Sunday, March 19, 2006

"The Valley shows it's support, again"...

Staunton, VA.

Numerous local supporters came out to rally and show support to the troops serving all over the world in the war against terrorism. SPC. Collin Thomas was driving by and saw the anti-war protesters on the streets and then saw the larger crowd that came out to show their support for the Troops and the President. Thomas then drove home to change into his BDU's and returned to the rally to show his support for his fellow service members still serving in Iraq. He then met up with Jan Harman who he knows because of his service with her husband Sgt. Herb Harman who is presently serving in Baghdad Iraq. Specialist Thomas understands that many of the troops will see media coverage of the protesters and their efforts but he also knows that many of the troops he served with will also see that their are many still in the States that will turn out to support our military. Specialist Thomas told me of when he returned from serving in Iraq he was walking thru a airport in the United States in uniform and several people came out of the crowd to hug him and thank him for his service. Thomas did not know these people but yet they showed their appreciation publicly without hesitation...

Numerous members of the local Republican club have joined forces with a dedicated group from Churchville, VA. who last year started sending "Care Packages" to several local troops serving in Iraq. They found that there are many troops who do not receive any letters or packages from home and wanted to do something about it. By the end of last season this group, "From Our Hearts" was sending up to 100 packages a week to troops serving our country and it's citizens. The 2006 season will be kicking off on Memorial day and running thru September 11th.

Please go to the below site to see this group in action and help this very important effort. It is easy to say "I Support the Troops" but actions always talk louder...


SWAC Girl said...

I would urge everyone to please do something to support our military men and women and their families. They are our American HEROES.

You may not be able to stand on the corner and wave an American flag ... but maybe you can cook dinner for the family whose husband is in Iraq ... or run an errand for the elderly parents of a soldier ... or mow the lawn for a Marine's pregnant wife ... or offer to babysit for the wife left behind.

You may want to show your support by erecting an American flag at an interstate overpass ... or fly one at your home ... or help with by providing needed goods or volunteering your time to help pack supplies to go to our local Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, Airmen.

The key is to be PUBLIC in your support of the troops and their families.

During Vietnam America lost the moral of the homefront because, even though most working Americans backed the soldiers, they didn't stand up to the anti-war protesters ... and the media helped win that homefront war with a constant barrage of negative news, pictures, and coverage of anti-war protesting.

The media are are at it again. You have to look no further than the Staunton News Leader to see the left-leaning slant in their over-reporting and support of those against President Bush and the war ... indeed, those who are against America.

Write a letter to the editor! Call the newspaper and demand balanced coverage.

But do SOMETHING ... don't let someone else do it for you. And most of all ... when you see a veteran, a fireman, a police officer, emergency personnel ... when you see that military man or woman in uniform ... thank them!

We are free and safe only because of them. They are all our American HEROES. We thank and honor them for their service.

Andrew said...

Just as its reassuring to our soldiers when so many of us turn out at public events like this to show support, it's reassuring to me when I hear first-hand accounts of what we are accomplishing in Iraq from the soldiers themselves. They know what a tough job they've got to do, but many Americans unfortunately have forgotten the whole idea of "no pain, no gain." It will be a long, hard fight before Iraq is stabilized and peaceful, but I have no doubt that the good guys will eventually prevail. It may not be a spectacular military triumph, but history will judge our efforts in Iraq very favorably, I'm convinced. The payoffs will be huge, greater than we can imagine. Whatever the pundits and the polls say right now, the word WILL get out, little by little, thanks to blogs and the alternative media. Thanks, you guys.

RightsideVA said...

I agree and it would be interesting to see what a Democrat President would do now if they get the top office. They know & understand that we had to go in and fight the war on terrorism and that it must continue. If a Democrat was to become President they would never pull out of Iraq\Afghanistan. It is unfortunately nothing but a election to them and how they can use the issue to get elected or re-elected. The people of the United States also know we must be there and they agree with it...

zen said...

