Screw these anti-war demonstrators

Quote from max401:

At 11:01 PM

1. "The anger over this maneuver ruined my friendship. To this day I cannot understand."

2. "But it cost me a friendship I valued greatly. I lost a friend I truly liked. And all over HIS (not my) political anger."

At 3:02 AM:

"Fortunately, my friend has since forgiven my 'sin', and we are back to where we were. "

My, oh my, just four hours later, you patch it all up. Amazing, almost as if the whole thing never occurred.
More...

yup, to this day I do not understand why he was so upset. but it has been resolved by putting it all aside. an issue that was not as important in the long run as it seemed to be to him when it occured.

do you think everything is PERMANENT? we had a falling out, lost a friendship and reestablished it. What is so difficult to understand about this? i apologized, he accepted. we got drunk together and haven't mentioned it since.

Sorry to disappoint you max. If you had friends, maybe you could relate:)

However, you should appreciate the fact that I gave you another opportunity to tell me that I have no "honor". So if nothing else, I have accomplished giving YOU something to make your day brighter.

Peace,
:)rs7
 
Quote from rs7:



yup, to this day I do not understand why he was so upset. but it has been resolved by putting it all aside. an issue that was not as important in the long run as it seemed to be to him when it occured.

do you think everything is PERMANENT? we had a falling out, lost a friendship and reestablished it. What is so difficult to understand about this? i apologized, he accepted. we got drunk together and haven't mentioned it since.

Sorry to disappoint you max. If you had friends, maybe you could relate:)

However, you should appreciate the fact that I gave you another opportunity to tell me that I have no "honor". So if nothing else, I have accomplished giving YOU something to make your day brighter.

Peace,
:)rs7
More...
"If you had friends..." Please, this type of "omniscient" comment is sorely overused. Why don't you respond to my specific commentary? Your latest post would have us believe that you two went out and got drunk together, kissed and made up and then you became sober enough to report this reconciliation on ET- all in four hours.
 
Quote from rs7:



I concur!!!!

I know that Daniel_M said he was just trying to be funny when he said kicking back with a beer and watching the US kick ass on tv would be great entertainment. And while I disagree with Dan's politics (for the most part), and his "bedside manner" when dealing with those he disagrees with, I DO accept that he was not being serious with those remarks. But the problem is, his remarks were, in actuality, pretty much on the money. Taken at face value, whatever his own meaning was, the reality is, that is how it is. There is a plethora of "Archie Bunkers" populating our country. And to them, this apparently impending war really WILL be great entertainment.

Tampa wrote.."especially since virtually no 'true supporter' will have to actually take part in it".

This is so true as to be a topic of probably hundreds of "protest" songs from the Vietnam era.

Daniel, in response. said the he "abso-freakin-lutely!" would fight as a real participant.

He then goes on to say:

"as a matter of fact, not choosing to pursue a military career earlier in my life is one of biggest regrets.

however, i have recently applied to enter the australian army reserve as an officer. i should know in a couple of months if i was successful. "

Well, I for one admire his efforts. I hope he gets what he wants. And I actually believe that Dan has what it takes to be an asset to our forces. He is obviously very bright and very diligent in his efforts, whatever they may be. And adding a little military discipline to his life (along with the respect that is ingrained into members of the armed forces) can only serve to make him a better man. And I for one believe he has tremendous potential. A little bit of direction will do wonders for him. So I wish him nothing but the very best of luck and success in his endeavor, if he chooses to go that way. Or if they choose him (as the case may be).

We (NATO) can always use another bright officer in our ranks of military leaders. Which brings me to my very roundabout point.

Trader 556 showed an example of a "smart conservative". By posting the objections of Ron Paul (R. Texas) as proof such an animal exists.

Now while I am sure that Trader556 and Optional777 were both attempting to be somewhat tongue in cheek about their views and their responses, it is, and always has been rather striking to me that indeed, for whatever incomprehensible (to me) reasons, the following seems to hold true:



As I said in a post just yesterday, conservatives virtually always seem to refer to liberals as "liberal assholes". Why? Why are conservatives so angry? I know that Trader556 was making a statement in his post implying that there IS such a thing as an intelligent conservative. But as a liberal, I readily acknowledge that there are many brilliant and even right thinking conservatives. But there is something about their "anger" that I will never understand.

Maybe this anger, or lack of it is really what separates "liberals" from "conservatives". Certainly this is not a Republican/Democrat issue. That is just politics. I am talking about deeper feelings than who one registers with to vote in primary elections. I have voted for Republican candidates (on seldom occasions....to me it is the candidate and the issues, NOT the party).

