Share your thoughts...or, in the case of moonbats, your unintelligble grunts!
we could straighten all this mess out if the government followed the constitution.
has anyone read the constitution?
libertarians are one step closer to the truth than the two versions of the one party system we have now.
That just makes me sick. Thanks for sharing the michelle malkin link.
Welcome, dome! Nice to have another libertarian in here! 
Thanks for stopping by, Pat! Nice blog title you have there, and appropriate for this post!
As a former hippy and one who has been still known at times (especially Halloween) to be a hippy again...some of us do change as we mature.
Some of us even become libertarianish...
The whole point of the party was to get media attention and have more arrests, hoping since Cindy Sheehan was one of those arrested that they could somehow rekindle the media attention they had when she was in Crawford. Moral of the story for them? Only plan things during slow news periods else you don't get the attention you are seeking.
You said "hippy" and "clean" in the same sentence. What were you thinking?
Lisa, something tells me that you're not a "real" hippy, since you likely bathe! Granted, we've never met, but I'm just guessing...
You said "hippy" and "clean" in the same sentence. What were you thinking?
LOL! Tom, I went to FSU, so cut me little slack if I don't think everything through first!
Welcome, dome! Nice to have another libertarian in here!
Wouldn't it more accurate to say, "Now we have a libertarian in here."?
Wouldn't it more accurate to say, "Now we have a libertarian in here."?
Dammit, Catch...and we were doing so well!
I don't have to defend my libertarian credentials to you, or anyone else. Like most libertarians, I tilt right on most issues, and only left on some (legalizing drugs, not criminalizing consenting adults' actions, etc.). I've criticized the GOP and Bush much more often than most Republicans do. Read my profile to the right (your other right) if you need more info.
But since I'm not a Clinton Kool-Aid drinking leftist like you, that must make me a conservative. Whatever, pal.
My ideology is tied to the Constitution, as it is written and intended...not as you would have it to be.
Jonathan, you must have known that I would show up for this post.
I hold these celebratory bleeding heart liberals in contempt of the honor of all our fallen heroes. Not one of these a$$holes is worthy of wiping the dirt off the bottom of a soldier’s (all service persons) boot! Yes, I’m name calling! It is personal to me when shameless people who refuse to defend this country attempt to gain a political edge using the death of a hero. I would venture to say that 99.9 % of those attempting to capitalize on the 2000th hero’s death have never served a minute in uniform. After all, “this country is not worth dying for.” Fortunately for them, there are other people who are willing to die for their freedom and liberty. It’s a shame they have no gratefulness for the freedom they enjoy.
I have been in many situations where my blood may have been lost in defense of our freedom. Did I want that to occur? Absolutely not! I took Patton’s speech literally – my job was not to die for my country – it was to make the enemy die for his. Nonetheless, were it necessary, I would have given my life in defense of my country. When these washed up hippy wannabes have walked in my tattered boots, they can lecture me about “no war”. Until then they should give me a wide berth. That goes double for you Kvatch!
Oh, did I mention; I’m a baby-killin’ Vietnam veteran! I’m also a veteran of covert operations in Central America and the first Gulf War. I have a very special place in my heart for all you 60’s hippy peacenik wannabes. NOT!
Why, would anyone who is not filthy rich want to be a "coservative"...
"Give me liberty or give me death"
There is no other statement that defines liberalism as well
I'm a 'leftie', I know, but I do have to agree with you in regards to some having "way too much fun" during these vigils that were held earlier this week. Before I continue, I will point out that I strongly oppose the war in Iraq and I have protested this country's occupation there on numerous occasions.
Having said that, I went to a vigil on Wednesday, but the one that I attended was the extreme opposite of the pictures that Michelle posted. Though some (myself included) strongly oppose the war, we were silent, somber, and without political motives. We held candles, not signs.
In my opinion, there's a time and place for protest, whether it's to protest the war or to protest those who oppose the war, but a vigil to remember and honor the men and women who have died for this country is not the appropriate time to do so.
I guess the purpose of my post in this thread is to point out that while some did bring their strong political opinions and views to the vigils held on Wednesday night, there were others, like myself, that did not. I attended to remember the lives lost in a respectful manner.
Here are two anti-Israel falsehoods in today's New York Times:
http://www.iris.org.il/blog/
arch...Falsehoods.html
Thanks for your input, Old Soldier, as always!
I wanted to discuss this story because I've been disgusted at the perverted "2000th countdown" perpetrated by the MSM and the left (forgive the redundancy). Yes, the 2000th death is most certainly newsworthy, and I don't know who would disagree. However, the countdown was a morbid imitation of a New Year's Eve party or something: "1997, 1998, 1999...Happy 2000th!"
Am I mischaracterizing the reporting and the left's reaction? Look at the photos in the story and decide for yourself.
What I also get a kick out of is the left's implication (or even assertion) that since Bush never saw fire in combat, he shouldn't have committed troops. The obvious Constitutionally-declared role of the prez as commander-in-chief notwithstanding, I wonder why they didn't have a problem with Bill Clinton sending troops to Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia, etc.? Was Clinton some sort of "chickenhawk"? How come he never got Chelsea to enlist? (Yes, the last two questions are rhetorical...I'm just illustrating the absurdity of the left's position).
Finally, I've said this before and I'll say it again: the left seems to think that those who don't serve in the armed forces and protest the war (while smoking dope, burning incense, and wiping their backsides with the American flag) are more patriotic than those of us who ALSO don't serve in the armed forces yet support the troops in their mission.
