Sorry, Denis, didn't mean to go off on you like that; thanks for the backpedaling, though. :)

I guess I'm just fed up with the image that we tend to get in the media these days. It's like the military's a bunch of illiterate mercenary warmongers who's only dream in life is to slavishly follow the will of a militaristic dictator in murdering innocent women and children. It's as if we spend the taxpayer's dollar hand-over-fist, wastefully throwing away fantastic sums of money for foolish projects, wishing only that we could perhaps torture a prisoner, drive our submarine into a Japanese fishing boat, or dump hundreds of gallons of oil or radioactive waste into pristine natural environments. The leadership is utterly incompetent, lacking even the basic ability to build simple plans, men whose sole aim in life is to bend others to their will.

The media doesn't come right out with it, but they allude to it, and people buy into it, piece by piece. I tell people I drive submarines, and sometimes they go all wide eyed and angry. "Oh, you're in the military," their voice full of disdain. "Go kill another baby for me, will ya? Bastage..."

So again, I apologize for my personal attack on you, Denis; I hope it helps some to know where the frustration was coming from.


Dan

I would consider that any person, regardless of nationality, who provides aid and comfort to our enemy...is also our enemy.

So, what you are saying is...an individual can be a presidential candidate, or an individual who does not completely agree with you, or in a competing business, and this person is automatically an enemy?

My God...how you must hate some of the posters here since they do not agree with your philosophy......

My philosophy is a bit more basic..Most people want a roof over their head, food on the table, clothes on their back, a few comforts, and the government not looking through the window. In other words, just to be left to live their lives. I have met no American I would consider my "enemy", only others who see things differently than I do.

Americans like to think of themselves as accepting, friendly, gregarious. Are they? For the most part, I think they are.

Then there are those who view others with suspicion. What a greay and sad world that must be.

I believe in vigilance, but not vigilanties.

Bob, your idealistic view is refreshing, but seems a bit insincere.

The use of the term "enemy" doesn't necessarily connote warfighting, hatred, and malicious intent. When we're preparing for a big inspection, the inpecting team is "the enemy." When I'm playing chess, the man sitting across the board from me is "the enemy." When I'm involved in a business venture, the competition is "the enemy." Does that mean that I'm planning an assault on the Microsoft campus, that while I'm playing chess with someone, I'm secretly reaching for my knife to leap across the table, or that when the inspection team comes onboard, they should fear for their lives? By no means.

But then, I'm a bit confused about how you've managed to get spun up on this one, anyway. The only other person to use the word "enemy" in this thread was referring to people who commit terrorist acts against our country. There's no grey area there. People who willfully commit acts of war in the name of a foreign nation (The Nation of Islam, in this case) are "the enemy."

So spin down, lay off with the personal attacks, and just let it go, man.

Dan

classy.

DJan:

No, not really. There were a couple of other threads in which individuals claimed to follow the opposition so they could keep track of the enemy. When I play a game, the other person is my opponent. Different outlook. I can deal with an opponent, but not an enemy. Look up the definition :

Enemy: a person who hates another and wishes to injure him
Webster's New World Dictionary

I do object to that. We are, first and foremost, Americans. We can disagree. That is one of our fundamental rights.

I object to generalizations, names, plays on names (from BOTH sides) and other divisive ploys. Would you agree that the country is polarized? I think so. I, for one, would like to raise the level of discourse and discuss the issues rather than using the concept that complex problems can be solved with simplistic approaches and catch phrases.

Maybe I have just been on this earth too long. I do not want to become fatalistic or cynical. I figure if that happens, I will have lost the true value of life. I have found that the older I become, the more difficult it is to pigeonhole people or ideas. Properly articulated, everyone has something to add to the mix.

If that is spin, I really am sorry.

Ok, I'll agree with Webster -- the only thing is that he's often a bit out of date. He defines what words ought to mean, not necessarily what they _do_ mean. Enemy and opponent have become largely interchangeable, except you trust your enemy less. It's like "patriot." Remember when calling someone a "patriot" was a good thing? Now it seems like a derogatory term that you apply to anyone who supports Bush, implyying blindness of belief rather than motivation towards a common principles of the country.

I would absolutely agree the country is polarized -- more so than I've ever seen! I'd love to see the crowds on either side come together, too. I'd love to see the country united behind a common cause, or to have us agree on _anything_, really. I've been mulling around the idea of starting a "What is America" thread, or something like that, to talk about what it is that makes this country what it is. But then, I don't know that we could get through that without it breaking down into flamewars. (sigh)

It's not spin; I appreciate your openness. I appreciate the general discourse that we often have on this board. I like the fact that some people can bring up useful points. There are a lot who use rhetoric, miss the logic, and have terrible delivery -- but there are many on both sides of all the issues who are often deliver excellent arguments. I believe that _is_ really what makes this country great.

Dan

I like your idea. It would be interesting to see how people would define "America".

