I think the following would be an interesting script for a commerical for a Democratic activist group:
1) Footage of Candidate Bush stating that he’s against nation building.
2) Footage of dead and dying American soldiers and dead and dying Iraqis, including some of that brutal footage from “F 9/11.”
3) Footage of Bush declaring “MIssion Accomplished.”
4) Footage of headlines declaring over a thousand Americans killed.
5) Footage of Candidate Bush stating that he supported the assault weapon ban.
6) Footage of newspaper headlines about the assault ban treaty being lifted without a word of protest from the White House, intercut with dead and dying young people or terrorists fighting assault weapons.
7) Footage of Bush saying that he’s keeping us safer. Freeze Frame, and the following words appear:
“While he’s lyin’, we’re dyin’.”
Paid for by the Committe of People Who Don’t Want to See More People Die On George Bush’s Watch.
Just a passing thought.
PAD
• 
Bladestar wrote:
“Condemning soldiers to death on false information that he didn’t bother to check because he was just looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, Bush commited the lie of omission.
“When a man has as much power as the president, I hold him to higher standards and expect full examination of all facts when deciding to declare war. Bush is a war criminal who invaded and is occupying a sovreign nation.”
And once again, the lies continue.
On what basis do you say Bush was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq? What credible source can you give? There is none, or the Democrats would have posted it by now. All they have is a poorly constructed web of deceit that they claim proves their case when all they are really doing is making the assumption in the first place then trying to piece the facts together in a way that fits their point.
Furthermore, your post fails to answer my point in a much earlier post. Why do you and so many others totally ignore the truth about Sadaam. Iraq was under sanctions to begin with because they chose, without provocation, to invade a neighbor. Sadaam fired every day on our planes, planes that in part were flying to prevent Sadaam using WMD’s again against people in his own country (or have you forgotten about the Kurd’s?). Sadaam failed to provide proof of what he did with his WMD’s. And the list goes on.
To use your logic, police who raid the house of a convicted drug dealer and kidnapper, who suspect he again is doing the same, are criminals violating the rights of an individual. Sadaam was given every opportunity to allow inspections, and he played games with us. So don’t give me this idiotic nonsense that Bush is a war criminal. It may play well to the Bush haters, but it has absolutely no basis in reality.
Jim in Iowa
What credible source can you give? There is none, or the Democrats would have posted it by now.
What’s the name of that journalist? Woodward or something? Didn’t he write a book?
There’s been plenty of evidence, but you, like the White House, dismiss it all on a whim.
“What’s the name of that journalist? Woodward or something? Didn’t he write a book?
“There’s been plenty of evidence, but you, like the White House, dismiss it all on a whim.”
Do I actually have to define what a “credible source” is? A journalist analyzes facts, but is not the SOURCE of the facts.
A credible source is a person or document that has first hand knowledge that something is true. For example, General Tommy Frank states for the record that at no time prior to (if I remember right) December, 2001, did the issue of invading Iraq come up. That was not before 9-11, and it was 2 months after. Or do you dismiss his first hand knowledge on a whim?
There are many books out there on both sides of issues. That does not mean the author is right (or do you believe the Swift Boat Vets book is true?).
So try again. Give me a credible source that Bush was just looking for an excuse to invade Iraq.
If you are honest, you would admit that it will be very difficult to do so. Woodward and others might piece some evidence together, and others (such as you or I) then need to decide if the evidence fits the facts. That is what a lawyer does. He lays out the facts, makes his argument, and lets the jury decide. It is a mistake to consider the lawyer the source of the facts. It is also a mistake (for either side) to not look at how the lawyer might be spinning the facts to best fit his case.
Would it be clearer if I said give me an “original” source? Give me the actual evidence that Bush’s goal was to invade Iraq and 9-11 was merely a convenient opportunity?
Jim in Iowa
Clarification (I hate it when I get a phone call while writing a reply!):
“evidence fits the facts” should read “conclusion fits the facts.”
You get the idea.
Jim in Iowa
Wasn’t Woodward himself privvy to some of these conversations that he writes about in his book?
For crying out loud, I’ve seen nobody disparage this guy about what he did before this book, and, truth be told, I still haven’t seen alot of complaining about him after the book – the Repubs just prefer to ignore it altogether.
