Jack
Forum
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 67
And exactly why exactly did the Civil Rights Act of 1964 scare the Bejeezus out of you?>>>
You surprise me by not understanding my answer. , I can repeat what I said above, but do I need to?? Is it your immaturity (I won't say age THIS time) which leads you to respond in the manner that you chose. And are you confused or sending a message of some kind to this American that only speaks/write English.
<<<& WHY will it take hours to explain to me?
Because - as a female & my age - I am too stupid to understand it?>>>
You may be, but I don't know. Some topics are more complex than others and background information can be lengthy in volume but essential for understanding....and this is the 'Why' of my statement.
Inotherwords it would take hours to explain to anyone!!!!
>>By lv2read (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 00:49)
I am so so so so so so sorry to gatecrash your discussion and pay no heed to your guidelines, but I just felt compelled to say that it seems to me that this little debate is quite a bit deeper than it needs to be.
For all the original points being made and obscure data being cited, this really comes down to 'Bush is good' vs. 'Bush is bad'.
The only data that is relevant to that question is that the dumb fuck sent thousands of people to kill and .be killed without good reason
Yes, I'm disrespecting your president, and again, I apologise for being the uncouth barbarian that I am, here amongst these most reasonable and civilised individuals, but I just can't help it.
We love our freedom of speech, and we would be losing it if we thought we couldn't tell someone our opinion of their president in our honest, unkind, flawed, HUMAN way.
For the people on 'my side' - Tchock, BIAM, whoever else - have any of you ever heard an argument from a Bush supporter that excuses the war? Neither have I.
Luckily George W. Bush hasn't sent people to kill *us*, and we don't know what it feels like. But we've all experienced despair, all it takes is a little stretch of the imagination and suddenly you get a little little taste of how an Iraqi civilian must feel to lose a relative or two.
Well, maybe I'm wrong, but as far as I can see that undeniable knowledge simply negates everything else.
>>By Flagg (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 00:55)
I did not understand your answer because there WAS none.
You merely said that it was a Federal Affair - which I already knew. I was talking about when America AS A WHOLE AFTER EVERY STATE HAD DECREED SLAVERY TO BE ABOLISHED.
Is that more sense to you?
Perhaps you would like to give me an answer now.
When was it that every single one of the 50 states of America had declared itself to have made slavery illegal?
(I would rather think that you believe I AM too stupid - you can say, I will not get offended. I will simply prove you wrong.)
>>By Tchock (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 00:58)
<We love our freedom of speech, and we would be losing it if we thought we couldn't tell someone our opinion of their president in our honest, unkind, flawed, HUMAN way>
Exactly !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you Flagg!!!!
>>By Tchock (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 01:13)
Anytime.
>>By Flagg (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 01:17)
> this really comes down to 'Bush is good' vs. 'Bush is bad'. By Flagg
Beg to differ.
Regardless of what Bush is or is not, the real question is understanding our current situation.
Assume Bush is good. If so, then why does he invoke such hatred among so many people? why is there such vehement opposition? why does so many nasty things get associated with him? etc
Assume Bush bad. If so, how did he get to be President? what forces got him there and keep him there? why does he still enjoy such strong support from a pretty big chunk of the US population? etc
Either way, how do we understand how our society works, and how do we participate in that meaningfully? And if the truth lies between, just as many questions. Real life tends to be much more nuanced and full of contradictions.
The Reich has come up more than a few times here - use that as an example.
What kind of monsters could carry out the Holocaust? Humand ones, just like you and me.
Did the bulk of the German population really know what was going on? No.
Is there anyway they could not know? No.
Why didn't they do more to stop it?
Why don't we/I do more to stop the horrors and injustices that are going on today?
You see, there's the trouble ... all discussions that are not afraid to abandon the cheap and easy "good guy - bad guy" image of the world inevitably lead to that last question ... and the threat of having to answer it honestly scares the shit out of us.