Anyway, I'm done beating this horse again!
Holly,
Thanks for weighing in with your experiences.
Reasonable people can reasonably disagree on whether the Iraq War was a good idea or not. Seriously. We can agree to disagree on certain, if not many, aspects of the war.
Protests that are true vigils may be misguided in my view (though they beat the hell out of 60's retreads having a hoe-down over dead soldiers), and as much as I may vehemently disagree with the message they send, I certainly support the right to launch such protests. Our soldiers are willing to die for that right.
I do have to say that in my view, one cannot say "I support the troops but not their mission." That's impossible. The troops are the mission. The mission isn't to rape Iraq of its oil resources (since we're not getting much from them as it is). It's to bring democracy to Iraq. How we got to this point is certainly fair game for analysis, and that too is a source of vehement disagreement. However, we are where we are, and the mission is more important now than ever before.
Again, thanks for sharing, Holly.
Lib (a Canadian) said:
Why, would anyone who is not filthy rich want to be a "coservative"...
"Give me liberty or give me death"
There is no other statement that defines liberalism as well
1. I assume you mean a "conservative."
2. Nice of you to quote an American revolutionary.
3. Today's liberalism and conservatism are basically complete opposites of what they used to be. Originally, liberalism basically was all about the individual and his/her rights. I would submit that today's libertarian shares more in common with history's liberalism than anyone else.
Therefore, when I refer to "liberals" or "liberalism" on this blog, it is understood that I'm talking about modern liberalism...which has virtually nothing in common with history's liberalism.
Modern liberalism is the antithesis of yesteryear's version. Today's liberalism finds the concept of the individual grossly selfish and outdated. When Hillary Clinton refers to "a cult of the individual" and Ted Kennedy says we need to "stare down individualism", that pretty much sums up today's average liberal: there is no individual, only the collective (i.e. the "group").
Conservatives respect the concept of the individual more than today's liberals do, but even they have their moments where they don't respect the individual. The war on drugs is but one example.
I'm guessing by your "filthy rich" statement that you are an underachiever in life and thus envy those who are not. I myself am a middle- to upper-middle-income American. I may never become rich, but I don't begrudge those who do. I've never thought "It's not fair that they've figured it out and I haven't! I'm going to the ballot box to vote myself a larger (and thus, vote them a smaller) portion of their pie to make it 'fair'!" That's pretty perverted.
This is going to upset your worldview, but the overwhelming number of Americans are not "filthy rich", yet they tend to vote Republican. Look at states like North and South Dakota, and Mississippi (among others). They are poor to middle-class rural folks. They vote Republican en masse. They just don't trust liberals, who supposedly have their economic interests at heart. They simply feel that Republicans share more in common with them than do liberals (and I don't mean Democrats...I mean liberals).
All of that is probably hard for a Canadian (i.e. living within a socialist government's pervue) to process. Sorry about that.
I'm guessing by your "filthy rich" statement that you are an underachiever in life and thus envy those who are not. I myself am a middle- to upper-middle-income American. I may never become rich, but I don't begrudge those who do.
Thank you Jonathan, that was very eloquently said. I get tired and annoyed with people of the same mindset as Dick Gephardt who once said: "The rich in this country got that way by winning life's lottery." That is one of the biggest falsehoods ever. The majority of the rich demonstrated some personal initiative and self-motivation. They acquired some marketable job skills, put those to use, and worked their asses off to get where they are at today. It certainly didn't happen by whining and making ignorant comments like, "He's rich and doesn't deserve to be." Of course, there will always be a few exceptions to the rule but, that number is miniscule. Ted Kennedrunk and John Kerry are perfect examples of the exception.
I want everyone to know that I am not a hawk or war monger. War is a result of the failure of diplomacy and humanity. I do not revel in the deaths of fine young Americans who bravely take up arms to defend our way of life and bravely fight to provide others the same basic human rights. I detest the loss of every life and every limb. However, a bully is never appeased. A bully leaves alone those who stand their ground. If we truly want peace we must do so from a position of strength – a strength we are resolved to use when bullied.
This war in Iraq is necessary for more reasons than just deposing Saddam and freeing the Iraqi people. WMDs are the MSMs hype to weaken a sitting GOP president. Yes, WMD was part of the initial stated reasons for going to war, because the intelligence was the same that made all the Democratic leaders make statements acknowledging Iraq’s possession of WMD. IMHO this war is necessary to contain radical Islam. We had been repeatedly attacked by radical Islam for decades culminating with the WTC. We are not battling a national ideology with a uniformed military (like Nazi Germany or Imperialist Japan). We are battling a radical theology that wants to be a world theocracy. They will not be appeased by overtures of peace. We cannot afford to kowtow to any of their demands, because their demands will be endless to the point of our annihilation. It is a matter of national security that we assist the Iraqi and Afghanistani people to develop into Republics – to contain radical Islam. If you don’t believe radical Islam is poisonous go to the following site. http://www.smh.com.au/news/
world...0400398091.html
Now I could go on about the peaceniks, but I have to get ready for Sunday School and church, so please forgive the narrow focus of this comment.
Old Soldier
Very well said and I agree with you completely. I especially agree with your comment that radical islam will not be appeased by overtures of peace, just ask Spain and their new president. He withdrew Spain's troops to get elected and then was hit by a coordinated bombing from those same islamic radicals.
You can NOT discuss peace with someone that only wants your death!
Commenting by HaloScan
