Text 20249, 160 rader
Skriven 2006-05-20 06:04:54 av JOHNJWILSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av JOHN HULL
Ärende: Iraq views, without clues...
====================================


->  JW>>>> And more importsantly, do you believe that the expressing of
->  JW>>>> opinons contrary to those held by you are
->  JW>>>> a danger to our country?
-> 
 
->  ->> There is a big difference between freedom of speech and and using
the
->  J> 1st
->  ->> Amendment as a license to spread lies, disinformation, sedition,
and
->  J> other
->  ->> "opinions" that are detrimental to this country, national security,
and
->  J> good
->  ->> order and discipline.

Are you volunteering to be the censor who will
judge this?

-> 
->  J> Which are not considered so by those who declaim. And so the
question
->  J> remains unanswered.
-> 
-> 
-> That isn't my problem.  The fact they can't see the damage they're doing
is out
-> of my ability to fix.

I thank God for THAT! :-)

-> 
->  J> There's a lot of talk about 'supporting our troops':
-> 
->  J> Sub standard body armour.
->  J> The unarmored Humvees
->  J> Why do you suppose conservatives are not up in arms about this?
->  J> You are free to speak.
->  J> As are those who speak of the catastrophic 'war' in  Iraq,
->  J> the terrible mess of Abu Ghraib, the spying scandal, the Goddamn
->  J> incompetance, the ignorance, the arragonce that has cost
->  J> the Ubited States the respect of the world.
-> 
-> 
-> Bullshit.

Nice cogent, reflective reply.

You are saying 'bullshit' to a 
LOT of high-ranking military, members of congress on both sides of the isle.




  The body armour they were issued was never intended to stop bomb
-> fragments.  It was designed for small arms projectiles, and its
perfectly
-> adequate for that.  The roadside bombs are made from artillery shells
and
-> similar devices.  Same thing applies to Hummers.
-> 
Right. That what they were issued, that's what they had.
'Never intended.' That's some comfort. 

->  J> The best way it seems to counter these truths is to call those
->  J> who make them, unAmerican, a detriment to our country, against our
national
->  J> security, et cetera...it appears that you would have freedon of
speech
->  J> as long as they follow YOUR guidelines.
-> 
->  J> Now, for once in your life how about addressing the issues above.
-> 
-> 
-> Look in the mirror...

Ah, so you won't. I suspected as much. Ok. Doesn't matter. 


  When you stop spouting the DNC line maybe we can discuss
-> things.
-> 
Hello? You think what I wrote is the DNC line? :-)

As far as discussing things, I find a slight disadvantage
when communicating with someone who has written that liberals should be
shot, and who thinks I am senile, and start the 'discussion' with
"Bullshit" . :-)


I admit you are an interesting read: what yer typical wild fanatic
thinks...
...a person who cannot tell the difference between a conservative and a
Republican

Every once in a while you write something with which I agree.
I note and comment here on those (rare) occasions.:-}

You seem to think that those who hold opinions opposite to yours
are enemies. That's a lot of the country.
In my senile non-intellectual opinion, that is foolish if
not un american. :-|

And I bet you think you are the quintessential patriot.




















































--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)