# What the heck happened?



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Remember when Bush won his first presidential election and the Republican party gained full control of virtually everything in Washington and then claimed ownership of everything that was good in America. If you didn't believe in the Republican way you were actually un-American had no morals and were a traitor to your country. Well that was like an unsinkable Titanic, nothing can stop us now! Well it seems like we have hit an iceberg and even though we are supposed to believe that there is nothing to worry about people are jumping ship and trying to get as far away from the president as fast as they can because this ship is sinking. George W's smile and wry remarcks and his global bully foreign policy only lasted for a while and now a party that was going to lead us to the promised land seems to be trying to distance itself from this administration faster than the rising price of gasoline at the pump. They had a chance to do great things for America and what do we have to show for it??? Geez, what a great legacy! Thanks for everything! It's been a great run.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

9/11 caused more patriotism to arise than any single event since Pearl Harbor. This could have been used towards good, unifying the American people behind the goal of removing the terrorist threat from the face of the Earth. Instead, it was exploited and the momentum from said event was used to gain support for the war in Iraq. The country is now more divided than it has been in decades.


----------



## Invector (Jan 13, 2006)

But when Pearl was attacked the country was behind the war. 9-11 came around and not many people are behind it. They look at it again as a ploy or a police action or whatever you want to call it. You cannot compair the two. The biggest thing is can we beleave what we are told? bush says one thing another thing happens. Look at the gas prices...bush says its going up and it jumps, but there are people out there that beleave bush has nothing to do with the oil. He has done somethings that people look at him and say "hes stupid" and why is that. When you start to lose the support he is losing and has not gained any support that he never had, things are going to get shaky. Granted there is so much talk out there about this and that and it is hard to beleave it all, but with a man who is having everyone around him "jumping ship" you know somthing is going on. I leave you with the fact how can you take a man serious who had said "our enemies look for new ways to harm our people and so do we" we refering to the government and the fact back in 04 more people beleaved in the lyrics eminem was rapping about then what was coming out of bushes mouth. Its simply the fact you cannot hang alone.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The problem is mostly both sides of congress they will not do anything they think might jeopardize their position of power. The narrow margin of advantage Republicans have makes them have no confidence to adhere to core conservative principles so they are trying to be Democrats. :eyeroll:

The Democrats on the otherhand try their best to disrupt anything Bush does like SS reform in hopes to win back power. uke:

Congress is stymied and they are disgusting cowards. :******:

Then throw in the misrepresentation that goes on with our "mainstream" media and nothing good gets accomplished. :sniper:

DJ says


> They had a chance to do great things for America and what do we have to show for it??? Geez, what a great legacy! Thanks for everything! It's been a great run.


Hes right, the republicans had their chance and blew it, they became cowards although there are some democrats in republican clothing RINO's that they let in to get their majority and that is a big part of the problem.

Like I always say, politicians on both side ( there is little difference) are more concerned with re elction than the good of the country. 
And the stupid american public is more interested in "American Idol" so we get what we deserve...


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> The narrow margin of advantage Republicans have makes them have no confidence to adhere to core conservative principles so they are trying to be Democrats.


Narrow margin? Bob they hold both houses of Congress and the presidency. They can do anything they want. Sadly what they want is to keep spending. These are not conservatives, they are neo-conservatives.



> The Democrats on the otherhand try their best to disrupt anything Bush does like SS reform in hopes to win back power.


That is just silly. You can't claim that they only oppose it because Bush supports it simply because they are in the minority.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> Like I always say, politicians on both side ( there is little difference) are more concerned with re elction than the good of the country.
> And the stupid american public is more interested in "American Idol" so we get what we deserve...


Excellent post Bob.

I fully supported us going into Afghanistan and kicking butt after 911, but the more and more I talk with returning soldiers the more I do not support our invasion of Iraq. I have had marines, air force, and national guard troops tell me this wasn't our war, Bin Laden was.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I have had marines, air force, and national guard troops tell me this wasn't our war, Bin Laden was.


Hate to drag this off topic at all, but Iraq didn't have anything to do with Osama. Afghanistan was certainly his war and just about everyone in the country (me included) supports it.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

What happened? I would say a couple of things.

