|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
04-19-2005, 09:56 PM | #1 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
Jane Fonda, Kerry, Prescott & GHW Bush,& Reagan Traitors?=Bush & Nixon War Criminals?
For a change.....let's try keeping this in one place instead of
hijacking other threads with sidetrack discussions of is she (he) or isn't she (he), a traitor or a war criminal. Quote:
Quote:
John Kerry, traitor ? Prescott Bush, traitor ? Ronald Reagan, traitor ? GHW Bush, traitor ? Richard Nixon, war criminal ? George W Bush, war criminal ? |
||
04-19-2005, 10:34 PM | #2 (permalink) |
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
I'm going to take a quick stab at this.
Fonda, Yes. Kerry, Yes. Prescott Bush, dunno, if he was still selling to Hitler after we declared war yes, if not no. Dubya, no. Regardless of the pretenses of war, until anything binding establishes that Bush knowingly lied, he is allowed something called "Good Faith". Most of the facts put fourth by Mr. Ramsey are bull, in that they are twisted and not truthful. Nuremburg be damned because State Sovereignity trumps any flimsy International order or law, especially since Bush sought and recieved congressional approval, in good faith, Bush is beholden to America and it's laws, nothing and nobody else. I would respond in more detail buts it late, I just wanted to take a quick stab at this. Perhaps tomorrow. Oh aslong as you have Nixon and Reagen up there, might want to throw LBJ and Kennedy. |
04-20-2005, 02:11 AM | #3 (permalink) | |
Pickles
Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)
|
Quote:
__________________
We Must Dissent. |
|
04-20-2005, 05:08 AM | #4 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Toronto
|
Quote:
Its like the food chain cartoon with the bigger fish eating the smaller fish in a chain; kuwait <=== Iraq <=== USA |
|
04-20-2005, 06:16 AM | #5 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Indiana
|
I'm really glad you brought this up. The penalty for treason is death by firing squad correct? The Bush crime family does go clear back to WWII.
“Bush - Nazi Dealings Continued Until 1951” - Federal Documents Here's a couple quotes from the article Quote:
The reason I'm linking this article is because it gives credibility to his story, and also shows how the news media spins to truth to protect the Bush crime family. John Buchanan is now receiving death threatsfor his uncoverning of the truth A Letter from John Buchanan... Buchanan has received hundreds of credible death threats and is now living under 24-hour police protection. Funny how anyone who exposes the truth gets threatened. Finally, here's a video interview of John Buchanan discussing his findings at the National Security Archive: 9/11 Martial Law: Rise of the Police State: Buchanan Interview Here's where you can watch the full movie if you care to |
|
04-20-2005, 06:34 AM | #6 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
i find it interesting in the above posts that take the ridiculous accusations of treason seriously that "treason" seems to be reserved in rightwingland for those who opposed particular wars, and vietnam above all others. funny how that works, isnt it?
funnier still that this is associated with the reactionary claim that state sovereignty trumps international law, particularly when that law pertains to questions of war crimes. put the two together and you get a glimpse into the conventional "wisdom" of the right: so long as the actor is a "real american" (read conservative) anything goes: step out of line and oppose what the conservatives decide to be the Best Interest of Real Americans like themselves and it is treason. it seems to me that if there is a problem, it lay with the ridiculous viewpoint developed by the conservative apparatus on this. it is like they are practicing for a total clampdown on dissent from moderates and the left by obsessing about vietnam, about those who opposed it, by rewriting the past and casting those who exercized their freedom of speech in opposition to a an obviously foul colonial war in the role of enemies of the state. it seems like the idea is simple: get the brownshirts used to this kind of thing by practicing on signifiers framed by revisionist understandings of vietnam: when the shoe drops in real time, these same people will cheerlead the "purification" of the "real america" by the "elmination" of "traitors"--who knows, maybe some of these "traitors" will get to visit the system of outsourced torture the americans have set up already. one thing for sure, if this type of logic is followed, you can be sure the right will say nothing critical about it, will not care.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 04-20-2005 at 06:39 AM.. |
04-20-2005, 08:51 AM | #7 (permalink) | ||||
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
04-20-2005, 09:07 AM | #8 (permalink) | |||
Loser
|
Quote:
I'll quote my response, from another thread, to your claim that Kerry is a traitor: Quote:
|
|||
04-20-2005, 09:12 AM | #9 (permalink) |
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
Manx, as I've stated before, Bush is allowed good faith, it is only speculation on your part that he knowingly lied.
