soldiers any time and
>in any way I could in a wartime situation. It is the least I owe them. But I
>don't want to ask them to put their lives on the line right now, until we
>know more with a certainty, what exactly we are fighting over.
>I hope this helps a little.
>
>Teapot
>
My only problem with waiting is that we have waited for 12 years and
in that time, we know that Saddam has purchased nuclear arms and other
components to make WMDs so that makes me very very nervous. I think
we do need to come on strong now, but I'm hoping it will force his
hand without us having to actually start the war.
Captain America
wrote:
>I never doubted or questioned your intentions, Captain. You are an honorable
>man and I'm glad you asked to hear me out. I hope you know that I have the
>most respect for our military. All four of my brothers served, as well as my
>father in law and many of my male relatives. In fact, my father in law
>belongs to a Korean War vets group that goes around to local schools doing
>programs with the kids to inform them of what happened in that war. Many of
>the kids had some strange but glorified ideas of what 'war' really means and
>they came away from these programs with a more respectful understanding of
>it. I admire anyone who is willing to put their life on the line to protect
>our constitution and our very lives. I would support soldiers any time and
>in any way I could in a wartime situation. It is the least I owe them. But I
>don't want to ask them to put their lives on the line right now, until we
>know more with a certainty, what exactly we are fighting over.
>I hope this helps a little.
>
>Teapot
Sorry Tea, but you still haven't told me what you would do instead.
Well, you did say "let the inspections continue" or something similar.
How long is long enough? Why isn't twelve years long enough? I quess
we should end this here because you are just saying what everyone else
with your position says, yet the alternative you offer has been tried
ad nauseam for the past twelve years. Enough is enough. I have served
in that part of the world. I am sorry that you don't believe what the
President says, as I don't always believe it myself. I do believe what
I have first hand experience of/knowledge with. If we don't attack
Iraq the whole world will pay a much greater price than if we do.
Lord Zorn
VoxofaFox wrote:
> DAN RATHER!?!?! Now, that's fair and balanced....egads. They dont' come any
> more biased than that goon.
Ma'am:
I meant that Mr. Rather's semi-liberal bias balances out the pronounced
rightward spin off FOX news. I like Rather's folksiness and Scorpionic
East-Texas charisma and charm. Besides he is heir apparent to Walter
Cronkite, the man whose trustworthiness is partially what got me to
watch Wide-World news in the first place. BTW, I think Brokaw is boring,
silly, and liberal, too. And Anna Nicole is a goon... my foes are all
goons...Dan Rather is *not* a goon!!!
Protectively,
Lord Zorn
Lord Zorn
Mary McCool wrote:
I'm always afraid that Dan is either going to fall asleep or start
> crying while he is delivering the news. I don't mind a news reporter
> getting teary eyed during extremely, seriously, emotional times, I don't
> want to see it on a regular basis. of course, I couldn't do that job
> because I am a very emotional person, and cry over things such as tv
> commericals!
>
>
>
McCool:
This from the NG's premier "crying liberal"???
Lord Zorn, who thinks you ***deserve*** DD(and more like him) in your life
Mary McCool
> Lord Zorn, who thinks you ***deserve*** DD(and more like him) in your life
Why? I've got you. Same ilk.
DizzyD
wrote:
Hold on a second.
I know I miss things, but has Anna Nicole moved to the news from her
successful career in self-humiliation? <
I knew the networks are always desperate for ratings, but...........
<G>
Diane
Dish1991
> What I want to know is what do you propose that we do regarding
>the situation in Iraq? I really want to hear your opinion on this
>because, and I don't mean this as a slam, because I have not heard one
>cogent argument from your side yet and it distresses me to see
>otherwise intelligent people be roundly led down the garden path. I
i think we backed ourselves into a corner now.
however, my answer would have been to leave saddam alone to his middle eastern
neighbors, and have them come begging to us once again to save them.
Dish1991
>My only problem with waiting is that we have waited for 12 years and
>in that time, we know that Saddam has purchased nuclear arms and other
>components to make WMDs so that makes me very very nervous. I think
>we do need to come on strong now, but I'm hoping it will force his
>hand without us having to actually start the war.
but so have other nations.
why iraq?
why now?
Brendabythebay
Maybe because we've got to start somewhere and this issue with Iraq is
12 years old already.
