Jackson Free Press

The latest New York Times/CBS News Poll finds that Americans are increasingly deciding that President Bush's policies are out of step with the needs of the country:

Americans say President Bush does not share the priorities of most of the country on either domestic or foreign issues, are increasingly resistant to his proposal to revamp Social Security and say they are uneasy with Mr. Bush's ability to make the right decisions about the retirement program, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The poll underscores just how little headway Mr. Bush has made in his effort to build popular support as his proposal for overhauling Social Security struggles to gain footing in Congress. At the same time, there has been an increase in respondents who say that efforts to restore order in Iraq are going well, even as an overwhelming number of Americans say Mr. Bush has no clear plan for getting out of Iraq. [...]

Four months after Mr. Bush won a solid re-election over Senator John Kerry, 63 percent of respondents say the president has different priorities on domestic issues than most Americans. Asked to choose among five domestic issues facing the country, respondents rated Social Security third, behind jobs and health care. And nearly 50 percent said Democrats were more likely to make the right decisions about Social Security, compared with 31 percent who said the same thing about Republicans.

Previous Comments

ID

86870

Comment

Is there such a thing as electoral remorse?

Author

kaust

Date

2005-03-03T18:37:13-06:00

ID

86871

Comment

Hell, it's not like there are any surprises. Everything is right on schedule. Remember that big New York Times profile of Bush that the White House tried to discredit. Everything in it has come true, so far, including the controversial statement Bush made to high-dollars donors about his immediate plans after inauguration. Most remarkable, the White House tried to deny the statement. Now, even all that goes down the memory hole. One could argue that America is getting what she asked for. Buckle your seatbelt. Or perhaps I should say "lock and load": we're going to have to fight for our rights for some time to come now. And America-the-almost-free as we know her will be gone for a long time if Bush gets the Supreme Court appointments he'll want. Sigh.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-03-03T18:43:59-06:00

ID

86872

Comment

Hmmm, I doubt it is as "Doomsday" as ya'll have made it out to be. My approval of Bush is dropping though. I hope the religious right does not take over the supreme court. I do hope that Roe v. Wade stands and I wish that if we MUST continue to topple these terrorist staes that we do so with Nuclear weapons and not with American lives. We have already speant well over $100 billion on Iraq. Three well placed ( in Baghdad, Tehran, and Pyongyang) Ballistic nuclear missiles on the morning of Sept 12, 2001 would have cost less that a billion dollars and would have announced loud and clear that America will not stand for terrorism or attacks on her soil. And not one American soldier would have lost his/her life.

Author

RightonTarget

Date

2005-03-04T10:37:15-06:00

ID

86873

Comment

I don't think it's "doomsday," either -- but there is work to be done, and people need to start paying attention. It's going to be hard to re-grow a lot of old-growth trees once they're cut down, if you get my drift. Now, it's funny to me, though, that you poo-poo a "doomsday" scenario, but you would have obliterated three major cities before you even knew who was responsible for the 9-11 attacks--and apparently three cities that didn't have anything to do with the attacks! What do you call that, ROT? Perhaps the arrogant, anti-them attitude that helped get us into this mess in the first place?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-03-04T11:22:03-06:00

ID

86874

Comment

Well I think the thing that "got us into this" was three airplanes full of Americans being flown into buildings full of Americans. This was an UNDECLARED ACT OF WAR. Treachery of the highest nature. Perhaps Tehran did not order Al-Qauda to fly the planes but they have been harboring terrorsits for decades. Therefore ANY nation that gives aid and comfort to the enemy is our enemy. And I make no appologies for my "pro-us" "anti-them" attitude. They want me dead, therefore I want them dead. Patriotism and care for American lives is not a repblican/democrat or left/right thing. Its a "lets keep this nation safe for us and our children thing" I feel certain you agree. And yes, I do value American lives more than non-American, once again, no appologies. :)

Author

RightonTarget

Date

2005-03-04T14:09:19-06:00

ID

86875

Comment

Ok I get your argument, RoT. Countries harboring (and sponsoring?) terrorists should all be nuked. You never mentioned bombing Afghanistan (where Al-Quiada was actually based) or Pakistan (where many Al-Quiada are currently being harbored by mountain villagers in spite of official efforts). And I guess Saudi Arabia is fourth on that terrorist harboring list of yours, RoT? My, won't we have a lovely energy bill under your administration? And btw, are we going to bomb all terrorist harboring/sponsoring countries or only those terrorist harboring/sponsoring countries that we dislike? Ireland? England? Israel? Montana? See any problems with black and white thinking, even in regard to terrorism?