Ann Clouter may be a nutjob, but she is not a traitor, even if you would like to label her as one it is just simply not true. Kerry admitted to the fact that he lied to congress in his testimony about American soldiers committing war crimes. |
04-20-2005, 09:19 AM | #10 (permalink) | |
Loser
|
Quote:
I don't believe Bush or Ann Coulter ARE traitors, for much the same reason I don't believe Kerry is a traitor. I was simply pointing out that your methodology of determining treason is equally applicable to Bush and Coulter as you believe it is applicable to Kerry. Even if you would like to deny it is so, it is simply true. Kerry lying to Congress (and again, I'm going to let that claim slide for expediency even though I do not accept it as fact) does not make him a traitor. Much like Bush lying to the American people does not make him a traitor. Last edited by Manx; 04-20-2005 at 09:52 AM.. |
|
04-20-2005, 10:35 AM | #11 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
I wish conservatives would be consistent on the reading of this law--adhering to "original intent."
of course, then aid and comfort to the enemy would be limited to actually providing aid and comfort--as in, providing food, shelter, and physical/tangible assistance to people who were on our soil fighting against us. (along with the two witness requirement which was tossed not too long ago by "activist" judges)
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
04-20-2005, 04:08 PM | #12 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Your Ramsey Clark quote should have included either "nutjob" or "Saddam Hussein's attorney" depending on where you wanted to go with it.
Ramsey Clark=TRAITOR. Quote:
|
|
04-20-2005, 04:10 PM | #13 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
|
|
04-20-2005, 04:12 PM | #14 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
Correct. It was Kerry's actions in Paris in 1972 that made him a traitor and got him a "less than honorable" discharge, which he then had to wait 5 years to get upgraded. Ever wonder why he didn't sue the shit out of the Swifties? It's because if he did, his military records would have been subject to discovery, and then he'd have been fucked. |
|
04-20-2005, 04:28 PM | #16 (permalink) |
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
I'd say it's treasonous because of what it precipitated(sp). He knowingly falsified testimony to garner support for the anti-war movement. As a result of it many American GI's were tortured, held longer in captivity, or executed because of the "war crimes" they committed.
Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 04-20-2005 at 04:30 PM.. |
04-20-2005, 06:04 PM | #17 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
isn't treason a crime?
isnt someone presumed innocent until a charge has been brought, a trail carried out, and the accused found guilty? but there wasnt any trial for jane fonda or the other folk that have the right's panties in such a retrospective twist. there was no due process. there were no charges. so there is no treason. you, mojo (or anyone else who believes this nonsense) might have the opinion that x is guilty of treason--and i might (well i do) view that opinion as crackpot. you might find it therapeutic to wage symbolic warfare against jane fonda for whatever bizarre psychological reason--i doubt somehow that you were alive during the vietnam war, mojo---and it is your right to do that. yes it is. and it my right to view you, on this and the kerry matters, as a crackpot. period. but nowhere in any of this is there the slightest question of guilt. unless of course you really are true to the legal "logic" of bushworld and are trying at some level to blur what you imagine fonda did into the category "terrorist" or an equivalent--in which case, like for your boy in the white house, there is only the need for suspicion--for bushworld, suspicion is enough to send many folk into either the domestic or international legal black hole circuit, shuttled place to place on private jets accompanied by cia operatives and delivered to the secret service of egypt, syria, pakistan for torture--ooops, i meant "interrogation"---with no hope of coming to trial...for background, listen to this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme..._4/4246089.stm or read this (a transcript) http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp...renditions.pdf or if you read french, check out the lead article in this month's le monde diplomatique on the american outsourcing of torture--lots of documentation behind it--check the sources, mojo--be critical and look into the matter. funny how this works--on the one hand, conservatives like yourself are interested in doing away with due process at all and effectively convicting someone who was never charged with anything of treason--on the other hand, your conservative buddies in power are interested in doing away with due process altogether by interpreting human rights law (like the cia said once: human rights are very simple) in the narrowest possible sense and not ever bringing charges against suspects. you could combine this stuff with the recent far right assaults on the judiciary in general and see that everything converges on the justification of what amounts to vigilante pseudo-justice--which i am sure you would endorse, so long as people you agree with politically were carrying it out. why not, really--it is very john wayne. what a great bunch of folks there in bushworld. real champions of individual rights.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