But you guys are never happy. You want credible sources? I could provide them, but you want more, or you want other sources, or the sources I provide aren’t credible enough for you.
Case in point – the bs surrounding Bush’s guard records. People that are supposedly credible sources are, essentially, being called liars by anybody in the Bush Admin because they’re not falling in line.
“To use your logic, police who raid the house of a convicted drug dealer and kidnapper, who suspect he again is doing the same, are criminals violating the rights of an individual.”
You aren’t very intelligent Jim in Iowa…
Police need a warrant for which they must show JUST CAUSE to do that AND last I checked Iraq is NOT part of the US and therefore NOT subject to American laws. America attacked the sovreign nation of Iraq and removed its leader because Bush didn’t like him.
Hopefully you’ll be so understanding next time the terrorists attack American soil because they don’t like us… You did like the way terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center, didn’t you?
Craig,
I will try to find a copy of Woodward’s book. My undestanding is that he quotes a lot of sources, but that there is no “smoking gun.” About Bush. In other words, there are some people who think Bush had a mad obsession to invade Iraq, but that is a subjective opinion, not one based on something Bush actually said to them.
I get your point and honestly am not trying to ignore what you are saying just because it pokes a hole in my belief about Bush. However, for a variety of reasons, I believe Bush is being honest in what he says. As I read these posts and others, I find that ones belief about Bush greatly influences how you interpret the facts.
When looked at in context, and taking what Bush actually said at face value, his attack on Iraq does make sense as part of his war on terror. I’ve said before that I can understand disagreement on whether this was the best option. I have moments of doubt. But it is pointless to demonize Bush by applying evil motives to his actions when the facts just don’t prove that to be true (at least in my opinion).
Regarding the National Guard stuff, the truth is that for 5 out of his 5 1/2 years, Bush served well (go to this link for a good summary of his time in the National Guard: http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx ).
There is a lot of focus on 6 months. For the sake of argument, let’s say Bush was a major slacker and got away with something. Would I be upset that he is now avoiding telling the truth about it? Of course. But I find it ironic that the same people who gave Clinton a pass for avoiding telling the truth about Monica are the ones focusing on 6 months of Bush’s service.
For the record, I think the truth is in between. He did not go AWOL, but I suspect he did (as did many at the time) use the opportunity to his advantage. The question is, what does that matter today? In reality, absolutely nothing. He did serve his time (as the linked article shows) and he did get an honorable discharge. He was probably not the best example, but that is true by his own admission. (There is a clear contrast in how Bush and Kerry portray their pasts. Bush may downplay his indiscretions, but he does not treat them as points of honor.)
Jim in Iowa
Bladestar wrote:
“You aren’t very intelligent Jim in Iowa…
“Police need a warrant for which they must show JUST CAUSE to do that AND last I checked Iraq is NOT part of the US and therefore NOT subject to American laws. America attacked the sovreign nation of Iraq and removed its leader because Bush didn’t like him.
“Hopefully you’ll be so understanding next time the terrorists attack American soil because they don’t like us… You did like the way terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center, didn’t you?”
I am sorry if you are unable to understand what an analogy is. It is a comparison. But if you need it spelled out, here it is:
The United Nations, in essence, gave numerous search warrants. They passed article after article condemning what Sadaam was actively doing. Go live in your own little fantasy world if you want, but we did not invade because little Georgie Bush got his feelings hurt by what Sadaam did to his dad and decided to go attack him because he did not like him.
I noticed that you have continued to ignore my point about the truth about Iraq and Sadaam. Do you wish Sadaam was still in power? Do you feel he was a good man? Was Iraq a good place to live before we invaded? I have no problem with those who believe there was a better solution to the problem. I have no time for someone who offers no solution to the problem Iraq presented.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa:
>I noticed that you have continued to ignore my point about the truth about Iraq and Sadaam. Do you wish Sadaam was still in power? Do you feel he was a good man? Was Iraq a good place to live before we invaded?
It wasn’t necessarily a good place to live, but the neighborhood certainly has gone to hëll since W moved in. Add to that the terrorists that moved in and became active as soon as it became an obvious free-for-all.