Why is it that those responsible for starting and conducting the war bear no responsibility for the war? Why is the blame constantly shifted to the scapegoats? It's odd that although a Republican is president, Republicans control both houses of Congress and yet the media and the Democats have all the power in how the public perceives the war. I though the Republicans represented the party of personal responsibility, yet whenever it comes to an honest assesment or accountability for mistakes, the focus is shifted to the party NOT in power, or to the media. If anything the media and the Democrats were complicit in getting the country into war.
The majority of people no longer need to be convinced that Bush is a failure and untrustworthy, or that going to war in Iraq was a mistake. Is that the fault of the military? Absolutely not! And if anything it is a disgrace that they were put in harms way in such a way.
One has to be honest and look at the huge list of things we've been told by the White House that have turned out to be flat wrong. All may not have been intentional, but very many from incompetence, arrogance and hubris.
Again one must be honest and realize that we have, and continue to be misled. From "Greeted as liberators" to "Mission Accomplished" to "Troop levels needed" to "Last throes" to "no one could have anticipated..." the list is quite long. And no media, nor Democrat put those words in their mouths. These abuses of public trust cannot and should not be spun away.
We cannot and must not allow image to trump reality.

zen said...

Also worth mentioning is that while there is now an intentional effort/campaign underway by the WH and it's surrogates to blame the media for the decisions that have led to the bloody, prolonged war, rather than accepting responsibility...over 70 journalists have died covering stories in Iraq, 40+ have been kidnapped with some still missing.
As well we are averaging 15 US dead per week.

SWAC Girl said...

Zen said "We cannot and must not allow image to trump reality." He should heed his own words.

The reality is over 3,000 innocent Americans were killed on 9-11-01. Has Zen forgotten that horrendous act that was worse than the attack on Pearl Harbor? No one wants war ... but it is inevitable at times because if we don't fight this war on terrorism it will be left for our children to fight. Our President has chosen to accept the responsibility and not ignore it to pass on to the next leader.

Muslim terrorists came to us and attacked US, not the other way around. What part of that does Zen not understand? They hate us. THEY ... HATE ... US. They don't want to make peace. They don't want to accept our religious differences. They don't want to understand us. They want to kill us, plain and simple. If Zen accepts those terms I say lead him to the front of the line because I'm not going down without a fight!

Since 9-11-01 we have not had any attacks on American soil. That's not to say it won't happen again ... but President Bush's leadership has kept us safe. Not so in Spain, Bali, and London where they have had bombings. Not so in other European countries that have dealt with threats, riots, and assassinations from Muslim terrorists.

Those responsible for starting this war are the terrorists, not George W. Bush. The President was backed by Republicans AND Democrats who voted to go to war.

We should all be grateful that there are leaders willing to have a backbone and do what's right to keep us all safe.

Bubba said...

Reality not Image is indeed a valid point, but in todays world it is really about perception. What people see is the "reality that they base their decisions from; and the liberal media is just showing what they want people to see. In fact I consider the media to be the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. Look at all the stuff that happened because of some simple cartoons. Today people are either too busy, too lazy, or too uneducated to do some research and find out things for themselves so they are basing their entire perception on what they see in the media.
And remember who really started the war.......TERRORISTS. they came here and picked a fight that we cannot walk away from. If we do then the perception will be that we lost aour nerve, that we have no back bone, and that we are such a shallow people that we forget things that happen to us as a people. I perception that will lead to being hit again. What happens next time? Dirty bomb in D.C.? Truck bombs in the major tunnells in and out of NY? Low yield nuclear bomb in Charlottesville? (many might actually like to see C'ville vansh in a flash) What ever happens next, if we walk away from this fight the terrorists will know they can just wait us out and ass soon as the American people are refocused on the important things like American Idol and the latest gay cowboy movie they will hit us again. It is simple school yard politics: If you punch the Bully once he will back down for a while, if you kick his ass from one end of the playground to the other he will go away. Unfortunatly kicking the terrorists around is going to have a cost that we will have to pay. If you don't have the willingness to pay this cost now be prepared to pay a much larger one in the future.