Author

GDIModerate

Date

2005-03-04T14:21:41-06:00

ID

86876

Comment

Osama bin Laden wasn't born on September 11, ROT. And, amazingly, your bombing would have missed him, as Bush's has. Glad you're not in charge.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-03-04T14:30:25-06:00

ID

86877

Comment

Yes ladd, but snide remarks aside, without a country to operate in Osama would not be much of a force. If we make it costly enough (ie frying large cities) then these countries will realize it is no longer profitable to habor these people. I am not so much interested in capturing a "trophy" (ie Bin Laden himself) as I am in wiping out the structures that would set off a smallpox bomb in Los Angeles given the oppourtunity. GDI, to answer your more rationally put response, I am no fan of Saudi Arabia, pakistan, or Afghanistan. Of the three Saudi probably has the most anti-American sentiments among the civilian population. But at the time Iran and Iraq offered the best combination of resources/infrastructure and a friendly government to operate in. To answer the question regarding if i have a problem with all terrorsist? No only those that threaten our country. England's government is not friendly to terrorists. As far as our energy bill, they would be considered conquered nations, much as germany and japan were after WWII, therefore we could take all the Oil we wanted. Once again we did not start this fight (though i am sure you will argue somehow we did). This began when peaceful american civilians were jumping 1200 feet to their deaths in new york city. I have no sympathy any country that harbours people who do this. This is a nerve with me. I would turn Iran, Iraq, Lybia, North Korea, and any other rougue nation that uses terrorism, into parking lots. They HATE us, and I dont care WHY. I cant believe anyone (liberal or conservative) would even remotely approach sympathizing with these people. IMO one American life is worth more than ail the Arabia's and Persia's together. Nationalistic? sure. Ethnocentric? Maybe. But sometimes you just have to pick a side as ugly as it is.

Author

RightonTarget

Date

2005-03-04T14:53:36-06:00

ID

86878

Comment

I guess by that logic, we'd have to bomb us, since we're the home of the Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh. duck and cover, everyone.

Author

kate

Date

2005-03-04T15:56:27-06:00

ID

86879

Comment

Incinerate ...all terrorsist? No only those that threaten our country. And my point is, how will you define "those that threaten our country." I'm all for bringing Al Quiada to justice and anyone supplying them. But wouldnít going after whole countries and entire citizenries (including peaceful, innocent citizens) for aiding and abetting essentially make us terrorists? And what kind of threat would you retaliate for? A number of western countries have made economic, diplomatic or military (i.e., police enforcement, world court, etc.) threats against the US in one fashion or another over the last ten years. Which ally will you single out to nuke? Add to them the Russian Republic, PRoChina, a host of 3rd world countries and even US states and cities have made political and economic threats now and then (not to mention citizen enclaves here and there). And will you nuke these groups at the first mention of any kind of threat? Or do they have to economically/diplomatically/militarily act before you incinerate them? Must the action be enough in itself or must documented harm take place (say a 0.3% dip in GNP)? Yep. Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em I says. Then no one can make any threats against us and we can stay as smug and self-sufficient as ever.

