 
A blog by an American expatriate living in the heart of New Europe |
 "It's a lateral transfer" -- George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States |
along for the ride
the newsstand
station standardsin the cityprogressive stations
democrat stationssports stations
satire stationsoff the rails
| Thursday, November 25, 2004The one I miss the most Happy Thanksgiving to all my readers out there, liberal, conservative or in between.
posted by Gustav at 8:15 PM Monday, November 22, 2004What we know With most of the vote in, the Ukrainian Elections Commission has declared Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych the winner of Sunday's runoff presidential election.
posted by Gustav at 4:14 PM Yushchenko on track It looks like reformer and pro-west candidate Viktor Yushchenko is going to win Ukraine's presidential run-off election.
posted by Gustav at 1:24 AM Sunday, November 21, 2004We have seen the enemy Please check out this column by Mitch Albom.
posted by Gustav at 3:22 PM Saturday, November 20, 2004Teresa Borcz-Khalifa freed
 The Polish/Iraqi woman had been kidnapped from her home and held by terrorists for nearly a month. She was freed Friday, and arrived in Poland that evening. She spoke at a press conference in Warsaw on Saturday, saying "the kidnappers treated me decently. They explained they acted so for religious reasons." Thank God she's safe. But something just doesn't smell right to me. Anybody else find this all a bit strange? This group has never been heard from before, and can't be connected to Zarqawi. She's married to an Iraqi and has been living there for 30 years. She was suspected of espionage, working for the Polish Embassy while Saddam Hussein was in power. I have a feeling we'll be hearing more about this.
posted by Gustav at 3:48 PM Wednesday, November 17, 2004John W. Snow's visit to Poland The press release here.
posted by Gustav at 7:50 PM Tuesday, November 16, 2004Goodbye Colin Powell Anybody notice nobody's saying anything about Rumsfeld going anywhere?
posted by Gustav at 1:48 AM Thursday, November 11, 2004In Case You Didn't Know Happy Veteran's Day, U.S.A.
posted by Gustav at 11:45 PM Wednesday, November 10, 2004Not So Fast John Ashcroft has resigned.
posted by Gustav at 1:46 AM Monday, November 08, 2004Starting Over In order to reflect the new circumstances, Warsaw Station has made some superficial changes. The purpose remains the same: Heated political discussion with a decidedly liberal bias.
posted by Gustav at 2:05 AM Wednesday, November 03, 2004And So. . . Everything that can be said about the election has been said. But this post is for us to commisserate.
posted by Gustav at 10:33 PM Chat Room Open Click on the Chat Room link at right to join in the fun.
posted by Gustav at 1:09 AM Tuesday, November 02, 2004[Insert Cliche Here] Tie game. 4th and Goal. No time outs. No time on the clock.
posted by Gustav at 1:36 AM
|
The one I miss the most What we know What exactly do you want America to do? Hell, it's 1:30 here, and now I read your comment.Actually, getting Putin to back down from his premature "congratulation" of Yanukovich was an excellent start. "I sent my congratulations to one of the contestants not based on election results but on exit poll projections," he told reporters in Lisbon. I was wondering how Bush and Putin were going to work out this little difference of opinion. Fortunately, Bush is probably taking the right line: The U.S. government is "deeply disturbed by extensive and credible indications of fraud," White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said in a statement issued from Crawford, Texas, near the ranch of President George W. Bush. The U.S. called on Ukraine not to certify the results until "investigations of organized fraud are resolved."How could he do any less, when: [Republican]Senator Richard Lugar, who traveled to Kiev to observe the elections with Bush's endorsement, said: "It is now apparent," he said in Kiev, "that a concerted and forceful program of election day fraud and abuse was enacted with either the leadership or cooperation of governmental authorities."But perhaps he's still going a bit easy on Vlad. I've been impressed so far with the EU. Member states have already threatened to remove their ambassadors from the Ukraine if investigations into this sham are not held.-- Something I haven't heard yet from the Bush administration. If those "investigations" they're calling for aren't conducted, and done so transparently, then they need to threaten diplomatic action. Apparently, there's an EU-Russia summit on Thursday. That one should be interesting. It seems to me that the Ukrainian people have done a good enough job attracting attention to their cause, that those who perpetrated this fraud are now bending to international pressure, since it seems obvious that violence will fail (some Polish news agencies have reported that parts of the militia are already giving their support to the protesters). The biggest obstacles now are calming mother bear down, and convincing her to let her cubs determine their own destiny. Lech Wałęsa has been invited by Yushchenko to help facilitate talks, and he's on his way. He's a bit of a bumbler, but a fair man, and an honest broker. At the moment, cooler heads seem to have prevailed. I commend the Bush administration for using strong rhetoric on the situation, and I hope they'll back up those words with diplomatic or economic action if they have to. My biggest fear was that nobody would care-- that the protests would be violently broken up early, before they gained momentum, and that the story would slip to the bottom of the news cycle. But Yushchenko was prepared, and he's done a great job of keeping things peaceful while drumming up international support. So I commend him as well. Is a worsening of already terrible relations all Yanukovych has to fear?