>
>why now?
IT probably has to do with intelligence information we have as regards
what weapons Iraq has, what weapons he's been trying to accumulate in
the 12 years that we've taken the diplomatic route, and a sense of
urgency in doing something against terrorist supporting nations that
are amassing WMDs. Maybe they are concerned that if we sit back and
wait like we have been, he'll have accumulated worse weapons and it
will be harder to deal with him then or worse yet, he'll try to pull
something worse than we've seen so far. With Saddam's history of
attacking all of his neighbors, are we to suddenly believe he's a
supporter of world peace? Maybe we want to be taken seriously now,
maybe we're done with taking the easy road.
I do hope they can force his hand though, someone's got to and even
the UN is sounding stronger. France actually came out today and urged
Iraq to comply with the 3-1 deadline on the missile issue.
Brenda
Lord Zorn
DizzyD wrote:
> I don't like Alexander Cockburn, either. You'll have to twist yourself
> in a pretzel to include him in the poor misuderstood conservative
> pundit group.
Lady D:
Pray, tell me who Mr. Cockburn is. I know him not.
>
> I enjoy silliness as much as the next person. I just don't mistake it
> for thoughtful substance.
Then you appear to come to ATGH serendipitously<friendly smirk>.
>
>>>Each has had to repeatedly trim back repeatedly on their statements
>>>when challenged by facts.
>>
>>Give an O'Reilly example, please.
>
>
> Just one? With pleasure.
>
> The source for this is Peter Hart, on behalf of Fairness and Accuracy
> in Reporting:
>
> On 2/5/02, during an interview with former NOW president Kim Gandy,
> O'Reilly claimed that "58 percent of single-mom homes are on welfare."
> When Gandy questioned the figure, he replied, "You can't say no, Ms.
> Gandy. That's the stat."
>
> On 2/6/02, he claimed that 52% of of families receiving public
> assistance are headed by a single mom. Of course that's a different
> number entirely, but he didn't bother to clarify that it was not what
> he had said the night before. No matter, it's also incorrect.
>
> The following night (2/7/02), he finally came up with the right
> figure, without apology or explanation. About 14% of single mothers
> receive federal assistance of any kind, not just welfare. (School
> loans, etc.)
>
> As the man said the first time, "that's the stat."
>
>
I see. Somewhat embarrassing for the "good guys". Now, just for balance,
give me an example of a left-wing goof if you please.
>>To put it more acerbically, are you proud to be the equal of OJ and the
>>"mules" on "Street Smarts"???
>
>
> You can call yourself whatever you want. Indeed, you can call me what
> you want. I was simply stating my preference for myself.
>
> It seems to me that people prove their worth by what they do, not what
> they call themselves. Of course people plot their own ways and do what
> they feel best. But good qualities don't have to advertise. They are
> self-evident.
America, these days seems to have few rewards for sciolism and
"kewlness-in-itself". I decided to reward myself and warn folks in
advance of some of what they are up against.
>
> Hard to believe, but most of the world doesn't know and doesn't care
> who either one of us are.
>
More's the pity, eh??? I think I will let the old sig-line below stand
this time.
>>Lord Zorn, who wouldn't mind being primus inter paribus in a world of
>>kewl people
>>
>>
>>>Diane
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Lord Zorn
DizzyD wrote:
>>
>>It's way more than what Sean Penn did. Oh wait, Sean Penn did nothing.
>>
>
> I thought this was about speech, not law enforcement. Didn't you
> chastise me when I joked that Steve Case should use his money to track
> down terrorists saying it was not the role of a private citizen?
Lady D:
Fro my POV, it is generally about taking a righteous stand and doing
kewl, patriotic stuph. As far as I am concerned, Steve Case *should* use
his resources to hunt down our enemies.
> Actually, I wouldn't sign any petition to stop anyone's right to speak
> no matter the worth or lack thereof there is. The response to bad
> speech is good speech, not censorship.
>
I agree with this to some extent, but it is damnably difficult to keep
shouting ignorant rabble down once they get the idea they can do it with
impunity.
> We have entered into an agreement called the Constitution that we
> believe that free speech is a universal human right. Universal means
> universal, whether it is you and me or Sean Penn or Rush Limbaugh or
> anyone else.
>
> However, I'd point out that having a talk show, column or book deal is
> not included in that right.