>>By greenfyre (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 01:32)
I repeat....and age now becomes an issue. Slavery was a Federal issue...after the Emancipation Proclamation the states had nothing to decree. You could read, if not listen, better. Do you think any of the states had to declare on Japan?? You question makes about as much sense as that. You don't have to be self conscious about missing the point---many big people do the same. Now is this the manner in which you choose to communicate?? You are impressing only those people that agree with your (unsubstantiated) views. And you are being mislead here because I am the only one pointing out your misstatement and misunderstandings. Perhaps they, inlike me, don't believe that you'd listen or learn from such suggestions. I am holding out that we can redirect this discussion and come up with something productive.
I don't think that you or Flagg are stupid....but I'm wondering if you are civil. Can't people differ without taking their speech to the lowest common denominator? Calling intemperate speech human is a cop out. Does anyone here understand??
Would like to make a suggestion....that we limit our questions to a manageable number per 'chat.' Say two or three at the most??
Here's hoping that our exchanges may be more civil. It is great to proof your text for typos and grammatical mistakes. Suggestion: Check your text for 'tone' as well. I will do the same.
>>By lv2read (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 01:33)
I don't think understanding our social situation is more important than recognising when someone is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people.
>>By Flagg (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 01:35)
>> .and age now becomes an issue.
Defend that or acknowledge that you are violating the guidelines
How has age got ANYTHING to do with whether a person makes sense or not.
Either they make sense, or they do not, and it does not matter if they are 17 or 62
>>By greenfyre (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 01:36)
lv2read, I wonder if I'm civil too, but in the end, I don't care.
My point was that I don't want to compromise. If I said 'I think Bush's actions are morally questionable' I would not be expressing myself properly. Even if I said 'I think Bush's actions are despicable' I would still not be expressing myself properly.
Civility, cozy, warm, reassuring civility, restricts people's freedom to express themselves. Mine, anyway.
I don't subscribe to the idea that swear-words are worthless. They are not. They say things that can't be said with other words. 'Bush is morally questionable' does not have the same meaning as 'Bush is a dumb fuck and a mass murderer'. I would choose the second option to tell you how I feel, and if it offends you then get over it.
>>By Flagg (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 01:41)
Oh.
So we've got to be grammatically correct.
We've not to say anything against the Fuhrer - I mean George.
We've not to imply our opinions.
We've to be civil to the one person here who is the least civil.
We're to be polite at all times.
We're to give in at all times.
We're to be ignored at every opportunity.
We're to be insulted and disrespected, yet we cannot be the same to the Furhrer.
You did NOT answer my question.
YOU did NOT understand me.
YES I know that it was down to individual Federal Governments - that is the whole feckin' point of Federal Government is that they decide the law for their area - but are overseen by national laws which are instrinsic to all states and upon matters of international or national affairs it is CONGRESS that decides.
Right.
WHAT I was asking, lv2read, was that at what point in time was Slavery abolished in ALL 50 states?
It is not a HARD question to answer.
It is essential in understanding what type of 'free' country you think you live in.
>>By Tchock (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 01:45)
>> I don't think understanding our social situation is more important than recognising when someone is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. >>By Flagg
Which someone? the one giving the orders? the ones following them? the ones who see it, but pretend not to? the ones who watch and say "that's too bad" and then go home for tea? the ones who could try to stop it, but do not?
There are people giving insane orders all over the world. Many are in institutions, some are running armies. Why the difference?
Is power random? do we get good and bad leaders due to some sort of cosmic dice roll? were there no clues? no opportunities for us to make different choices? or are we just helpless victims of fate who get to criticise, but never determine?
>>By greenfyre (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 01:46)
greenfyre, are you denying that Bush is responsible for the deaths of people of various nationalities in Iraq? I realise you are pointing out that he's not the *only* one responsible, and I am familiar with established ideas regarding the wisdom of not seeing the world in black and white. But are you denying that he is responsible, in some way, that people have died because of him? And if you're not denying that, then why does it matter whether he went AWOL or not?
>>By Flagg (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 01:53)
>Is power random? do we get good and bad leaders due to some sort of cosmic dice roll? were there no clues? no opportunities for us to make different choices? or are we just helpless victims of fate who get to criticise, but never determine?
My original point anyway, was that this kind of thing is academic when we agree, as I think we mostly do, that the man started a wrongful war.
>>By Flagg (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 01:54)
>You could read, if not listen, better. Do you think any of the states had to declare on Japan?? You question makes about as much sense as that. You don't have to be self conscious about missing the point---many big people do the same. Now is this the manner in which you choose to communicate?? You are impressing only those people that agree with your (unsubstantiated) views.