>I have no problem with those who believe there was a better solution to the problem. I have no time for someone who offers no solution to the problem Iraq presented.
I’ve always been doubtful as to any real possibility of democracy in a nation where its religious have more power than any political leader, but there are other options that may not immediately smack as “the right way” for Americans.
While it has become an unwinnable mess with our current actions, I remain convinced that with new leadership in our country and mended International ties, Iraq can be turned around.
Fred
What Saddam did in Iraq is MEANINGLESS to me. I don’t live in Iraq, I don’t live near Iraq, I don’t do business with Iraq. Iraq wasn’t bothering anyone, they tried that with Kuwait over a decade ago and a true coalition of nations put them in their place.
George Bush is a rogue with no respect for the sovreignty of other nations. Remember that when other nations start treating the US like the unstable vigilante it’s “leader” is. God know Bush doesn’t lead by example…
What Saddam did in Iraq is MEANINGLESS to me. I don’t live in Iraq, I don’t live near Iraq, I don’t do business with Iraq. Iraq wasn’t bothering anyone,
The men, women and children who were tortured at the hands of Saddam and his sons might disagree on how much Iraq wasn’t bothering them – or did you miss the story about the men from Iraq who just got replacement hands after being freed from Saddam’s torture cells.
But, hey, Saddam was contained, right?
Ouch…
The truth hurts, don’t it?
But I find it ironic that the same people who gave Clinton a pass for avoiding telling the truth about Monica are the ones focusing on 6 months of Bush’s service.
Clinton eventually told the truth though, didn’t he?
Bush has yet to do that, and likely never will – he’d prefer to “stay the course” regardless of the madness.
There’s a point where he needs to just come forth and say “Yes, we fûçkëd up with Iraq.” I’m not the first person to suggest that on this forum, but obviously it needs mentioned again.
About the only thing he’s said is that we’ve “misunderestimated”. 😉
But, hey, Saddam was contained, right?
Another weapons inspection report is coming, and if the article I read was forthright, the report says, once again, that Saddam had no WMD.
However, it does say he intended to rebuild them at some point if he could. But this is merely a case of woulda/coulda/shoulda. No guarantees.
The fact remains that bin Laden was and still is our #1 threat, yet he went from important, to “no longer important” to the fact that he hasn’t been mentioned again in awhile.
We’ve totally blown what we needed to do in Afghanistan, and we’re blowing it again in Iraq.
What the flying fark is next?
Maybe the best democratic commercial of all is one made with John Kerry’s own voting record and his own statements to the press. The Kerry on Iraq documentary shows that we can not trust John Kerry to even remember where he stands on issues, much less lead our country. He can’t even show up for important votes in the Senate, so how do we trust him to be there when our country would need him if he were President.
How can even a die hard democrat view this video and not be disgusted with their choice for the person running on the democratic ticket for President.
I’m flabergasted.
btw ~ I still think it’s hilarious that he slams Bush for not pushing Congress to renew the ban on assault weapons when he as a member of said Congress could have and more importantly should have done the same.
Novafan
Bladestar wrote: You aren’t very intelligent Jim in Iowa…Police need a warrant for which they must show JUST CAUSE to do that AND last I checked Iraq is NOT part of the US and therefore NOT subject to American laws. America attacked the sovreign nation of Iraq and removed its leader because Bush didn’t like him.
At least he can spell “sovereign.” And he can comprehend metaphors and similes. Maybe you should pass 9th grade English before you disparage someone else’s acumen.
What Saddam did in Iraq is MEANINGLESS to me. I don’t live in Iraq, I don’t live near Iraq, I don’t do business with Iraq. Iraq wasn’t bothering anyone, they tried that with Kuwait over a decade ago and a true coalition of nations put them in their place.
What was it that someone else on here said to me? Ah yes: Unless you’re in Iraq risking having your ášš shot off, It’s easy to say that you can live with the lies that led into this war. Same idea different way around: As long as you’re not in Iraq being tortured, it’s easy to say what Saddam did in Iraq is meaningless to you. I was opposed to the war for similar reasons: I didn’t think liberating Iraq was worth the political and human capital (for “human capital” read: “dead American soldiers”) it would take to accomplish that feat. Morally, Bush’s position is easier to justify than mine: there’s no ethical ground for believing that 1000 American lives are worth more than 25 million Iraqis. Had I been President I would have made the less moral choice of leaving Saddam in Iraq. Had I, or anyone but George Bush, been President there would be another brutal despotism in the world today than there is now. US prestige would be higher and Bladestar would be happier (or at least vituperatively angry over other things) but I can’t say Bush made the wrong choice morally. From a standpoint of realpolitik it’s not the decision I would have made, but that may just mean that Bush is a better person than I am.