04-20-2005, 06:40 PM | #18 (permalink) | |||||||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Sincerest apologies for the threadjack in the other thread. I meant no disrespect. Last edited by Willravel; 04-20-2005 at 06:43 PM.. |
|||||||
04-21-2005, 03:16 AM | #19 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
If the measure of criminality is a conviction, then for the most part there is no crime. If a drug dealer hasn't yet been convicted of dealing drugs, does that mean he's law-abiding? Murder is murder, regardless of if there has been a conviction so far. Same with bank robbery, rape, and treason. |
|
04-21-2005, 03:22 AM | #20 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
Nope, no treason there... |
|
04-21-2005, 04:15 AM | #21 (permalink) |
Pickles
Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)
|
You say that as if everyone was lining up to get into uniform and kill some asians. If thats the case what's with the draft? Why have a draft if everyone's ready to kill some vietnamese? Whats with folks fleeing into canada to avoid being drafted? Could it be that they don't want to die? Or kill someone? Or facilitate the killing of someone (enlisted noncombatant)? It's all a commie plot though?
As for the North Vietnamese being glad that folks dont want to wage war against them i dont blame them. I'd be glad if folks didnt want to go to war against me too.
__________________
We Must Dissent. |
04-21-2005, 05:22 AM | #22 (permalink) | |
Illusionary
|
Quote:
I am so very tempted to move this thread to Paranoia Following this logic.....if Osama has a plan, which involves manipulation of American society through Subtle, if indirect means. And I unknowingly take part in it, I am a traitor. Heres a hypothetical for you: Osama has decided the best way to destroy America is to garner Hatred in the world for it. To create this hatred he decides to get us all to pit Christianity, against Islam. In twenty years....we will need to place a traitor label on quite a few Americans...now wont we.
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha |
|
04-21-2005, 05:56 AM | #24 (permalink) |
Lennonite Priest
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
|
You know, this just is nothing more than another thread for right and left to bash each other over past issues that just don't amount to shit.
Prescot Bush, Jane Fonda, blah blah blah ....... the problem is we are not learning from the past both sides pick and choose what they want to discredit and hurt the other side. Talking about this crap is mental masterbation trying to prove that you are right and the other side is wrong over something that will not change anything. You want to better the US, take both sides equally, weigh what we have tried and what worked. Take what has worked and make it better and take what didn't work and find out why. Stop playing finger pointing bullshit and just work together to build a better future... because the future is passing us by and we're standing with our dicks in our hands having pissing contests to see what morals law we can pass, or who has a better moral history. We have let religion and morals become our prime targets and we have let financial growth, developing a better infrastructure and educational system be legislated by fucking big business lobbyists who pay both sides to keep our attention diverted on other things than what truly matters. WAKE UP and stop the fucking piss games and fight to better America, get us strong again. Cause we're dying and all we can focus on is who was or wasn't a traitor 40 years ago, and why gays should or should not be married, how bad Howard Stern is, abortion, blah blah blah..... Are any of those going to affect the betterment and health of America? Do those issues truly matter to you? Do those issues truly matter more to you than making sure your kids and grandkids can compete in a world economy and make decent livings? Maybe if we stop the finger pointing and having to blindly accept our party lines and follow a disgrace of a president or a party catering to extreme whackos.... (BOTH SIDES FAL INTO THIS) and we all worked to better society we'd see all our leaders have sold us out to big business, ultra rich lobbyists..... That both sides have not the true interests in the common working class American to better himself. And it's not just GOP, DEMS, it is LIB, GREEN, whatever party. The leaders in all parties have been bought and paid for by lobbyists because the people are blindly following minutia issues and not focussing on what truly is wrong. Wake up.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 04-21-2005 at 06:03 AM.. |
04-21-2005, 07:18 AM | #25 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
if you start "working for a better tomorrow" within a discursive context that leans well into the realm of fascism, if you do it without thinking--with great focus--about that frame, the "tomorrow" that will result for may not be what you hoped for at all.
