What wishing? It'll probably be true. Lots of hangovers on Wednesday from all the partying.

• Personally, I will view Wednesday morning with satisfaction, as so many will have - nasty hangovers from all the hullabuloo.
  • Send some my way I'm going to need it - Just me
  • The nasty thing - Ditzel
    • What wishing? It'll probably be true. Lots of hangovers on Wednesday from all the partying. - what's wrong with that?
      • you posted it as something - Ditzel
        • I stand by both my posts...meanwhile, you're arguing with someone else - pretty funny...you even...
        • Name calling. How like you. - get real
          • c-o-w-a-r-d - Ditzel
            • Nothing intelligent to say? How like you. - get real
  • Laxatives too for all - exlaxanyone

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

President Bush was out, riding his bicycle, hit a rock, flew off his bicycle, over a bridge and landed in a lake where three little boys were fishing. 

They rushed to save him, and the president was so grateful, he told them they could have anything they wanted in return for saving his life.

The first little boy wanted a trip to Disney World.  The president said:  No problem.  Consider it done.  I'll fly you there myself on Air Force One.

The second little boy asked for a new pair of Nike Air Jordans.  The president said:  No problem.  I'll even see to it that Michael Jordan personally autographs them for you.

The third little boy asked for a really fast wheelchair with a big screen TV in front of it and surround sound stereo.  The president said:  Well, okay, but, son, you don't need a wheelchair.

The little boy said:  I don't now, but I will as soon as my dad finds out I saved your butt.

...particulary in the context of a heated political forum.

I think people are needing to create some drama to justify their actions.

The point is that both sides are naughty at times.  I do notice more personal attacks by the C's though and I looked at the posts pretty carefully.  The L's seem to rely on political/lifestyle issues to upset the C's and the C's just seem to respond with barking orders and making personal attacks (liberals are sissies, etc.)

The difference is that only the L's seem to be deleted and chastised on a regular basis.  Isn't this rather unfair and un-American.  It's called a double-standard and is not a pretty sight (and makes this not a pretty site)!!!!

Especially Reagan, but nothing new. 

The Chickenhawk argument goes something like this: anyone who favors military action should not be taken seriously unless they themselves are willing to go and do the actual fighting. This particular piece of work is an anti-war crowd attempt to silence the debate by ruling that the other side is out of bounds for the duration. Like all ad hominem attacks, (argumentum ad hominem means “argument against the person”) it is an act of intellectual surrender. The person who employs an ad hominem attack is admitting they cannot win the debate on merit, and hope to chuck the entire thing out the window by attacking the messenger. This is a logical fallacy of the first order, because the messenger is not the message.

The messenger is not the message. That’s all you need to throw away the entire Chickenhawk response. But why stop there when this one is so much fun?

If you are ever see this charge again, you may want to reflect that person’s own logical reasoning in the following fashion: You may not talk about education unless you are willing to become a teacher. You may not discuss poverty unless you yourself are willing to go and form a homeless shelter. How dare you criticize Congress unless you are willing to go out and get elected yourself? Your opinion on a National Health Care System is negated out of hand since you are unwilling to get a medical degree and open a clinic. And as far as your opinions regarding the Democratic Underground or The Huffington Post are concerned, well, you can just keep them to yourself, mister, unless you can produce an advanced degree in Abnormal Psychology and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Using the internal reasoning behind the Chickenhawk argument means you cannot comment on, speak about or even hold an opinion on any subject that is not part of your paying day job. It is simple-minded and profoundly anti-democratic, which is why it so deeply appeals to those who sling it around the most.

But wait! There’s more!

If you accept the Chickenhawk argument – that only those actually willing to go and fight have a legitimate opinion on the subject of war – then that means that any decision to go to war must rest exclusively in the hands of the military. Is that what this person really wants? To abandon civilian control of the military? That’s the box they have trapped themselves in with this argument. Now to be perfectly honest, I think Robert Heinlein made a very compelling case for just this line of reasoning in Starship Troopers (the book, not the clueless projected travesty). Heinlein said that the only people who should be allowed to vote are those that have served in the military, since only they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the state. I don’t agree with that. I think civilian control of the military has been one of the pillars of our nation’s success, and it has withstood the test of both World Wars and Civil ones. But that is the world you are stuck in when you toss that little Chickenhawk grenade.

Finally, if the only legitimate opinion on Iraq, say, is that held by the troops themselves, then they are overwhelmingly in favor of being there and finishing what they started. I recently received an e-mail from an Army major who is heading back for his fourth tour. The Chickenhawk argument, coming from an anti-war commentator, legitimizes only those voices that overwhelmingly contradict the anti-war argument.

Bill Whittle wrote that. He's a real live veteran and I happen to agree with him.

offshore drilling rigs.  huh huh huh.

My son-in-law emailed me this, and this is what I sent him in response:

Thanks, Mr. Bush. 

Store clerks state it is because of Obama.  Some stores keep running out of ammunition to purchase.  Then I found this link on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/11/obama.gun.sales/index.html

What is funny, I live in a very Democratic, Liberal state.

Especially the inevitability of New Orleans. You can research the local papers and find articles that go back years. The funding to research and fix this has been the last 3 years W. has been in office. That is a fact. The Army Corps of Engineers chief quit in disgust over this issue some time ago and the former FEMA chairman was fired; the one who got things done, by the Bush administration..I don't know why.  Our leadership is lacking. We need a leader. We need someone to step up to the plate and start the ball rolling; to date, doctors, nurses, entertainers, basketball players and ordinary everyday people with some necessary skills have been on the ground working in a haphazard manner because there is no leadership. Bush 41 and Clinton have started their tsunami crusade a la New Orleans and I have to tell you, the both of them sitting on my TV screen asking for money, were more believable, more compassionate than anything we have seen from the WH. A lot of defensive people up there. Why doesn't someone lead. As the mayor of New Orleans said, Washington sent one John Wayne guy down there and he is evidently kicking butt, getting things done. Where are the leaders???