First, Bob is right in that the members of Congress forgot that they are part of a representative government, meaning that it is their job to do what is best for their constituents. Instead, they continue to do what is best for themselves.

Second, there is a lack of leadership in the Republican party. Even a relatively narrow margin is suffient in Washington to push an agenda and affect some real change. The Republican party had a unique opportunity to pass legislation and advance their agenda. They didn't however, because nobody took charge and communicated what the Republican agenda was (is). The fault here likely likes with GWB. If Congress had confidence in his leadership, he could have easily got their support and passed legislation.

The same things happens right here in ND. We have a huge Republican majority in both houses of the state legislature, and the governor is also a Republican. However, what does the state legislature really do each session to improve things. The answer is nothing. Why? Because they bicker with each other and nobody leads the party to a common goal. The legislature lobs grenades at the governor and then criticizes him for not coming to see them more often. The legislature often rejects the governor's proposal outright because they think they know better.

With any planning, the ND state legislature could be in and out of Bismarck in a few weeks. They have the votes to pass or fail anything they want to. They just don't have any idea what their common goal is.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Hang onto your seats everyone........... I will agree with Big Daddy.

The last great leader for the Republicans was Newt. Brillant man.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> Hang onto your seats everyone........... I will agree with Big Daddy


Wow! I had to wipe the coffee spit off my computer screen. Suddenly, I sense a rift in the space/time continuum.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

:lol: :lol:


----------



## Invector (Jan 13, 2006)

The Democrats on the otherhand try their best to disrupt anything.

True be to that...but the thing I dont get is why? Why are they out to rune him or go against anything he says? (to a point anyways). When they dont realize that when they do their squabbling it the amarican people who get hurt from it. A simple kiss and make up/cant we all just get along might be in order, but that would not last too long. Its things like that wich make me ****** off and dont care about politics and make me want to do even less with it. :eyeroll:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Invector you ask a simple question and the simple answer is power! If the Dems would have supported for example SS reform,[ and please let us not stray into SS issues, this is just an example] and had taken up the task of finding a solution with the Rep to fix the issues it faces. The Rep would have gotten credit for it, and this would in turn put more Dems at risk come election time.

So instead, they use the fillibuster, and MT that is why things are not getting passed. So one party to protect its power base uses blocking and ubstructionist activities. The other side with the majority but not a Super Majority cannot push through things at will.

Case in point is the debate over the death tax, what it does is prevent business owners from passing down a going concern in many cases. A lot of those businesses where built not by a single person, but a family. Farmers are a prime example. Many times these businesses are sold off, to meet tax burdens! I could go on and on but I think most everyone knows the issues!

Both sides want to be in power, and if everyone would be honest the least represented segment of the populace but the largest part of the populace is conservatives.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> So instead, they use the fillibuster, and MT that is why things are not getting passed.


I have seen few threats of filibuster.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Then maybe you should expand your 20+ news sources you where so proud of and claimed to be a news junkie! Why just last week it was the threat of a filibuster that kept the Immigration bill from coming to the floor! Look at all the legislation that Dashle held up with the filibuster! We know what that got him in a state that tends to think like the rest of the country. Put it forward and vote on it!!!!!!!!!!!

Sometimes MT it amazes me that you even post the things you do!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

You're right I didn't hear about that at all. Must be a regional thing with Daschle. I'll eat my crow. The Republicans could still go for the nuclear option if they felt that it was a big problem.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Zogman and Bigdaddy, you better hold on to your seat again, because I also agree. I think this falls in with Bobm's line of thinking also. Both parties are at fault because they all want to be career politicians. So power is more important than really accomplishing anything. Both parties care more about themselves than this nation. I have a whole list of things about both parties that ticks me off, but this is such a good subject that I don't want to throw it off course.

:thumb:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Well Ron, Big daddy, Zogman,and Plainsmans there is hope, MT doesn't agree with us. At least we know we are still sane. :wink:

Of course if we said the sun rises in the east he would disagree and claim Bush moved it :lol: :lol: :lol:

Politics as usaul is frustrating sometimes I wonder if they all ( both parties) just sit behind closed doors and laugh at the common American citizens.