>
> Diane
Lord Zorn, rather hoarse from shouting down dummies
Lord Zorn
DizzyD wrote:
>
> Odd how people who don't believe the government can do anything right
> in regards to things like health care, education, etc. are ready to
> give them carte blanche in something much more important.
Lady D:
I don't actually care very much about the things you listed above, so I
find it easier to expect good things from the government in this
important(to me) area
Issues are
> seldom black and white. Decisions are seldom between what is obviously
> all good and what is obviously foolish. Our soundbite society has
> created an false atmosphere of "he said, she said" (or whatever gender
> pronouns you'd like). Pick sides. Right now.
I do it all the time... 'Tis easy for me... I deal in preponderances and
my own emotions and knowledge. As I always say, semi-jocularly, "There
-are- two sides to an issue: my side and the wrong side."
> There are other sources besides our elected leaders. Like, oh, the
> elected leaders of other democracies who have access to classified
> information and see things differently. Instead of writing them off,
> it might be a good idea to listen to what they say. They could be
> wrong about some things, but so could our folks.
>
Oh, leaders of such as the French and Germans, who have a vested
interest in a) polishing Saddam's apple for his oil, b)keeping the
racially diverse/left-wing mobs at home happy, and c) slapping down the
US and Britain to enlarge their own tiny hopes of being "superpoweers
on the world stage??? You mean ***those*** leaders???<sardonic smile>
>
> <snip again>
>
>>
>>But what I'm talking about is totally unsubstantiated facts, like the rich
>>actors with their pretty little mansions on Beverly HIlls have forgotten the
>>fact they they are part of what the religious freaks hate so much!
>>Remember, it was these totally freak religious Muslim zealouts that attacked
>>us becuase they hate our life, our lifestyle. How hypocritcal is it for
>>those that participate in that lifestyle to speak *in support of the freakin
>>terrorists*????
>
>
> Who spoke out in support of terrorists? Did anyone say 9/11 was a good
> thing and we deserved it?
>
>>OK, take for a concrete example, Martic Scorcese (sp?). Every frickin film
>>he has put out has had violence of some kind. Now, he goes off to Germany
>>and preaches anti-violence, anti-war, and Anti-Americanism. Doesnt that
>>piss you off???? He made his money on what exactly pisses off the
>>terrorists, what makes them hate our culture, and he has the cajones to flit
>>off to Germany to slander our country??? Our leaders??? What a hypocrite!
>
>
> People often use violence in art to show how horrible it is. Even if
> that's not their goal, violence is a part of life and art is about
> life.
>
> Making a movie is different than bombing a country and perhaps setting
> off on a road to endless war.
>
War is endemic to the human condition. I fear no war for us, save a
nuclear one, we can best all other comers, especially Third-Worlders in
open and fair combat.
> Since when is disagreement with policy "slander"?
>
When a goofy female minister compares King George to Hitler...or when
Tuna calls King George a "butchering pig" here. ***THAT*** is when it is
slander!!!<impatient eyeroll>
> Yes, our American hearts are pure and we never make mistakes. Germany
> knows nothing about war, of course. But, we do and have all the right
> answers.
>
>
Your sarcasm above is how I *truly* feel(minus your sarcasm, of course<LOL>)
>>And do you stop to consider our troops abroad, ready to take action with
>>full patriotism to our country, full loyalty to our leaders. HOw do you
>>think they feel when they hear the femi-fascists in this country spouting
>>lies against our government? How do you think they *feel* when they are out
>>there ready to give their lives in sacrifice for the greater good of all?
>
>
> How did Scorcese become a "femi-facist"? Did he have a sex-change
> operation I'm not aware of?
>
She was speaking of people such as Tuna and Sean Penn, not *necessarily*
of Signior Scorcese.
> My heart is always with the troops. They go where they are told and do
> what they are trained to do. They don't make policy. It's the
> policymakers sacrificing them in a cause that will probably not lead
> to the "greater good of all" that I'm angry at.
>
> If al Qaeda is the first priority, why are we focused on Iraq? Because
> our military is designed to fight with nations, not scattered isolated
> cells. Why not North Korea or Iran? Too dangerous.
>
> In other words. we're doing it because they are the weakest, easiest
> target. We're doing it because we can.