Author

GDIModerate

Date

2005-03-04T16:01:12-06:00

ID

86880

Comment

GDI you are sensasionalizing my post.;) But I will answer your questions point by point. 1) Those that threaten our country: Nations that openly allow terrorist groups to operate within their borders. This is different from a country that has aterrorist in it but does not support it. i.e. england, japan, australia. Those governements are not "terrorist friendly" like Iran, Iraq, Lybia, etc. are. As far as thier citizens, they had no problem killing our citizens. 2) What kind of threat would i retaliate for? Answer: A physical act of war on our soil or on our citizens. i.e. plane into buildings, dirty bomb, etc. A THREAT is not an ACT. 9/11 was an ACT which was perpatrated by a terrorist group that was knowing harbored and given aid by the aforementioned countries 3) And will you nuke these groups at the first mention of any kind of threat? Or do they have to economically/diplomatically/militarily act before you incinerate them? Must the action be enough in itself or must documented harm take place (say a 0.3% dip in GNP)? This is a non-sensical question that was answered in the above question. And Kate, in response to your post, my logic would not dictate bombing us. Did WE (the U.S.)as a nation HELP The Unibomber or McVeigh? NO! To quote youin prior posts: "PLEASE READ THE POST" I said Governments that actively give AID and COMFORT to these terrorist groups GDI and Kate, i dont think you are getting the gist of my argument. I am not saying nuke any country that might not like us (hell, no one likes us, and frankly, i dont care) . It is any country that gives aid and comfort to thase that commit acts of was on us. Surely you can agree with that?

Author

RightonTarget

Date

2005-03-04T16:37:55-06:00

ID

86881

Comment

Oh, and one other point GDI, if i may. Responding to an UNDECLARED ACT OF WAR does not make us terrorists. If we bombed The Congo because we did not like their religious preferences that would be a terrorist act. Protecting ones national security is not a terrorist act.

Author

RightonTarget

Date

2005-03-04T16:41:09-06:00

ID

86882

Comment

GDI, whats wrong with being self-sufficient?

Author

RightonTarget

Date

2005-03-04T16:53:58-06:00

ID

86883

Comment

ROT, I don't think we should nuke anyone. I do not see how killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people and seriously damaging the global environment is the correct response to the killing of thousands of innocent people. Makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. And, in what way are we self sufficient? That's the craziest thing I've heard in a while. 3/4 of the produce at the grocery comes across a border of some sort. not too mention the amount of materials we import from other countries. Oh, and the oil. And it's starting to be all customer service centers. ROT, I really don't see why anyone who voted for Bush last year is surprised by anything that he's done. I don't understand how you can complain about the religious right, or even how he's conducting the war. You had 4 years to see his style, and yet you still voted for him. Why would he change tactics now? Why would you think that he has any sort of exit strategy for Iraq, any plan to end the killings? I just don't get that. I really don't get how anyone who calls himself a libertarian could have ever voted for Bush. It just does not compute.

Author

kate

Date

2005-03-04T17:20:29-06:00

ID

86884

Comment

Kate, you are assuming again....I did NOT vote for Bush. If he and Kerry had been the only two choices I would have. I voted Libertarian. So I CAN complain about the religious right. I did not say we were self sufficient, GDI made that assumption in his post, i was simply responding that it would be nice if we were. Also, Kate, war is an ugly reality of human existence. Sometimes you just have to choose a side. Dont you think that if Al Quadia could nuke us they would? Also are you aware that in 1945 the atomic bomb saved about 1,000,000 japanese and American lives that would have been lost in a coventional invasion of japan? I know your motives are noble in not wanting to kill, i dont WANT to kill. If a man walked up and attempted to rape you would you fight back? or would you turn the other cheek? That is basically what happened on 9/11 The U.S. and her citizens were raped. How would you handle terrorists? With education and affection? I am really not trying to be a smart-ass, i just cant understand the "hyper-pacifist" train of thought.

Author

RightonTarget

Date

2005-03-04T18:09:33-06:00

ID

86885

Comment

IMO one American life is worth more than ail the Arabia's and Persia's together. Nationalistic? sure. Ethnocentric? Maybe. But sometimes you just have to pick a side as ugly as it is. Actually, the word you're searching for is "psychotic." You're quoting Hitler. It's certainly moral relativism writ neoconservative in all its glory. I will say that I'm fascinated by the logic that tells us the only way to save civilization as we know it is to be the first to shun its tenets. Three well placed (in Baghdad, Tehran, and Pyongyang) Ballistic nuclear missiles on the morning of Sept 12, 2001 would have cost less that a billion dollars and would have announced loud and clear that America will not stand for terrorism or attacks on her soil. And not one American soldier would have lost his/her life. War is Peace. Too bad we've never tried that before. Dont you think that if Al Quadia could nuke us they would? Also are you aware that in 1945 the atomic bomb saved about 1,000,000 japanese and American lives that would have been lost in a coventional invasion of japan? And not only did 200,000 civilian casualties accelerate Japan's surrender -- which they would *never* have otherwise done -- but since then, no one has dared go to war against us because we showed our willingness to use nukes. It certainly put the Russians in their place. And the ensuing 50 years of peace hardly cost us a dime. Right RoT?