--With the United States I meant. The concerted diplomatic pressure being put on Ukraine's leaders is now substantial. It seems (now)that Russia will not be allowed a free hand in Ukraine's affairs, and the withdrawl of unwavering support from Putin in the face of such pressure is definitely a fear for Yanukovich (or -vych, depending on the news agency you trust to translate your Cyrillic. You might find it interesting that in Polish, the names are spelled Juszczenko and Janukowicz) and co. to contend with. I believe the vote was rigged by the East. But should the Eastern voters be disenfranchised by the more vocal Westerners. I think a Checkoslovacian type solution is in order. They should be able to vote for / against seperation. Yushchenko on track We have seen the enemy Teresa Borcz-Khalifa freed Jeez, maybe Teresa really WAS/IS in the espionage biz, after all. Her story remains one of the, if not the penultimate, most uncovered of all the recovered hostages. Never heard about her again. Something fishy. But was it espionage? Does she look like a spy to you? John W. Snow's visit to Poland Goodbye Colin Powell If we get to whine, they get the victory punch in the face-- we would have done no less, would we have? It's equal opportunity here at Warsaw Station. It's all part of the healing process. It's good to take a look at it anyway. I appreciate any window into the mind of the conservative. Anyway, I thought my readers would get a kick out of the rant I posted, but it's also not so funny. Some interesting information there though. But have y'all heard about this fight for the DNC Chairmanship? Whaddaya think? Do you have any questions for Treasury Secretary John Snow? Gustav meets him on Thursday. I agree with almost everything Stomper, except this: kerry was the moderate in the primaries that inexplicably swung to the left in the general electionKerry seemed the moderate to me in the election too, him being pro-choice, for stem cell research, for fiscal responsibility, etc. You know, for the war but against how we're fighting it. And I'm not so sure it would be bad to give the job to someone from "the democratic wing of the democratic party." Dems need to show how they're different from the Republicans, not the same. I don't think the "democratic wing" means the "left wing;" most Dems are pretty moderate. Like I've said before, they just need to get the message right. The GOP has been really good at portraying the Dems as on the "far left bank" of American politics, but it's just not true. When they can convince the country that Democratic beliefs are centrist beliefs (as Clinton did), they'll start winning elections. During this one, it seemed to me that Bush was really the one who was on the fringes-- but 51% of the country didn't agree with me. It wasn't because of their records though, it was because of their images. Which is why it would be a bad idea to put Dean at DNC chair. IMAGE. I must say that I just don't think Dean is that out there, and would have supported him had he taken the nomination instead of Kerry. But one thing's for sure: He's got a left wing reputation now, for better or for worse (for true or for false). To make him DNC chair would put that "left wing" face on the party. Then again, four years is a long time, and if he plays it right, Dean could shrug that reputation off. Besides, DNC chair isn't much more than a glorified fundraising position-- and if Dean is good at anything, it's finding creative ways to raise money. It also might be nice to have a talking head on the Sunday morning political shows who already has such name recognition (and credibility--yes). One thing's for sure, as DNC chair, you don't get to control policy. So I'm still torn. In the end, the dems don't "need leadership to move to them to the right, not the left." The dems sure don't need to move to the right, they've done that enough, to the chagrin of their base but, as you say: the democratic wing of the democratic party isn't ever going to vote for the other guy, so why make huge strides to appease them, especially when it further alienates an increasing population.So they don't need to move to the left either. No, what the dems need is leadership that can express to the country that core Democratic beliefs are indeed centrist beliefs, not extremist-- as Bush would have us all believe. And I'll support whoever can help make that happen, if it's possible to do that from the lonely position of DNC Chair. In Case You Didn't Know You page "Looks right" now. Did you tweak someting? This comment has been removed by a blog administrator. Cool. Yeah, I tweaked the width of the page-- down to 800 pixels. I'm not so sure about the post width-- it's a little thin for me, but I'm glad it's working on your monitor. Expect further tweaking. Well, now its back to the way it was before. I agree, your center content was squeezed. I think most 3 column blogs need to wider than 800. But