"We don't like him. You do. Great. Go change the country then, and stop complaining about us doing what we have to try to be heard."

Badgering, born of idealism, is fine. Badgering, born of opportunistic grandstanding to propel yourself politically, is wrong, on either side.

So, when someone like Kennedy uses the same propaganda terrorists use, with no other benefit than something to quote next election... is that patriotic? No, of course it isn't. Constantly addressing the American people and telling them we are losing, that our soldiers are cruel, or are dying needlessly... these are all things that propagandists who opposed us in every war have said.

Such language has definite effects on our ability to continue the effort. Do you really think Senate Democrats should be applauded for apeing enemy propagandists?

So, if there is a benefit to political dissent, rock on. To me, though, constantly spouting that we are fighting a losing war with the full knowledge that we have to stay in it is treasonous. It is just opportunistic grandstanding.

So, when someone like Kennedy uses the same propaganda terrorists use, with no other benefit than something to quote next election... is that patriotic? No, of course it isn't. Constantly addressing the American people and telling them we are losing, that our soldiers are cruel, or are dying needlessly... these are all things that propagandists who opposed us in every war have said. So, if there is a benefit to political dissent, rock on. To me, though, constantly spouting that we are fighting a losing war with the full knowledge that we have to stay in it is treasonous. It is just opportunistic grandstanding.

You get a cookie, Baker Street. I acutally liked your well reasoned post and you didn't tell me how much I sucked instead of providing an argument. Know the last argument I was in here? It was about Clinton. Now, the man no longer holds public office, and has teamed up with the man he voted out of office to help tsunami victims, and we're talking about the man's perjury and sexual history. That's hardly revelant, and the equalivent of blog grandstanding IMHO.

You're right; grandstanding is shameless. Both parties do it. Newt Gingrich tells everyone Nancy Pelosi is a whore when she used the phrase 'occupying force'. Last I checked, occupying meant (thank you dictionary.com!):

1 entry found for occupying.
oc·cu·py ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ky-p)
tr.v. oc·cu·pied, oc·cu·py·ing, oc·cu·pies
To fill up (time or space): a lecture that occupied three hours.
To dwell or reside in.
To hold or fill (an office or position).
To seize possession of and maintain control over by or as if by conquest.
To engage or employ the attention or concentration of: occupied the children with coloring books.

Now, you could argue she was solely talking about 4, but 2 is also correct, and 5 is also correct in a rather twisted way. She's free to see our forces that way, and Newt by bashing someone with no real power in a year when he announced an election bid is grandstanding it in my opinon.

What the world needs, I think, is less and better poltiicans.

Well, I think Newt is expressing the same sensitivity as I am, though with lower tolerance. When we say "occupy", and I do in this case often, we don't necessarily mean it in a derogatory way. When some in the Arab press or those who turn out anti-US drek use it, they lend a lot more villany to the idea.

Maybe Newt sees Pelosi as that kind of person. Given other things she has said about the war, it wouldn't be a big leap to make. I don't think any of these people wish harm for US troops or the effort, at least I hope not.

I do, however, think Pelosi and others feel that a general distaste by the American public towards this war would rub off on Republicans, and effect the next election. What they don't take seriously, though, is that such distaste can also carry over into the military, and effect our ability to succeed, as it did in Vietnam.

I don't take issue with Pelosi's use of the word, I just can't stand partisan people who have to make every victory a defeat, and don't have enough concern for the effects.

Now, the man no longer holds public office, and has teamed up with the man he voted out of office to help tsunami victims, and we're talking about the man's perjury and sexual history. That's hardly revelant, and the equalivent of blog grandstanding IMHO.

Taken out of context, you are correct.  However the one you were referring to was in a historical context as it was about his legacy and whether he qualified as a hero or not.  Future deeds do not make you a hero today,just past deeds.

Sorry your hiatus was so unrewarding.  Better luck next time.