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2005-03-05T14:16:17-06:00

ID

86886

Comment

Well todds, the only flaw with your comparison of Hitler is that I not interested in conquering peaceful nations. Or ethnic cleansing. your comparison is insulting. Tell me sir is it a good thing or bad thing that no country has dared go to war with us? It certainly put the Russians in their place. And the ensuing 50 years of peace hardly cost us a dime Actually todds the period since WWII has been THE most prosperous time in American history. I sometimes wonder if you just like to play devils advocate, or if you really do dislike the fact that America is the richest and most powerful nation in the world? I happen to love it.

Author

RightonTarget

Date

2005-03-05T20:20:02-06:00

ID

86887

Comment

Actually Todds, instead of defending my postion, please tell me how YOU would have handled 9/11 if you were President. Assume you are explaining your policy to the widows and orphans of 9/11. Lets hear how you would have done it.

Author

RightonTarget

Date

2005-03-05T20:22:47-06:00

ID

86888

Comment

Sorry, ROT, I thought you had said on another thread that you had voted for Bush. My mistake. However, I didn't say that war is never an option. You took my opposition to nuking millions of civilians a bit farther than my original statement would allow for. Not sure when opposing wholescale bombing of countries that had not harmed us became hyper-pacifism. Go read the multiple threads on Iraq. I've been on this merry go round a dozen times or so on this site in the past couple of years. I'm not going on that ride again.

Author

kate

Date

2005-03-05T21:19:14-06:00

ID

86889

Comment

Not asking you to kate ;) You responded to my post so I simply responded in kind.

Author

RightonTarget

Date

2005-03-06T00:04:32-06:00

ID

86890

Comment

I guess that's why he got re-elected. He's "'Out of Step'" with America..... lame :-/ bush won folks. get over it.

Author

phsjr1

Date

2005-03-06T13:56:40-06:00

ID

86891

Comment

get over it. Now that sounds like a recipe for civic engagement. Get over what, ph? While we're getting over, shall we roll over and play dead. Deaf, dumb and stupid while we're at it? No reason to be concerned with Social Security, the U.S. debt, the safety of American soldiers, the way other countries view us, and people in our midst with the horrifying belief that American lives are worth more than others. We should just get over it. Uh ... no.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-03-06T15:16:24-06:00

ID

86892

Comment

I sometimes wonder if you just like to play devils advocate, or if you really do dislike the fact that America is the richest and most powerful nation in the world? I happen to love it. Ah, yes, the "I must hate America for questioning an asinine assertion" response. And it's even the form of a false dilemma. What a huge surprise. So, let's see it took one post for me to "dislike America" because I challenged the following statement: IMO one American life is worth more than ail the Arabia's and Persia's together. Nationalistic? sure. Ethnocentric? Maybe. But sometimes you just have to pick a side as ugly as it is. Tell me this, then. Why? Why is your life (let's just pick you, assuming you're an American and would therefore qualify under your own values system) worth more than all of "Arabia's and Persia's lives" together?

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2005-03-06T16:58:01-06:00

ID

86893

Comment

Because I am an American. I told you above I will not appologize for Pride in Country. IMO America is the best nation in the world. Our poor in america live like royalty compared to people in some other countries. In America, people are allowed to question the government. In Iran you would be jailed for making anti government concepts. And I guess it just comes down to this: Eventually you have to choose a side. You cant ride the fence forever. I am Pro America! Its not a liberal/conservative thing. Now, I answred your question, would you care to take a stab at mine? from my above post: Actually Todds, instead of defending my postion, please tell me how YOU would have handled 9/11 if you were President. Assume you are explaining your policy to the widows and orphans of 9/11. Lets hear how you would have done it?

