posted July 22, 2006 03:05 AM              

More nonSENSE from our beloved leader......

***************

"And so during these holiday seasons, we thank our blessings." —George W. Bush, Fort Belvoir, Va., Dec. 10, 2004

"I appreciate my love for Laura." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 20, 2005

"Security is the essential roadblock to achieving the road map to peace." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., July 25, 2003

"I think younger workers — first of all, younger workers have been promised benefits the government — promises that have been promised, benefits that we can't keep. That's just the way it is." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 4, 2005

"I want to thank you for the importance that you've shown for education and literacy." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 13, 2005

"The truth of that matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were the president of the United States, and the world would be a lot better off." —George W. Bush, second presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004

"We're still being challenged in Iraq and the reason why is a free Iraq will be a major defeat in the cause of freedom." —George W. Bush, Charlotte, N.C., April 5, 2004

"The march to war affected the people's confidence. It's hard to make investment. See, if you're a small business owner or a large business owner and you're thinking about investing, you've got to be optimistic when you invest. Except when you're marching to war, it's not a very optimistic thought, is it? In other words, it's the opposite of optimistic when you're thinking you're going to war." —George W. Bush, Springfield, Mo., Feb. 9, 2004

"In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences." —George W. Bush, Meet the Press, Feb. 8, 2004

*****

posted July 22, 2006 03:21 AM              

I likewise am pleased to be linked with someone as intelligent and noble as you are. I am blessed to know you and blessed to have you as a friend. You are honest, compassionate and you stand up against all opposition and hold true to your values, principals, beliefs and what you know is right.

They say that you can tell a person's true character by those who consider them a friend. When I think of those who consider me a friend and those who consider me an enemy...I know I am doing something right.

posted July 22, 2006 03:41 AM              

Yes, Jwhop, Rainbow and I are all powerful. We have the ability to make and break sites on the internet. Jwhop must be very frightened of us since he assigns all that power to us, Rainbow.

It's easy to see why you understand what Bush is talking about, Jwhop. Takes an idiot to understand one. And it takes a real idiot to make insane and delusional accusations like you do.

Jwhop, If the Al Quida know that Bush means what he says how come Osama bin Laden is still free? He said he was going to get him. It's been 5 years now and Bush still hasn't caught bin Laden. All he has really managed to do ( outside of shooting his stupid mouth off ) is to destabalize just about the entire Middle East and lead us to the brink of WWIII and this country to the brink of bankruptcy.

posted July 22, 2006 09:06 AM              

quote:

---

Jwhop, If the Al Quida know that Bush means what he says how come Osama bin Laden is still free? He said he was going to get him. It's been 5 years now and Bush still hasn't caught bin Laden

---

Mirandee.....bush answers that question himself....

Here's the answer....

quote:

---

"Because he's hiding." —George W. Bush, responding to a reporter who asked why Osama bin Laden had not been caught, aboard Air Force One, Jan. 14, 2005

---

....brilliant answer, I might add....

posted July 22, 2006 09:16 AM              

Mirandee, it's good to see you here.

posted July 22, 2006 01:27 PM              

about Bush's response there, Rainbow. Like I said, he constantly makes our moron case for us. lol

posted July 23, 2006 06:15 PM              

Case in point....

.......the following

Ms. Merkle: "OMG! Look at that look
on his face!"

Ms. Merkle: "WHAT is that man DOING?"

posted July 23, 2006 06:17 PM              

Ms. Merkle: "Oooooh Nooooo!

Ms. Merkle: "Unhand me you
stupid A$$ pervert!"

Bush: "Ok. Ok. I'm going....
sheese
such an up-tight woman!"

posted July 24, 2006 02:37 AM              

Ok, just to clarify a few of the things Leo Bear said in his post.

First:

quote:

---

I dont have to be a phychic to tell you anything about you or Mirandee. All I have to do is read your posts.

---

Good thing that you don't have to be a psychic because you would make a lousy one, Bear.

quote:

---

Its kinda funny how the only opinions on Bush while in canada were from the small towns inside of restaurants, laundry mats, and gas stations. Then they only gave you their opinions after they heard yours. I think they were just telling you what they thought you wanted to hear.