R. Maheras,
I think my opinion was plainly obvious. Did you read my post? oh, guess not since you made that stupid statment. Do you think I would post that list if I LIKED bush?? I could careless what you think is “thoughtful” or not. I posted it for people to read, If you don’t want to read it, then don’t. Do what most people do on long feedback post like this…skip a few instead of shooting off at the mouth like your views are the only ones that matter.
” No one can tell me how these policies have made their lives better, but the keep defending all these poor choices. Do you have any insight? Does anyone?
“
I think it’s because when you see Bush and hear him talk, especially informally, he comes across as the kind of guy that you could sit down and have a beer with, the kind of guy you could go fishing with, a regular Joe, without complicated airs.
For some reason he has this in his favor and so is able to make folks feel comfortable. Its’ an intangible, but it does help to explain why he keeps getting away with what he does and nothing seems to stick. I’ll bet John Gotti was just like that…..
So, which one of you “proud” Dimocrats are proud of this:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040917-010155-8041r.htm
Democrats accused of ripping Bush signs
By Robert Stacy McCain
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
A West Virginia man said yesterday that Democrats stole his family’s Bush-Cheney campaign signs at an event featuring Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards.
“They just pounced on us,” said Phil Parlock, who took his 11-year-old son, Alex, and 3-year-old daughter, Sophia, to the Democratic rally at Tri-State Airport in Huntington, W.Va.
Sophia became briefly famous yesterday when an Associated Press photo showing her in tears after Democrats tore her sign to pieces was posted on Matt Drudge’s Web site, http://www.drudgereport.com.
“She was crying; they were pushing and shoving her,” said Mr. Parlock, a Huntington real estate agent. “She was scared.”
Sophia is the youngest of 10 children in a proudly patriotic family. The oldest two Parlock children, a 22-year-old daughter and a 21-year-old son, are members of the West Virginia Army National Guard, and a third Parlock
So, which one of you “proud” Dimocrats are proud of this:
Good lord, nobody ever said we’re proud of this stupidity on either side of the political Great Wall.
I’d think you’d have to be a friggin moron to be proud of it. Or to assume that others are proud of it.
Dimocrat? My ášš. You sure put the “con” in conservative.
James wrote:
“I think my opinion was plainly obvious. Did you read my post? oh, guess not since you made that stupid statment. Do you think I would post that list if I LIKED bush?? I could careless what you think is “thoughtful” or not. I posted it for people to read, If you don’t want to read it, then don’t. Do what most people do on long feedback post like this…skip a few instead of shooting off at the mouth like your views are the only ones that matter.”
Thanks for reminding me why I became a non-aligned voter. Is it any wonder that independent voters are feeling more and more alienated by the Democrats these days?
If you go back and re-read my posts, you’d see that I didn’t criticize your viewpoint at all. I just said it was inconsiderate (not to mention illegal), to take a huge copyrighted article belonging to someone else, and then slap it into a blog belonging to someone else, when a simple summary of your opinion and link to the article would have sufficed.
I was just asking how you felt about thugs that attack children and are part of a labor union that officially endorse the candidate. Nice to see your answer was balanced and not hysterical nor insulting. Hmmmm, well, I feel so bad, I put the con in conservative, yet my side doesn’t have a self-admitted war crimal running for prez, my side doesn’t have a man that left a girl to drown in a river nor several former Klansmen that never apologizied or anything. Wow, I want to be a Dimcrat! I could be a baby-burner, a murderer and a racist and get away with it!!! Man, if I was you, I would be very proud Craig, those thugs were just following the fine example put out by the Dimocratic Nazi Party…
Ok Carl, settle down. You can’t call people “dimocrats” and then get insulted when they fire back. And while the Dems do have a pretty good rogue’s gallery you can’t think that there are plenty of Republicans that don’t bring disgrace to the name of carbon based life forms as well.
