I've never been big on politics and had no idea what political party I most agreed with until earlier this year. But one of my older, very intelligent and politically-tuned friends described in detail the basic beliefs of Republicans and Democrats, and I found myself agreeing with all that the Democratic party stood for.

Since I'm not really into politics, like I said, I don't have interest in looking into all the different variations and smaller parties, especially since I like the Democrat stance already.

So what basic beliefs are those?  What is it that you like about the Democratic platform that your dislike about the Republican one?

Demo, excelent point.  The teacher really compounded the situation.  Had she only waited until after the fact, and approached the girl privately, this would not have been blown into nearly as big a deal.  I really do think that the teacher handled the situation poorly.

As far as the girl, she didn't mention religion until she got the principal, from what I understand.  Had she stated that fact right off, it would have been over and done with.  It really sounds to me like she was trying to get attention, then came up with something by the time she got to the principal.  Maybe that's not the way it happened, but it just seems that way to me.

...and as far as me getting beat up because I pointed out that more sailors and airmen die training than in actual combat, I doubt it.  Most marines and soldiers are proud of the fact that they chose a branch that offered them the privledge of paying the ultimate price for their country.  That, and some of us just wanted the chance to shoot some one.  I was out of line, though, and said as much to Demo privately.  Same goes to Law, who if I remember correctly served in the National Guard?  He's probably served the country more directly and in better roles than any of us active guys.  The Guard get to actually go out and serve in communities after disasters and to help go in before hand and help prepare.  In some ways, that's even better than getting shot at.  Certainly more beneficial, anyway.

Well, the topic of Gun Control is hot in the media again these days.  What do you think?

Seems like our president is bowing to pressure put on him by the NRA and refusing to apply the innitiative needed to maintain our current level of control on the market.  The right to have your own arms is a guaranteed right, but it doesn't really say what type of arms you are allowed.

My personal opinion on that is that if it's taken in the spirit that it was intended, that means NO restricting of weapons, at least not for anyone who has not been convicted of a crime.  Our Founding Fathers had just fought for their freedom, and had come from a society where in the past, the common people had not been allowed to own weapons for fear of insurection.  Knowing that a government founded by the people should exist only by the sufferance of said people, they felt that allowing everyone to have their own weapons would deter a goverment that would suppress the liberties which were being granted.  Unless you warp the facts, I'd say it's pretty clear what they had intended.

Then again, no one really has any use for assault weapons.  By requiring that owners apply and be certified to own one, you're not really keeping them from it.  You're just ensuring that those who have them, for the most part, are not a threat to other people who don't.  Many States have a Conceal-Carry permit that can be obtained, and it seems like that hasn't really hurt anyone.  Plus, so long as the fees don't get silly, it's a good way to raise money for wildlife conservation and law enforcement.

I'm not really opposed to some gun control, just as long as it doesn't go overboard.  I can easily see both sides of the arguement, though.

Judge, that's not entirely true.  While Al Queda has certainly been a thorn in our side, it's not the only organization out there.  It's just the most famous one, made so by the media.  Most people think that the war in Iraq was because of their link to Al Queda because it was misrepresented as such in the media.  Yeah, that was a really bad move by the administration.  They should have just came right out and given the real reasons for invading.  The problem, though, is that when you say we're attacking because they're funding terrorists, but not the ones that just dropped the towers...  It's not likely they would have had much support.  Yeah, we went to war for entirely the wrong reason, and a lot of people were misled.  If you vote against Bush, that's a good reason.  We still took out a huge threat to our security, though.  Iraq was training a lot of terrorists, and funding even more.

France has pretty good relations with us, yes.  China has even better ones.  Most of France's connections with the US, as far as I've ever seen, aren't the kind that could be severed over politics, though.  Tourists will still visit, and companies can chose who ever they want to work with.  We're certainly not going to kick French buisnesses out of the US over something like that.

There are plenty of good reasons not to like Bush.  I'm only shooting down the ones that I see as inaccurate.  I've done the same with Kerry.  Granted I've attacked him on some pretty goofy stuff, too.