---

Those were some of the places that I mentioned where we talked to people in Canada but not all of the places. Edmonton is hardly a "small town". Neither is Moose Jaw or Saschatoon or Winnipeg. Or Windsor, Ontario for that matter. Besides that, what is wrong with people who work in gas stations, or people who go to restaurants or own motels? Are you putting down people who make an honest living, Bear? We only told them we did not support Bush's policies. They went from there and told us what they did not like about those policies, especially how it affected them. I haven't checked his popularity polls lately but roughly only about 30% of Americans like the guy and his world wide poll ratings are not so good either. So it shocks you to think that a large portion of Canada might not like the guy either?

Funny that you would say that you think those people in Canada would only be telling us what they thought we wanted to hear, really it shows how little you deal in reality, Bear. But it's funny to me that you would say that when I think the same thing may apply in many cases with the men under you or other military personnel. It's funny you would talk about small towns in Canada and the people either living there or passing through when you and Pidaua live in what she called " a tight military community" and yet you would expect to hear a differing opinion than yours there? I don't think so. Since you are there in Germany leave the base and go into the towns without your military uniform on and ask the people on the streets what their opinion of Bush is. Ask them what they think of the war in Iraq. You might get a different opinion than what you hear from the men who serve under you or on a military base or in a "tightly knit military community" in Arizona. It could be a real eye opener for you.

This one topped them all, Bear. You certainly do draw a lot of unfounded conclusions about people don't you? I also might add, arrogant as well.

quote:

---

Yes, we are newly weds and I will also guarantee that if I wasnt in Germany we would have so much more to do. I can also say we have a very healthy relationship and communications are very good. Dont be jealous of the relationship we have. Now go out and find someone who cares for you. You know since you like someone who is has intelligence, honesty, and compassion over machosim. Maybe restaurants, laundry mats, and gas stations arent the right place to look for someone with those qualities.

---

You should have checked with Pidaua before spouting off on this one, Bear. In the first place I did not know you were in Germany or I wouldn't even have been wondering why you guys were online being bothered by a video about Bush. Okay?

As for me being jealous of yours and Pidaua's relationship that is too funny and if you actually had read my posts as you stated you did to come to the judgment of me that you have then you would have known better than to say that.

FYI, I am married to the man of my dreams. I have known him since I was 12 years old, began dating him when I was 16 and I married him on Aug. 28, 1965 at the age of 19. Next month we will celebrate our 41st anniversary. We have 3 kids and 5 grandchildren. He is retired now but for 33 years he worked as a scheduling specialist at Daimler/Chrysler Corp. He was what is termed here a "white collar worker." Outside of being everything else that I like in a man he is all of the things I mentioned, intelligent, honest and compassionate. We have shared a wonderful life together and are still very much in love and hopefully we have many more years together. So tell me, Bear, what do you suppose that I have to be jealous of regarding yours and Pidaua's relationship? The kind of life that you and Pidaua will be sharing may be okay for her and for some women but it is not something that appeals to me at all. I am speaking of the military life of course. Sad to say, and I do hope and pray that it never comes to that for you guys, but it's way too insecure as far as longevity goes. Especially with the way the world is right now. It seems to me that being in love and newly married the two of you would much prefer peaceful negotiations to one war after another so that you might also have 41 years or longer together to raise a family and play with your grandchildren. It seems to me that like myself and Rainbow you would want your children and grandchildren to grow up in the freedom we have always had under the Constitution without having our rights and freedoms taken away from us in the name of the War on Terror. Because if we lose our freedoms here in America the terrorists have already won. And we cannot give away what we don't have so if we don't have democracy in America we cannot take it to others countries by force. To say that Rainbow, myself and VL, to mention only 3 of us here at GU, are lying hypocrites to say we are losing are freedoms and our rights under the Constitution shows that you, Pidaua and Jwhop, to name only 3 here at GU, do not keep up on what is really happening in this country. Mainly because none of you look at all sides of the issues. If you don't look at all sides of the issues then you do not make educated and informed opinions. Instead you base your opinions only on what you are told by the Conservative Right Republicans and in your case and Pidaua's case, what the military tells you.