Kennedy and Byrd aren’t running.
It should also be noted that the president of the union members who tore the little girl’s sign down issued the following statement (nice to see someone who doesn’t act like a weasle in this kind of situation)
“The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades believes in the fundamental right for civil discourse, freedom of speech and activism to support our candidates and issues.”
“What happened in Huntington, West Virginia yesterday is an affront to everything we, as a union, pride ourselves to represent. We extend our apologies to the Parlock family, especially Sophia, for the distress one of our overzealous members caused them.”
“I have personally taken steps to address this issue internally, and will take immediate disciplinary action to the fullest extent allowed under U.S. Department of Labor regulations and the constitution of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades.”
“It is my hope that this incident reminds all of our members that every last citizen in this country has the right to express his or herself freely. Not one single one of us has the right to tell them otherwise.”
Ok Carl, settle down. You can’t call people “dimocrats” and then get insulted when they fire back
Thank you, Bill. I was going to say the same thing in reply.
Man, if I was you, I would be very proud Craig, those thugs were just following the fine example put out by the Dimocratic Nazi Party…
Actually, most people agree that the Nazis were right-wingers, not left-wingers, which would put them on the same side as the Republicans.
Make of that what you will.
Jim In Iowa,
First off, thanks for the comment, and for not insulting me for that little mistake. Some people on the internet forget that little bit of courtesy.
My main reason to post the definition of the noun is that a LIAR, is defined (By M-W) as someone who tells lies. Which I neglected to mention (sorry, that was my fault, I wasn’t thinking straight). I did it also to note that it is a lie wether it was intentional or not.
I would still say that it would fall into your posted definition of lie as a verb as well. He did mislead (I believe, and I could easily be wrong about this because I never looked into it, that he was briefed before the state of the union and recommended to take that section out because their were doubts on the intel. If someone could verify that for me one way or the other I would appreciate it. If that were true it makes it much more dubious, if its false then it was a simple error and more easily forgiven).
On the apology note, I understand it would be political suicide to come out and take that hit. I am not saying I expected it, I am saying I would have respected it. As it was he didn’t do it, politically a smart move. I am not going to harp on him about it, and it isn’t the reason I am not going to vote for him. I just wanted to ‘vocalize’ my little pipe dream where we have politicians who accept blame rather than spin it. This isn’t saying I think anyone currently running would do that, so don’t take this as an endorsement for one candidate over another.
I am not voting for Bush simply because I think he is the wrong person for the job this next term. I still haven’t made up my mind if there is a right person out there yet. However, my decision won’t be made on catchy taglines.
Complete Side Note: Around here there are some Bush/Cheney ’04 Signs. I really liked them, graphically speaking. They make my drive time a little more colorful, if nothing else.
Is Bush a liar?
Well, he’s a politician isn’t he?
As far as I’m concerned, a polician lying is just like a dog licking its genitals in public. It’s just what they do.
And yes, that goes for Kerry, too.
“Actually, most people agree that the Nazis were right-wingers, not left-wingers, which would put them on the same side as the Republicans.”
There’s a number of problems with this statement. For starters one can quibble over whether or not “most people” is true and, if so, whetther that matters. If most people vote for Bush, believe in Creationism, or make WifeSwap the TV hit of the year, I don’t think that will matter much to you.
Second. the nazis were socialists, so right wingers, who tend to be pretty nati-socialist can effectively disavow them.
Thirdly, using this logic, one could counter with the equally vaid (which is to say, not at all) statement that “Actually, most people agree that the communists were left-wingers, not right-wingers, which would put them on the same side as the Democrats.”
In neither case has a good argument been advanced.
Actually, most people agree that the Nazis were right-wingers
Not that it would make any difference in your opinion, but actually they were fascists. They believed in a strong one party government.
I think I can honestly say that most right wingers actually have a high distrust of government.
And Bill, I think the socialism in “Nazi” was more for public consumption than for truth. Although, most of the party rank and file believed fervently in it.
[quote]Zeek writes:
“Over 1000 dead? Uh it was way above 1000 after the Towers fell.”