Author

RightonTarget

Date

2005-03-06T19:17:16-06:00

ID

86894

Comment

er, I don't think that answers the question about why your life is worth more than someone else's. It explains why you like being an American, but not why you have inherently more worth than another living, breathing, feeling human being on the planet.

Author

kate

Date

2005-03-06T19:29:24-06:00

ID

86895

Comment

Because I am an American. I told you above I will not appologize for Pride in Country Are you honestly equating "pride" and patriotism with believing that your life as an American is more valuable than someone else's? My God, I pity you.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-03-06T19:35:02-06:00

ID

86896

Comment

Because I am an American. I told you above I will not appologize for Pride in Country. IMO America is the best nation in the world. Our poor in america live like royalty compared to people in some other countries. In America, people are allowed to question the government. In Iran you would be jailed for making anti government concepts You're just begging the question. "An American's life is worth more because he's an American." Not good enough. Can you give a substantial answer to that question? Because if not, then your answer is, by definition, representative of bigotry, not love of country. (In fact, here's a definition for you: bigot, n., One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.) Try again: Why does being an American make your life worth more than that of someone who lives in another country, even if their government is oppressive or their economy or constitutional protections differ from ours?

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2005-03-06T20:04:15-06:00

ID

86897

Comment

Ok todds , I guess that makes me a biggot by your definition. Now, how about my question? Ladd, you know i love you, but thank God your view is shared by only a small minority of the voting populace.

Author

RightonTarget

Date

2005-03-07T07:17:32-06:00

ID

86898

Comment

Ladd, you know i love you, but thank God your view is shared by only a small minority of the voting populace. What makes you think that? I believe there are a lot more Americans than you think who have sense enough to realize that all human life is equally valuable.

Author

Tim Kynerd

Date

2005-03-07T07:19:17-06:00

ID

86899

Comment

And since pretty much every religion emphasizes the notion that we are all god's creatures, I'm thinking that the idea is fairly widespread. God makes the sun shine on sinners and righteous alike, and all that. Or, as Dr. Suess would say, "Sneetches are Sneetches, no matter the stars" (some of the Sneetches have stars on their bellies, some do not, for those of you without small children)>

Author

kate

Date

2005-03-07T08:19:03-06:00

ID

86900

Comment

Is that the one where the con man comes in and fools them all into spending their money to have stars taken on and off of their bellies until they are all so confused they dont know who is who? I loved that one and the Lomax (another liberal theme, eco-fanatacism, turned into a good childrens book). We used to watch those movies in the schoo library. Tim, i think most people you ask would say they value Americans more than Iranians. At least those in the Red counties ;)

Author

RightonTarget

Date

2005-03-07T10:44:53-06:00

ID

86901

Comment

Thank God your view is shared by only a small minority of the voting populace. ROT, it's one thing to proudly proclaim and then stand by your own bigotry, but to then say that most Americans are bigots along with you is just plain disgusting. You have no right to speak for other people and drag them into the mud with you.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-03-07T12:02:14-06:00

ID

86902

Comment

Ok todds , I guess that makes me a biggot by your definition. It's not my definition. It's *the* definition. Now, how about my question? Well...my plan would be NOT to nuke three countries that were not proven to be even tangentially related to 9/11. Fortunately, no one with any power took that plan seriously, either.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2005-03-07T12:23:36-06:00

ID

86903

Comment

Hey, look, its just my opinion, which I am entitled to! For the most part, that region of the world hates America. Therefore I hate them. Sorry if it offends.

Author

RightonTarget

Date

2005-03-07T12:30:16-06:00

ID

86904

Comment

Hey, look, its just my opinion, which I am entitled to! Nobody said you weren't, even though it's a moronic opinion based on a misplaced emotionality that shuns any sort of evidence and defies logic. :-) You're the one who kept pressing me to answer your question, so I answered it.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2005-03-07T12:41:05-06:00

ID

86905

Comment

Yes, it does offend. And no one said you're not entitled to it. Keep it! Who would want such a thing? However, don't try to brand "most" other people with the same bigotry. *That's* the part you're not to entitled to.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-03-07T12:42:35-06:00