Another good one which is an uninformed statement as well:

quote:

---

Stop bringing up KS you are all just mad cause it was discovered. Then it was announced that people involved were backstabbing supposed friends on LL. Don't get ticked off at us just because the three of you are a bunch of hyprocrites!!

---

Stop telling me what to do. I am not under your command. Especially when you have no idea what you are talking about.

Please explain to me why you think I should mad because KS was discovered? Once again, I thought you read all my posts to come to the judgment of me that you did. Obviously you didn't or would know that I was not a member of KS. For that matter neither was Rainbow or VL.

Also FYI, and once again you should have consulted your wife before shooting off your mouth, I discovered and knew about KS before Pidaua happened on the site. Others on Pidaua's original KS thread stated that they also knew about KS for a long time. I stated this on the thread and I stated that I did not think it was a big deal and I also was discussed for membership at KS. Pidaua knows this and for her to say I did not post anything about KS because I am a coward was only childishly said because I told her that double teaming someone was a cowardly act. I did not post anything about it for the same reason that the others who knew about KS did not post anything about it. It was no big deal to us.

quote:

---

You are dismissed, Be gone!!

---

Grow up, Bear. You are not yet of the age where you can even pretend to know everything and if you don't listen to the opinions of others just because they disagree with yours you never will learn anything. If you never question but just do as you are told and just listen to one side of everything you never will grow up and learn.

I may have missed it but I don't think that you answered any of my questions. I have another one though. What exactly does a "mentor" in the military do? I have my suspicions.

posted July 24, 2006 02:43 AM              

The Limits of Free Speech in the Military:
Can Public Expressions of Discontent by U.S. Troops in Iraq Be Punished?
By DEAN G. FALVY
----
Thursday, Jun. 19, 2003

As if the fruitless hunt for weapons of mass destruction and persistent rumors of intelligence manipulation weren't annoying enough, the Pentagon faces a new headache: rumblings of discontent from soldiers in the field.

The putative liberation of Iraq has turned into grinding, dangerous occupation duty - exacting a steady toll in lives and morale. And some disgruntled troops have begun complaining about ambiguous missions and delayed homecomings.

You know things must be serious if an Army private feels compelled to bend the ear of a New York Times reporter to get a message to the Secretary of Defense. After all, Mr. Rumsfeld has asserted the power (so far unchecked) to assign cages at Guantanamo Bay to people whom he deems "enemy combatants," not excluding American citizens. In other words, you don't mess with this guy.

And something about the Secretary's demeanor suggests that he would not be amused to find the words "Rumsfeld" and "sorry ass" in the same sentence, let alone as the ramblings of a distant subordinate on the front page of his Sunday Times.

So is Private O'Dell in deep trouble? Surprisingly, he may not be. Military conduct codes do not reach his comments.

The Military and Free Speech

The military is perhaps not the best career choice for someone bent on the vigorous exercise of civil liberties. As countless drill sergeants have informed their new recruits, "We're here to defend democracy--not to practice it."

Qualities valued by an open society--respect for the individual, independent thinking, skepticism about leaders, the nobility of principled dissent--do not tend to thrive in a military environment. For obvious reasons, self-sacrifice, discipline, order and obedience to authority tend to be emphasized instead. For every Tom Cruise who wishes it were otherwise, there's a Jack Nicholson to bark at him, "You can't handle the truth!"

Surely, without respect for the chain of command, a military organization would simply disintegrate in the heat of battle. So it is not surprising that the free speech rights of soldiers are sharply curtailed when it comes to criticizing their superiors.

But how sharply? Not as much as you might think. Private O'Dell, at least, seems to be in the clear.

Why O'Dell's Comments Are Not Punishable Under the UCMJ

But a closer look shows that O'Dell's comments fall outside Article 88, which states:

"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

Fortunately for O'Dell, he's a private - not a "commissioned officer." He can be thankful for his lack of stripes, because there is no way Article 88 can be applied to him without them.

It turns out that O'Dell was wise in his choice of targets as well. For if he had "behaved with disrespect" toward a superior commissioned or non-commissioned officer - from Gen. Tommy Franks down to his own platoon sergeant,. he could have been subject to court martial under Articles 89 and 91 of the UCMJ. These articles apply to all soldiers, including enlisted men and women. But the civilian officials who are specifically protected from criticism in Article 88, including the Secretary of Defense, are not mentioned in Articles 89 and 91.