SWAC Girl said...

Zen brings up the liberal argument of how many American soldiers have been lost in Iraq. Perhaps a little U.S. history is needed here....

Scene: Normandy Campaign, 1944, World War II. No one disputes it was a huge success for the allies, and the beginning of the end for Germany and Japan.

Thank goodness we didn't have lightning-speed media coverage back then ... or we would have faced the same thing as today: media and liberal pundits second-guessing every move and blunder every step of the way.

Does Zen realize that we lost an average of 2,500 American lives DAILY during that time? That includes my mother's brother who died at the age of 28.

Who led our victory in World War II? General Dwight Eisenhower and General George Marshall ... but they would have been hounded in today's world because it wasn't done fast enough, clean enough, etc.

War is not clean. It's not nice. And it cannot be accomplished overnight.

In the days after 9-11-01, President Bush addressed the Nation and said at that time this would be a long battle and we were in it for the long haul.

I would ask the hate-Bush crowd to open their minds and look at the facts objectively instead of listening to liberal spewing points. Think about what is best for our safety as a country and not your hatred of the President.

John F. Kennedy, a Democrat president, said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." It's too bad today's Democrats don't follow those guidelines.

RightsideVA said...

How do you see that the President, the Republicans, and the “Evil” corporations are not being held responsible? All weekend I heard how 60% of those polled by CNN say the war is not worth it. I would love to see how that question was asked for I saw a lot of support at the rally Saturday. I also saw the articles about how the anti-war rallies that “Fizzled” on the 3rd anniversary of the beginning of the war. “

The majority of the people no longer need to be convinced that Bush is a failure”? So you and your people have known that all along? It was just us country bumpkin’s who got us home skooled that are finally catching on? Boy it’s just a shame that the majority, and a stronger majority, voted him in for a second term.

“These abuses of public trust cannot and should not be spun away” Public trust? Lets take a look at the democrats and the likes that stood on the steps of the capital building singing “God bless America” with the evil Republicans. They knew that they could not attack Bush or his actions for the citizens knew and know that we must take action against the terrorist. Since then they have tried numerous “Sins” to attack the President but have gotten little traction. “Pull out of Iraq now?” Do you think the public will tolerate another Clinton like move when he pulled out of Somalia after the “Black Hawk Down” bloody nose Clinton got?
There is much support that the press can not hide with spin or bogus polls….

zen said...

Let's all agree on an undisputable fact:
Iraq did not attack on 9/11.

It amazes me to constantly hear 9/11 tied to Iraq. I'll refer you to the 9/11 commission report that investigated and concluded no. Just yesterday Bush himself backed away from being accused of making that link, although many, many times he did. He does this in a manner that still associtaes the too in some people's minds, yet (wink, wink) he didn't atcually say it. Image again trumps fact—admitting that one's perception is one's reality. The fact is that we did not invade Iraq to fight terrorists. Please point me to that stated policy.

The flypaper theory: "We'll fight them there so we don't have to fight them here." How's that working for our allies that were fighting right beside us over there? How moral is that? How do you think the Iraqi's feel about hearing that their contry is being used explicitly as flypaper for radical, dangerous terrorists? As a battleground for terrorists so we don't have that mess on out soil?
Let's say that China gets attacked and decides that they should invade the US to fight terrorists here, so they don't have to fight them in Bejing. How does your logic work in that case? Or do we get a special exemption?

This goes for preemption too. North Korea has said they are building nukes to counter the threat of a preempted US strike. First, this shows us that Bush's stated policy is actually making us less safe. And Second, are we the only ones that can play by the preemptive strike policy?
You honestly feel safer from Bush's policies?

SWAC said: "the liberal argument of how many American soldiers have been lost in Iraq."
My friend, that Americans are dying is not a liberal nor a conservative, Republican nor Democrat argument, it is a fact that impacts all Americans.

