Posted on 03/20/2006 11:18:14 PM PST by usarmymedic
A ping, as used here, is an invitation to others to come read a thread which might be of interest. Various folks maintain 'ping lists' of folks who are interested in a particular subject. Generally, you have to ask to get on the list; most are fairly open, but a few are restricted.
Interesting. The Venezuelan coup. What do you have to criticize about that? What would you forward as a decent resolution? UN intervention strategies and differences in political development? What? Hugo a homie of yours? And before you go accussing me of Mccarthyism, check your facts on geopolitical communism and Islam. It is no farce. Still alive and well, I'll have you know.
Gotcha on the immigration thing. Already mentioned. I'm just about an isolationist anyway. What? You want to argue about NAFTA. Bring it.
I'm in the military. You want a dispute on the Geneva and Hague Conventions? Would you care to dispute the US and UN position on "just war." Want to bring up Augustine? Want to fuss about that? I can debate the theological issues surrounding that. I've written a journal article about the differences on that issue with a thesis in the works contrasting the positions. Care to debate?
Excessive bipartisanship? You want to talk to a Libertarian about bipartisan politics? Huh? It's what we/they thrive on. It's what gives us/they a bandwagon to ride.
It's cute how you post one line responses. It really is.
Think I'm an uninformed military shmutz?
Tunehead, what?
What is "BTTT"?
What do you mean by "another mystery"?
Nice. There are those, I'll admit. This is a party that makes for strange bedfellows, no pun intended. Yes, I did. I meant that all the way. I'm insensitive. Oh, well.
So that's the end of it, huh? No liberal criticism of how I talked about Kennedy and Kerry? No critique of the GWOT?
It's telling isn't it?
The one thing that anyone could take away from my original post is that President Bush did not win both popular votes.
All the rest has not been argued against.
Telling isn't it?
Guess who is saying the same nasty things about Iran now and suggesting the same sort of actions? Trying to set another trap? Bet they already have their CIA and State Department Cronies in place to deny all those nasty things. Maybe another 2,000 american troops can be killed to get them back in power.
I don't agree with everything GWB has done, In fact, 50% would be a liberal estimate. But, then again, I don't agree with everything GOD has done. (Come on; a flood, Fire & brimstone, why not just make us the way he wants us?)
Using the lowest common denominator, there is no way GWB can perform to everyones satisfaction. So what is a President supposed to do? If he were a dictator, the answer is simple, whatever he wanted to do. What should a President of a democracy do, easy: whatever is best for all of the people. Wait a minute, I don't even agree with my mother as to what is best for everyone.
How about compromise? Well I really don't see much to compromise about between what my mother, I and the President think is best for the country. Why not let the guy do his job? (Maybe we should have a presidential committee instead of a president?)
That's it we can leave the compromising up to congress. After all the President wants, the Congress gives (or takes). But if that is to work, the congress must do what is best for everyone...Oh,...Oh...problem...Congress whants to do what is best for their individual constituents, or at best their constituencies. Hmm, seems we have a conflict, someone or everyone. But this is the USA, the people with the perfect constitutional government, 'fraid so.
Common sense, if not reason, makes it clear, we need one person making the decisions because what is good for everyone is not good for everyone. (I believe that consensus ended in 1777, if not before.)
So where are we now? Some accuse GWB of acting as a dictator. Sounds like he is doing his job. Why not let him continue. Hmm, isn't that why the founding fathers gave war powers to the executive branch?
Ya, lets start with public television. CUT government funding of that trash.
Guess you would have objected to FDR's post war and war time expenditures as well? The war time cost of 9/11 to the american economy and government are and continue to be horrendous. What part of "We are at War don't you understand".
Great post! Thank you for your service. You and your fellow soldiers have my deepest gratitude and respect.
Chavez survived because the Administration didn't send a strong signal of support to the folks running the coup. And you are totally mixed up - you accuse me of being a Chavez supporter, when it's your boy Bush's responsibility for him being in office today.
You want a dispute on the Geneva and Hague Conventions?
Which Geneva Convention do you want to discuss? The '51 Convention on Refugees? The '49 Convention on POWs? The 1949 Convention on protection of "Victims of War"? Based on context, you may be referencing the 1977 Protocol rather than the Convention itself.
As to the Hague Convention, I'm gussing that you don't want to discuss international child abductions.
Care to debate?
Yes, but which side do you want to pick - pro administration or anti-administration. Recall the position that the adminsitration has taken as to whether the Gitmo Guys are POWs - so if you argue too hard for the treaties, you may be attacking your own pro-administration position.
Don't rush with your replies -- I won't be back until tomorrow.
Ping
"It's a rehash of all the same crap and it's never true. But folks keep trying the same old tired arguments and it doesn't wash with reality."
Ah, but the left loves it and could carry on about it forever, as it gives them all the soapbox for an hour. I just wish the average American would turn the boob box off and get their 'news' from other sources. The left has NEVER been concerned about the Truth or Facts...they get in the way. If you notice, the questions are never asked that would get a truthful answer, either...only opinions and bias.
Loved this post! WooHoo!
A ping is an internet bugle call, and in this case it for those that will defend you here.
mark for later reading
Thank you!!
Most enjoyable reading.
Hope to see / read more sooner rather than later.
Unfortunately, the truth doesn't matter much. What matters is that there are enough who see the truth that stand beside him during this onslaught.
Here's what you left out,
During Clinton's presidency he bombed The Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan without approval from the UN or Congress because Osama Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein were working together on WMD's,
and that Clinton launch a phony war on terror (again without going to the UN or congress First) after a WMD attack on the World Trade Center by an Iraqi Agent working with Al Queda using enough cyanide to kill 40,000 New Yorkers.
The democrats are stalling further efforts in this war on terror until such a time when they can get elected the Clinton with Bill's balls.
"I've heard all sorts of stuff about Halliburton. That's part of what they do. That's their jobs. They make money on defense. What else would they do? Ooh, Cheney used to be with Halliburton. That's a big conspiracy, right?"
And Michael Moore owns a large block of Haliburton stock.
I agree that President Bush has been a greater victim of unfair and unfounded criticism than any of the eleven Presidents whose tenures I have lived through.
The Dims don't have a case, but they go right on bawling and whining and beating pots and pans together like the spoiled two-year-olds that they are.
And the slimy, crawling vermin from elsewhere in the world utilize their warped rhetoric to undermine the best country on earth!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.