Microbes
|
posted on September 21, 2001 11:15:49 AM
The term "The Loyal Opposition" has taken on a real meaning the past 10 days.
We do need to stand as one to do what is needed. The "Bush Bashing" just for fun has to STOP.
But make no mistake, there are very real differences of opinion a philosophical level, and we need to be on our guard that the crisis, and our unity, isn't used to put thru laws that are NOT needed, and would never have passed the muster before this all happened.
|
newguy
|
posted on September 21, 2001 11:22:33 AM
It is not " just for fun ", It is necessary.
|
Deliteful
|
posted on September 21, 2001 11:29:27 AM
Fanatics never change, never bend, never learn. That is what makes them so scary and dangerous.
|
uaru
|
posted on September 21, 2001 11:31:09 AM
It is not " just for fun ", It is necessary
So true. One of the critical points my wife and I have argued about for hours is whether or not "on bended knee" is proper english.
|
Deliteful
|
posted on September 21, 2001 11:35:47 AM
uaru,
Just so long as you are worried about the important things in life.
|
zilvy
|
posted on September 21, 2001 11:37:10 AM
I am particularly pleased that you have your priorities straight, uaru! Of course it is proper English, the bard himself used the phrase and I saw it on a teleprompter once!! Archaic but proper, thank goodness this has been resolved. Now on to other matters.....
|
Antiquary
|
posted on September 21, 2001 11:45:29 AM
Yes, I believe that Bush is our contemporary Shakespeare. 
|
snowyegret
|
posted on September 21, 2001 12:00:45 PM
Now I'm afraid.
Thanks, Antiquary.
|
Antiquary
|
posted on September 21, 2001 12:05:13 PM
|
hjw
|
posted on September 21, 2001 12:18:34 PM
LoL..."Our contemporary Shakespeare."
But seriously, criticism of Bush should not be suspended. After all, he is not a dictator. Before this terrorism, he was an unelected president. We can't go down on "bended kneee" and praise and accept whatever he wants.
We certainly can't give blanket approval to every piece of legislation or every military manuever that he chooses to make.
The military attack that he has proposed will do nothing to stop terrorism. He should be improving intelligence, using special forces and not killing innocent people. Killing innocent people only make those who hate America hate us even more.
Helen
|
uaru
|
posted on September 21, 2001 12:25:52 PM
The military attack that he has proposed will do nothing to stop terrorism.
There are also some covert operations planned. One that covert operation has leaked out is a plan for a mass group signing of "Give Peace A Chance."
Just wait till the Taliban is faced with that formidable weapons. That'll change their tune about harboring terrorists.
All together now
All we are saying...
[ edited by uaru on Sep 21, 2001 12:26 PM ]
|
Microbes
|
posted on September 21, 2001 12:27:15 PM
whether or not "on bended knee" is proper english.
Bad grammer is like yeast left in beer, it shouldn't be there, but it really doesn't hurt anything.
We certainly can't give blanket approval to every piece of legislation
Exactly.
[ edited by Microbes on Sep 21, 2001 12:31 PM ]
|
zilvy
|
posted on September 21, 2001 12:28:47 PM
How about a restraining order, those are always good for protecting the innocent and striking fear into the hearts of terrorists?
|
Tex1
|
posted on September 21, 2001 12:36:57 PM
HJW,
"The military attack that he has proposed will do nothing to stop terrorism."
Which military attack were you refering to?
"He should be improving intelligence, using special forces and not killing innocent people."
How many innocents have been killed since Sept. 11th.?
"Killing innocent people only make those who hate America hate us even more."
How much more do you think they can hate us?
|
Microbes
|
posted on September 21, 2001 12:39:20 PM
Which military attack were you refering to?
She can't tell you, it's classified information.
|
toke
|
posted on September 21, 2001 12:41:14 PM
Hey! Maybe if we all poke lots and lots of fun at Bush...really show the world what an ignorant and utter fool we think the President of the United States is...the terrorists will just think they've won, and QUIT!!! Cool idea, huh?
|
bunnicula
|
posted on September 21, 2001 12:42:15 PM
They already knew & it didn't stop them.
|
hjw
|
posted on September 21, 2001 12:49:27 PM
Tex1
I'm not sure that I understand your post.
Are you saying that a war does not include killing innocent people?
