Thread: Well-informed, patriotic, registered Democrat.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

KIDDING! Just kiddin'.

ANYhoo, I had to leave my job at CENTCOM when my wife (an Air Force nurse) got orders to Travis AFB. So, I got hired on as an intelligence analyst again, but this time, as an Air Force civvie.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

These zee's 4U

Yawwwwwn.



ivan

Originally Posted by Shuttlecat

I bet those scumbags have secret meetings in which they discuss how best to undermine the American government and people.

Really? Are there any democrats on these forums? I would like to sit in on one of your meetings. I know I can't vote to help . . . . . . but maybe I can at least show some support? ) )

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Yeah, well, you're just an idiot.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

KIDDING! Just kiddin'.

I know, you're kidding. But we gotta stop with the name calling.

For one thing I know that you are capable of some astonishingly eloquent discourses on a regular basis. Why resort to name-calling?

Originally Posted by FibrillatorD

I would love to see our country engage in a real debate about how to solve Iraq and social security and every other problem we have. As it is, every argument dissolves into one that harkens back to the anger of the 70s: Are you pro-America, or are you Communist?

We've been debating both topics a long time. But what is the point of debate when the goal of one party isn't to find the right solution, but to make political hay at the polls by carping on the negatives?

Sullivan can be long-winded and soft on substance, but does anyone doubt that the following is now true of America?

It is hard to imagine a reprise of the sudden unity and solidarity in the days after 9/11, or an outpouring of support from allies and neighbors. It is far easier to imagine an even more bitter fight over who was responsible (apart from the perpetrators) and a profound suspicion of a government forced to impose more restrictions on travel, communications, and civil liberties. The current president would be unable to command the trust, let alone the support, of half the country in such a time. He could even be blamed for provoking any attack that came.

That template in one or more of its aspects would fit neatly over any number of periods in which we have been engaged in war. It doesn't even come close in one period of war: the Civil War. Restictions on civil liberties are sometimes necessary. We don't want to provide our enemies with shields to undermine us. Still, I take your point, if you mean restrictions must be adopted legally and done away with when the danger has passed.

Does anyone really doubt that we're stuck in the rubric of the 70s?

No, I don't. I saw the antiwar demonstrations firsthand: 400,000 parading in DC, the Weather Underground and SDS trying to goad them into a riot. The people gathered twice in DC on the mall. I saw the buses surrounding the White House as a barrier in case of riot. I remember Kent State. I was in Chicago during the 1968 riots at the dem convention, smelled the tear gas, helped injured demonstrators...what I see today, is a congenital opposition going through the motions and a dem party turning a generally restrained military operation into a political bonanza.

Vietnam and baby boomers aren't hazy abstractions at all.

They are just groups defined by accident of birth whose "members" are all over the spectrum in points of view. Those who really remember Vietnam don't want to go down that path again and many of them don't want to quit another war.

They hold America in a headlock and it makes me sick that 2 generations don't care enough about their country and their kids to NOT pass these feuds on.

I don't get your meaning. Maybe the new generations have their own feuds now.

The sorriest thing of all is that the same people who fought about Vietnam and in the culture wars of the seventies are currently running the country, and want history to view Iraq in the same terms Vietnam was seen. Its so easy and natural for them.

Well, that's good. They have the benefit of experience. Maybe they learned something from it.

Sorry, I wasn't around during Vietnam.

We were lied to, but worse of all, we fought trying to win the next hamlet, but not the war. What a sickening waste...more than 50K troops died there. Is it any wonder that we who saw that, don't want a repeat?

Communism was dead when I became politically-aware.

You are condemned to learn from books. It will take you longer to grasp what it was than it did those who lived through it. But you seem to be off to a good start.

...Obama is one of very few candidates that so far has been immune from the usual election-year scathing. With Obama, for whatever reason, arguments seem to keep a healthy distance from personal attacks. You said yourself you don't like Obama's policies. Fine. You didn't call him a pinko commie traitor scumbag.

He's not a commie. He's an honest intellectual with a talent for a well-rounded phrase and a nice speaking voice. But if you think he's a world leader, think twice. I am not saying he can't be; I just saying there's no don't see any solid evidence of it yet. A good speech does not signify a good leader.

So, Bluesman, straight up: Is Barack Obama a pinko commie traitor scumbag?

If you say he is, I won't vote for him

.

Blues must be honored to control your vote. You are generous.)

Originally Posted by Bluesman

I just write in a way that only dalem and TopHatter and Confed understand.)

I occasionally have epiphanies reading your posts when the haze that permeates what's left of my grey matter clears for a few precious moments allowing me some cognitive reasoning ability .

1. Joe Lieberman

2. John Murhtha )

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

1. Joe Lieberman

2. John Murhtha )

No, you didn't understand me. I didn't mean for you to pick two examples of those three characteristics. (And I see you, like me, couldn't do it, because NObody could).

No, I meant to pick two out of the three characteristics, because you can't have all three at once.

Astralis and Lieberman?

Originally Posted by Shamus

I occasionally have epiphanies reading your posts .

You can get pills for that.

ironduke,

sorry, i'm not a registered dem

gunnut would be a better choice.