Oh yes and lv2read, I realise we're all hypocrites here, but that just takes the biscuit, coming from the man who asked us not to be insulting to eachother.
>>By Flagg (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 01:56)
>> are you denying that Bush is responsible for the deaths of people of various nationalities in Iraq? By Flagg
I am denying no such thing. What I am resisting is the white hat / black hat view of the world. In fact I think it is this world view that informed the whole Iraq mess in the first place.
The reasoning went "Saddam is bad. We go in and remove Saddam. Everyone cheers, the music swells and we roll the credits". Which of course didn't happen, couldn't happen.
So what I am saying is that to some extent Bush is actually as irrelevant as Saddam has turned out to be.
Don't believe me? How much would change if Bush tripped and broke his neck this evening? anything?
If removing Bush would not make much difference, why be so obsessed with him?
>>By greenfyre (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 02:02)
As I said, I understand the opposition to the black hat/white hate view of the world, and in fact I agree with you on it, I think that view of the world did contribute to, if not cause, the war in Iraq.
All I was saying was I think this discussion is more in-depth than it needs to be; that the fundamental wrongness of war has been buried beneath stacks of figures and facts and philosophical musings.
And I really do believe that war is fundamentally wrong, it means killing people you don't know.
I realise many people would argue that war is unavoidable sometimes. I'm not offering any solutions; I'm saying that, having started a war - any war in my opinion, let alone a possibly illegal and anyway massively unpopular war - was wrong, and no supporter of Bush can ever say anything to defend him from that.
I'm not offering any solutions.
I try not to think for a long time about it - the state of the world. I've been trying not to think much about it tonight, because the conclusion I come to is that mankind is doomed. But doomed or not we can stand up and firmly say 'This man is a BAD leader, whatever else he may be' rather than arguing endlessly about details.
>>By Flagg (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 02:12)
Yes, I understand that we agree up to a point, but then comes the point of departure.
You see, to me that world view allows me to say this or that person is bad and then try and forget about it. That is not what I want. It is the exact opposite of what I want.
I want to understand the system well enough that my energies can be used to limit unjustice as much as possible, whether humans are doomed or not.
We are each and everyone doomed, and always have been. And there has always been purpose in limiting injustice and pain. That hasn't changed.
>> 'This man is a BAD leader, whatever else he may be' rather than arguing endlessly about details. By Flagg
The man is a man. How did he get to be a leader? and if he is a bad one, what did we do or fail to do to allow it?
Why should we be allowed to go to tea feeling smug about someone else's guilt?
That is the point of discussion. Not absolving ourselves of repsonsibility, but rather perhaps learning what we can do now, how we can do better in the future.
Sorry Flagg, but nihlism is just too cheap and easy an excuse for complacency .. I do not find it any more appealling than middle class hermeticism.
>>By greenfyre (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 02:24)
Flagg
While some wars are more justified than others, all wars involve killing civilians as well as combatants. Do you have a solution for this?
Bush did not start an illegal War. Because it has not concluded in a neat and clean manner, and that muslim extremists and the insurgents insists on killing x number of Iraqi citizens for every American/coalition member. What would happen if the extremists would lay down their arms and participate in a government duly elected by the citizens?? What is the saying, "Change from within!" They don't have Sadam to fear anymore and the corrupt Baath party is out of business I believe.
To call the President a dummb f___ is stupid and unwise. The person that uses that term freely many times is subconsciously referring to themself. Anyone can swear....anyone can say the war is illegal...but that doesn't make it so.
How do we prevent something like this from happening in the future? And, believe me, the world awaits this wisdom. My guess is that religious extremism plays a part, a big part. I live in a secular society and am in no position to judge or understand radical Islam. On the one hand there are those that say action such as 9/11 is specifically prohibited by the Koran. And there are others that quote the Koran to justify violence (suicide bombings) and other forms of killing. Maybe this discussion could go in that direction---perhaps we could come up with something.
As an aside, I can repeat when slavery was abolished over and over again. But to no avail. Perhaps she is intimating that if slavery is aboliched but the slave not given comparable rights, was slavery actually abolished? It is a good question but NOT the one she asked. And some blacks say today that they are not free, but that just isn't the case.