As far as "doing because we can", my answer is, "So???" I do agree, as I
have said elsewhere, that we should be engaging the more blatantly
defiant Kim Jong Il...but then, I'm not the King of this land...
>>I'm all for the Sedition Act (of 1918) in time of war. IF you cant support
>>our leaders and our country and what we stand for, then get out. There is
>>no double talk allowed at this time.
>
>
> Free speech is only appropriate when it doesn't matter. That makes a
> lot of sense.
>
See my other post about "shouting down the rabble."
> What happened to listening to "both sides" in your earlier paragraph?
> Listen first. Then toss out anyone who disagrees?
>
Sounds like a plan to me.
>
>>Ugh. SOrry to vent. My heart is with the troops and with our leaders. Its
>>so obvious why the few countries that deter us, their reasons why its
>>already come out. IF you are an American, please, why cant you you show
>>some support for our country or just get out?
>
>
> A leader is not just someone who makes the tough decisions. A leader
> is a person who convinces others that the tough decision is the
> correct one. There is no free ride, automatic "snap and salute" clause
> in a democratic system.
Nope... our kings must everyday go out on the public stage and suffer bar-
rages of rotten fruit and Massengill products from Penn, clooney,
Streisand and Tuna.
Oh, for the days of Homeric obedience!!!
> If it's too messy for you, I'm sorry. A little messiness is worth it
> for the liberties we treasure.
>
How do -you like all the noise, filth, anger, and hatred spewed forth
daily even here, Lady D??? do you -still- think it's worth it???
> Diane
>
Lord Zorn, whose dander is up and whose gorge would be rising if not for
the Pepcid!!!
Captain America
>i think we backed ourselves into a corner now.
>however, my answer would have been to leave saddam alone to his middle eastern
>neighbors, and have them come begging to us once again to save them.
Saddam is the one in the corner. Leaving him there is not an option.
Lord Zorn
Dish1991 wrote:
>>From: "peggo"
>
>
>>Again, What? Just because I'm against war, I *support terrorists*? That's
>>wrong, Brenda. I'm surprised a smart woman like you would write such a
>>stupid thing.
>
>
> i think brenda's reading too much right wing stuff.
>
> you have to think for yourself in life.
>
> 'right' books or 'left' books...
> they're there to take your mind from you.
Lady Dish(in absentia):
...And then, there's me, who doesn't read much these days, but follows
his instincts.
Lord Zorn,...kinda mad at Lady Brenda for apologising to you all<sllight
frown>
Lord Zorn
Brenda wrote:
>
>
> Recipe for an Oops Post. One grandiose bottle of Merlot. A massive dose of
> Michael Savage reading. A dollop of newsmax.com. A perusing of the news
> coverage of the day. A dash of patriotism. *sigh*
>
> What can I say but yeah, yer right, I've definitely swung from liberal to
> conservative in the space of say, a couple months, and will probably
> continue to morph but hey at least I'm paying attention and reading whatever
> I can get my hands on. But I did post a retraction this morning while
> cringing as I read my own words.
>
> Stepping off the soapbox,
>
> (momentarily LOL)
>
> Brenda
>
Lady Brenda:
Please don't apologise to these goofs. There is no need to. They think
as they think, we think as we think. As for your drunkenness, I say that
the adage, "In vino veritas" applies here. And please, please, PLEASE
assure me you're not going to morph beyond my tolerance-limits!!! It
would be a very sad thing for me to wake up one day and find you as my
foe, truly 'twould!!!
>
>
Lord Zorn...loth to lose another comrade...but who will survive if he does
>
Lord Zorn
Dish1991 wrote:
> who here bought duct tape et al..?.
> come on...spill it!
Empty Dish:
Not I. I thought the whole thing silly and fearful.
Lord Zorn, who is quite fatalistic about stuph now.
VoxofaFox
<< BTW, I think Brokaw is boring,
silly, and liberal, too. And Anna Nicole is a goon... my foes are all
goons...Dan Rather is *not* a goon!!!
>><BR><BR>
I think I am just more used to Brokow. I read his book and thought he seemed
like a good guy, though misguided in his liberal bias;) Compared to Anna
Nicole, Dan Rather is a genius. I don't watch Anna Nicole. We don't have any
big screen televisions, and I don't think her ass will fit on our small tv's.
Coyly,
Vox