ID

86906

Comment

For the most part, that region of the world hates America. Therefore I hate them. And since most governments in that region do not support terrorism (at least officially), you have once again redefined the threshold you would use to initiate nuclear pre-retaliation: mutual hate. I believe once again you would have to look to a few western countries (and states) as targets with that one. ...whats wrong with being self-sufficient? Nothing, if true selfsufficiency is the standard. The US has never been self-sufficient and will never be, short of conquering and stealing the resources we need. To quote you again "they would be considered conquered nations, much as germany and japan were after WWII, therefore we could take all the Oil we wanted. Yep, let's make America self-sufficient again! I believe that may be more to the real point of American diplomacy and international affairs than the left cares to acknowledge or the right wants to share publicly.

Author

GDIModerate

Date

2005-03-07T13:01:04-06:00

ID

86907

Comment

Ladd, not being a smart-ass, but next time you get a chance, take a look at the county-by-county map of the 2004 election results. There are ENTIRE STATES without one blue county in them. And a lot of your opinions offend me too :) But you are still my home-girl Todds, you told me what your plan would NOT be, you never told me what your plan WAS! GDI, if you remember correctly we voluntarily freed both west germany AND Japan after WWII, while the Soviets continued to occupy the eastern bloc for half a century.

Author

RightonTarget

Date

2005-03-07T15:36:49-06:00

ID

86908

Comment

ROT, you are presenting yourself as one big-ass walking logical fallacy. Are you honest-to-God arguing that the people who voted for Bush did so because they, like you, are bigots who believe that an American life is more valuable than an Arab one??? This is the exact argument you have unfolded for us. You can't possibly believe this horrible thing about your own people. Or maybe you can. You've already said you believe you as an American are more valuable than an Arab life. Never mind your asinine question to Todd, which is only avoidance: how about answering his question instead of doing your smart-ass little tap dance. And trust me: I have no desire to be the "home-girl" of someone with views such as the ones you've expressed on this thread, or on several of the others. It is our responsibility as Americans who actually believe in freedom to confront bigots head-on; therefore, I must challenge you. Why is your life more valuable than someone else's? Speak up, ROT. You brought this up. Now give us your evidence. Lay it on the table for us to all to understand.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-03-07T15:44:45-06:00

ID

86909

Comment

Maps like this one? I don't see a state with NO blue counties, but it's hard to tell. So, ROT, we'll "free" those countries after we've, to quote you, "turned them into parking lots"? That's a logical plan. ROT, mock Dr. Seuss and the Lorax (not Lomax) all you want, but for me, and again, for most major religions, responding to hate with hate is just not the answer. And, for the record, the reason McMonkey McBean was able to make a boatload of money from the Sneetches was because they were so blinded by their prejudices that the spent all of their money trying to maintain them. It's only after they've spent all of their money and he leaves that they realize what they've done. Sound familiar to the country that's running a national debt into the Trillions?

Author

kate

Date

2005-03-07T15:45:26-06:00

ID

86910

Comment

reposting the link This one? And if you scroll between the Election Results by State map and the Election Results by County map, you will see that there were a number of blue counties schattered throught the red states. Further, if you scroll down more, you will see that there were quite a few counties that went red by a very small margin ("shades of purple").

Author

GDIModerate

Date

2005-03-07T16:22:16-06:00

ID

86911

Comment

LADD: "ROT, you are presenting yourself as one big-ass walking logical fallacy. Are you honest-to-God arguing that the people who voted for Bush did so because they, like you, are bigots who believe that an American life is more valuable than an Arab one??? This is the exact argument you have unfolded for us. You can't possibly believe this horrible thing about your own people. Or maybe you can. You've already said you believe you as an American are more valuable than an Arab life. . ." Does this surprise you, Ladd? I know many people who believe this whole-heartedly and enjoy expressing it. I believe that many if not most Bush supporters feel this way. For the record, I disagree that, in a war situation, valuing american lives over those of other nationalities makes one a bigot. However, that stands in stark contrast to Falwell (for example), who stated on the record that "[America] should blow them away in the name of the Lord."