Again, how can we prevent future wars? We can't ignore religious fundamentalism in our answer, nor can we avoid the concept of Democracy, freedon and liberty. And the more civil we remain, the more productive we'll be.
>>By lv2read (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 03:26)
Lordy so much has been written in the short time I2Ve bben away however i will pick up on one point here spoken by our venerable friend...
L2R
re your statement:
"bush did not start an Illegal war"
ok personalities aside the USA started an illegal war because :-
Under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, to which the United States is a party, a nation's use of force is authorized under only two circumstances: in individual or collective self-defense, as outlined in Article 51, or pursuant to a Security Council resolution, as outlined in Article 42.
Since it was not directly attacked by Iraq the United States did not have an obvious right to self-defense. The administration, though, argued that it had a right to defend itself preemptively against a future possible attack. In his speech to the United Nations on September 12, 2002, President Bush described Saddam Hussein's regime as "a grave and gathering danger," detailed that regime's persistent efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and spoke of an "outlaw regime" providing such weapons to terrorists.
While arguing for preemption, the administration also suggested that the United States had a right to self-defense on the grounds that the Iraqi regime was connected to Al Qaeda, the organization responsible for the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001. In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations Security Council that Iraq was harboring a terrorist cell led by Abu Musab Zarqawi, a suspected associate of Al Qaeda. Powell also said that senior Iraqi and Al Qaeda leaders had met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Ansar al-Islam, an Islamist militia group, was also suspected of ties to Al Qaeda, and was based in a lawless part of northeast Iraq, though it was not known to have cooperated with Saddam Hussein.
So it seems to me that the US administration has the right to invade 'premptively' oh okay i understand that now, yes why not attack North Korea, and seeing as they would be backed up by China...don't you just hate them little commie batsards hey.... why not attack China too....
There is another precedent for whom the US chooses to go to war with and it certainly isnt about the HUman rights in the countrys concerned...its about whether the US thinks it can win... It will never attack North korea, because of the China aspect,(at least i hope not 'cos boy there is a catalyst for nuclaer war if ever I have seen one) It didnt win the Korean war in the 50's so what chance has it now?
It did however beat Iraq in 91, and to be fair it did crush the Saddam hussien regime very rapidly in 2003.... but it was extremely short sighted to not see the wave of resistance to its occupation of Iraq... hence you now have a Vietnam # 2 on your hands.
and now the same thing is happening once again in Afghanistan..... the brits tried to take Afghanistan in the 1800's , the Russians tried it in the 1980's and now the Coalition is trying it again... whhy wont any of the "dumb fucks "to use flaggs words ,see that historically some countries will probably never be conquered.
>>By BushisaManiac (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 04:17)
check this out re legalities of the invasion of Iraq... Britains legal stance on the war and the lies that Blair told also
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1650822,00.html
>>By BushisaManiac (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 04:35)
apologies for the many typos above...:-)
>>By BushisaManiac (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 04:51)
BIAM
Many Americans, myself included, believed that the President was misled by his advisers on WMD issue. I do not believe the President lied, or that Colin Powell lirf, but that the 'intelligence' system let us down.
What price Freedom??
For the Iraqis, freedom has come at an incredible price, And my belief is that no one has more to lose than the Iraqis if they don't support their elected leaders. When I read snippets from Sadam's trial, the intense anger of the Iraqi people toward Sadam makes it practically impossible to get a fair trial there. I suspect his sentence will be deat and that punishment will be swift---not justice served but swift and efficient.
How do we avoid catastrophe in Iran. The President has suggested the best approach in my opinion. Watch them carefully, engage the United Nations and Russia, China and France individually to bend the ear of the Iranian leader. Hopefully, nothing else will have to be done. But steering too clear of the situation sppears more risky than prudent.
North Korea.....fear them or fear their capability....please!! But, what to do??
<<<<and now the same thing is happening once again in Afghanistan..... the brits tried to take Afghanistan in the 1800's , the Russians tried it in the 1980's and now the Coalition is trying it again... whhy wont any of the "dumb fucks "to use flaggs words ,see that historically some countries will probably never be conquered.>>>>>
Good point.
