THOUGHTS ON OUR PRESIDENT

Can somebody tell me why it's rude to react to politically charged propaganda?

Misti IS sweet and I've never seen her in a online fight but why does that mean we have to be quiet about the propaganda pieces?

Gotta go offline.

Misti if you are as offended as roger and lash are making you out to be I apologize. I have no beef with you but have serious beef against cheap partisan ploys.

Misti, that's the most important thing. I get so irritated with people who, just because the President isn't someone they voted for or isn't a member of their party, can't find one good thing to say about him and put him down every chance they get. The President deserves our respect and support.

I've been "snoped" a few times myself, as I'm sure many of us have. You are definitely not alone in that!

As for rudeness, blacksmithn's post was extremely rude in my opinion. The pro "Shrub" (duh), anti-Clinton comment shows his ignorance.

I assure you, Craven, the slant of the material had nothing to do with my comments regarding rudeness. Sorry you think my veiwpoint is so narrow and my mind so shallow.

this was rude!

Perhaps when it comes to disagreement, 'tis not so much matter, as manner...

exactly

Roger,

I don't think your viewpoint is shallow. I hadn't read the end of blacksmithn's post. It's not tactfull but the PMs I recieved were that we shouldn't respond to the politically charged material because it was not on the politics board and not posted by a player in politics. I hadn't read the end of blacksmithn's post and had seen nothing that referred to Misti personally, only dissent with the chain mails.

chatoyant,

I strongly disagree with the notions of supporting any standing president unconditionally. It's a cheap ploy. Calls for solidarity have always been a cheap tactic that I despise.

Craven, I couldn't agree with you move. Patriotism is not dependant on the will of the unPresident, it is dependant on the will of the people.

Craven, I couldn't agree with you move. Patriotism is not dependant on the will of the unPresident, it is dependant on the will of the people.

-----Unintentional double posting, probably act of God for the truth it protrays!

I have a problem, as well, with the notion that holding the office entitles one to unquestioned support. This is allegedly a democracy, so what are we to do, if not to "put him down every chance they [we] get." That's what plurality combined with freedom is all about. If we didn't vote for the guy, and we don't respect him, we have the right to say so, to say it loudly, to say it often.

Nothing that i write here refers to personal animosities that have arisen in this thread, i'm not going to take a position on this. I have posted to point out that it is an absurdity to contend that the Shrub should get our support because he has the office. Quite apart from that depressing fact, there is the still unburied contention that he used Florida, and his brother the Gov there, to steal the election. Surely one can't think those who oppose him and his policies are going to ignore that, and "play nice" just to avoid being labeled "sore losers." This is democracy and free speech in action.

Frankly, I think it's a lot more impolite to post blatant untruths as though they were actual fact. Don't like being called a liar? Don't post lies. End of problem. The tiniest smidgeon of research on this fairytale would've revealed the truth and saved some thin skins.

It's kinda like Bush's reprehensible actions in the arena of civil rights and then his announcement yesterday that there is still prejudice towards civil rights and we must do something about it. He actions of making this announcement agains himself doesn't rectify his actions. He is still wrong and a bad leader!

Partisan is my new dirty word.

Misti<

Your loving post re: Dubya is one I could not have written. I highly disagree with you on this one!

Salutes do not make presidents. And please remember that Bill Clinton is now a private citizen just like you and me. He has already been judged for his actions as president, and history's judgement awaits him. He can never be president again, so let him live his life without your slander.

The world now looks to Dubya for leadership and, seemingly, finds him getting only vacant salutes from his personal military staff.

Dubya's threat of war is hanging over the heads of our citizens and is ruining our spirit and our economy. We are headed into a divisive period unseen in the nation since the days of the Vietnam War. The American people are being held hostage by a president whom they did not elect but was instead appointed by Daddy's Supreme Court.

You'll get no salutes for Dubya from me.

williamhenry - further to your response, never has America responded (a united front of many factions) so against an action of war in this manner at this stage of the game; before the first shot is even fired. It was funny to see Dr StrangeLove, himself (Rummy) saying he is against war. So I see wiggle room?

All older men are against war. They let the younger men and women take all the hits.

w.h.,

Why can't Clinton be attacked? IMO he's fair game.

Ditto - opps, hate that term!

Craven<

Dubya's apologists, IMHO, use Clinton's shortcomings as a backdrop against which to measure criticism against Dubya. They use "bad Clinton" as a smokescreen to make Dubya's actions seem correct whenever Dubya is criticized.

As I wrote earlier, Clinton is now a private citizen. His administration is over. Dubya's term is now two years old, and he's still using Clinton's mistakes to make himself look rosy.

Such use is not taking responsibility for one's own actions, which was a strong charge against Clinton while he was president.

By continuing to bash Clinton, some voters are giving Dubya carte blanche to dilly-dally and be indecisive. When a voter of today raps Clinton, s/he is living in the past and cannot face the failures of this current presidency.

Criticizing Clinton-past will not excuse Bush-present. Bush's apologists seem to think it will. They can't defend the current president, so they deflect the subject by whipping-up on poor 'ole Bill.