I'm voting libertarian next time and unlike most citizens I've written the Republicans and explained why in a hand written letter.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Oh I couldn't agree more that the majority of Congressmen care more about their reelection than the country. I think that the American people benefit from it, but we are indeed in agreement as to their motive.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Oh I couldn't agree more that the majority of Congressmen care more about their reelection than the country. I think that the American people benefit from it, but we are indeed in agreement as to their motive.


Ok, maybe this is a typo...

But if the elected people care about themselves more than the country, how do the American people benefit?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

They care about being reelected. To get reelected they do case work and get pork projects. This wins them enough favor to get reelected. In the process, the constituents get red tape cut and new water treatment plants, etc.


----------



## Invector (Jan 13, 2006)

Maybe so but when you look at who you have to vote for and feel ill at the mention of their names and feel that there is no good candidate that your voting for, you can now see why few people dont vote. Here in ND its hard for us to actually say we have the best of who could be out there doing things to improve our little voice we have. Granted I think they are doing a good job, but lets look at the governer of ND...ha. I'm sorry to say but the first few days he was in office he ****** people off by going and wanting to change the phesent opener to an earlier date. It was not till the voice of the people got so loud that he stoped it. From what I have hurd from a local rep to the state congress things got kinda ugly there for a while. (just using it as an example that most on this site can relate to) Its things like these that make people look at who they have to vote for and say F%^k it there is no one here thats worth anytime. I know our 3 guys in the federal gov are doing what they can for the most part. But with all the talk about reform and changing how things go...pfff...as long as they keep their pockets full they will tell you anything you want to hear and anything they think you need to hear.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Invector:

If you want real change, then the people of North Dakota need to stop sending conservatives to Bismarck to sit in the governor's office or the state legislature. Conservatives by nature are conservative, meaning that they oppose change. Having sat through several legislative sessions, I can tell you that the ND citizens have what they voted for.. conservative legislators who largely oppose change to the status quo. Furthermore, if an idea for change is supported, the legislative leadership is often unwilling to fund it adequately. Instead, they routinely decide to study the issue more via a study resolution.

In my humble opinion, our three Congressional delegates are smart and do a good job. Senator Conrad is extremely smart and is widely regarded as an expert when it comes to the budget. Senator Dorgan is a bulldog who speaks his mind and fights hard for what he believes in. Representative Pomeroy is level-headed and smart, and he is truly an honorable man who serves on behalf of his constituents. I honestly can't see how we could send three better people out there to represent us. All three are well-regarded and respected in Washington.


----------



## Invector (Jan 13, 2006)

Big Daddy I agree with you 100%. But like in the last election for governor I wish there would have been a none-of-the-above slot.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

BS the democrats are nothing if they aren't obstructionists, at least on the national level. I don't claim to know the details of ND politics but I smell a large pile of partisan BS.

Democrats have attempted to obstruct eveything good or bad that Bush has wanted to do.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> BS the democrats are nothing if they aren't obstructionists, at least on the national level.


I seem to recall the Republicans doing the same thing during the Clinton years. But that is a different animal entirely, right?


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

bigdaddy said


> If you want real change, then the people of North Dakota need to stop sending conservatives to Bismarck to sit in the governor's office or the state legislature. Conservatives by nature are conservative, meaning that they oppose change. Having sat through several legislative sessions, I can tell you that the ND citizens have what they voted for.. conservative legislators who largely oppose change to the status quo. Furthermore, if an idea for change is supported, the legislative leadership is often unwilling to fund it adequately. Instead, they routinely decide to study the issue more via a study resolution.


Bigdaddy: When you are ready to run for office, please let me know. You have got my vote every da-n time. Excellent, excellent post. At least there is someone else out there seeing the same thing I am seeing.

And we wonder why our youth are moving away?????? All while they sit on over $150 million dollars in excess. :eyeroll: :huh:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

The only thing I can remember the democrats doing in congress during the Clinton Follies was raising TAXES before the American people fired them and Clinton VETO'ed almost everything the Rep Congress tried to pass to try to make them look like nothing was getting done, unless he made it look like it was his idea.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Bobm with the quote of the week:



> BS the democrats are nothing if they aren't obstructionists, at least on the national level.