Look, the simple reality is that we could continue to argue the validity of the war, should we have invaded Iraq or not, but at this point it's not really going to get us anywhere.
I understand that many people (although fewer and fewer) view Bush as a good man with bold vision. That may be true, but one can be bold, brave, visionary and yet still incompetent and a failure. He may have the greatest of intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Wanting something to be one way and saying it over and over till you yourself belive it, doesn't make it so, or make others believe it. That is absolutely no excuse for the incredible blunders and costly mistakes that have resulted from the invasion. And for the messages issued forth from the WH that are completely at odds with reality do not show us any respect.
Please admit that you all have not completely left the community of reality and think the policy and war makers haven't made the mission more difficult through their incompetence. I can understand you still wanting to believe Bush is a solid man, but any honest, objective look must include an admission of some failure, even if you don't think it was intentional.

For those actually in the position of crafting policy to blame the messengers for not submitting and actually questioning these policies is not right. Again blame the media and the minority party for mistakes and miscalculations under Bush's watch is desperate and reaching. If one wants to take aim that people are being misled by the media then look no further than the top rated cable shows and radio talk shows...all conservative. Then look at how you still think Iraq committed 9/11.
Fox News: We distort, You Comply.

Here's a poll for you. Over the last seven years, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has played a game of word association as part of its regular presidential polling, asking, "What one word best describes your impression of George W. Bush?" No options or suggestions are offered. The latest results — from a sample of 710 people done in March — aren't good for the President. Until this month, the word most associated with President Bush had always been "honest." Now the leading answer is "incompetent" (given by 29 people), followed by "good," "idiot" and "liar." "Honest" has slipped to 5th, tied with "Christian."

If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, then claiming that history will be the judge is the last refuge for incompetence.

Bubba said...

Get a map and show me the country of Terrorist. Isn't that where the terrorists are from? How about the Soverign Country of ExtremeRadicalIslam for all the extreme radical islamic militants out there. The FACT is that the war on terrorism should not be confused with the war in Iraq. The battle for Iraq is but one battle in the war, the same way that the war against the Taliban was a battle in the war on terrorism. This is a War on Terror and the target of the war is the elimination of safe harbors for terrorists. Iraq happened to be in the right place at the right time once we finished destroying the Taliban and of course the fact that they were known users of Chemical/Biological weapons, violated UN resolutions, were shooting at our aircraft enforcing UN resolutions, had at least a great possibility of reaquiring WMD (or did indeed have them), commited serious crimes against humanity, ect, ect, ect gave plenty of reason to bring them to the spotlight. They were a known supporter of terrorist organizations and one of the biggest groups of people out there poking a stick at the US because they thought that we would never do what was right and just because we would bow to pressure from the French and the Germans and Russia. Except that when George Bush stood in the rubble left from a TERRORIST attack he vowed to hunt the terrorists down and the people who harbor the terrorists down to protect the US. George had the balls to make good on his promise. and that is a fact that shocked the Islamic world and the Democratic Party. Our allies that were "cozy" with the terrorist organizations became "un-cozy", Soverign nations all over the world began to realize that we were serious about hunting down the persons responsible for 9-11. Pakistan did a 180 degree turn on their stance and it almost got their leader killed 4 times.

I'm a old farm raised hillbilly so I know a thing or two about fly paper: it works good as long as you put it where the flies are. The terrorists are in Iraq. That is where you have to put the paper. Here is another one:

The Varmit Theory: "if the terrorists come out of their dens in then come down to the US to kill our people then we go find them and their dens and terminate them with extreme prejudice" It isn't any different that tracking and killing the old fox that used to kill my chickens. And my allies love it when I kill the fox because that fox was killing their chickens too and teaching other foxes how to kill more chickens (or blow up subways, trains, double decker busses, ect) Infact our allies are hunting the terrorists for the very same reasons.