Why the UCMJ Treats Speech By Enlisted Men and Officers Differently

What is the reason for the difference? Why can a foot soldier dis the civilian Secretary of Defense, but not the Army Chief of Staff? Is the Pentagon simply taking care of its own?

Not likely. The UCMJ is not the product of military fiat, but rather a 1950 act of Congress. Congress intentionally chose to narrow the prior version of Article 88, which had covered all soldiers, in order to ensure that it applied to officers but not enlisted personnel. From a policy standpoint, why did it chose to do so?

First, Congress probably recognized that the primary purpose of Article 88 should be to prevent active military officers from meddling in politics--a persistent problem in other republics, both ancient and modern.

At the same time, there was probably a recognition that earlier versions of Article 88 had overreached in punishing the views of rank and file soldiers. While serving in previous conflicts, dozens of enlisted men were court-martialed for expressing mildly derogatory views about Presidents Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt, even in private conversation and correspondence.

That makes sense, for many enlisted personnel are not far removed from civilian life. Their military service is more likely a temporary status than a career choice.

Indeed, in the case of draftees, who provided the bulk of the U.S. fighting force in the Civil War, both World Wars, Korea and Vietnam, it is not even a voluntary status. In a democracy, to deny conscripts the right to voice criticism of their own civilian leaders--very often the same ones who sent them to fight and die--seems grotesque.

Moreover, it was arguably in Congress's own self-interest to let enlisted personnel speak out. Practically speaking, the grumbling of enlisted personnel can give valuable signals to elected officials about the true course of military campaigns, which may otherwise be filtered out by overly optimistic generals. Congress is more powerful when it can contrast optimistic assessments such as Rumsfeld's with on-the-ground complaints like O'Dell's.

Why Officers Must Still Hold Their Tongues

Commissioned officers are not so lucky when it comes to political expression. In recent years, Article 88 has ensnared several would-be commentators.

Actual court martials have been very rare. But administrative punishments, forced retirements and potentially chilling warnings have not.

During the Vietnam War, an Army lieutenant was successfully court-martialed for marching in an antiwar demonstration while carrying a sign that assailed President Johnson's "ignorance" and "fascist aggression."

More recently, a number of military officers faced disciplinary action after drawing attention to deficiencies in President Clinton's moral character - an activity which for civilians seemed to constitute a hearty national pastime throughout the 1990s. These cases, while relatively few in number, became emblematic of Clinton's difficult relations with the military, particularly its professional officer corps.

For example, Maj. Gen. Harold Campbell was compelled to retire after referring, no doubt affectionately, to the "gay-loving," "womanizing," "draft-dodging" and "pot-smoking" President in a speech at an Air Force banquet. Other officers received reprimands for characterizing their Commander-in-Chief as a "lying draft dodger," a "moral coward," and an "adulterous liar" in letters to their local newspapers.

Even retired officers may be at risk when they speak out - as Lt. Col. Michael J. Davidson noted in his July 1999 Army Lawyer article, "Contemptuous Speech Against the President." Davidson noted that Article 88 may apply to retired commissioned officers by virtue of other articles of the UCMJ.

No charges have been brought against a retired officer for such an offense since 1942, and most retired commentators are probably oblivious to the risk. But the theoretical possibility does exist.

One wonders whether retired Lt. Col. Oliver North thought about it when he declared that Clinton "is not my Commander-in-Chief." Or if retired Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, a former military attache in the Clinton White House, worries that he might be court-martialed for his recently-published, best-selling tell-all screed, Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term National Security. Yet somehow one suspects that such a prosecution would not be at the top of the Pentagon's priority list under Donald Rumsfeld.

Comments by officers during the aftermath of the 2000 election might have been a bit more risky, as the counting of military absentee ballots became embroiled in the Florida recount controversy. At that time, Democrats attempted to challenge certain military ballots based on the technicalities of Florida election law. In response, some officers became so vociferous in their criticisms that two major military commands issued general warnings about Article 88. One cautioned officers that "this is not the time to send e-mails or otherwise get involved in an improper or unprofessional manner with the continuing controversy over the presidential election." Another even suggested that commanders use the opportunity to conduct educational sessions "on the question of civilian control of the military." (In the end, however, no officers were charged, and the Democrats hurriedly dropped their challenges to military ballots.)