That about sums it all up! :beer:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

BigDaddy, from my sportsman's point of view, ND has some of the worst people representing them in Congress today! All three have supported,drafted legislation that has advanced the speed of draining of wetlands. All have a voting record of getting rid of CRP. Take the wildlife benefit away from CRP and it is still one of the best environmental programs this nation has ever seen. Then just yesterday your smart Conrad says we can grow our way out of oil depends!!!!!!!! HINT! HINT!!!!!! Where do you think those acres are going to come from!!!!!!!!!??????

Let us look at Conrad's grasp of the budget! During all the time he is talking about the change from a projected surplus to a deficit, he continued to use data showing a growing and expanding economy! Never once using the revised and accurate data that the deficit projections where being taken from. Total and complete misrepresentation of the data and facts on hand!

Had you applied the current and accurate data to his numbers, they would not have shown a surplus. At a meeting on SS and Medicare that was a question and answer forum. I asked for that data! Once exposed he stopped using those inflated and misrepresenting data in his presentations. Now why would that be!? Anyone with a half a brain can and should have seen through his BS. But the media are so in love with him that nobody locally will challenge anything he has to say!!!!!

Dorgan, where do we start! In 2000 I asked him why we never see a rule put in place for subsidy and disaster, and insurance payments from the Fed gov on new acres being planted on former wetlands! He danced like a man walking on broken glass, trying to avoid that question. I asked this, because drainage increased after the 97 flood and the cost of fighting floods is paid for by all of us! That rule alone could save a projected 20% each flood cycle in costs associated with down stream flooding!!!!!!!

Pooperboy is another story, of which if you go back and look I have exposed over and over again!!!!!!

It has nothing to do with a D or R being behind the name. IT IS ALL ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT OF ND! THEY ARE FOR INCREASED TAXES,SPENDING AND YES BELIEVE IT OR NOT GUN RESTRICTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let alone supporting farm policies that do not encourage new people to enter into farming!


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

> THEY ARE FOR INCREASED TAXES,SPENDING AND YES BELIEVE IT OR NOT GUN RESTRICTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Are you allowed to say that on this site? Man those are some harsh words, ha


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Conservatives by nature are conservative, meaning that they oppose change


BigDaddy, Not only is that plain false but very disingenuous of you. By that standard I would be forced to say Liberals by nature are socialist, meaning they want to control your life. The latter being closer to the truth in my view but neither being factual or really accurate.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Ron Gilmore said:


> BigDaddy, from my sportsman's point of view, ND has some of the worst people representing them in Congress today! All three have supported,drafted legislation that has advanced the speed of draining of wetlands. All have a voting record of getting rid of CRP. Take the wildlife benefit away from CRP and it is still one of the best environmental programs this nation has ever seen. Then just yesterday your smart Conrad says we can grow our way out of oil depends!!!!!!!! HINT! HINT!!!!!! Where do you think those acres are going to come from!!!!!!!!!??????
> 
> Let us look at Conrad's grasp of the budget! During all the time he is talking about the change from a projected surplus to a deficit, he continued to use data showing a growing and expanding economy! Never once using the revised and accurate data that the deficit projections where being taken from. Total and complete misrepresentation of the data and facts on hand!
> 
> ...


Maybe next election ND Voters need to FIRE them so they understand what the PEOPLE want.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> BigDaddy, Not only is that plain false but very disingenuous of you. By that standard I would be forced to say Liberals by nature are socialist, meaning they want to control your life. The latter being closer to the truth in my view but neither being factual or really accurate.


Conservatives are indeed by their nature opposed to change. Go back to the 1800s and you can see the root of conservatism, Metternich. Liberals are by their nature liberal, meaning that they spend a lot, and using the standards of old, are for bigger government than classical conservatives.