calls for a busby berkeley moment without regard for context might make you feel better in the short term, like you are "doing something" and not engaging in the Bummer of Critique. "waking up" in a context unexamined is worse than remaining asleep.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
04-21-2005, 07:26 AM | #26 (permalink) | |
Cracking the Whip
Location: Sexymama's arms...
|
Quote:
And it gets old. IMO this whole thread is walking the edge.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate! Last edited by Lebell; 04-21-2005 at 07:28 AM.. |
|
04-21-2005, 09:17 AM | #27 (permalink) | |||
Banned
|
Quote:
There will be no agreement among us who the traitors are or aren't. Some members may be influenced to further examine if their own opinions are well reasoned, and may become more curious and then, better informed. Becoming better informed could lead to increased admiration for some of the people named in the thread titles, and decreased admiration for others. Voters with more balanced views could move the U.S. away from "the edge". This is not going to go away, IMO. Read through the links to past TFP posts with Jane Fonda references.......... http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...nda#post438171 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...nda#post809122 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...nda#post925861 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...nda#post961026 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...nda#post974202 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=14 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...nda#post976701 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1005957 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1009268 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1016048 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1023603 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1026496 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1230018 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1368903 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1375652 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1376544 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1402905 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1424373 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1424913 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1425025 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1425063 You may not be favorably disposed towards this thread and it's subject matter, but the controversy as to whether each of the individuals named in the thread title (add Ramsey Clark to the list, since he was susequently criticized in a post or two....) is a patriot or a traitor, a great American president or a war criminal, is the stuff that "politics" has always been about. "Moderate" it away, and what are you left with ? From my point of you, there is very little in American politics that can be distilled to either black or white, or good or bad. I do have to endure posts like the one linked here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=13 I responded to the post linked above, with the following two posts, hoping to add some "gray" to the "black or white". http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=17 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=20 As you can see, my posts and the information that they contained, had no effect on this poster's opinion, for just two days ago, this was posted: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=64 I read the argument in the media and in posts here, that the U.S., even in the absence of WMD, was justified in invading Iraq, because Saddam was a "brutal dictator", and "he gassed his own people". I counter this "black or white", with more gray: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=15 The response is that the U.S. aided Saddam in the 80's because he was fighting against our enemy, Iran...... I responded to this by posting references that show that the former president who the U.S. recently afforded a state funeral that shut the business of the capital down for a week and monopolized most of the media for the same period, was found by a special prosecutor to have concealed from his investigation that he (the president) was fully aware that his administration was selling weapons to Iran while it was aiding Saddam, and negotiating with terrorists against the president's proclaimed public policy statements. The special prosecutor also made similar determinations about the vice president, who then succeeded that president when he left office. http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=31 Quote:
Quote:
An argument can be made that it needs to be talked to death before that can or will happen. The talk show hosts and the architects of presidential campaigns and their spin machines still heavily use this subject to their advantage. Every day, more info comes out to further erode what the American people were told were the justifications for invading another country. We seem now to be left with arguments that the "brutal dicatator", who our government sponsored, because he fought against our mutual enemy, while we also were secretly selling arms to that enemy, still deserved to be attacked and deposed, even though he only fooled our government into believing that he possessed massive, menancing stockpiles of WMD, or the means to "whip them up" in the wink of an eye> Can't you see that until we as a nation see the "gray" that blurs the "black or white" of these life and death issues, to the point that we stop shutting our capital and media down for a massive state funeral to "honor" a great, (but disingenuous and double dealing) past president, and possible examine whether our government invaded Iraq at the expense of it's own long and oft stated repudiation of wars of aggression, that this nation will not move on. This is a problem, no less than banning photos of flag draped coffins of our military casualties is a problem. It gets old, Lebell, but what can you offer that is superior to this, to possibly fix it. Influencing people to be more curious and to seek out the "gray" in the issues is important enough to put up with messy and sometimes emotional exchanges. To me, religious services "get old", in their repitition. It seems that the reason for this is so everyone, from the dullest to the brightest, might have a chance to understand the message and it's lessons. My hope is that in the next national election, more people will be more curious about who the statesmen and who the criminals are, who the patriots and who the traitors are. If we don't continue to talk about it on a political thread, or at all, how can that happen ? Last edited by host; 04-21-2005 at 09:39 AM.. |
|||
04-21-2005, 02:34 PM | #28 (permalink) |
Cracking the Whip
Location: Sexymama's arms...
|
You remind me of someone I know.