Could it be that "liberals" have an attitude that permits them to occasionally accept, or at least consider opposing viewpoints? That would, in a literal sense at least, define the word "liberal". "Conservatives", in a literal sense, are defined as those who wish to "conserve" the status quo. But we all know it isn't that simple.

So what is it really that defines the difference? I say it is anger. I don't know what causes the anger. I don't know if there is a universal "cause". But to me, it seems a very real attitude.

Listen to Rush Limbaugh. Remember Newt Gingrich? How about Ollie North? Why are these guys so angry? Why do they choose to use profanity (when they can get away with it)? Nixon? How many "expletive deleted"s were there on the Watergate tapes?

Then on the opposite side of the fence, you get an extreme leftist like Phil Donohue, or better yet Randi Rhodes (for those lucky enough to be within her limited radio range here in Florida), you get humor and a pleasant demeanor in place of anger and rage. How funny was Abbie Hoffman? Jerry Rubin? No matter what you thought of their politics, they did provide humor. (and great sadness too). But they were human.

David Duke? Clarence Thomas? Spiro Agnew? Nixon? Who would want to have a beer and a few laughs with these guys?

How come there are so many Clinton Haters? The guy lied about sex! Most likely the first true American to be guilty of such a heinous breach of our values. Newt had to be sued by his wife for child support, but he extolled "family values" with an angry attitude. The whole thing has me truly befuddled.

So while I can't get quite so upset with Aphie as Trader556 did for Aphie's opening comments on this thread, nor can I get upset with Dan for his consistently aggressive responses to those with whom he disagrees, I can't help but notice a common thread of anger.

As for Optional and Trader556's contention that (distilled down to simplest terms) "conservatives" are not as "intelligent" as "liberals".....well, I find myself disagreeing with the premise completely. I see WHY they can make a "case" for such claims. But, I can safely assume that they are not really serious. I know that they understand that the whole concept is ludicrous. Certainly there are brilliant conservatives and brilliant liberals. And morons on both sides as well.

But on balance, I have to believe that the "conservatives" have the market cornered in the "anger" department.

For those of us old enough to remember what went on during the Vietnam War protests.....the "hardhats" hated the "pinko demonstrators" I mean they truly HATE them. And they loved NIXON. And the funny thing was, Nixon was their real enemy. The Nixon (the whole Republican) administration had absolutely no common interests with those laborers. Or their unions. But they had been conned by believing the whole "America, Love It or Leave It "Silent Majority" load of bullshit. What divisiveness. Tricky Dick!

Now, if someone could explain WHY to me.......

I had made a promise to a friend that I would vote for Dubya in the last election. Don't even remember why. Some ridiculous bet or something. I kept my promise. But I found a loophole. I live in Florida, and knew my vote mattered. I could NOT vote for Dubya. But I made a promise. So what I did was I had my brother, who was going to vote for Gore in Colorado vote for Bush to fulfill my obligation to get a vote for Bush he would not have gotten. And a vote for Gore or Bush in Colorado was not going to make the slightest impact.

The anger over this maneuver ruined my friendship. To this day I cannot understand. I mean I got Bush an extra vote. He won the election. I did not do what my conscience would not allow me to do (and I went into the polling place with he honest intention of fulfilling my promise then and there, but I just couldn't pull the trigger when the time came). So I knew I had a 2 hour time difference in which to implement my plan.

But it cost me a friendship I valued greatly. I lost a friend I truly liked. And all over HIS (not my) political anger.

WHY????? What makes conservatives so damn ANGRY????

Peace,
:confused: Rs7
More...

I believe my point is that it is hard to find an intelligent conservative Republican who is funny.

I believe there is equal intelligence and stupidity on both sides, it is just that the liberal democrats tend to be more self effacing and have an appreciation of the absurdities of life and are willing to admit that.

Republicans appear to me that they need some "enema" based relief from their stodgy ways and the ability to see how funny they are.

There are two ways to cope with the uncertainties of life. One is through fear and trying to control life, the other is with a sense and acceptance of powerlessness about certain things and an active lively sense of humor.

It would be an interesting study to find out who lives longer, as studies have shown that those who have a well developed sense of humor tend to recover more quickly from diseases.

Of course we would have to run the study with Republicans and Democrats who are of the same socio economic class (so it would be a small sample of the entire population of Democrats and Republicans), so we could be sure both were getting equivalent medical treatment.

My guess is that the Democrats live longer on the whole all things being equal.
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

My guess is that the Democrats live longer on the whole all things being equal.
More...
Probably because they lie about their age. Like Clinton's "I didn't have sex with that woman," fibbing about one's age is probably another of the Crat's non-lies.
 