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-03-07T16:34:54-06:00

ID

86912

Comment

Since I was the one who introduced the word "bigot" into the conversation I'll say that I also believe we should value the lives of our soldiers (or, for that matter, our civilians) over those of an enemy's when we are in a legitimate combat situation. It's tragic if either party dies, but if it's "us or them" then I'd prefer that our people come home. That's not the same as saying Americans are more valuable *persons* simply because they're Americans. (And I'm talking about civilians; I think that terrorists make themselves *less valuable* persons by virtue of being terrorists.) That, in fact, is an anti-American sentiment, IMHO. As a nation, we stand for valuing people equally, regardless of race or creed, even if we've done so falteringly and imperfectly throughout the years. It's an ideal we should hold dear, which means using our freedom of speech to shout down bigotry whenever possible.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2005-03-07T16:55:26-06:00

ID

86913

Comment

To keep us on the same page here, allow me to recap the statement of ROT's that started this particular line of discussion IMO one American life is worth more than ail the Arabia's and Persia's together. And remember he said that right after he stated that the U.S. should have nuked three cities on September 12 -- none of which harbored the 9/11 terrorists. Why? Presumably because they were Arab or Muslim, or just not American. Because we were pissed. Because "we" hate "them" as much as "they" hate "us." Yes, Buck, I am surprised any and every time I am faced with such blatant bigotry toward entire swaths of innocent people. Lord help me if that ever stops surprising me. One thing is remarkable to me, though: That the same people who, on the one hand, say that African Americans should not hold grudges against white Americans for race terrorism of the past (and should just "get over it") will turn around and say we should nuke entire cities of people, most of whom have nothing to do with terrorism, because the extremists among them committed terrorism. Perhaps the answer in both cases is better communication and efforts to understand and heal the roots of hatred, rather than remaining silent and just shooting hatred, stereotypes and even violence back and forth. As for Falwell, I don't think he understands the principle that we are all God's children. He's an idiot.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-03-07T17:41:21-06:00

ID

86914

Comment

And, yes, ROT you can attempt that communication and understanding even as you hunt down the actual terrorists ó if you don't get sidetracked enough by hate and bigotry to spend your time killing innocent people instead. Now, I'm done on this. The whole thread gives me a stomach ache.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-03-07T17:43:10-06:00

ID

86915

Comment

Iran does not harbour terrorists????????? That is the most ludicrous staement I have ever read on this board. Sorry for the stomach ache, but if you have it, it is self induced. Not only is Buck correct in that many Bush supporters feel this way, but in most bars around here, or social settings of any sort (outside of belhaven) people would likely have their a kicked in for expressing some of the "non-bigotted" statements i have read here. And yes, most of them drive pick-up trucks with little yellow ribbons on them, so what? Their vote still counts just as much as an Ivy-leauger or Berkley graduate who would look down their "educated" noses at them. BTW kate, i stated that i LOVED Dr. Suess, I was not mocking the book at all.

Author

RightonTarget

Date

2005-03-07T18:35:19-06:00

ID

86916

Comment

Iran does not harbour terrorists????????? ROT, are you incapable of reading comprehension? Apparently so, from the idiotic things you pull out of what people write. I said in the post that you half-read that the three countries yoiu would have nuked the next day were not harboring the *9/11* terrorists (as if anyone could have known who did it that quickly). DO NOT RESPOND TO MY POSTS IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO READ THEM. I'm sick of you and your bigotry and your chiding of other people. You never attribute a damn thing, you make shit up, you put words in people's mouth and then you call me your little home-girl. I don't know what you're talking about with "a kicked," or if that is a threat, but you are done here, buddy.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-03-07T18:46:00-06:00

ID

86917

Comment

I think the "Just Nuke'em!" and "Kill them all, let God sort them out" attitudes are a symptom of what happens when our society places too much respect in macho attitudes. Macho attitudes, almost by their very nature (certainly by their very tendency) inevitably lead to an "either this or that" way of thinking, i.e. saying that if you are against war, you are a pansy, wimp, coward, or worst of all a [insert extremely vulgar & contemptuous synonym here]. This not only does this attitude limit society's range of choices on the matter, but by limiting those choices it inevitably leads to oversimple views of how the world works. It also traps the mind into certain reflexive, habits / mental pathways that hurt one's ability to come up with another solution that is neither excessively pacifist nor excessively macho -- one that is in fact SUPERIOR to either one. I'm not saying ROT does claim this. As far as I can see, he doesn't. Unfortunately, this kind of mentality does easily lead to what I describe, on both an individual and societal level.