People always bring up the fact that we went to war without UN support.  No one ever really thought we'd get it in the first place, and anyone who says otherwise, read Kerry, is fooling you.  Key people in the UN, people with veto power, were known to be selling Iraq weapons and ammunition.  There's no way that Fance, Russia, China, and to some extent, Germany, were going to allow us to kill their cash cow.

Everyone else can sit back and say, "hey, I voted for the war on the grounds we got UN support."  That's straight BS.  It's a politically sound position.  You KNOW we won't have support but are going to go to war anyway.  If we win, you can say you voted for it, and if we loose, you say you said only if we had UN support.

Look, going to war wasn't the greatest idea, but we did it.  Don't sit there and try to make out like it's all Bush's fault.  EVERYONE was gunning for us to go to war up until we actually did it.  Yeah, some folks were misled because they never stopped to think about the fact that we'd never have UN support.  Do you realize that we had TONS of evidence to show they had WMD there?  It wasn't even in doubt that they were violating who-knows how many other sanctions, and had been for the whole 10 years.  The UN was NEVER going to do crap about it either.

So, don't go blaming crap on Bush just because he was president at the time.  It was an idea that had appeal on both sides of the House.  I'm not saying Kerry's a bad guy either.  He'll probably make an okay president if he wins, but don't let the commertials mislead you.  He's playing this just as much as anyone else.

Demo, maybe you misunderstood me.  I was saying that it's her right not say the Pledge.  I've sworn to defend her right to do so.  That doesn't mean that I can't find it offensive.

You people act like holding something sacred is a bad thing!  Shame on me for feeling pride when I see the Colors go by at the head of a parade.  Shame on me for respecting all the men in my family that have served and wanting show them that respect.  How horrible that I believe in God and have the arrogance to admit it.

I'm hearing people bitch about how this girl is such a hero for showing disrespect to her countrymen.  Make no mistake I do wholely believe that it was disrespect.  What's her beliefs that keep her from admitting her allegience to this country?  What religion does she prescribe to that says she's not allowed to do so?  When a Jehova's Witness refuses to say that Pledge, I respect him for that.  Some people will fault him, but it's his faith.  Ask him why he refuses to say it and he'll even tell you.  Ask this girl, and all you'll hear is some one trying to get attention.

I refuse to praise some kid for willfully refusing to honor the people that gave her the freedom to make that choice.  God forbid we step on some one's right to be disrespectful.  I like how I supported her right to do what she did, but only mentioned how I disagreed with it and was attacked for it.  Does it bother you so very much that I believe what she did was disrespectful?  Strange how the only two people who have stood up and said they find it offensive happen to be two that decided a long time ago that their country and honor was worth dying for, and even volonteered for duty that put in a position to demonstrate that belief.

Forgive my spelling, I get angry when something I hold dear is insulted.  I think you'd find the same would happen if anyone were to disrespect several of you here.

You know, I often hear the phrase, "If you don't like this country, leave it," in this type of situation.  I admit that I find it offensive enough that I'm tempted to say the same.  The problem, though, is that it is her perogative to stand or not, as she sees fit.  The freedom of choice is something that all Americans are granted.

I do see the refusal to stand as a slap in the face of all service men and women that have risked their lives to defend that choice.  Just as burning the American flag is a freedom we have, does that mean you should do it?  I believe actions such as these show a profound lack of respect for our country and all those that have died defending it.  One has to ask, "if you find this country so unworthy, why are you here?"

I'm not suggesting we kick out the malcontents, nor even restrict their demonstrations of... whatever they choose to label it this week.  It's still cursing the grapes as you gorge yourself on the wine, though.  That's just hypocritical, IMHO.

It's the nature of governments to restrict liberties.  Happens with the best of intentions, happens with the worst.  I don't know that party affiliation has much to do with it.


Let's hear it for States' rights!







*The above was paid for by the Anti-Everything and Everyone Foundation, which is in no way connected with any political party, though some members of the Board of Directors do work for various canidates in the 2004 Presidential Election.

Oh ferfucksake...

that nimrod was bobby, returned for the umpteenth time.

Oh, that explains the retardation, then.  See what happens when you're gone for a while?  You loose track of which autistic children are which.


btw, Detta, I love the new Avatar/Sig.  Nearly as cute as BBCK.

