Text 13944, 79 rader
Skriven 2005-07-07 02:39:26 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
     Kommentar till en text av Alan Hess
Ärende: Dean on Drugs?
======================
06 Jul 05 15:07, Alan Hess wrote to Ross Cassell:

 AH> Whilst masticating on <Jul 05 05>, Ross Cassell (1:123/456)
 AH> wrote to Alan Hess:

 EH>>>> I find it rather ironic how they are so quick to claim that
 EH>>>> anyone who disagrees with them as hating America. They fail to

 AH>>> It appears to me that anyone who disagrees with Bush's policies 
 AH>>> is labeled as hating America, and it's not the liberals calling 
 AH>>> them that.

 RC>> You evidently dont read the ranting and ravings of the Sakowski.. 
 RC>> <<G>>

 AH> He isn't the only American who disagreees with Bush, and not all 
 AH> of those folks rant and rave.  They're still called anti-American. 
 AH>  Heck, I have been called that, and I don't rant.

 RC>> Anyone who is bitching about Bushes policies without elaborating 
 RC>> a better alternative, probably does hate america..

 AH> I think we shouldn't have invaded Iraq.  I think we should have 
 AH> stuck to eradicating the Taliban from Afghanistan, and finding bin 
 AH> Laden, the man behind the attack on us, instead of going after 
 AH> Saddam, who, evil dictator that he was, was no threat to us.  But 
 AH> that's water over the dam now - we are in Iraq, so we can't just 
 AH> say "we're leaving on such-and-such day."  I agree with Bush on 
 AH> that.

20/20 hindsight.  The reason you get taken to task is you still can't seem to
understand that we are after ALL terrorists, not just the one SOB that attacked
us.  The whole region is affected by eliminating Saddam's regime, and goes a
long way toward denying the terrorists the ability to operate at all.  That's
the trouble with liberals.  You never want to do the dirty work required to
cure the damn problem, instead just slap a bandaid on it and say its a wrap. 
And you're always mystified and bewildered when the bad guys come back and bite
us again.

 RC>> What about those who berated Clinton at every turn, I cant 
 RC>> remember what the Clinton supporters were calling them?

 AH> As I said, politics has disintegrated to the point where 
 AH> disagreeing with or disliking the president and administration is 
 AH> labeled anti-American or worse.  It's ridiculous - our most 
 AH> important freedom may be the right to criticize the government, 
 AH> and doing so is not anti-American when you believe the leadership 
 AH> is wrong.

 AH>>> So, it seems that the label of "America hater," like the label 
 AH>>> of "Nazi," is just a convenient name for anyone on any part of 
 AH>>> the political spectrum to call people who disagree with the 
 AH>>> policies that person supports.  *adh*

Conservatives, historically, don't do things the way the liberals do.  Taking
someone to task for what they've said and done politically is not attacking
them on a personal level.  Judging someone on their political record is
legitimate, regardless of what party they belong to.  Demonizing someone just
because they disagree with you politically, however, is the favorite tactic of
the left.  So don't complain if you get branded as anti-american when you have
just gotten done calling someone a Nazi and an extremist just because they
disagree with you on how to fix Social Security (or any other subject).

 RC>> I have observed that some on the left side of the fence arent 
 RC>> very keen on people showing their patriotism, they act embarassed 
 RC>> if someone displays a american flag.

 AH> I haven't noticed that, but you probably get around more than I 
 AH> do.  *adh*

Then you haven't been paying attention to the news.  

John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
LIBERALS AND DOGS KEEP OFF THE GRASS!

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin:  (1:379/1.99)