He also claims that the world is full of greys but then he goes on to present it in his own version of black and white. Take this example that you use to bolster your argument: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=87571 I read through the entire article and from what I read, nothing changed my mind as to rightness of our actions in the 80's and 90's. Yet to you, it is clear evidence that we were lied to by Bush. What I suggest is that you have your version of the "truth", but it is really just your own perception colored by your experiences. Once we realize this about ourselves, then we can truly move forward with reasonable debate. Until then, I decline being drug into a useless argument where we cannot even read the same article and get the same information. As to "walking the line", what I meant was that the thread is/was degenerating as usual with partisan politics, sniping, etc. and that if it continues, the usual warnings, bannings, blah blah blah.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate! |
04-21-2005, 02:39 PM | #29 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
Case in point: Ramsey Clark. He's not, to the best of my knowledge, taking a paycheck from OBL, but he sure as hell was taking a paycheck from Saddam... Another example is the female lawyer in NY, IIRC, who was acting as an information conduit for her client, a convicted terrorist, and other terrorists that were on the outside, under the guise of "attorney-client privilege." IIRC, she's currently in a PMITA prison. BTW, which part of my statement is paranoia? Please keep in mind that Fonda's comments vis a vis communism are a matter of public record. Giap's statements regarding his use of the anti-war movement were published not on WorldNetDaily or FreeRepublic, but in his autobiography. And the Soviet Union's use of the anti-war movement and their funding for same stems not from some Right-wing think-tank, but from the KGB's own files which were released under Glasnost/Gorbachev. Do you think the "Armand Hammer was a communist" thing was just made up? How can you be paranoid when they really ARE out to get you? We're not talking tin foil hats here, we're talking stuff released from the proverbial "horse's mouth". Just out of curiosity, do you think the Rosenbergs were framed? Last edited by moosenose; 04-21-2005 at 02:45 PM.. |
|
04-21-2005, 03:02 PM | #30 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
lebell:
i have in the main stayed out of this thread but i have been reading it--and i have to say that i cannot understand how you could derive a rationale for american actions from the material presented above. i really dont--unless for you politics in general, and support for american actions vis-a-vis iraq in particular, are simple functions of prior disposition, not related to any evidences---politics in this case is deductive, in that you have a prior set of sommitments that you use to filter out dissonant information, as opposed to a more inductive relation that would test and retest general positions on the basis of evidence/data. a deductive politics is not really a political position at all. rather it is a variant of faith, of belief in the protestant sense, masquerading as politics. if you want to speak about rational debate, perhaps it would make sense to establish ground rules--like you need to route arguments through evidence--otherwise it might have the external form of rational debate, but is not rational. it is not deliberative. it is not about the exercize of power. it is not about anything. it is good to practice this kind of debate, even here, because were the united states a democracy such debate would be central to its functioning. if the united states were to become a democracy--perhaps after the implosion of the current order--it would be central. you could take from the simple fact that folk can elaborate political positions without any reference to evidence at all a good indication of the distance that seperates the american situation from a democracy.... it is pretty clear that the american system is best understood as a type of oligarchy that legitimates itself through the disourse of democracy. this discourse is central to its modes of opinion management---the public is dominated by setting them against each other across sometimes meaningful but more often trivial matters, deploying types of strategies in debates that are not the result of any prior agreement about rules, which