they open where 800 readers have to scroll over manually to recenter. I dont know why but Blogger blogs seem to naturally try to stack everything on top of each other, rather than allowing scrolling over. I limit everything in my "right content" to 200 pixels, and limit my "center content" to 600. Sometimes after I post at work, I get home to discover all my right content stuff has been shifted to the bottom. Usually due to Center graphics being too big. Well, hell. Yeah, as soon as I realized this thing was able to go out to 1000 pixels, I started spreading it out. It didn't even cross my mind that it might be too wide for some folks. I'll keep working on it. I consider it a constant work in progress. I hope y'all dig the fixed background. Hat tip to Rob over at eFlux. Not So Fast Well now, here is an example of where your accusations of me being hypocritical at my blog, may be accurate. I have been debating in my mind all day whether or not to post an article about Arlan Specter. I guess I have talked myself into NOT doing it. It could turn my threads into a ugly bloody conservative civil war, and I dont want to encourage my guests to fight with each other over such divisive subject matter. I personally hope Specter sticks to his guns on this. I also think Bush is with Specter on this. But you got to "dance with the one that brought you" to a certain extent. I am really torn on what kind of Judge I want. I dont want one that wants to legislate his morality on me, but I am just as opposed to an activist liberal that takes it upon himself to legislate liberal philosophy from the bench either. Do we really need either. The last 4 years has really opened my eyes to how partisan our judiciary is. I guess you just cant find a truly open mind in America anymore. Everybody's got a freakin agenda...dont we? Arlen Specter: It doesn't matter. He's been pretty good generally at toeing the Bush line, and as Josh Marshall says, he's now completely at the mercy of Bush and Co. They'd be smart to keep him there: He's right where they want him. Bush/Frist won't hesitate to remove him if he even looks sideways at one of Bush's nominees. If they were to engineer his de-pre-throning, then it would just give those more independent Republicans notice that independence will not be tolerated-- No, they'll leave him where he is. They've got this elephant by the balls. Incidentally, have you seen this site? Pretty brutal. The ugly wing of that ugly party is getting uglier. "Senator Specter’s words suggest that the mantle of obstructionism may simply have been passed on from Daschle to Specter." ---Lord. They're cannabals; literally eating their own. Judges: I wouldn't mind such a "strict" reading of the constitution. In my mind a "strict" reading supports extending federally recognized rights to all eligible adults, regardless of sexuality. Nor does it support the outlawing of abortion. The right is always talking about "activist judges"-- but "activist" is very subjective. Isn't a judge who works to overturn Roe v Wade when 60 percent (or more?) of the population support it being activist? Is extending rights over an excluded group activist or open-minded? The SCJs must reflect the highest level of justice conceivable to the American society in that time. We will always have predjudices-- the hope is that they will erode over time. I dont know man, I could be wrong, but I think maybe you have over-vilified the Republican Party to such an extent that you see evil intent when there aint none. I think you may be slightly over-estimating the influence the extreme religious right has over your typical Republican's agenda. Its like the Union base of your own party, they get promised a lot of shit during campaigns that can never be delivered. I dont think the Republican Party as a whole really wants to make abortion Illegal again. Thats just an unrealistic goal in this modern society. Stomper might disagree with me on that, but I think overturning Roe vs Wade would be suicide for the Republican Party. Yet they have to pretend to be attempting to achieve that goal to somewhat pacify the base, the same way Democrats pretend to have labor's best interest at heart. The Dem's know that if they enacted everything the unions wanted it would destroy our economy. In both cases the Party's have to do just enough to keep their base from defecting, but honestly, no matter what happens can you see a Union ever supporting a Republican for President, or the Religious right ever voting for an over it secular liberal. Both parties know they have a somewhat captured base, and will not risk alienating too many swing voters by enacting extreme legislation. As far as judges go, it seems lately ever activist one that throws a wrench in our war effort was appointed by Clinton when I research who put them in. Man, I whole-heartily agree with you on wanting a strict interpretation of the constitution, but personal ideology always plays a role. I would actually prefer a computer over a human in that role, or more realistically, I would like to see a way to punish judges for abusing their bench power with partisan decisions. But there again who is open-minded enough to judge the judges. I guess it all boils back down to majority rules, and apparently your party's ideology scares more people now than they ultra-conservatives do. That will inevitably swing back in your favor at some point, but