"He bluntly warned that, unlike the war in Kosovo, the coming conflict is likely to involve U.S. ground troops. America and its allies will "fight and win this war," he said, by directing "every resource at our command – every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war – to the disruption and defeat of the global terror network."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A570-2001Sep20.html
Helen
|
toke
|
posted on September 21, 2001 12:51:26 PM
Guess we haven't convinced them.  Never know, might work yet...
|
SolPlyr
|
posted on September 21, 2001 12:51:27 PM
Unelected president, huh? Hmm.... last I checked, he received the most Electoral College votes, therefore he won the job.
Personally, if Gore had won, I think he would have done the same thing as far as getting back at the terrorists....... after requesting a "full, fair and accurate count" of all the terrorists and other related things. Then he probably would have hid in the cellar with his lockbox.
|
julie321
|
posted on September 21, 2001 12:52:31 PM
Questioning the nations leaders whether it be in jest or in all seriousness, and more importantly being allowed to do so is one of the most important distinctions between the U.S. and a common military dictatorship. The US government has not gone along and "nuked" any anti-government web pages or discussions because this *IS* a free country. It's everyone's duty to question the government.
This country would be pretty darn oppressive if every single person was required to absolutely support and agree with everything the leaders said ... just because.
er...I babble...
|
Deliteful
|
posted on September 21, 2001 12:57:43 PM
As Microbes said, we need to ask questions but this childish name calling is really old news. But then, maybe that is the best this forum as to offer?
|
toke
|
posted on September 21, 2001 01:04:11 PM
You really are new, aren't you?
|
bearmom
|
posted on September 21, 2001 01:04:58 PM
Deliteful, please clarify.. which fanatics are you referring to? The Muslim terrorists, or the Bush bashers?
|
Tex1
|
posted on September 21, 2001 01:07:04 PM
HJW,
"I'm not sure that I understand your post."
Yes, you understand little, but, perhaps, there is hope for you.
"Are you saying that a war does not include killing innocent people?"
It would be hard to make that argument, since we havn't finished counting our "innocents". What is the count now? Yes, there will be more innocent people killed. The question is: Do you prefer it be their's or our's. There won't be a third choice.
|
Meya
|
posted on September 21, 2001 01:11:49 PM
Deliteful, you'll soon find out that Bush bashing is a favorite sport here. It can get very petty at times, and those of us who don't like it gave up trying to have meaningful discussions because it generally ends up turning into a bash session. Those who dislike Bush can't seem to get their needles out of that rut they're in.
We "conservatives" are here, we just don't play the tiresome game.
Good luck to you.
|
Microbes
|
posted on September 21, 2001 01:18:22 PM
It can get very petty at times
Yup. I'm the first to admit I was part of it, and if it hadn't been for what happened 10 days ago I'd still be "petty" about it. What was done to Clinton was just as "petty", and that was reason enough. And I'm watching very close for any "dirty tricks" that are pulled because of the "unity" that we (more or less) have right now.
|
Antiquary
|
posted on September 21, 2001 01:18:55 PM
I fully support our country and its current military project, but personally I give no blanket, long-term support for anything.
Nor am I willing to substitute the words United States of America with George W. Bush in the Pledge of Allegiance. I realize that to some that position is disloyal, but so be it.
|
donny
|
posted on September 21, 2001 01:20:02 PM
I wonder if we all agree as to the concept behind the term "Loyal Opposition." To me, it means a recognition that one can be opposed to particulars of the party in charge, and still be acknowledged to be loyal to the broader ideals.
This is contrary to the stance of some posters, and contrary to the message that begins this thread. In fact, those who voice differing opinions have been painted as disloyal and unpatriotic. "We do need to stand as one to do what is needed," is one of the sentences in the first message in this thread. But how does that fit with the concept of "loyal opposition?" I see only more of the idea that any opposition is disloyal. I reject that.
You have to recognize that there is a difference between criticism and "Bush Bashing." There has been, is, and will continue to be, legitimate observations that are unfavorable to Bush. Merely painting anything you don't agreee with with an alliterative moniker ain't gonna cut it.
|
Antiquary
|
posted on September 21, 2001 01:22:59 PM
There have always been those who confuse the word "unity" with "uniformity." But I suppose that's only a quibble, like the meaning of democracy.
|