devolve quickly and often into trivial pissing matches that operate to distract--the people who find themselves so dividewd confuse this with being free, with operating inside a democratic polity, because they get to use the words freedom and democracy alot. worrying about whether they refer to anything is nowhere near as much fun as using them alot. these words, in the united states, are like any other toy. meanwhile, of course, the folk in power do and say what they like---with impunity--because they know that even arguments presented with considerable evidence will not persuade anyone to even consider their politics, which are routed through disposition, are not falsifiable, etc.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
04-21-2005, 05:31 PM | #31 (permalink) |
Lennonite Priest
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
|
Host,
Nowhere in my post did I say ignore these issues. In fact I stated examine the past find out what worked use it, what didn't work and find out why. Look, I wasn't around in the 1930's and 40's, but if Prescott Bush dealt with the Nazis then he dealt with the Nazis, I refuse to hold the crimes of the father against the son. Not to mention we would also have to bust Ford, Chrysler (as they are part of Mercedes and they were Nazis), and so on. My guess is a lot of American companies did business with Hitler at first because Germany was the first country to bust out of the Depression that was hitting the world, and thus Germany was the place to sell your product and make profit. To point fingers at people wanting to do business with the only country that could truly afford to do business is pushing a POLITICAL AGENDA and self righteous BS and serves no other purpose. As for Fonda and Kerry, they did what many in that era did or would have done had they had the platform. Look at all the marches, riots, draft card burnings, draft dodging.... to yip about what Fonda and Kerry did is POLITICAL FINGERPOINTING and serves no other purpose than to try to be self righteous and push your own agenda. It's BS. As for Iran-Contra, I don't know. Our government has done many bad and illegal things in it's history to promote one party over another. What happened happened.... fingerpointing bullshit is not going to get anyone anywhere. LEARNING from the past however, can and will. Perhaps, IF Iran-Contra is all fact based we can learn that because of this, Saddam had issues with us, the Central American nations could feel used and we can learn that interfering with other nations politics and sovereignity leads to bad things. I"m sorry, I just honestly don't see a positive from finger pointing, rehashing old wounds and not looking for solutions but using past issues solely as an excuse to hurt another. There's nothing to learn there, except hatred and passing blame.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" |
04-21-2005, 06:19 PM | #32 (permalink) | |
Loser
|
Quote:
How are we supposed to learn from the past if everytime it's brought up you claim it is useless "finger pointing"? |
|
04-22-2005, 12:29 AM | #33 (permalink) |
Lennonite Priest
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
|
Manx,
We've had this discussion before, you can learn from history without political fingerpointing. We can very look at the past say it happened and find out why and learn from it. You cannot keep hate alive for past events like Iran-Contra, it serves no purpose. But you can look to see what truly happened and make laws and make sure they are enforced to prevent it happening again. It's just my opinion, I just don't see what screaming and finger pointing about the past does if that is all you do. It was a different time and different administration. Same as the bombing of the Maine. No country's government is 100% pure and righteous, every country has a history of mistakes and being self serving while hurting another country. All you can do is learn what they did, and why they felt they had to do what they did and if enough deem it bad enough pass laws to make sure it never again happens..... but to just yell and try to create problems is doing nothing but dividng people and taking your eyes of problems that need attention today.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" |
04-23-2005, 01:12 PM | #35 (permalink) | |
Psycho
Location: Buffalo, New York
|
Quote:
Last edited by MoonDog; 04-23-2005 at 01:19 PM.. |
|
04-25-2005, 11:25 AM | #36 (permalink) | ||
is awesome!