I'd forgotten about all the extra stuff they had tried to add to that funding plan, Law.  That just gives wore weight to what I was saying, though.  I'm not a huge Kerry supporter, but attacking him on his voting record in that manner is silly.  If you feel he voted incorrectly, okay.  That works, but if you're trying to make him out to look wishy-washy over it...  Well, that's just not the right way to wage a campaign.  Besides, it's not even true.

As far as changing the services and that being a reason for not voting to give them more money, that doesn't fly either.  The Army has been changing for years, and debated the nature of this current change for longer.  Some want to get rid of our tanks, others want to keep them.  Once we were very different unit to unit.  Some units were heavy armor or artillery and took longer to deploy, other mostly infantry and light vehicle units deployed faster, but couldn't stay in the field as long.  Lately we've ballanced it more, and everyone is moving to a happy medium.  Some folks want to go away from conventional tactics, however; and move to a more special forces orriented structure.  We always change, granted the Army more slowly than the others, but that's a really pathetic reason not to vote for more funding.  `We want you to change, so we're not going to vote on more money until you do.'  No, that doesn't fly, and I'm sure that it was hardly even a consideration for Kerry.  I'm not a big fan, but he's smarter than that.

I haven't seen the video in question, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's the one talking about him voting to go to war, and then voting against the funding for it?

It wasn't really a flip flop.  Kerry specified when he voted for the war that he was doing so only on the condition that the administration behaved responsibly, worked with the UN, and seems like there were a few other things he said.  In any case, that obviously didn't happen, so he voted against additional funding as a way of retaliating against the administration.

I disagree with that tactic, and I think it was the wrong thing to do, but he had his reasons.  It wasn't really a flip-flop.

Again, I don't disagree with your point about Kerry's party.  BUT, that sort of activity isn't specific to Democrats; it happens no matter what the president's political affiliation.  Hell, the only person I've seen break party ranks recently has been John McCain, and he doesn't do it all that often.  Anyway, I don't think it's fair to pigeonhole Kerry as being a patsy for the Democratic party.  IMHO, pretty much all presidents are patsies for their parties.

Certainly true.  So, by voting Republican, I am voting for a party that has demonstrated a tendancy to be good to the military, as much as I'm voting for a guy that I think would better suit the time than the other.

I did mis-speak myself earlier, though.  I said Kerry has been vague on promises, but that's not entirely true.  I was reading some of his views on taxes today and he was pretty descriptive about how he intended to do somethings, and what I read sounded fine to me.  I don't pretend to know much about finances, though; so I'm not one to advise on that point.  Still, at the time I said it, I was refering to his foreign policy and how he plans to handle the wars.  I still stand on that.  It's easy to talk about strengthening alliances and stuff, but how do you do it?  Allies are purely ecomomic and political.  Just because you're a nice guy and have three purple hearts, that doesn't mean they'll just like you and become closer allies over it.

Bush has demonstrated that he'll go against the international community if he thinks that it's what we need for this country.  Before some of you guys choke on your own tongues, realise that KERRY voted to go to war as well, so he's one of those evil people who believed that Iraq was a threat, too.  We're in a bad spot, and we need some one who is pro-military and willing to go against the world if it's what's best for us.  I'm also not saying that going against the UN is a good thing.  I really would have rather there been another way to do it, and I think that a better President may have found it, but even had that route existed, it's still a by-gone.

Of course, I'm not saying that Kerry will be a BAD President, just that I think that Bush would be better at this time.  Should Kerry be elected, I can only hope that his experience in Vietnam will have taught him that allowing politics to dictate how you wage war is as great a folly as we could commit.  That would be his one credit over Bush with me.  Where Bush told other nations to take a flying leap, he (or the party itself) has not allowed us to wage this war as it should be waged.  Kerry may know better, and let those who want to win do the fighting.

That's too long, and too preachy by far.  Sorry about that.  And btw, don't take disagreement, or a different opinion to be for lack of respect.  I have a different idea of how I feel the country should be run than some of you.  I would like to point out, that I have never acted as if your opinion was stupid, or that you were unintelligent because yours differed.  I find it amazing that intelligent people can become so easily agrivated when faced with an opposing view, as I myself have been guilty of more than once (most often because of Daria over at HN).