The Rare Criticism President Bush Has Faced From the Military

As befits a Commander-in-Chief in more or less perpetual wartime, the current President Bush generally enjoys enthusiastic support from the nation's officer corps. But there are exceptions.

In May 2002, Air Force Lt. Col. Steve Butler sent a letter to the editor of the Monterrey County Herald, alleging that President Bush knew about the impending 9/11 attacks, but "did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism." Col. Butler offered the following theory about the Bush presidency:

"His daddy had Saddam and he needed Osama. His presidency was going nowhere. He wasn't elected by the American people, but placed into the Oval Office by the conservative supreme court. The economy was sliding into the usual Republican pits and he needed something on which to hang his presidency.... This guy is a joke. What is sleazy and contemptible is the president of the United States not telling the American people what he knows for political gain."

After the letter was published, Col. Butler was suspended from his position as vice-chancellor of the Defense Languages Institute.

If they are allowed to, the tempest may well remain confined to its teapot. But if the occupation drags on, and many of the hundreds of thousands of foot soldiers serving in Iraq begin to feel as Private O'Dell does, that could spell trouble for President Bush in next year's election.

There's no telling whether the rumbling among the rank and file represents a ripple or a gathering wave. But at least one thing is clear: the law won't do much to stop it.

posted July 24, 2006 06:09 PM            

At least you're both busy posting to yourselves.. talk about delusional LOL

~Pidaua

Maybe you can read about what is really going on there from someone (other than the lying left) from Hollywood that spent 7 months in Iraq...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8re9dF-EyH8&mode=related&search=

------------------
The democratic world believes that it is not the terrorists that are to blame, but us. Us, the westerners.
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And the sooner you eliminate this misconception from your minds, the better.
We are NOT to blame. It is the freaking terrorists and the freaking terrorists only!!!! They are the bad guys. They do not understand concepts like peace, democracy, and respect for human life. They are, pure and simPle, EVIL!!!!! Behind all their political manipulations, if you carefully look at the actions of these MONSTERS, they are EVIL!!

http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000489.htm

posted July 24, 2006 10:54 PM              

quote:

---

WOW.. this must be Dumb and Dumber

---

Yup!

posted July 24, 2006 11:58 PM              

I was agreeing with Pid that yes, this is the dumb and dumber thread....that's all....

**************

The picture was an afterthought about the rewards of joining the army.... I probably should have put it in it's own post!

Sorry if I confused you....

posted July 25, 2006 01:22 AM            

Pid punctured that argument with factual information which showed minorities were represented in the military in about the same ratio as the general population.

Next, the idiot leftists said most of the military were from the ranks of the uneducated...you know, those who would believe any kind of bullsh*t because they were too uneducated to know the difference.

Pid punctured this lie with factual information which showed military personnel were more highly educated than the general population.

No matter how many lies leftists tell about the US or the US military, no matter how many of those lies are punctured with fact, the lying left has more lies in reserve.

There was a time when lying leftists could get away with their lies because the lying press covered their @sses. Those times are gone with the advent of those sources which not only refute the lying left but publish the facts which puncture their lies.

The days when a lying leftist liar could tell a lie and a thousand other leftist liars could swear to it and get away with it are over.

The days when the lying leftist press could tell lies about the US or about the US military and have those lies go unrefuted with fact are over.

The lying left, in the press, in lying leftist groups and leftists in Congress are now taking their deserved lumps. The lying leftist press is in total decline. They're losing circulation, they're losing money and they're forced to lay off staff just to stay in business. That's great news for America.

A free press, yes. A lying press, no way.

So, leftists are left with few options. They can't get away with their lies any longer so they are forced to launch personal attacks against the administration. Every time they attempt to lie about the economy, the war, the military, the reasons for the war, they get shot down with facts.

That puts leftists in a severe bind since the only thing leftists ever had going for themselve was the lie, the big lie and the damned lie.