probably not until the Islamic problem has been address to the point security isn't the dominate issue. I tell you what though, I hope this is the last discussion I have about politics for a long freakin time. I am just sick as hell of having this ideological divide destroy our unity, when there are enemies out there trying to kill us both. The Republican Party: I'm not as worried about the power of the religious right, but you gotta be concerned. Pat Robertson called it before the election and it's been proven: GWB has the hand of God upon him. I'm much more worried about the iron fist Bush seems to want to rule with. I can't believe they're considering eliminating the filibuster man. They've gotten so powerful they can change the rules and they're doing it. If I were a Republican, I'd be worried that my representatives were thinking for themselves. Judges: The problem is what is a "strict" interpretation?-- The partisan bias starts there. Who is the excluded group I mentioned? Is it homosexuals or unborn children? I don't know if a computer could do the job. Justices should have an innate "sense" of fairness-- I don't know if that's programmable. So a "strict" interpretation is a false goal. What was a strict interpretation 200 years ago is not one now-- history has changed the interpretation. And that's the problem, a "strict" interpretation is still an interpretation; moreover it requires an interpretation of the word "strict!" I think the position of SCJ requires an understanding of the "spirit" of the text, and a "faith" in democracy and civil rights. Words are easily manipulated. Find the right way to feed them into a computer, and it will spit out what you want. The inverse is true as well. People are easily manipulated, or say, programmable. Send a human computer to the SC, programmed just the way you like him, and you'll get the desired output, no matter the input. The Constitution has to adapt. It is not a holy text, as its writers well knew-- and they made it amendable. (the spirit is clear: it protects and guarantees the rights of the American people.) I guess I believe the Justices are there to makes sure it always adapts to protect our rights, rather than limit them. Unions: I agree, but just like I don't believe that Christians are killing our democracy, I don't believe Unions are killing our economy. I think the Unions have done a lot of good things: making sure we're safe at work and have things like lunchbreaks and sick leave. But the point is moot: Democrats won't listen to the Unions, mostly because the Unions are asking for the wrong things. I think there's a place for a labor movement in our society though. Democrats won't listen also because the Unions are nowhere near as strong as they used to be. Times were, a newspaper had several reporters on the labor beat. Now, few even have one. I think that says a lot. I come from a union town, and most union guys I know (a small majority) vote Republican. As one Bush supporter from Ohio who lost his job said, "I don't blame him for that." Social issues hit home with a lot of them. "Vote Freedom First" was a popular campaign in Michigan in 2000. And I do fear labor protections eroding under a second Bush term. --Just wondering, is the text on WS in the correct place on your computer at home (ie: between the sidebars)? I made some adjustments to the width of the body for aesthetic reasons as well as for the benefit of websurfers like you. No its still screwed up on IE running at 800x600. Your Articles dont start at the top of the page, they start below your right content, below the cost of the war applet. And your articles are tight up against the right edge of the screen, with a large unused black area on the left half of the screen. Of course it looks fine from my work computer running at a higher resolution on a larger monitor. My blog is optimized for 800x600, which is why I chose a 2 column template over a 3 column one. But 800x600 visitors are a shrinking minority, but still account for about 25% of my viewers. I dont know about the whole partisan bullshit Gus. I do know the country has swung back and forth on the political Pendulum many times in the past. I figure when the right starts making enough people uncomfortable it will swing back again. I dont think our Democracy is in any danger from internal sources. But those Checks & Balances that have kept us free from tyrants, makes us easy pickings for our external enemies with a divide & conquer strategy. I think our 2-party system, which is a direct result of the electoral college, is better than a multi-party coalition type of government. But it ultimately makes for some strange bedfellows, when you try to cram 250 million different ideologies into 2 platforms. Both of which are openly corrupted with special interest legislation buying cash. Lets dont even pretend elections are decided on ideas. Starting Over And So. . . I've enjoyed your blog and found it to be honest and intellectually stimulating. As a somewhat reluctant Bush voter I too am looking for greater acountability in government as well as other changes. I did not vote for Senator Kerry but would have supported and respected him as my President had he prevailed. Thank you for the work you put into Warsaw Station and for making the effort to agree to disagree at times. Never lose your passion for what you believe and are willing to fight for. I too