Were their miscalculations and mistakes made....of course there were. It is a war. Every plan on paper looks great. But the strange thing is that when you start killing you enemy they react and sometimes they do the unexpected, so then you have to make decisions quickly to react. It is not a chess game it is war. You kill them they try to kill you, repeat. There are no umpires there is not a rule book that the terrorists will play by. There is not time to have a senate subcomitte debate which tactic to use or get polling info to gauge public reaction. We have a very good military leadership that is calling the shots. Thank God that Bush is letting them do their job. The strange thing is that Military leaders don't worry about polls and public opinion they are too busy trying to keep their soldiers alive and the enemy soldiers dead. War is hell. Some times good intentions pave the road to War too.

Zen, I am not beating up on you but I am sick of people using the old "Iraq didn't attack" defense. I would like to see one politician stand up and say that the world was a better place with Saddam in power. Because is they are gonna say that the Battle of Iraq should not have been fought then that is what they need to say. Otherwise they need to sit down, shut up, and come up with some original material that can be used to better the country or fight terrorism.

zen said...

Bubba, you make some very good points, and I don't take it as beating up on me, as I hope you don't view my comments that way either. We have differences in opinion and what makes this country so great is the chance for us to peacefully engage in debate. Thank you. I've been is discussions with some who think that any objective look, or criticism is deemed "anti-American" or "anti-military" and nothing could be further from the truth. Expressing our right to dissent is perhaps the most American quality to be valued and ensure. It's the old addage that I may not agree with your opinion, I fully respect the right of you to express it.

Moving on..
Of course "Terrorist" is not a country, it is not a territory with a uniformed military. And it is wrong to presume that the only other option to war is inaction. Just as there are more than two ways to do anything. There are more than a Republican or a Democrat way to govern. So the basis you (and others) present, saying that it's either war or Saddam in power is false.
Just because one dosen't support the Republicans does not mean they are a supporter of the Democrats. Most things in this life are not an "either/or" "niether/nor" matter. To think that politics can fit neatly into such a package is delusional, which is precisely why we need to keep an objective mind and not allow our selves to get swept up in propaganda—be it from the media or the government. Yet shouldn't the government not have a higher standard of ethics as they serve and represent the people?

Iraq did not attack the US on 9/11. Why didn't Afghanistan turn into the terrorist haven that Iraq has? Especially since that was the home of AlQ? If we are targeting terrorists around the world, and offering democracy as the solution, then what does it say when terrorist organizations gain legitimacy by winning overwhelmingly in recent elections? Why did Bush threaten his first ever veto to defend a deal that would have put our ports under the authority of a state with know ties and financial backing of terrorists? Do you ever ponder these things that don't add up? or just take everything your told on blind, unquestioning faith?

You again sidestep the issue of who is responsible and accountable for the mistakes and miscalculations. You again point solely to the enemy. The enemy did not disregard the experts that said we would need 300 to 400 thousand troops to keep the peace in a post invasion situation. The administration did. The enemy didn't decide that US forces would ride right past the mujahideen on it's quick trip to take Baghdad. It was not the enemy that disbanded the Iraqi military. It was not the military nor the enemy that told us the battle for Iraq was over, Mission accomplished. It was not the enemy, the military, the media, the Dems, liberals or anyone else that told the public that the insurgency is in it's last throes. It was Dick Cheney.
You cannot just give credit where it's due, but be independent enough to recognize where accountability is due as well.

Again, my point is that as long as we give a pass to those actually responsible, they will continue to abuse our trust.