The kinds of lies told here on this forum by Miranee and Rainbow. The same kinds of shopworn lies they told on CE which drove the site into the ground and destroyed it as a viable site.

The issue has been raised that I must think they're powerful...to have destroyed Greg's site but as is the usual case, leftists just don't get it. They're not in any way powerful, their assortment of lies about the President, about the US military and about the United States just make reasonable people want to barf....and reasonable people stopped going to CE. Now, almost no one at all goes to CE.

Take a bow lying leftists, you destroyed a very vibrant Linda Goodman site with your leftist anti-Amercia lies and with your pro Saddam, pro terrorist bullsh*t

posted July 25, 2006 01:36 AM              

quote:

---

The kinds of lies told here on this forum by Miranee and Rainbow. The same kinds of shopworn lies they told on CE which drove the site into the ground and destroyed it as a viable site

Take a bow lying leftists, you destroyed a very vibrant Linda Goodman site with your leftist anti-Amercia lies and with your pro Saddam, pro terrorist bullsh*t

---

jhop, you are so full of $hit that you're starting to believe it....

It is sooo funny.

If you recall....Greg was very anti-bush, along with Mirandee and I.

It was what YOU were doing there, that he did NOT like!

Talking about destroying a site that is NOT destroyed anyway, is just plain goofy....

You're losing it!

posted July 25, 2006 02:40 AM              

quote:

---

We are NOT to blame. It is the freaking terrorists and the freaking terrorists only!!!! They are the bad guys. They do not understand concepts like peace, democracy, and respect for human life.

---

Judging from all the hate filled things that you and Jwhop say on these threads about us, about liberals in general, about the terrorists, neither of you understand concepts like peace, democracy, and respect for human life either, Pidaua. The only human life you respect is who you have labeled or allowed the government to label for you, as friends and enemies. Any innocent people caught in the middle of the battle for ideologies is just considered "collateral damage." That is not respect for human life. Peace through the use of violence is an oxymoron. No one ever brought about a lasting peace through the use of force and violence. In this case it only serves to breed more hate amongst the people of the Middle East and therefore it only serves to perpetuate the cycle of violence by breeding more and more terrorists. For every terrorist that you kill in your wars there will 10-20 more to take his place. That is not an understanding of peace at all. You deny all of Bush and his administrations violations against the Constitution, all that he has done through his so called Patriot Acts to take away our freedoms here in the U.S., you are against any kind of freedom of speech except your own and that of the Republican Bush supporters, yet you speak of democracy. That is not an understanding of democracy and what especially the U.S. version of democracy is all about.

posted July 25, 2006 02:45 AM              

Pidaua the fact that all you and Jwhop can do is call other people names proves your lack of intelligence. So calling Rainbow and myself "dumb and dumber" is a reflection on your character, not ours. Besides that if you really thought we were dumb we wouldn't bother you so much. The fact that we aren't dumb is what frightens and threatens you and Jwhop so much. The two of you must be very insecure about your thoughts and opinions and where you stand as American patriots or you wouldn't feel the need to attack people so viciously for having a differing opinion.

posted July 25, 2006 02:51 AM            

So, if you want to include Greg in the circle which destroyed his own site, do so.

I see Mirandee is again making absurd lying statments she can't back up with any facts.

Tell me Mirandee, what lies did Bush tell, when did he tell them....attribution/dates/sources please, when and how did Bush steal from the American people, and exactly how did Bush violate the US Constitution...on his quest to become a dictator?

posted July 25, 2006 02:56 AM              

What Rainbow said about Greg being against the Bush administration and this war is common knowledge at CE and anyone here at LL who wants to find out just how much Jwhop is lying about the whole thing can go to Conscious Evolution and read the archives of Greg's posts regarding Bush and the war. Jwhop even called Greg names and got into spats with him regarding his opinions of Bush.

I think this explains Jwhop problem:

posted July 25, 2006 05:31 PM              

quote:

---

if you want to include Greg in the circle which destroyed his own site, do so.

---

Since that site has NOT been destroyed....Greg couldn't have helped to "bring it down."

posted July 25, 2006 05:36 PM            

jwhop and I are right and the fact support it. Bear and Isis are right and the facts support it. Lie all ya want, it won't change the facts or the truth as it is supported by facts.