practise the 24 hour rule and preach it to my children in defeat as well as in victory. It's time to get to work and fix, refine or eliminate the challenges we face as Americans. Respectfully, A fiscal conservative,socially moderate and environmentally left of center friend of your fathers. Yes, I realize practice is spelled incorrectly and the term is fiscally conservative in the sentence it's in. i guess I've listened to our President a little too often:) Well, the good news is, there's been no whining. That either means that virtually no one reads this blog (certainly true), or that everybody who reads this is ready to get back to work (probably true), or both. I'm glad you enjoyed the discussion, Andrew. Since the guys from over at Redneck's Revenge were the only ones who came over to argue with us, I hope you went over there just to check out what they've been saying. I enjoyed the discussions here with both Red and Stomper, but I've been posting over there, and their lording over their win has since put a bad taste in my mouth. In these past two months, I've come to the conclusion that these folks are really on the fringes of the conservative philosophy. Just read the comments, and you'll see what I'm talking about. They consider a 1% majority a landslide and believe that since they've won, we ought to adopt their skewed vision of the world. They associate the word "understanding" with "appeasement," and advocate military control of the media during wartime (including now, when there is no declared war, no clear enemy, and no clear goal, no matter whether we're in the middle of a Presidential election or not). The terrible part is they're winning which means that more folks are beginning to believe their load of "we-can't-criticize-the-Commander-in-Chief-during-a-time- of-war" bull. I hope that most conservatives in this country are more like our friend anonamous. And anon, don't worry about the spelling and grammar mistakes, you've probably noticed that in the post I've spelled "commiserate" incorrectly. As our friend Red says, "those in glass houses. . ."-- I think our domiciles are all pretty fragile on this point. Anon, I respect your opinion, or rather, your right to that opinion, but I cannont respect your vote-- especially since you admit that you've been coming here and reading about Bush's miscalculations, lies, and desperate blunders. Fortunately the majority of Michiganders didn't agree with you, and my state is still a blue one. Unfortunately, 51% of the country doesn't have as much sense as that 51% of Michiganders. So what I'd like, if you don't mind, is an explanation of why you voted for George W. Bush. I know now that many of the ultra-conservatives I've been speaking with did so because they believe that they possess an "uber-morality" to be adopted not only by the rest of the country, but by the rest of the world. I assume you know that belief systems don't work that way Anon, and since I believe you represent conservative America much more accurately, I'd like to know what it is that convinced the moderates in this country to vote for a politician who sits on the "far right bank" (to borrow a phrase) of American politics. Since you say that you are environmentally left of center, I know you didn't vote for Bush for environmental reasons. I assume that you know that the general consensus among 90% of scientists is that Global Warming is changing our climate as we speak. You know that the media's presentation of "both sides" by saying that some aren't sure, and that the Earth goes through cycles of climate change are nonsense. Of course, the Earth does go through cycles of climate change, but if those cycles are consistent, then we are actually overdue for an ice-age-- not a period of extended warmth-- but you already know that. You also know that Bush has gutted our clean air and water acts, and when he says that the number wetlands has grown during his term, you know that it's only because he's changed the definition of "wetland" and that he's done nothing to make sure those "wetlands" are protected. Since you say that you are socailly moderate, then I'm sure you didn't vote for Bush due to social reasons. You know that Bush wants to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment, effectively placing the federal government not only in our bedrooms, but also in our hearts (despite all that lip service Republicans give to "getting the government out of our lives"), not to mention making it much harder for companies to extend (or, much easier for states to make illegal) partnership benefits to employees who are homosexual. Since you are a social moderate, it's easy for you to see that this is government sponsorship of discrimination. Since you are a fiscal conservative, you know that this would also be terrible for the job market. Since in our country you can be a social moderate and be either for or against abortion, I don't know which you are. If against, then you voted the wrong way, Anon. You must know that Chief Justice Renquist is extremely ill at the moment, and probably doesn't have much longer. Of course, since Mr. Renquist is very conservative, when Bush has the opportunity to appoint a new, very conservative Chief Justice, it won't matter much (except that we will continue to have a very conservative Cheif Justice for the next 30 years or so). But you must also know that the oldest member, John