Your claim that conservative is to opposition to change as liberal is to socialist is not only quite inaccurate, but equivalent to comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > BigDaddy, Not only is that plain false but very disingenuous of you. By that standard I would be forced to say Liberals by nature are socialist, meaning they want to control your life. The latter being closer to the truth in my view but neither being factual or really accurate.
> 
> 
> Conservatives are indeed by their nature opposed to change. Go back to the 1800s and you can see the root of conservatism, Metternich. Liberals are by their nature liberal, meaning that they spend a lot, and using the standards of old, are for bigger government than classical conservatives.
> ...


 

You must be smok'n crack tonight or something :lost:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Republicans obstruct Democrats as well I didn't mean to imply they don't
its politics at its worst and my biggest complaint with both parties.

None of them care about anything but power, the hell with the country if it weakens their respective parties :eyeroll:


----------



## the_rookie (Nov 22, 2004)

> 9/11 caused more patriotism to arise than any single event since Pearl Harbor. This could have been used towards good, unifying the American people behind the goal of removing the ist threat from the face of the Earth. Instead, it was exploited and the momentum from said event was used to gain support for the war in Iraq. The country is now more divided than it has been in decades.


I to say it but MT is right. To back it up its been proving by all the media is over there getting shot up. Well too bad its there job and you cant accept that then to bad. There not "standing up for what they believe in" Its there job. Yet I must disagree with his point on "not" removiing ism. We are doing it slowly. We will succeed its just going to take awhile. Another thing, He is right about our country being split up. Yes this is true but not civil war material.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Yet I must disagree with his point on "not" removiing ism. We are doing it slowly. We will succeed its just going to take awhile.


I don't believe that we are removing the terrorist threat, rather I believe that we may see a increased terrorist presence because of our actions in Iraq. Perhaps as many as a half dozen other Middle Eastern countries which are known to support terrorism have had no action taken against them. By fighting terrorists in Iraq we help them. We have allowed them to keep their training grounds and sources of funds in other countries like Uzbekistan, while fighting them in a neutral battle ground that is Iraq. By doing so for each foreign jihadist that we kill we may very well produce two more. By attacking Iraq we did not take the fight to the terrorists, rather we let the terrorists take the fight to us.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

FALSE; If that were true then what was 9/11 about? Us taken it to them :eyeroll: or them taken it to us.
Get a grip!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

One cannot consider the war on terror nor the last six years a solid block. We were attacked on 9/11, and went into Afghanistan. This did some good and helped to break up terrorist training camps and the like. We then went into Iraq, which has been the equivalent of fighting the terrorists in an arena instead of where they spawn and garner their monetary support.


----------



## Eagle Eye (Mar 1, 2006)

Militant_Tiger said:


> One cannot consider the war on terror nor the last six years a solid block. We were attacked on 9/11, and went into Afghanistan. This did some good and helped to break up terrorist training camps and the like. We then went into Iraq, which has been the equivalent of fighting the terrorists in an arena instead of where they spawn and garner their monetary support.


So the war on terror had a break somewhere?
I don't know why you have a hard time swallowing the FACT that the Iraqis were in bed with Bin L.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger wrote: 


> One cannot consider the war on terror nor the last six years a solid block. We were attacked on 9/11, and went into Afghanistan. This did some good and helped to break up terrorist training camps and the like. We then went into Iraq, which has been the equivalent of fighting the terrorists in an arena instead of where they spawn and garner their monetary support.


I think it's great that we drawed all the scum into one spot to be killed off so their hands are so full trying to stay alive they leave our country alone. :beer:


----------



## atec (Jan 29, 2006)

Never mind all that . I read every post . Did you ever consider in this " ME FIRST " society that the politicains AND the stupid voters are thinking about " ME " so much that they don't give a damn what else is going on ???
Sweet Jesus ! Just look around at what's happening .

" Hard times ain't hit hard enough - yet ." - Art


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

What do you mean Atec? Your post is rather abstract.


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

He means that we "all need to get along" and support the common good, A.K.A. socialism. uke:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Gohon wrote:



> Quote:
> Conservatives by nature are conservative, meaning that they oppose change
> 
> BigDaddy, Not only is that plain false but very disingenuous of you. By that standard I would be forced to say Liberals by nature are socialist, meaning they want to control your life. The latter being closer to the truth in my view but neither being factual or really accurate.


