I'm saddened, literally, by your support for overseas military adventurism. You've posted several times a desire to have Constitutional government. Support for the aggression in Iraq and other places, the posting of US government soldiers in over 100 countries is not the way to get it, in fact is support for the status quo or worse.

If you want Constitutional government by the consent of the governed, you must support the law, and the Constitution is law.

Nice job changing the topic...make a personal attack or two on anyone that does not agree with you. That strategy seems to work well for you libs. Meanwhile even the lowlife liberal handlers realized what a gaffe they made and removed the ad. No patriotic American would appreciate using dead soldiers to make their point in a cheezy, disrespectful ad. Shame on them and shame on those of you who defend such.

Fint - to my knowledge, Pat is nothing close to a Liberal. He seems more to the right. You're rather free-wheeling, don't you think, with blanket accusations of people's political leanings?

Of course, you've called me a liberal, and I'm truly nothing close to that. I simply happen to not agree with Bush and his administration - on many accounts.

So, is it this for you: that not supporting the war effort in Iraq makes one a liberal? Please explain, because I'd like to know what your definition of a liberal is...these days.

Thank you.

Patsy is the mythical missing link. He is in a rareified space, a place of another dimension, where the extreme right meets the extreme left, a nether-world, an alternate universe. It would seem, based on his fellow-travelers, that he is somewhere between a total anarchist/communist and muslim freedom fighter...He thinks highly of folks like Scott Ritter, Cindy She-man and Noam Chomsky (or was it Gore Vidal?...same thing). He thinks we should bend our will to the UN and that we have been the war-aggressor imperialist ever since the Civil War...I have yet to hear him quote a conventional Republican or un-alienated Conservative. I have yet to hear him support the troops or sing anything resembling praise of this great country.

It is obvious that Patsy has tilted into the communist quadrant of the political spectrum, unwittingly perhaps, perhaps he is blind to it, but he has nonetheless crossed the line and is fighting for everything he purports to fight against.

I was not referring to Pat. He is not a liberal...He is simply wrong...about this and just about everything except history (he is particularly knowledgeable about the Civil War)...and he misinterprets much of that. He seems to lean more toward anarchy than libertarianism. I was referring to the earlier posts that were posted while I was at work. Not Pat's. It was a generalization regarding several posts.

Kudos to your earlier post here...you rose above your disdain for the administration to be honest, compassionate and stand for what is right. It was not unnoticed.

Okay - interesting about anarchy - and how two conservatives see it. I wonder what the liberals have to say.

Anyway, what's wrong with anarchy? If a person believes the government no longer represents them, isn't anarchy expected...and healthy?

Sorry for skipping all of the (no doubt highly enlightening) emotional debate over how showing coffins is worse than filling them, but I just stumbled across this:

A George Bush re-election period campaign commercial showing a flag-draped corpse being carried from the WTC. I'm sure that wasn't exploitive, though. You'll also note the commercial's claim that the economy was 'in recession' in January '01, which, of course, it was not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s67qaViGNBU

The difference between the Firefighter's flag draped coffin and the recently discontinued ad in question is that no one complained about the Fireman.

Well almost no one, I guess there is Tech bringing it up, a few years after the fact, sort of like the Korean warhead in Alaska from 1998
:rolleyes:

Thing is, the people making the call did not have the slightest inkling that it would be considered in poor taste, because they don't understand why it is in poor taste.

They have nothing but hate for the current administration, no plan, no new ideas, nothing. Fine, you disapprove of what the folks in power are doing, we get that. That is just not enough.

Oh and slopat is not a liberal or conservative. He is a Libertarian off his Lithium, so he is a little uneven. He is on my ignore list, so I don't know what he has been saying, probably stuff as crazy as Mul

What's the administration's plan, Toby?

This is quite a different opinion from Tobra from his first one......guess it depends on WHO does it before determining whether it's offensive or not...

interesting....

Christian fascist theocracy and world-wide imperialist domination...all for the oil, achieved through exploiting the poor...and Halliburton...
















BOO!

We heard Mul's version of the administration's plan.

Anyone else?

Are you serious?

Protect, assist and train the fledgling government in Iraq until it can stand on its' own.

This is pretty obvious to those paying attention.

That's not a plan. Not even close. That's a slogan.

That's an ill-defined, pie in the sky slogan that has so far cost 2600 American lives and a trillion dollars, with the only benefit so far the installation of radical Muslims in control of a country that teeters on the edge of a civil war.

So I ask again, what's the administration's plan?

Well, the Generals decide the tactics on the ground, so if you agree with the "slogan" but disagree with it's execution I suggest you discuss it with them.

Other than that I simply say........KingMaker!!! :D

Victory
Victory
Victory
Victory
Victory
Victory
Victory
Victory
Victory
Victory
Victory
Victory
Victory
Victory
Victory
Victory
Victory
Victory
Victory
Victory
Victory
Victory

Even the most noble of words becomes meaningless if spoken over and over and over and over and over.

Reality check, anyone?

daddy sadly does not realize that the generals, and all who serve under them, have one critical but limited function. To attempt to keep the peace as best they can while "the plan" is executed.

What is the administration's plan? Why are these guys and gals dying? To keep the peace while what "plan" is executed?

I know the GOAL is to have a functioning, moderate, duly elected government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and can quell any radical and violent factions within. I know that, no need to remind me.

What is this grand plan that the Democrats lack but the Bush administration has to reach this goal?

I ask again, what's the administration's plan? Anyone?

Victory.

It has been in all the papers, y'all appear to be literate.

Too bad Hezbollah is going to do someting really crazy at the behest of Iran/Syria in the not too distant future that is going to make the entire thing burst into flames.(My guess is that we will get a chance to see some of Saddam's out dated WMD's that don't exist.)

Honey, I am sorry, I don't know what you are talking about

Still hanging onto "they're in Syria" craziness? That's like us giving our weapons to Russia, or to the terrorists. One doesn't give all their weapons to their enemies....