Paul Stevens, probably doesn't have much longer either, and when Bush appoints another judge to replace him, the balance will be tipped against abortion. Of course, you also know that Ruth Bader Ginsberg, another liberal member, has also had cancer, and you know that Sandra Day O'Connor-- perhaps the most moderate of all the judges, and the one who most believe represents the 5th vote to keep abortion legal-- is also nearing the end of her life. If you're against people making difficult moral choices for themselves, then you voted for the right man. Since you say that you're a fiscal conservative, you must be appalled at the continued level of uncontrolled spending during this period of record-breaking deficits. I'm sure you didn't vote for Bush based on those beliefs. If you did, then you surely didn't read the The Economist's endorsement of Kerry. Indeed, the endorsement isn't glowing, but that just says more about how awful Bush has been for our country. More importantly, it makes the point that Kerry is a fiscal hawk who has a record of voting for fiscal responsibility and free trade. If you don't believe the Economist, maybe you would have believed some other fiscal conservatives, one of whom, John Eisenhower, President Eisenhower's son, said: "The fact is that today's 'Republican' Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word 'Republican' has always been synonymous with the word 'responsibility, which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today's whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion." And if you didn't believe them, then perhaps you would believe these 10 Nobel Prize Winning Economists who endorsed Kerry. Or perhaps you voted for Bush because you believed his argument that Kerry is a flip-flopper. After reading my blog, you shouldn't have believed such a charge, especially as something that distinguished Bush from Kerry. a voter in Maryland put it perfectly: "The charge that Mr Kerry is a flip-flopper is phoney. An intelligent man dares to change his mind when the context changes. Mr Bush didn't want a Department of Homeland Security; then he did. He didn't want a 9/11 commission; then he did. He didn't want Condoleezza Rice to testify before it; but he relented. He didn't want to testify; but he did. He didn't approve of nation-building; but he's building nations, of a sort, in Iraq and Afghanistan. He doesn't want to import drugs from Canada because they might be unsafe; but he'll cheerfully take flu vaccine from Canada because the shortage is a political liability to his campaign." Maybe you voted for Bush because you believed that Bush would make us safer. But many moderate (and even not-so-moderate) conservatives like yourself knew better. Here are some examples you could have found here prior to the election: "I think that we are less safe today than we were three or four years ago. And I’ll tell you something else: I have recently had discussions with several former national security advisors -- people who were national security officials in former Republican administrations -- who have told me they feel the same way. They fear that the administration’s policies are further endangering and undermining the security of the United States," said Reagan administration veteran Clyde Prestowitz. "I will swallow a lot of petty policy differences...to get a man in the White House with brains enough not to blow up the world and us with it," admitted conservative columnist Charley Reese." And finally, perhaps you voted for Bush you believed his line about being a "strong leader." But here's what Scott McConnell of the American Conservative Magazine had to say about Bush's "strong leadership:" "Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy." Not all of these were on my site, but many were. I hope you followed the links and read carefully. If you didn't, please do so at your earliest convenience-- they show why a moderate like you should never have voted for an extremist like Bush. But obviously, 51% of Americans agreed with you. So please explain to me why exactly was it that you voted for this dangerous man who, it seems to me, doesn't even represent your beliefs. If we learn why, maybe we can prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again. I've come to the conclusion that these folks are really on the fringes of the conservative philosophy.. Hey Gus, while my guest list definitely leans right, I dont think most of them are on the fringes. In fact Gus, my POVs are rather typical for my local demographic. You just need to accept the fact that most people dont agree with your worldview, and that everyone that dont agree with you isn't an uninformed dumbass Redneck. At some point you got to recognize that we understand exactly what you are saying, and that we have given it serious honest consideration, and have ultimately decided to reject it in favor of a world view that simply appears more reasonable to us than yours. Hell man, I would love to live in a world where your preferred ideology COULD work. But other inhabitants of this planet are not ready to play by your rules. If America did not have enemies actively pursuing the destruction of the entire conservative / liberal lot of us, your man would have had much broader appeal. To be honest, I personally preferred your candidate's POVs on Science Research, Health Care, Abortion, Separation of Church & State, and many other issues, but he still had too many holes in his character, and flaws in his ideas for me to trust him with my children's security. I'm sorry if our "voting our conscience" irritates you so badly, but we felt we owed it to our children not to risk their future by taking a chance that your candidate wasn't just lying through his teeth to get elected, because it sure seemed that way to us illiterate dumbasses. Man, thinking that y'all are on the "fringes" has nothing to do with you voting for Bush. Plenty of moderates did the same. It has everything to do with 4 things, mainly. 