Here's a definite of coservative for those that have forgotten:



> Main Entry: 1con·ser·va·tive
> Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv
> Function: adjective
> 1 : PRESERVATIVE
> ...


My point still stands... conservative is defined as a philosophy that advocates maintaining the status quo. If people are advocating change, then they are progressive, not conservative.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

BigDaddy said:


> Gohon wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm glad you pointed that out; that's right *PRESERVATIVE* is a good thing when you have liberals out there trying to take away your consitutional rights. Your welcome, we'll keep preserving :beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I'm glad you pointed that out; that's right PRESERVATIVE is a good thing when you have liberals out there trying to take away your consitutional rights.


You do realize that many of those rights would have never been established had the founders not been progressive, right?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

While we are at it:

Main Entry: 1pro·gres·sive 
Pronunciation: pr&-'gre-siv
Function: adjective
1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression

I would like to add that this conservative isn't afraid of change. However, progress has the connotation of good. Progress is good as long as it is proceeding in the right direction. Because we oppose liberal views doesn't necessarily mean we are not progressive. We simply see liberals progressing in the wrong direction i.e. regressing. 
To the conservatives among us gay rights isn't progress (we all have the same rights under the constitution, or at least we should), abortion isn't progress, higher taxes isn't progress, demeaning our military and our soldiers isn't progress, turning our face away from danger in hopes it will go away like the boogeyman did when we grew older isn't progress, and not last nor least symbolism before substance is not progress. And yes I used the term symbolism before substance long before Rush Limbaugh did, I am older, I beat him by 20 years on that phrase.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman that would be a contradiction. If you are not against change you are progressive, or at the least not conservative. I quanify you as neo-conservative, in which case your views do not necessarialy have to be conservative.



> To the conservatives among us gay rights isn't progress, abortion isn't progress, higher taxes isn't progress, demeaning our military and our soldiers isn't progress, turning our face away from danger in hopes it will go away like the boogeyman did when we grew older isn't progress, and not last nor least symbolism before substance is not progress.


Demeaning our military? Where do you get such a notion? I'm certain it is easy to call liberals anti-military because they are against the war but it simply isn't true. As to turning away from danger like the boogeyman, again this is just ridiculous. This neo conservative administration has caused more problems in Iraq than existed there before we began the war. Starting wars hastily based on evidence of questionable quality, all the while ignoring evidence of a real terrorist threat in other countries in the region is not good for the country.

As to symbolism over substance, what hypocrisy. The entire 2004 campaign was based on talking points. This administration has constantly created and used talking points to push it's policies. Cases in point, the Patriot  Act, "cutting and running", etc. The list goes on and on. They have cloaked their actions with the American flag, questioning the patriotism of anyone who disagrees. It is indeed the Republicans who rely on symbolism over substance.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

That isn't a contradiction. Set some new conservative goals and I will perhaps move that direction, but only if I think they are good. 
Both political parties use talking points, so you will get no argument from me there. Unless of course you think only republicans do it. By the way I am so ticked at republicans that from this point on I would like to be referred to as conservative, not republican. If I forget remind me. I'm kind of like the hat on that old guy I seen on the buss down in the Caribbean, it read "wake me up I' a fun guy".
I kind of look at the symbolism over substance like tying a yellow ribbon on everything in town as apposed to calling your representative in Washington and telling them to support the troops. Sort of along the line of politically correct, not talking points. 
If talking points are right what is wrong with them. People who want to leave Iraq now are cut and run types. 
I have to put in a new hot water heater. Later.

Oh, considering the threat we have been under the Patriot Act was progress, towards protecting the American people.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman it is a basic contradiction of terms. You are basically saying that you are slow/fast.



> Unless of course you think only republicans do it.


No I certainly don't, but this administration has used them constantly to ensure that they are fighting straw men.



> I kind of look at the symbolism over substance like tying a yellow ribbon on everything in town as apposed to calling your representative in Washington and telling them to support the troops.


Symbolism can be anything from posters to people to words. As to calling your representative to tell them to support the troops that seems kind of like calling them to tell them to keep voting on things. Not doing so would be political suicide.



> If talking points are right what is wrong with them.


They mislead people, hence why they are used.