Maybe Newt sees Pelosi as that kind of person. Given other things she has said about the war, it wouldn't be a big leap to make. I don't think any of these people wish harm for US troops or the effort, at least I hope not.

There are people who DO think they would. And that's what breaks down communication between liberals and conservatives. The eagerness to misquote and/or name call each other does break down any meaningful debate that might exist. I was saradonically mocking in this post, but there are certain issues where certain proponents and objectors are painted exactly in one light and no other.

I do, however, think Pelosi and others feel that a general distaste by the American public towards this war would rub off on Republicans, and effect the next election. What they don't take seriously, though, is that such distaste can also carry over into the military, and effect our ability to succeed, as it did in Vietnam.

I respectfully disagree. If we're going to succeed or fail, we're going to do it because the Iraqis are going to let us do it. I read articles on how this government pundit or that is quoted that they'll kill and find every insurgent anyday now, and Iraq will be free from terrorism...the insurgency exists because some people don't like us. The only way we're going to flush them out is to literally win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people so they'll remove them. As long as there are enough disgruntled Iraqis in enough pain, the insurgency against the US will be there. And people are tired...it's time it's at least noted at home.

Taken out of context, you are correct. However the one you were referring to was in a historical context as it was about his legacy and whether he qualified as a hero or not. Future deeds do not make you a hero today,just past deeds.

Historical or not, it's hardly revelant. Clinton is on tour with George Sr. to raise money for tsunami victims, and probably has no need or desire to go wandering around in politics anymore. He had eight years, and I never ever said you were wrong when you said he shouldn't be a hero...at least, not the kind whose example you follow. More like a cautionary tale of what power will do to one's libido.

Historical or not, it's hardly revelant. Clinton is on tour with George Sr. to raise money for tsunami victims, and probably has no need or desire to go wandering around in politics anymore. He had eight years, and I never ever said you were wrong when you said he shouldn't be a hero...at least, not the kind whose example you follow. More like a cautionary tale of what power will do to one's libido.

No, Historically it is relevant.  History is about what happened.  But all too often today we are asked to not look at the man behind the curtain as it is being re-written.  Just as some want to rewrite the Holocaust.

While we may not like history, we should always fight to stop any attempt to rewrite it.  For in so doing, we not only lose a part of ourselves, we are headed down a road to repeat it.

How can you equate the holocaust with lying about a blowjob?

How can you equate the holocaust with lying about a blowjob?

He's not, and it is an asinine tactic to say he is. He's just saying that revisionists that are trying to rewrite the Clinton administration are no more honest or beneficial to history than the nazi feks that deny the Holocaust. That isn't to say that the two events were equally evil, only that blurring historical fact is equally wrong in any context.

Do you really have to sink that low thatoneguyinslc, or do you have a hard time understanding?

Do you really have to sink that low thatoneguyinslc, or do you have a hard time understanding

--That was a bit uncalled for, everyone is ignorant once in a while...

There are people who DO think they would. And that's what breaks down communication between liberals and conservatives. The eagerness to misquote and/or name call each other does break down any meaningful debate that might exist. I was saradonically mocking in this post, but there are certain issues where certain proponents and objectors are painted exactly in one light and no other.


--And that people, is why i have chosen never to run for political office [at least nothing with political parties that are titled democrat and republican.


You know, it's nice to say we'll work with "your president", but "your president" hasn't shown a lot of compromise

--Ya know, i distinctley remember hearing him say that he wanted to compromise, to have some Dems. and dissenting Reps. to[whoever wanted to compromise] start to work with him to work on some of the US's
problems. but i guess the liberal biased news channel was wrong, if so, ok... i was wrong...

--Also, I never could understand why people could admire clinton, what did he do for america...?

How can you equate the holocaust with lying about a blowjob?

No one did. I merely said that history should not be rewritten. I would not cheapen the memory fo the 6 million by trivializing it, as many others would.