1. The views on Muslims and Arabs sometimes expressed on your site. Remarks about them "understanding" your culture are completely off base. Remember, I'm immersed in another culture, and I celebrate American holidays here all the time. Instead of Poles complaining about me not respecting their culture, they ask me about mine, and are interested in learning more. Believe me. I have known many Muslims, and they love American culture, and accept it. They live with it every damn day. They only ask that Americans educate themselves just a little bit about their religion. When we refuse to believe that Muslim terrorists are not representative of Muslims as a whole, we are refusing to eschew prejudice. That's what I'm talking about when I talk about different experiences Red. 2. Man, you and your comrades' droning on and on about not criticizing our Commander in Chief during a time of war really pisses me off. Somebody probably should have told the media not to do that back in 1862 while Lincoln was trying to tie this country back together, 'cause elements of the press, including in the North, really railed on him. Surprisingly, he managed to succeed and get reelected to boot. Are you so unimpressed with Bush that you don't think he could succeed without military censorship of the Press? Man, your suggestions bring to my mind visions of that Iraqi media guy who kept trying to tell everybody that the Iraqi Army was soaking the sands of Iraq with American blood. I can see it now: There's a terrorist attack in St. Louis, Missouri, and "General of the Media" Tommy Franks gets on the TV and tells us that the American Armies have scored a fantastic victory, everything is fine, and we can all go back to shopping and eating at McDonald's. 3. The penchant of folks over at your site to believe conservative propoganda groups and site their misinformation as "facts." Sorry Red, but the Swift Boat Vets have been thoroughly debunked-- yet your commenters still cite the nonsense they find over at that site. You say that I can't face the "facts"-- of course! How can I present you with any of the real facts, when my sources (mainstream media) are controlled by unseen "communist" forces? 4. Comments about "rewarding our most aggressive troops with court marshals," and about winning at all costs, even if it means not playing by the rules. Please ask a Pole next time you get a chance about liberators who come to win without playing by the rules. It happened twice to them from 1939 to 1989 and you know who lost? The Poles. You know who won? Nobody. If we don't play by the rules we've created in order to make sure war is justified, we lose. Undermining our own democratic values is just what our terrorist enemies want us to do. And oh yes, torture is never to be tolerated. Never. And I'm pretty sure moderate America is with me on that. Interesting that the issues you cited are those most important to me, behind foreign policy. I disagree that Kerry had a character problem, especially compared with Bush's (see "torture" above)-- but that indeed is an argument which does not lay on the fringes, but dead center in this election. But no point in debating that anymore, is there? Please note that I never, never insulted your intelligence. So you can stop it now with the "illiterate dumbasses" crap. Nor did I ever questions that you ever had anything other than the best intentions for our country. A courtesy not shown me on your site Red. I do not put my political beliefs above my values of justice and democracy. You're very defensive about your beliefs Red-- something I've noticed before. Do I detect "a guilty conscience" ;) Don't worry. I'll be back over to visit. I read your blog every day. Keep me in mind when you're making those posts. I'm reading. . . Well Damn, I thought after the political season we could find more common ground on our external enemies. Apparently not. Look Gus, all I do is say what I honestly think about things. I cant pretend to be anything but myself. I dont really feel that I am an evil monster, I just try to look at things from what I consider to be the most logical angle. It amazes me that we cant find anything to agree on. I cant believe our minds are that different, but obviously they are. Sorry if that offends you so much. Now that the election is over, I am going to get back to object-fully criticizing our Islamic enemy at my blog. You are always welcomed to point out the flaws in my arguments. Thats why I blog man. I am challenging the world to prove me wrong. Thats why I value your participation there. You are the most articulate liberal I have ever met. I am not going to purge my threads of POVs that differ from yours to please you, but would throughly enjoy seeing you convince us your POV make more sense. The secret is to make sure you aint the only