Wow, and the Red Sox haven’t won the World Series yet. Which has exactly as much to do with 9/11 or the war in Iraq as they have to do with one another: Nothing at all.[/quote]
Ah. I was just lumping them all together as “Americans”. That was “my bad” for ignoring PAD’s stats.
..back to your regualarly scheduled rude-ness everyone…
“What Saddam did in Iraq is MEANINGLESS to me. I don’t live in Iraq, I don’t live near Iraq, I don’t do business with Iraq. Iraq wasn’t bothering anyone, they tried that with Kuwait over a decade ago and a true coalition of nations put them in their place.
George Bush is a rogue with no respect for the sovreignty of other nations. Remember that when other nations start treating the US like the unstable vigilante it’s ‘leader’ is. God know Bush doesn’t lead by example…”
Let me put this simply for you.
Iraq has not been a sovereign nation for over ten years. As you put it, a coalition removed the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Iraq was not merely boxed in; no-fly zones were instituted in their air-space; the Iraqi government was forced to allow inspectors from the United Nations to poke around Iraqi facilities. Iraq was beaten. Governmental entities from outside of Iraq dictated terms and allowances for actions within Iraq and Saddan’s regime took it. President Clinton ordered missiles fired into Iraq… and Saddam didn’t even have any say…
Iraq hardly has the qualities of a sovereign nation.
So you’re saying America like to victimize the helpless too? America does have the bully mind set down pat
Jim L:
Trying to dismiss unfavourable facts as opinion is a good tactic, but futile.
In the U.S. there are no sins that are unforgivable. It is not a case of
ATTENTION CARL and other interested parties.
Go to this link
http://rising-hegemon.blogspot.com/2004/09/bogus-assault-father-freeper-of-year.html
and you will discover that this is not the first time that this man has been “accosted” at a Democratic rally. It is the third time in the last three elections.
I think he should be arrested for child endangerment. He knew that he was there to cause a scene and to get anti-Democratic publicity. By putting his three-year-old daughter in that situation, he had reasonable knowledge that his daughter could get hurt.
Shame on him. Bad parenting.
Actually, most people agree that the Nazis were right-wingers, not left-wingers, which would put them on the same side as the Republicans.
Make of that what you will.
Sorry that you don’t know your history, li’l amigos. Nazi is short for “National Socialist”, a leftist form of fascism. But I am not surprised. And I am sorry, I have been spelling it Dimocrat since you bøøbš built an altar to the draft-dodging scum, Bill Judas Clinton.
And so sorry again guys, those áššëš are already in office doing damage to their states and this country, they don’t need to run. Oh well, like the Native Americans used to say, you can judge a person by his enemies. Still waiting for those worthies to show up. Thanks for trying…
Yes, it is a shame, a child with his parent can’t be safe from Democratic áššhølëš at a political rally. I swear to God if I took my daughters to a political event were my rights are gûár-dámņëd-ŧëë’d by the 1st Amendment and some bášŧárd attacked my child, I would be responsible for that sumbitch’s condition afterwards. Man, defending a person that made a 3 year old cry and then blaming her father. I am ashamed that such “Americans” exist…
It is true that John Kerry has not defined his plan to withdraw the troops from Iraq.
It is also true that Bush *has* defined his plan to get the troops out of Iraq.
5 to 10 a week in caskets.
Carl
Make your point, express your viewpoint, but stop calling people names.
Your arguments lose all there power when you are insulting others.
And I repeat, this so-called father deliberately put his daughter in a situation that he knew from past happenings could get out of hand. That is simply wrong and probably is criminal.
I said: “Your arguments lose all there power when you are insulting others.”
I meant to type ‘their’, not ‘there’.
This is frightening:
*Historically speaking:
How well does the Republican look on the issue of abolishing slavery and racism?
How well does the Republican look on the side of civil rights?
How much was the budget surplus under Reagan? Bush? Bush2?
How well was the economy doing under George Bush? Didn
Also, Carl, I don’t understand how you can have so much hatred and vileness in your heart.
I hope someday that you can find the Lord and find some peace in your heart and soul.
Be well.