Rightside: I would not characterize you the way you have attributed my comments. That is disrespectful, and I've not shown you any disrespect. It's obvious that you are frustrated. But a civil discussion rather than one founded on such rude assumptions is much more appreciated. I should think you'd agree.
Yet if you'd prefer not to discuss important issues and remain open to more than just your own view, then there really is no point is there?
I'm not at all saying that accept what I'm saying or I'm taking my ball and going home. lol. I'm simply saying if there is no room in your mind to listen, share and have an open, honest, civil debate then I'll leave you to it. This goes for you too SWAC. I sense your frustrations and even that you appear threatened by views unlike your own. I do not come here to aggitate, as I also listen and learn from your views. Isn't that the only way to unify and find our common ideals and goals? Otherwise are we not destined to remain divided and at odds?
If we 'the people' do not engage and make an effort to better understand each other then can we honestly expect government or media to do so?


Bubba said...

My reply was too long to post so I split it.........

Public discussion and public dissention are two entirely different things. My issue is not that their are differing views about the issues surrounding Iraq. The issue I have is that the press and the democratic party and groups around the country are sniping at the Bush administration with out offering any suggestion for improvement of the process. A good solid discussion where the errors that have happened are discussed and viable solutions are presented would be great, but unfortunately the masses out there just don't get it. My point is we don’t have discourse we have protests. The protests are hurting our troops. I don't really buy the whole encourage the enemy bit because many of the enemy don't have access to see our citizens holding fake caskets and fake dead soldiers, but the new soldiers that will fight for our country do. We are hurting ourselves when our brave young soldiers see people their age that have no commitment to the soldiers giving their lives to protect ours. I guess the base line is that straight criticism is not the best thing when we need to show a unified front, but Constructive criticism is tool that we should be using. Bush and Cheney are open to suggestion that is why Bush surrounds himself with experienced people for advice and why he has consulted with former political figures for advice.

The biggest problem I see in Iraq is that we have the best military in the world acting as a Police force in a country that has little access for non military personnel. The primary mission when we went in was to remove Saddam and his power structure from existence. That mission has been accomplished and was accomplished when it was said it was. the problem is that people don't delineate the end of that mission and the start of the current mission which is to rebuild Iraq to a point that we can leave. The insurgency is a associated but separate matter. We had the internal insurgency in it's throws when we said we did, but the external insurgency (actually a terrorist influx) is what is causing the problems now. Syria and Iran are meddling where they should not be. They know that once we have the recipe for what works to rebuild a nation over their they might be next and are doing what they can to sour the soup.

Continued in part 2……………

bubba said...

Part 2
As far as accountability goes the buck stops at the white house, but is it really accountability or is it responsibility. I believe that Bush and his administration take responsibility for the results they have achieved and the costs associated with getting there. The accountability lies with the enemy. We are holding them accountable for their actions and we are holding the nations that harbor them accountable as well. Hamas got all of their aid stripped and stepping into the political arena has opened them to attacks that we could never have used when they were a guerrilla group. The UAE? since 9-11 they have become a stead fast friend in the war on terror and their operation of our ports would have been no different than the operation of several ports by other nations like the ones operated by China and Saudi Arabia and other foreign countries. What killing the ports deal has done is foster an international state sponsored prejudice against any Muslim country wanting to do business here.

Blind unquestioning faith? Not me. But for a great example look at the radical Islamics out there and how they behave. And dare I say many of the anti-war protesters. I pray that calmer educated minds will prevail to foster the true American way of life instead of the "Hate Bush" hysteria that is leading the press now.

Iraq is like a big barrel of apples; we are only pulling out the bad apples and nobody notices the good ones until all the good ones are gone and the barrel is empty. There are far more good stories in Iraq than bad ones but no one is reporting on it. That is the problem, or at least one of the root problems.

RightsideVA said...