Quote from max401:

Probably because they lie about their age. Like Clinton's "I didn't have sex with that woman," fibbing about one's age is probably another of the Crat's non-lies.
More...

Yes, Republicans never lie....

"I am not a crook."

Richard M. Nixon

"Read my lips, no new taxes."

George Bush Sr.

"Wrong doing on my part involving the Contras? No freaking way"

Paraphrasing Ronald Reagan's repsonse to accusation of involvement in the Iran/Contra scandal.

"I am pardoning Richard Nixon for the good of the country."

Gerald Ford

If they are a politician, and their lips are moving, they are usually lying. Democrats have no monopoly on fibbing.
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:



I believe my point is that it is hard to find an intelligent conservative Republican who is funny.

I believe there is equal intelligence and stupidity on both sides, it is just that the liberal democrats tend to be more self effacing and have an appreciation of the absurdities of life and are willing to admit that.

Republicans appear to me that they need some "enema" based relief from their stodgy ways and the ability to see how funny they are.

My guess is that the Democrats live longer on the whole all things being equal.
More...

I agree. I used the word "anger". Perhaps your wording expressed my feeling better. "Stodgy" is a good one. Lack of humor seems pretty universal among most (certainly not all) conservatives.

I also clearly said that I think there are many intelligent conservatives. Even mentioned Daniel_M as one of them. Brains and politics have little correlation. Traderfut is a bright guy. WRONG, but bright:) Certainly Dick Cheney is a bright guy, but I couldn't disagree with his politics any more than I do Traderfut's.

Nelson Rockerfeller and John Lindsay and Henry Kissinger come to mind as extremely intelligent conservatives. Linsay was so bright he switched parties:).

Nixon was the only really funny one though. I mean who could put on an act like his without being a comic genius?

The "self effacing" comment, seems the most fair and most accurate. Liberals, by definition, just are more accepting of change. And the willingness to accept change is the willingness to accept that we could be wrong ourselves. Thus we cannot take ourselves completely seriously. We KNOW we have our faults. If we were perfect, why change? If we believed we were perfect, we would be .......Conservatives:confused:

Peace,
:)rs7
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:



Yes, Republicans never lie....

"I am not a crook."

Richard M. Nixon

"Read my lips, no new taxes."

George Bush Sr.

"Wrong doing on my part involving the Contras? No freaking way"

Paraphrasing Ronald Reagan's repsonse to accusation of involvement in the Iran/Contra scandal.

"I am pardoning Richard Nixon for the good of the country."

Gerald Ford

If they are a politician, and their lips are moving, they are usually lying. Democrats have no monopoly on fibbing.
More...
At least none of the above resulted in what they did to your poor example of Democrat leadership, Clinton. A judge held Clinton in civil contempt for giving intentionally false testimony about material facts in the Paula Jones case. Your party's leader lied under oath.
 
Quote from max401:

So it's ok to break a promise?
More...

Nope, it is not. But we all are guilty of it on occasion. Maybe not ALL, but most of us who are not PERFECT.

It is ok to forgive and forget. Somewhere I heard something about "to err is human, to forgive is divine" (or something to that effect).

Peace,
:)rs7
 
Quote from max401:

At least none of the above resulted in what they did to your poor example of Democrat leadership, Clinton. A judge held Clinton in civil contempt for giving intentionally false testimony about material facts in the Paula Jones case. Your party's leader lied under oath.
More...

So in your mind, Clinton was worse than Nixon? Those who hate Nixon, will always hate Nixon, those who hate Clinton will always hate Clinton.

Ok. So what? How could I even begin to change your mind?

Do you deny that both parties have had flawed representatives?

Or is it a case of my shit doesn't stink as bad as yours?

Both Clinton and Nixon were flawed presidents. Both did some good, some bad. One was pardoned after resignation, one stayed in office and beat the impeachment process. Both suffered public humiliation.

One had a vice president who was convicted of income tax fraud and was forced to resign, the other had a vice president who won the popular vote but lost the election.

That people want to believe that the Clinton administration was the worst in history, when the Nixon administration had the resignation of both the President and the Vice President, as well as the imprisonment and censure of many members of that administration, what can I say?

I think your shit smells worse than mine. So what? It is normal to be able to smell our own farts, perhaps even enjoy them, yet be repulsed by the farts of others.

In the end, they are all just politicians, a low form of the human condition, and the all stink.

I am differentiating from politicians and public servants. Politicians serve themselves and their personal agendas, public servants serve the good of society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top