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
04-25-2005, 01:24 PM | #37 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=13 or..... information that has the potential to influence some of us to form an opinion, time after time, that there is much we don't know, and probably will never know to the extent that we can reach a conclusion in regards to the integrity and veracity of our elected officials. To counter Lebell's effort to shoot the messenger instead of posting arguments that challenge specific points I (and others) posted related to the people headlined here, the extent of my "black or white" opinions is to identify conclusions about a controversial individual's character, reputation, and accomplisment, that can only be reached by excluding information that, if considered using similar criteria to that applied to included information used in reaching a conclusion, would cloud the thinking process and preempt the arrival of a conclusion. My opinion is that the "Hanoi Jane is a traitor" opinion, linked above, is arguable because it fails to consider the events and political climate of the times when "Jane's" treason allegedly took place. I posted my documented argument in a <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1736252&postcount=20">link</a> in my last post here. What would I have had to ignore or give less consideration to in order to align my thinking with those who accorded Ronald Reagan the accolades and the pageantry directed in his honor during the days after his death last june ? I cannot conclude that Reagan was a traitor because he secretly authorized the trading of arms to a declared U.S. enemy, but when given accurate weight in the process of assessing Reagan's place, in comparison to other presidents, the findings of the special prosector serve to seriously diminish his reputation. I would have to ignore Reagan's own admission and Lawrence Walsh's findings in order to make a "white" conclusion about Reagan. http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=31 Quote:
|
||
04-25-2005, 09:35 PM | #38 (permalink) |
Psycho
Location: Buffalo, New York
|
Host,
I quoted 33 words from Lebell's post regarding his assessment of you; one that I happened to agree with. I felt that it was quite clear. Tell you what - let's get down to brass tacks. What do you want - in plain, 9th grade English - from us Republicans regarding this thread? An admission that the people you listed in your first post are or are not traitors and/or war criminals? A vindication for Jane Fonda and Senator Kerry, along with condemnations of all the others on your list? Truthfully, would you accept any argument contrary to that to which you are predisposed? If so, what sources would you accept as "valid"? You were very selective in who made that list...I wonder why? There were certainly other presidents who were in office in that span of years...why weren't they included? I suspect that Presidents Johnson or Kennedy might have some interesting skeletons in their closets that wouldn't enjoy close scrutiny. But that is another issue. If you want answers, I'll give you a "no" to every one except Prescott Bush. For aiding the enemy in wartime, he should've hanged. Odd that only assets were seized, however, and yet no trials were ordered. Seems like there was a pretty cut and dried case there. |
04-26-2005, 06:49 AM | #39 (permalink) |
Lennonite Priest
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
|
In all honesty, my opinion is the GOP loves to bash the Left and the Left bashes the GOP and both sides do not want to admit that people make mistakes in youth or the sins of the father SHOULD NEVER CARRY to the son.
This is just mental masterbation and bullshit. Better the fucking country TODAY. You put a foot in yesterday and a foot in tomorrow you piss and shit all over today. It's not just here it's in politics in general, everyone wants to look at the past or the future and we are in desperate need of looking at today and preparing better for a future, but we need to fix today first, by learning from the past and not condemning or bringing up old wounds and hatreds. My father once told me, "Presidents don't get to be presidents by being nice guys, they step on people and they do whatever is necessary to attain power." The only possible saint we have had as president in my lifetime is Carter, and even then I'm sure he has skeletons. Every president from Washington to G.W. has done what they thought best for the country (no matter how warped or wrong the thinking was, they did what they felt was right.) Can any of you or can Limbaugh or O'Reilly or whomever say the same, that you are bettering the country to the best of your abilities or are you spreading hatred, anger, prejudice and bitterness? As for Vietnam........... GODDAMN IT PEOPLE GET THE FUCK OVER IT, HALF OF YOU CRYING ABOUT HOW EVIL AND TREASONOUS KERRY AND FONDA AND SUCH WERE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TRULY HAPPENED IN THAT ERA (BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T BORN OR TOO YOUNG TO KNOW), AND YOU MAY AT THE TIME HAVE DONE THE SAME THINGS. ALL YOU ARE DOING IS BRINGING UP OLD WOUNDS TO FURTHER YOUR OWN FUCKING POLITICAL AGENDAS. Vietnam was wrong, the reason we were there, the way the government treated the troops, the lies the government fed the people, and so on. It wasn't the soldier's fault they did what they thought best, just as the protesters believed they did what was best........ GET THE FUCK OVER IT AND LET THE DAMN ISSUE DIE. Learn from the past so that we may not repeat it, but do not EVER condemn a man for doing what he thought was best for his country. Goddamn you people want to make some of these people mentioned worse than Hitler.... something is fucking wrong.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 04-26-2005 at 06:56 AM.. |
04-26-2005, 10:07 AM | #40 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
Well, how many people did Hitler kill? 20 million plus? How many people did the Communists kill? 100 million plus? Uncle Joe and the other assorted Communists made Hitler look like a Cubscout in comparison. And that's the kind of people Jane Fonda was supporting and working on their behalf.... Hitler BAD. Communists FAR WORSE. |
|
Tags |
and, bush, criminals, fonda, ghw, jane, kerry, nixon, prescott, reagan, traitorsbush, war |
|
|