It isn't late here (7:57 in the evening) but I am tired. Will catch you all tomorrow.
>>By lv2read (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 04:57)
L2R & Tchock
re: Slavery
Good one Tchock, you had me stumped and I had to research it - never thought of it before, never saw the problem until you kept harping on it.
L2R - I think Tchock is pointing out an inconsistency that most of us never spotted (I have no doubt she will correct me if I am wrong), instead we just accepting the whole Emancipation Proclamation story.
And what is wrong with the story? Well, nothing Lincoln didn't know at the time when he did it. He signed a bill abolishing slavery in 1862, and gave the epic Gettysburg Address in 1863 ... knowing full well he had absolutely no authority to abolish slavery, anywhere, anytime, for any reason. None, zero, nada, zilch.
Because of course the Supreme Court had ruled on the Dred Scott case in 1857 that Congress had no consitutional authority to determine the status of slavery in a State. Congress didn't have the power, nor the House, nor the President.
Once I realized that this was true (thanks Tchock) I started wondering "So what the hell did happen? Surely it's not still legal in some states?"
The problem describes it's solution. If the Constitution does not authorize Congress to rule on slavery, then ammend the Constitution - which is what Lincoln then engineered, hence the Thirteenth Ammendmet in 1865.
http://members.tripod.com/ NOSPACE ~greatamericanhistory/gr02011.htm
Without the ammendment any and all states that wished to be slave states could, even defeated, occupied former CSA states. Hence slavery was still perfectly legal in States occupied before the Ammendment (Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, etc). No federal army had the legal authority to free even one slave.
So the States never did free the slaves. As of the 13th Ammendment they no longer had the constitutional authority to do so, which is just as well as a lot of them may well never have done so. Witness how long it took Texas to recognize Martin Luther King Day.
So Tchock, did I get it?
>>By greenfyre (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 06:02)
Neither Tchock or Flagg got anything. And furthermore, Flaggs' inability to communicate without profanity AND belittling remarks are unacceptable to me. And he'll never understand why. And if grownups don't correct his behavior now, he'll be rattling off the same nonsense at 18 as he is now at 17/16??
And Tchock finding humor in civility is something that her parents must work on....not I. I have suggested that we should police ourselves....and what I really meant is that I would no longer tolerate the name calling and belittling comments in reference to my President. You will have no further audience from me.
And if Tchock's comments on slavery make sense to any of you--we are so far apart in our understanding that subsequent communication would be fucking useless as young Flagg would say it.
>>By lv2read (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 12:13)
greenfyre, about what you said to me (not the slavery thing)...
I concede every point you make. Also, I admit that my original post was not in any way a disagreement with any of you. I simply found it depressing that people could take Bush seriously to the point where a long in-depth discussion was necessary. Maybe it is necessary for what you want to achieve here, but I don't know what that is.
I feel out of place on this board because I simply don't know as much about the issues as the rest of you obviously do. But I have an opinion anyway.
l2read:
>While some wars are more justified than others, all wars involve killing civilians as well as combatants. Do you have a solution for this?
No. For about the third time now. But whether it's avoidable or not, killing civilians is wrong.
I would hope that it's ok for me to state my opinion without offering a solution.
And about the African-Americans not being free. No, you're right, they're not slaves anymore. But only 50% of America votes, and alot of the other 50% are black. Why is this? Could it be because there has never been a black presidential candidate and so far no candidate has shown the slightest bit of empathy towards black communities?
There is a huge gap between politicians and many black citizens. As far as the polls are concerned, black communities are a lost cause. Presidential campaigns target the people who *are* going to vote.
Lv2Read, for someone who loves to read, you really don't seem to have any idea of the worth of swear-words. I wonder what kind of books you read, or perhaps more importantly, what kind of books you make a point of *not* reading.
Repeated use of the word 'fuck' (that's F - U - C - K) is not subconscious self-degredation, it is - and I really hate to say this but I think it's true - something you simply don't understand.
>>By Flagg (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 12:38)
lv2read, you are right, I will never understand you, and you'll never understand me. To you I will always be a juvenile delinquent with no respect for civility or manners, and to me you will always be an outdated old man with no appreciation for energy and the virtues of aggression.