------------------
The democratic world believes that it is not the terrorists that are to blame, but us. Us, the westerners.
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And the sooner you eliminate this misconception from your minds, the better.
We are NOT to blame. It is the freaking terrorists and the freaking terrorists only!!!! They are the bad guys. They do not understand concepts like peace, democracy, and respect for human life. They are, pure and simPle, EVIL!!!!! Behind all their political manipulations, if you carefully look at the actions of these MONSTERS, they are EVIL!!

http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000489.htm

posted July 25, 2006 08:21 PM              

I never said that I was perfect. In fact I have said the opposite. I don't even pretend to be perfect. I am just being me. What I posted above regarding the military is in support of what your hubby said and was an indication on my part that I understand and know that how free you are to speak out against the president in the military depends on your rank. I do not spread lies about the military. What I post is in the news. Same applies to what others here post regarding the military. Just because you choose to deny those atrocities in favor of painting everything fine and dandy about the military that is often not the reality of it. I realize that you have a hard time with reality and live in denial about a lot of things regarding Bush, the war and the military but to call them lies just because you can't handle reality is ludicrous. Calling things lies that you cannot handle does not change reality one bit, Pidaua.

You speak here and post things that are YOUR truth. Same with Jwhop and Isis. But others here have their own truths. Yet you attack them for speaking their truths. What makes you think that it is truth just because you believe or want it to be true? How would you even know if it is truth since you don't bother to read anything that disagrees with what you think or anything that isn't spoon fed to you by the Republican right or the military establishment? You never bother to even investigate all sides of the issues. I don't know about Isis, but the same thing does apply to Jwhop. So how would either of you even know it is truth that you follow when you don't listen to other peoples thoughts respectfully or bother to get all the information and all sides of the issues? You just label any dissenting opinion or person and then dismiss it and them as lies and liars.

It is you and Jwhop who always start the name calling and then get very upset when others defend themselves by giving you *** for tat. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Neither you or Jwhop know how to actually discuss things with people or debate. All you do is attack the person and attempt to belittle and discredit the person and the facts. That is on the list of disinformation tactics that I posted which are used in public discussions by disinformation artists. Which is what you and Jwhop both are and it really ****** you off that people are onto your little game of getting people off the topic that you don't want discussed.

posted July 25, 2006 08:58 PM            

It's kinda fictitous to represent it as the mean righties always starting it. I'm not going to post the numerous examples of those on the left "starting it", I feel there's no need. I think to most here who are neither firmly right nor left, it's obvious that both sides have had their turns at "starting" it.

I personally have experienced some serious venom here, mostly when I first came to this site, by merely stating that I was not anti-Bush. I didn't get nasty, condescending, imply anything negative about those that do like him, I merely voiced an opposing opinion and got lambasted by the radical leftists MERELY for my OPPOSING opinion.

Let's get real here. Politics makes people dickheads. You (Mirandee). Me. Jwhop. Rainbow. Most people here who feel passionately about the issues. Jwhop and Pid don't have the market cornered on starting it or on saying nasty $hit.

My personal experiences on sites like this one (metaphysically oriented), is that the lone or few right wingers are vilified, ridiculed and demonized by the overwhelming leftist populace of the site (leftist here meaning only left-leaning - the vehemence with which it's displayed varies from person to person). This usually happens merely because they dissent from the majority.

But dissent is supposed to be something the left stands up for. Unless, in my experience, you're dissenting against them.

But nonetheless, being treated like $hit for merely stating my opinion is IMO no reason for me to stoop to their level and begin namecalling. But easier said than done, esp. when one is angry, right?

I guess my point is that from what I can see, you and your friends Mirandee are just as bad as those you are accusing of essentially being "mean" about things. They don't "start" it anymore than you guys do.

And incidentally, I do try to research both sides of the issue. Just because someone disagrees with your position does not mean they did not research your position.

Like I said, metaphysical sites usually have an overwhelmingly left-leaning populace - I can only speak for myself, but if all I wanted to do was sit around and mentally masturbate with people who agreed with me, I would go to another site and do it. One that is NOT overwhelmingly left-leaning like metaphysical sites tend to be.