I took a look back at my prior post and it can be taken as you say "Frustrated" but it has been a tough week dealing with anti-war protesters and the local media. You should have seen the attacks made on Troop supporters by the members of the Augusta Coalition for Peace & Justice. These people claimed to be for peace but if you could have seen the attacks that I saw on a Vietnam Vet you maybe able to understand my stance. The worst part is the local paper wrote a story that was so one sided and then an editorial written by members who did not attend the rally or even talk to the reporter. I responded to their article as well as the editorial but not one person from the editorial board has replied. Mine was a good reply and presented many facts that they could not have seen for they were not in attendance but yet they will not comment at this time. Agenda?
I appreciate your efforts to pull me back to the "middle" but I feel I have been fair to many who have agendas of their own. You have been visiting this blog for sometime and I welcome your views. You may recall that I had to delete several comments by people who simply attacked me, my visitors, and the President in their first posts and even claimed in that first post that me, the evil blogmaster, would delete the comment anyway. As you can see I have allowed many different opinions to be stated but I will not allow attacks or name calling like that...
There will always be views from both sides and we visit other sites to see the "Other side". I visit your site somewhat often to see the other side. Is it in the middle? Depends on who is looking at it and what they have "Seen" in these travels...

RightsideVA said...

Another thought. While going thru some files and directories I found Letters to editor by people who claim that I am nothing but a "Bush Apologist" who thinks the President can do no wrong or is so "Snowed" under that I can't see daylight anymore. The funny thing is the first time I was referred to as that was when I lived in Key West Fla. during the 2000 election. Key West is a VERY liberal town and at times I thought I was one of three Conservative Republicans that lived on the island of 25,000+ permanant residents. Then, as it is now, I do not believe President Bush is 100% correct with everything he does. It is unfortunate that I spend most of my time and efforts defending him and the likes of him in the party, against constant attacks from the Left. The left has no agenda but to tell us that everything that the President is wrong and somehow we are all being abused, depressed, exploited, used, and taken advantage of just for the benefit of the elite and Halliburton... Yet, as Bubba has pointed out, what will the left do to make things better or fix errors? John Kerry should have won by 15% if he only came out and stated that the actions after 9-11 were needed, had to be done, we had to deal with terrorism and just not promise "Those responsible will be tracked down held responsible for their actions" as Clinton did numerous times. All Kerry had to do was say good Job Mr. President but here is how I am going to move the country forward... Unfortunately the Left does not have a plan that will get traction no matter how many ways they change the attacks. Got the messengers, just no message...
Best debates I ever had was with a democrat that I faught with for months before we got past all the defense tactics we had to use before we could debate properly. We were able to talk many topics in a beneficial way for all after we got past suspecting that the other was only setting each other up for another attack... Sad to say those debates are far and few apart. Spent two hours Saturday being called a "Facist Pig" with other words attached to that with people who could not put a solid debate together for they have so much hate in them. Why did I do it? because it kept the biggest mouth away from the main crowd and the guy did not even notice that he had the local reporter standing behind him listening to his irrational rants and attacks. Unfortunately the reporter did not use any of this in his story that appeared in the paper the next day. Thats another battle I am fighting to draw attention too at this time...

SWAC Girl said...

Zen doesn't need to analyze what I'm thinking. I'm doing fine, thank you very much. If I'm frustrated it's because the liberals keep spinning their wheels with the same old used-up arguments over and over.

There is a backlash building over negative media coverage of the war in Iraq. Last night AOL ran a poll asking if you thought the coverage of the war had been excellent, good, fair, or poor. The last time I checked 63% of nearly 100,000 people said "poor."

People are standing up and speaking out -- we want fair coverage and we want the spin to stop from both the media and from lefties who push the same agenda. And don't forget -- they always say "they" have an open mind about these matters but "we" do not. Bottom line: if you have an opinion different from theirs they will consider you closed-minded.

Bubba said...

The problem is that the far left and the extreme far right don't express opinions they express observations. An opinion would assume that they have a illustrated plan or program that is different from what they are being critical of, in most cases they don't.

{grin} Of course we only hear from the far left because they are around the media. The extreme far right are not heard from....they are to busy home skooling their kids and building bunkers in the wilderness, where there are no internet connections or phone lines. Every now and again one of them moves to a populated area and starts a Blog but it is rare and once they express themselves they can't be considered extreme far right wingers anymore (just home skooled evil blogmasters)