Author

Philip

Date

2005-03-07T22:00:50-06:00

ID

86918

Comment

What I said about Macho attitudes, also applies to the "No Ifs, Ands, or Buts" ways of thinking in general -- they ALSO inevitably lead to oversimple answers to society's questions.

Author

Philip

Date

2005-03-07T22:05:41-06:00

ID

86919

Comment

ROT, calling the Lorax a book about "eco-fanaticism" just somehow didn't come across as love. Plus, I think you're going to the wrong parties if "everyone" there supports the notion of killing off millions of innocent people and thinks that's patriotism. That's just warped, and sick, espeically in a state like MS where everyone wears their "christianity" so proudly. And good lord, do you have to bring in crap like "pick up trucks" and "Berkeley educations". You just thrive on pitiful stereotypes, and this mentality of us vs them all the time, dont' you? But I guess if arabs don't really count as people to you, then maybe Berkely grads don't count as people either? Philip's comments about macho influences is a great one, and I'll stop there lest I fly into a feminist rant on the subject. One of the greatest failings of that attitude is it's hindrance of creative response to almost any situation.

Author

kate

Date

2005-03-08T07:31:42-06:00

ID

86920

Comment

My brother and sister have an Ivy League and Berkely education respectively and I drive a pickup truck. So am I just plain conflicted?

Author

GDIModerate

Date

2005-03-08T13:55:11-06:00

ID

86921

Comment

GDIModerate wrote: My brother and sister have an Ivy League and Berkely education respectively and I drive a pickup truck. So am I just plain conflicted? Well, you've confessed that you're a moderate... For what it's worth, I also consider myself to be one.

Author

Ex

Date

2005-03-08T14:52:20-06:00

ID

86922

Comment

I've said elsewhere on the blog that I believe that making fun of someone's (presumably good) education like this based on their beliefs is akin to young blacks accusing others of trying to "act white" because they're trying to study and get smarter. (Just replace "act white" with "act liberal" and you'll see what I mean.) It's all the same anti-intellectualism and comes from the same place: fear that someone else is going to know something you don't and then make you look bad with it. It's wanting to keep others as uninformed as you are, so that you don't ever have to work a little harder yourself. We're dealing with the problem in schools like Lanier, but it's also rampant on conservative talk radio. they just need to face the fact that they're doing the same thing: trying to keep people dumb by making fun of education. It's pathetic, and we need to do everything we can to counter it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-03-08T20:03:45-06:00

ID

86923

Comment

Or, alternatively, replace with "act elitist" or "act like you're getter than everyone else" -- that works, too. When I was growing up, some adults would make fun of me for trying to improve my grammar, not say "ain't" and so on. "You just talking like a damn yankee," they'd say, or the "you just want to better 'an the rest of us." It's all the same thing. And it's all stankin' thankin'.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-03-08T20:06:16-06:00

ID

86924

Comment

I should add, though, and I'll stop: Not everyone without education or knowledge thinks that way. My greatest heroes do not. My mother, for instance, pushed me every single day to go to school and learn what she wasn't allowed to. Many others did as well. That is the type of model we all need to be. We have to push young people, whether ours or not, to want to learn, to understand civics, to have an opinion, to challenge bigotry every single time they witness it. Imagine what good this will do for our state. OK, lecture over. Sorry. Just woke up from a post-press nap, and felt like making a speech I guess. Ta.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-03-08T20:09:16-06:00

ID

86925

Comment

Ladd: Just woke up from a post-press nap, and felt like making a speech... yikes Wonder what your like after a full night's sleep! But aside from that, I can empathize: neither of my parents had more than a 6th grade edumacashun and all eight children when to college and about half to grad school. Oh, and we are damn yankees.

Author

GDIModerate

Date

2005-03-09T10:59:06-06:00