I haven't seen the problem with "patriot". I think most people still know the true meaning of the word.

BTW...Two of my grandchildren were over Sunday. The four year old boy was angry with his 7 year old sister and over and over said "I HATE YOU". Have you any idea how that made me cringe?

When an enemy is trying/has sworn to kill me/my family/my countrymen.....any person that provides them aid and comfort is not my opponent, but is also my enemy. War is life or death, not some game of checkers.

Ooh, hate is a strong word. I had a girlfriend once accidentally apply that to me. That stung for a while.

I guess enemy doesn't really carry the same connotation for me, in a lot of cases. "Know your enemy" is just a common expression to me, not something that I carefully restrict to people that I hate. Heck, if I did that, I'd never have any enemies at all. :) ((Despite the often heated arguments we have here, I don't hate any of you. Just to make that clear...))

Anyhow, perhaps tomorrow I'll think out how to write up the "America" thread.

Dan

FInt

Your world must be just chock full of enemies......

Only when I look to the left.

Fint

I'd hazard a guess that 90ish % of the population is to the left of you... that is still a lot of enemies.

How far do you take it? You obviously consider Moore an enemy.

What about people who saw the film and liked it?

And you guys should lay off calling him "fat" - it is unnecessary. Ditto Ted Kennedy.

Cam

I'd estimate about 40% are toi the left of me in the US.

Moore is most definitely an enemy of this nation. What he does is no accident. It is also no accident that terrorists are reportedly using his video as a recruiting tool.

Follow my scenario..you tell me.
1. Terrorist org uses F911 clips to recruit new terrorist.
2. New terrorist plants bomb on your child's school bus.
3. Bomb kills all on bus.

Do you still love Fatso?

What about people who saw the film and liked it?
Some are just pitiful, uninformed sheeple.

Ted Kennedy-same category as Moore. Provides aid and comfort to the enemy. May the weight of the dead rest heavy upon their obese shoulders.

How sad..........

Fint: "I hate all (fill in the blank)

"But I saw you having lunch with(insert name here). He is a (fill in the blank)"

Fint: Yeah, but he's different. I know him".


Hate anyone who is different and does not agree with you, Yup..That's really mature....

I'm done even trying to reason with you. I don't want to catch your kind of pessimism.....

There is good in most people if you will take the time to look for it.

4. Severe bus shortage causes coach-builder firm,Peterbilt stock to rocket.
5. Peterbilt takes over the world.
6. Busses are a communist form of transportation. Therefore the world is controlled by a communist organization. That fatso Moore. He had this planned all along!

You appear to be confused. Bush is the tool of terrorist recruiters. Moore is only a messenger of bush's idiocy.

Au contrere 350, moore is a traitor who with every breath spews sedition. Now his slickly produced piece of cr*p propaganda film may try to have it look otherwise, but when you put the clear light of day on this fat, greasy, limp wristed, walking, talking, communist turd, he is what he is. Take a look at another vier of michael moron:
http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/moore.htm

Right...It is Michael Moore's movie that has been used and much lauded in the terrorist "street."...To think otherwise is pure stupidity, manufactured in order to erect a smoke screen to the true sedition that the Democrat party/Michael Moore are engaged in.

It simply defies logic to come to your conclusion.

As 350 said, the US has done enough. To some extent Moore has packaged it up professionally, but if he hadn't done it the terrorists looking to recruit would not be lacking in information.

I had a look at Mule's video link of Michael Moore and his "quotes".

What really struck me was the desparate attempt to establish a relationship between Moore and the Democratic Party - sort of "Some Democrats show some support for some of Moore's work, therefore, all Democrats agree with everything Moore says".

The same tenuous link could be applied to Rush Limbaugh and the GOP. However, in bith cases it is bollox.

You are revealing your distance from reality. Michael Moore was all over the convention, he was welcomed in with open arms, whereas Ralph Nader was shut out...So it seems fair to conclude, given Michael Moore's high profile, Democrats setting up voter registration at F911 showing locations, and his Washington D.C. premier including many top DNC brass as well as 9/11 Commissioners, that at the very least there is a tacit approval of Michael Moore by the DNC machine.

The relationship was/is much more than cozy than you seem to believe...You see, Michael Moore talks to the most venomous left-wing extremists in America (for that matter world-wide), so it would be politically expedient to allow him to be the front, while the "Candidate" sits back and pretends innocence...In effect, Michael Moore (as well as Howard Dean, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy) have become the "bad-cops" to Kerry's good-cop.

I hope you are taking notes.

That seems like a big conspiracy theory to me.

Or maybe not - if all you are asserting is that Moore is allowed to shoot his mouth off by the Democrats, then fine, I agree.

But look back on some other stuff Moore has done - he doesn't love Democrats either and would quickly drag them over the coals if the need arose.

All I'm suggesting is that not all Democrats agree with Moore. It is stating the freakin' obvious, but the scaryjohnkerry.com movie suggests otherwise.