one on the thread that thinks you won the debate. I respect your views on Muslims, please present me with your plan to make them stop indiscriminately killing us both, I await it with an open mind. Well, I guess you wanted to know. . . Look Gus, all I do is say what I honestly think about things. I cant pretend to be anything but myself. I dont really feel that I am an evil monster.I don't think you're an evil monster-- I am, remember? I'm the one who "can spend 18 months, dividing and weakening our country, and with the help of our media drag our commander in chief through the mud during wartime, only to shake hands now, and pretend that they were serving in the best interests of our nation." I also "abandon reason and ignore the facts" with my "asinine world view." I just try to look at things from what I consider to be the most logical angle.I understand that you have certain experiences that lead you to your "most logical angle" you're peering at the world from. But I can't begin to convince you when you're over there in that angle when I'm over here on this one-- on this issue and the 4 I cited above. And again, I don't think that angle is in the center-- although it's true, some of your angles are. Fair game to say that some of my angles aren't in the center either, much as I wish they were and hate to admit they're not. It amazes me that we cant find anything to agree on. I cant believe our minds are that different, but obviously they are.Far as I can tell, we both love our family and our country. I love my God, and if you're a religious man you love yours too. We both love politics and blogging. We both want our country to be the best in the world, to live in and to do business in, and want it to stay that way. We want the best education for our children and our communities to be safe. Like beer? Me too. And my guess is, since you're from a big football state, you love the gridiron just like me. I read something you wrote once about your highschool football team. Nothing quite like the glory of those Friday Night Lights is there? One day I'll tell you about the Muslim kids who were a big part of helping my highschool team to a State Championship. There was a sweet goalline stand and a Muslim kid of Arabic descent who could really play outside linebacker. . .But I digress. Point is, we've got these things to agree on. It's not a lot, but it's a place to start. Sorry if that offends you so much.Actually, it was the "spend 18 months, dividing and weakening our country . . .only to shake hands now . . ." that I took offense to. The Muslim/Criticizing CiC/Media/Torture-excusing isn't so offensive (I've heard it all before) as it is depressing and tiring. That's why I'm commenting less-- I don't have the energy. But you've got me hooked. I'll be over to point out the flaws in your arguments enough. To get to all of them is too much work for me though. ;) Keep coming over here, and I'll keep coming over there. I value your participation here too. Please present me with your plan to make them stop indiscriminately killing us both, I await it with an open mind.Patience my Rednecked friend. Patience. The time will come. And finally: You are the most articulate liberal I have ever met.Top 5 answers to this statement: 5. You don't meet many liberals down there in Texas, do ya? I know. Redistricting. 4. I'm telling Pass! 3. I'm, um . . . well, I mean,. . . jeez. I just. . . 2. From "asinine" to "articulate" in less than 24 hours: Gustav finally out-flip-flops Kerry! 1. Thanks man. I just wish I could make my point in less than 16 paragraphs. Well, the "spend 18 months, dividing and weakening our country . . .only to shake hands now ". was addressed at you personally, as much as it was towards Kerry, and the Democratic apparatus. Look man, I'm human. I am not morally righteous enough to avoid hold a grudge. I honestly think this divisive election weakened our country. And the fact that Kerry's criticism of our President matched verbatim our external enemies propaganda on many occasions cant be overlooked. My point being these political factions honestly hate each other. And to turn around and shake hands with the man that has drug you through the mud for 18 months in search of political power just seems disingenuous to me. I know we are all still Americans and all, but in my eyes Kerry advertised setbacks in the war on terror to his political advantage, and that bordered on treason from my perspective. I cant just easily get over that just because thats the way American politics work these days. I am all for outspoken political opposition. I don't want to live in a country were any ideology, especially a conservative one has total domination, I just wish we could limit the amount of damage a divisive campaign does to America during wartime, when we need unity to prevail. Harping back to your Football analogy. My Dad and brother were / are HS football coaches, and I have observed that the main difference between a competitive HS team, and a championship team, is the coach's wiliness to subject his players and the opposition players to permanent injury for their career gains. The dirtiest playing team usually wins championships and those coaches prosper. I guess thats is a pretty good analogy to American Politics after all. was NOT addressed at you personallySorry Chat Room Open [Insert Cliche Here] station archives
enjoy the view
|
|
 |
my feed