I’m sorry, until Mr. David tells me different, I assume I have full freedom of speech here. I am trying to control my anger but to blame a father for thinking he had the same freedom not to be attacked and attend any open venue is just wrong and you know it. And might I ask whom put you in charge, did I miss the word MOD behind your name Alan? If so, please enlighten me so might understand your position of power over my speech…
Mr. Coil, your side calls GWB “Hitler” and “liar” and says he was an AWOL deserter from the NG and worse. I have anger at that, but not hate nor vileness, where you got that I have no clue? Is that what you say when people call you on what you said? Goodness me then, I wish you luck and peace in the future too ’cause when GWB wins another term I fear for your and other Democrats’s well mental being. Adios and be well also…
Obviously, Carl, I have no power over you or your speech. If I did, you would have been stifled a long time ago. I was merely trying to point out that politely stating your point makes your viewpoint more likely to be accepted by others.
I stand by my point. The father is a criminal. His three-year-old daughter was put in danger by his actions. Reckless endangerment, in my opinion.
I am done posting in this thread. Peace, my brother.
Okay, but he took his kids to a political rally and was there peacefully minding his own business. I read the “blame-the-father” article before you posted it via Michelle Malkin’s site earlier today. And I sure don’t know where you get off on saying an American apparently can’t take himself and his family to anything period and then blame *HIM* for his and his civil rights being violated. Doesn’t matter how much or if this has happened before, perhaps you should look at who is doing the attacking? All right, if you want to quit this thread, fine by me, I support your rights as a fellow American to do, say and go anyplace and express your freedoms. Oh yes, thanks for your patience, I feel much better now knowing you are out there with your level-headedness (hmmm, is that a word?). Good night, be well…
“And I repeat, this so-called father deliberately put his daughter in a situation that he knew from past happenings could get out of hand. That is simply wrong and probably is criminal.”
Whoa whoa whoa, Alan. You CAN’T believe this! Go help us all if it gets to the point where it is CRIMINAL to take one’s kids to a political event because we all KNOW that the other side is going to assault any dissent.
Even if the guy suspected that something like this might happen, this is a far greater condemnation of the state of the Democrat party than of his parenting skills.
And in the ineterst of fairness, I was also appalled by an earlier photo that showed a republican pulling on the hair of a protestor as she was taken out of a meeting. There is NO excuse for this level of violence. It’s also stupid beyond all belief.
You’re right Bill, taking kids to a political rally where you expect trouble from the opposition is a lot like bringing civilians to military targets to try to block them from bombs and missles….
Obviously, Carl, I have no power over you or your speech. If I did, you would have been stifled a long time ago.
I’m confused now. I thought we were supposed to be the Nazis. Guess not.
I stand by my point. The father is a criminal. His three-year-old daughter was put in danger by his actions. Reckless endangerment, in my opinion.
There is a difference between your opinion and truth. My state doesn’t happen to have a reckless endangerment statute, but the definition of the offense, where it exists, is reckless behavior that creates a substantial risk of injury or death to another person. There are two hurdles to prosecuting the father. First, there is an “intervening wrongdoer” doctrine: a person can’t be prosecuted because another person committed a criminal assault, even if the first person did something to make that assault possible. (Specific child endangerment laws, which do apply to a parent letting someone else commit a crime against his child, apply to abuse and neglect, not to some guy on the street assaulting the child.) The second is that there wasn’t a serious risk of injury or death to the child, so that even if you believe (wrongly) that he violated part of the statute by being reckless in taking the child there, that recklessness doesn’t rise to the level of a crime.
I think we can all agree that he shouldn’t have taken a 3 year old to a protest, but that’s a different issue. Personally, I find all protests such as this boorish. I didn’t like the protests outside the Democratic and Republican national conventions, and I think it’s obnoxious for Republicans and Democrats to turn up at each other’s rallies. Interfering with one’s opponent’s attempts to get his message out is Mr Coil’s approach, not mine.
Whoa whoa whoa, Alan. You CAN’T believe this! Go help us all if it gets to the point where it is CRIMINAL to take one’s kids to a political event because we all KNOW that the other side is going to assault any dissent.
And if it’s true that this guy has distrupted events in the past?
I for one think that is one dámņ good script for a commercial, really makes ya think… and can it be any worse than Bush using 9/11 footage to further his own attempt at another term? I don’t believe so.