> People who want to leave Iraq now are cut and run types.


I would call them people who want to leave.



> Oh, considering the threat we have been under the Patriot Act was progress, towards protecting the American people.


With some dangerous encroachment onto our personal freedoms.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

> With some dangerous encroachment onto our personal freedoms.


Just *how *do you get these personal freedoms anyway and *who *ensures it?


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

> With some dangerous encroachment onto our personal freedoms.


What personal freedoms are you referring to?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> What personal freedoms are you referring to?


The right to privacy, the right to a speedy trial, etc.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

As far as the Privacy I am assuming you are talking about the wire tapping, so with that I am saying that if it will save us from another attack then so be it. I would rather them listen to my conversation and stop an attack then worry about what I am talking about and have thousands of people killed.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> As far as the Privacy I am assuming you are talking about the wire tapping, so with that I am saying that if it will save us from another attack then so be it.


We have already discussed this issue multiple times, thus I will only say that the power to prevent such an attack using wiretaps was already in place and that this degradation of our civil rights will produce no greater security.



> I would rather them listen to my conversation and stop an attack then worry about what I am talking about and have thousands of people killed


Unless you are picked out in a few years for being a political dissident and carted off to a foreign prison to never be heard of again, but like so many others you are not looking at the long term.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

I see what you are saying, even though they may be able to benefit from wiretapping they went about it the wrong way. The only thing keeping Bush from being impeached is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Had not been for that he would prolly be out of there. I voted for the man and back him up on almost anything but I will say he was wrong. You just have to call a spade a spade on this one........


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> > With some dangerous encroachment onto our personal freedoms.
> 
> 
> Just *how *do you get these personal freedoms anyway and *who *ensures it?


You side step the question once again, I know you know the answer and don't what to say it! MT, *WHO* ensures your personal freedoms anyway?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I see what you are saying, even though they may be able to benefit from wiretapping they went about it the wrong way.


Not at all. My point is simply that they had the power to wiretap for 3 days without a warrant, so there was no problem with the speed at which a tap could be installed and there was certainly no problem with leaks. Quite simply they had the power they needed, but like little girls some have felt the need to hurl their rights at the government in hopes that they will protect them from the big bad terrorists, though they will recieve no more protection for giving this right up.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

But who cares if the gov can listen to phone conversations anyway. maybe they will be able to catch more criminals in the states aswell. If you arent doing anything wrong, then what have you got to hide......


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Again hillbilly, the problem is not that they are listening to phone calls but rather that there is now no oversight. It is only a matter of time before the program is used to catch people who disagree with the leader at that time instead of to catch terrorists. Our government relies on oversight to maintain a balance, and to ensure that our liberties are not violated we require oversight in this instance too.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

So you are saying eventually they will come get me if I disagree with the leader? Come on MT you can come up with something better than that I think..


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Again hillbilly, the problem is not that they are listening to phone calls but rather that there is now no oversight. It is only a matter of time before the program is used to catch people who disagree with the leader at that time instead of to catch terrorists. Our government relies on oversight to maintain a balance, and to ensure that our liberties are not violated we require oversight in this instance too.


I'm sure the people who support the terrorist would hate this program and use any reason they can to stop it.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

That's why MT don't like it......


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

hill billy said:


> So you are saying eventually they will come get me if I disagree with the leader? Come on MT you can come up with something better than that I think..


You are welcome to bury your head in the sand and hope for the best, but take a look at history first. Lenin, Hitler and so many others gained and held power by weakening and eventually eliminating civil rights. If the possibility to exploit a government policy exists, it will be exploted. That possibility is now present thanks to the capability to wiretap without a warrant.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

Just because one was exploited doesnt mean they all will be exploited.


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

> I'm sure the people who support the terrorist would hate this program and use any reason they can to stop it.


It is really sad nowadays someone can't dissent in this country without being called a terrorist.

"Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism. - Thomas Jefferson"


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41 said:


> > I'm sure the people *who support the terrorist *would hate this program and use any reason they can to stop it.
> 
> 
> It is really sad nowadays someone can't dissent in this country without being called a terrorist.
> ...