>>By Flagg (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 14:26)
Greenfyre!!!
Yes!!!
In all legality - the states never did free the slaves - Lincoln had NO authority to propose the Emancipation Procolamation.
The Thirteenth Amendment was the only thing which had caused the emancipation of the slaves - yet as Congress could not enforce this, nor interfere with individual state's status on slaves, it was - and is meaningless, in all lawful terms.
Despite the ratification of the the Amendment, the Congress had no authority to enforce the abolishon of slavery. And still - as far as I can research, do not.
And what is more interesting - perhaps you came across this in your research, greenfyre, is this:
# State Date
1 Illinois Feb 1, 1865
2 Rhode Island Feb 2, 1865
3 Michigan Feb 3, 1865
4 Maryland Feb 3, 1865
5 New York Feb 3, 1865
6 Pennsylvania Feb 3, 1865
7 West Virginia Feb 3, 1865
8 Missouri Feb 6, 1865
9 Maine Feb 7, 1865
10 Kansas Feb 7, 1865
11 Massachusetts Feb 7, 1865
12 Virginia Feb 9, 1865
13 Ohio Feb 10, 1865
14 Indiana Feb 13, 1865
15 Nevada Feb 16, 1865
16 Louisiana Feb 17, 1865
17 Minnesota Feb 23, 1865
18 Wisconsin Feb 24, 1865
19 Vermont Mar 8, 1865
20 Tennessee Apr 7, 1865
21 Arkansas Apr 14, 1865
22 Connecticut May 4, 1865
23 New Hampshire Jul 1, 1865
24 South Carolina Nov 13, 1865
25 Alabama Dec 2, 1865
26 North Carolina Dec 4, 1865
27 Georgia Dec 6, 1865
28 Oregon Dec 8, 1865
29 California Dec 19, 1865
30 Florida Dec 28, 1865
31 Iowa Jan 15, 1866
32 New Jersey Jan 23, 1866
33 Texas Feb 18, 1870
34 Delaware Feb 12, 1901
35 Kentucky Mar 18, 1976
36 Mississippi Mar 16, 1995 *
Ratified in 309 days
* Mississippi ratified the amendment in 1995, but because the state never officially notified the US Archivist, the ratification is not official.
Notice the LAST entry. 1995 & even then it is NOT official.
So lv2read - is your country as free as you think it is?
>>By Tchock (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 14:29)
* dates for the ratification of the thirteenth amendment
>>By Tchock (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 14:32)
<And Tchock finding humor in civility is something that her parents must work on....not I.>
No no, it is not civility that I find distressing or amusing in anyway. No no - I think you will find that it is the fact that this 'civility' is on your terms only. It is my right as a person to voice my views - whether it be on Iraq, Iran or your President. Would you have it that there was no opposition to your President? And if it were so that Al Gore or John Kerry had won at either of the elections - would you be so patrioticly behind them?
Your President is a politician and a person. Both give me and everyone else the right to react to him, the right to voice opinions of him, the right to oppose him on any given opportunity.
Can you argue one point I have made against your president?
If so I would like to hear it - as it is your right to voice your opinion as well. These rights - it's strange, but they work both ways. It may be a little hard for you to understand... what with your desire to uphold the 'law of the Jackboard' but completely ignore it yourself. Perhaps I have to graduate from 'kids' school to attain the same rights as you?
Perhaps that may occur after the five years of university which lie before me?
Still not?
When will it be my right to voice my opinion, lv2read - when I finally agree with everything you say, when I abandon my beliefs and vote for George Bush (or his grandson....)
You made it clear to ALL of us that you would not rest until you brought us round to YOUR way of thinking.
<As long as you portray my President as nuts. as long as you imply that a significant number of Gold Star Mothers support you views, as long as you misrepresent the nature and intent of US action in Iraq, as long as you refuse to appreciate the gains in Iraq, as long as you characterize the Americans as the bad guys, yes as long as you do these things I will set you straight---I'll set you straight right here!! I'm betting that you'll catch on sooner or later. And, yes, I can get personal too, but I won't.>
Remember when you said that?
>>By Tchock (Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 15:08)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 67
The discussion board is currently closed.
|
DISCOVER NEW BOOKS