Antiwar protests.

steissd

Agreed as to proportion...balance and appropriate metaphor, if they must be utilized, are necessary for clear-headed discussion and thinking. As to taste, I suspect you might mean something like treating those in official elected or appointed positions with a certain deference, and if so, you have no agreement with me whatsoever.

Everyone is to be treated with certain deference if he is not a convicted felon guilty in rape of infants (or not a Saddam-type dictator). Mr. Bush is a human being, a loyal citizen, he has no criminal record, he is a husband and father, and I do not think that he should be systematically defamed either in media or on the Internet forums.

blatham, given that two previous Presidents were named "George", that sorta does make Bush the Younger America's very own George III, doesn't it?

steissd

Like Nixon or Joseph McCarthy in all characteristics then, as regards being human, loyal, having a family and no previous conviction for a felony.

Defamation, in the legal sense you seem to imply, suggests knowingly false statements, thus isn't applicable here. Criticism is the word you want.

timber

You do know, I expect, that when the Brit producers of The Madness of King George III released the film adaption of the play for an American audience, they removed the 'III' concerned that this audience would assume two prequels they'd already missed, and not bother going. How could I, in the context of today's discussions, resist telling you this?

Example of good taste criticism:
"I am not sure that Mr. X is right in his decision to [...] because [a... b... c...]; IMO, decisions like [d... e... f...] would serve interests of the country much better."[/color]

LOL, blatham ... glad your passion leads you to indulge your urges

After all is said and done despite all the dire warnings the coalition forces swept through Iraq with relative ease and much fewer casualties than predicted.
The question now is can peace be achieved and can Iraq become a cohesive and democratic nation. Or will it end up, as the Balkans did with the death of Tito. Can the disparate ethnic groups learn to forget old feuds and work with each other?
Winning the war was relatively easy can the peace be won, that is the question.

If you look at our history -- and in particular our political history -- you'll find that fascism is mild compared to what some have been called. But it's always interesting to be reminded about "good taste" -- which is, of course, an important moral absolute. Steissd -- you may not be ready for democracy yet. But that's okay. We understand you people over there. In fact, America is searching out folks like you and will make you into a democracy, whether you like it or not!

steissd

I do actually fully agree regarding the mis-use of exaggeration. But 'insults' of political figures simply must be allowed because the policing or suppression of such is far more dangerous to freedom. The US has a strong tradition of allowing such speech (Twain, for example) and Britain has a tradition even more robust which values and celebrates it, not merely 'allows'. When you look to a model of free speech traditions, look to Britain rather than the US.

Au

The example of Tito is a good one, and I agree with every word in your post other than the 'coalition' euphemism.

Tartarin

Perhaps we ought to write a play, set in the very near future, where a 'Hollywood-liberal' team take office and wage warfare on other states who are not sufficiently liberated.

Certainly in our political fights, we have lost much of the sense of humor shown in earlier days. Dirty, but funny. I realized that, Blatham, when you mentioned Britain. It has (or used to have) a certain joyful lack of inhibition in its political fights, wit, humor, self-deprecation even. None of that here, by god. We take ourselves extremely seriously.

Tartarin
I agree. We do take ourselves too seriously.
I enjoy C-Span coverage of the parliament in England questioning Prime Minister Tony blair. The bantering back and forth creates a civil atmosphere for disagreement. But you have to be able to speak in full sentences to do that. Few of our politicians do.

When a person says "I know what I mean. I just don't know how to say it."
They don't know what they mean.


They

True, Billy. The Brits -- in school, at university -- practice speaking and speaking well. Not all do all the time -- but they are so much more careful about the meaning of language and speaking clearly than we are. We are enormously sloppy about language as though it doesn't matter whether you mean "reticent" or "reluctant" -- what the hell they sound the same and someone will probably understand you. You're right about full sentences, but more is needed -- you have to know what you mean and then use real words in whole sentences toconvey that meaning. Bummer! That's hard!

Someone complained about a rap star using the word "agreeance" and remarked, Hey, you know what Bush said menacingly to Saddam before starting the invasion? He said: You disarm! Or we will disarm!

Is there anybody out here who thinks, as I do, that the Bush approval ratings are a product of intelligence, put together with the help of maintream media colleagues?

I mean: I never ever meet someone on the internet who approves of Bush (except the ones that are payed to). Does that mean the 70% approval ratings come from Americans who never participate in internet forums?

I don't think so. I think these approval ratings are the only things keeping the Bush dictatorship from being overthrown by a popular uprising.

Tend to agree with you, Wolf. Very fishy.

I think about this often.

I know lots of conservatives -- but there are very few who even stick up for the guy -- and many actively are very critical of him. I suspect some are looking for a Democratic candidate for whom they can vote. Sure wish I knew who the Dems are gonna run.

As a veteran of both gulf conflicts (i was wounded this time and just returned stateside),let me say this...
I have no problem with anyone that protested the war,that is the right of every citizen.But,I do have a problem with the people that said..."I oppose the war,but I support the troops"
IMHO,that seems to be a contradiction.If you support the troops,then define that.Do you want them to do the best they can (that means win)? Or,do you want them to return home quickly (another term for win).
So,it seems to me,that if you supported the troops,then you have to want them to win.
Now,We heard the reports on CNN and some of the other news outlets about the people that wanted American troops to die,because they felt the war was wrong.
So,if you claim the war is wrong and you dont support it,but you claim to support the troops,IMHO that is a contradiction.
But,I'm just a soldier,what do I know.

I just read thru some of the posts on here,and I am appalled by what tartarin wrote.
I am sitting in my apt right now,with 2 fingers missing on my right hand,and my right shoulder and arm in a cast,due to wounds recieved in Nasariyah..
tartarin,those are the antiwar comments that are wrong.
I lost some friends over there,and for you to actually say that you wanted many dead US soldiers is an affront to the memory of every GI ever killed in any military action ever taken by this country.
I find it very hard to respect someone that roots for Americans to die.
Please tell me you didnt actually mean that.

mysteryman

As far as I remember, no-one ever said here, she/he wanted many dead soldiers - as of any nation!

As said on another thread, I sincerely hope, you'll recover soon - and thanks for all you and your comrads did for all of us!