Obviously you read as well as you write; read the sentence again out loud little Johny; now where to you get that SPIN "


> being called a terrorist


"


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

As far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure you'll agree, a supporter of terrorism is a terrorist.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41 said:


> As far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure you'll agree, a supporter of terrorism is a terrorist.


You said it!


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

> T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41 wrote:
> As far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure you'll agree, a supporter of terrorism is a terrorist.
> 
> You said it!





> T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41 wrote:
> Quote:
> I'm sure the people who support the terrorist would hate this program and use any reason they can to stop it.
> 
> ...


 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I Rest My Case.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41 said:


> > T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41 wrote:
> > As far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure you'll agree, a supporter of terrorism is a terrorist.
> >
> > You said it!
> ...


So what point are you trying to make; that someone on this site is a terrorist?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41 said:


> > I'm sure the people who support the terrorist would hate this program and use any reason they can to stop it.
> 
> 
> It is really sad nowadays someone can't dissent in this country without being *called a terrorist*.





> "Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism. - Thomas Jefferson"


[/quote]

People get in enough trouble on here without that exaggeration. I think what was meant was that some peoples actions support terrorism. There is a reason John Kerry and Jane Fonda's pictures hang in the museum in Viet Nam. Their anti war efforts gave the North Viet Kong hope.



> Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I Rest My Case.


Then you lost. I don't know what the problem is your perception, or you can't pass up the chance to start trouble.


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

Plainsman, I'll stick to my statement; please don't put words in my mouth.

BTW, Plainsman, my statement "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case" was in refrence to ABBK and nothing else. Sorry for the confusion.[/quote]


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Remember this? "I voted against it before I voted for it!"  :rollin:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I don't see any exaggeration. On many occasions ABBK has called me a supporter of terrorism, then went on to say that anyone who supports terrorism is a terrorist, thus he has called me a terrorist.

As to giving aid to the enemy, that idea is absolutely ridiculous. It was John Kerry's duty to speak out against such a blatently wrong war, and he did his duty. Dissent always helps a nation at war because it brings the true feelings of both sides to the table as opposed to letting it fester unspoken.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I don't see any exaggeration.


I do, and there is enough friction without creating more. This tactic is simply used in the hopes others will believe it and it will bring dishonor to the person who made the statement. It's a cheap shot.

We have talked about this on the form before. Many of us believe that the anti war people like Kerry and Fonda helped the Viet Kong by giving them hope. We did not say they were helping them intentionally, and no one called anyone a terrorist on here. Simply a cheap shot and we should all be better than that. Discussion is fine, but cheap shots don't make anyone look good. 
If you equate supporting terrorists to being terrorists that is your prerogative, but don't say other people do when you know better.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I do, and there is enough friction without creating more. This tactic is simply used in the hopes others will believe it and it will bring dishonor to the person who made the statement. It's a cheap shot.


ABBK has called me a terrorist, plain and simple. If anyone is to blame for friction it is he. No one on these boards is a terrorist.



> Many of us believe that the anti war people like Kerry and Fonda helped the Viet Kong by giving them hope.


It takes more than hope to fight a war.



> Discussion is fine, but cheap shots don't make anyone look good.


I completely agree, which is why I am offended by ABBK suggesting that I support or am a terrorist. I thank Flux for pointing it out.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > I do, and there is enough friction without creating more. This tactic is simply used in the hopes others will believe it and it will bring dishonor to the person who made the statement. It's a cheap shot.
> 
> 
> ABBK has called me a terrorist, plain and simple. If anyone is to blame for friction it is he. No one on these boards is a terrorist.
> ...


MT, YOU have supplied all the evidence any reasonable person would need to know at the min. you support terrorist activities, you in so many words said that:
You don't support Israel
You don't support our troops and don't care if they get killed or not
You don't support the war on terror
You don't like any law that makes terrorist jobs harder to operate inside the USA.
You think guys like Kerry are some kind of Hero's when they were LAME at best!
I could go on and on and quote you on many other Anti-American stands you took, just get over it!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Again we have digressed to personal bickering. You called me this, you called me that, did to, did not, did to, yada yada yada. End of story.


----------

