Watch that ‘most of you’ stuff buddy. Some of us, a mere 49.998% by a recent poll, are 200% behind our president and those who serve in the sand. Free beer to any active soldier shows up at my house, and 2 for every Marine!

I know, you meant ‘most of you libtard asshats’. Just feeling a little sensitive. Sorry. Sometimes its hard being a realist Republican.

liberals are not retarded, of course some liberals are, but not most of them, but so as neocons, some of them are retarded but most of them I find are masters of debate and logic&critical-thinking.

I don’t agree with any kind of war, since innocents always die. It would have been better if we could topple Sadam out without killing innocent Iraqi civilians.

lolito - Better, yes. Possible, not at all, not now, not in a hundred years. Innocents die whether there is war or not. Innocents die under tyranny. Innocents die under oppression. Even in the freeist society innocents die by accident and misfortune. As to Iraq, the innocents killed there have been few in relative actual number. The US could have bombed fallujah into a smoking crater. Tikrit SHOULD have been destroyed. The US could have destroyed towns and villages as retribution for insurgency. Every mosque could have been razed, every crowd gunned down when it was seen that one or two people in it were armed. In so many, many ways the US could have easily killed 1000 times as many Iraqis and NO ONE would ever have known. But they didn’t. Instead they went out of their way to avoid this as much as possible, to the ridiculous extent of putting their own troops at life risk. War is not a perfect science, not by far. And it is necessary more often than you want to believe. Most of the world is an awful place, where the locals lives aren’t worth a thing to either their neighbors or their government. Why do you really think the rest of the world will do anything, anything, to move here? Because it sucks there more than you will ever be able to know, and it hardly matters what “there” you want to talk about.

And a thanks to our dear author for the clarifying addition, because he was talking directly to the looney left, whom I properly described with a crass, common, and accurate label. I would trade 10,000 of them for one sensible Democrat, like Joe Lieberman, and have him cloned 10,000 times. I don’t agree with him too much either, but I could actually talk to the man.

BP You made a point, but you are way wrong to use the veteran Gilson as an example. I am against Bush and his war on Iraq, but I agree with the suggestion to support who we have in Iraq until we can get them out, sooner the better. Not some 5, 10 or 40 years from now as a colonizing power, in Iraq only to dominate the region for its oil.

But back to Gilson, he was parading, not as a veteran on duty, which would prohibited by law, but as an civilian individual expressing a political opinion in favor of Bush (god forbid). He put himself in the civil line of fire and he deserves what he asked for, whether cheers or boos. He was acting as a partisan in a political way and he has no immunity from different points of view. He was not asking for support for the troops in Iraq, but for a vote for that goofy Bush. Two separate issues. Dumb try, as your pitch is not valid and does not impress intelligent or thoughtful people or those that are not already brainwashed.

Thugee, had those assholes booed Bush, fine. Had they screamed that Gilmore was wrong to support Bush, fine. They crossed the line at baby killer. I’m somewhat bemused that you are still sticking to the war for oil meme, do you ever see the price at the effing gas stations? Here’s a little hint, when we go to war to steal somebody’s resources the price of that resource goes down. Witness the 1846 war with Mexico, Mexicans have been dirt cheap ever since. You stinking Leftist said the same shit during my war, you convinced the Dems in Congress to pull all support from South Viet Nam and Cambodia, millions died. Millions of human beings died. Now you’re trying the same crap today. How many millions must die to satisfy your smug superiority?

man, that’s terrible. I don’t support any war. but if soldiers come home, I’ll honor them. Yes, I agree with you. like you said, most of the place are screwed up. Only advanced countries such as US, EU have better standard of living while people in the third world are forced to make their children work at sweatshops. That’s why we got to help them out, such as cancelation of heavy debt, free drugs and medicines by NGO, humanitarina aid, securing water and food for survival, and so on.

Of course, oil is a national interest of America. Peter, why do u think oil was not a reason that Bush went war? If we don’t have oil, we will starve to death. Oil is very necesary and essential to our lives. Unless we figure alternative energy, we can’t drive without oil, so we got to secure the supply line from the middle east. Even though we have alternative fuel, we’ll still be depending on oil, since computer, building, tools, cars, phone, electronics, almost every good is made of plastic, which crude material is oil. What we need to do is to secure peace and stability in the Near East. If Sadam continues to be in power with suspected WMD and Palestinian conflict continues, there’s constantly a threat to our oil supply line. So, if we revove a threat and the Near East becomes peaceful, I’m sure the price of gas will be reasonable. Market depends on stability. If u want to make gas really reasonable like in 1998, u got to let Asian economy down again. So, oil was one of the reasons that Bush went to war as our national interest. Removing Sadam is a first step to stablize the Middle East. But I really regret to see that was the only way to topple Sadam.

I don’t care who started war. Kennedy started Vietnam, Carter started training Mujahidins since Khomeini revolution, Afgan invasion, Teheran hostage, Moscow Olympic boycott, and US recession all these happened during Carter. Reagan had Iran-contra, Death Squad, Grenada invasion, Plaza accord, crashing unions, and delibitating social welfare; Bush had Panama invasion, Iraq war but didn’t get Sadam’s head, failure of war on drug, and recession; I think all the Presidents were jackasses.

I was totally against this war. Though justification of war was very logical, I can never agree with killing innocent civilians, children and women. U can’t treat innocents killed by war and people died of car accidents the same. That’s totally differnt. Let me ask this, how can u justify killing innocents? What is ur ethical stance? I dont want to get killed, or my family or kids either, what have we done? If Iraq had Velvet Revolution like Plague CzecSlovakia, that would be the best. Bloodless Revolution is the ideal.

Of course, I support war against terror, we never want 911 happen again. our troops got to get Osama. Nick Berg execution was unbearable, He was not even a soldier, he was an innocent civilian trying to help Iraqis, he came Iraq as a humanitarian program. We got to get those terrorists linked to Osama. They are worthless as human being.

Who I really supported was Kucinich. I believed he would make America better. But Kerry&Edward is the only choice left, so I got to vote for them. I dont vote Bush out because he went to war. War is beyond my capability to comprehend and discuss. I vote Bush out because I don’t agree with his domestic policies.

Lolito;

You’re not being consistent. If we fight against terrorism, innocent people will die. Since you support the former, you also support the latter. Yet you say you could never do that. So which is it?

It’s also interesting that you don’t support any war. That means you’d rather stand by and watch the genocide in Darfur than support a war against the killers? I’m sure the innocents starving and dieing there appreciate your efforts to prevent a war from breaking out.

I don’t support any war. That’s my stance. I dont want to get killed, nor my family, or kids, and I don’t want to kill anybody. And yet, I can’t be really an anti-war in this war. I could be in Vietnam war, but not Iraq. I don’t support killing people. If they try to kill us, yes, we got to defend us by killing them first. As long as we don’t screw anybody or they dont try to kill us, that will be the best. I don’t understand why so many people such as Osama try to attack America. It’s true that I am for war on terror since 911 was unforgetable. Nobody even wants that to happen again. I wont let them kill my family. If they just leave us alone, we don’t need to kill them. If we see genocide, we got to do something, but Clinton didnt in Somalia and Ruwanda. I don’t know when Bush is going to disarm N. Korea. N. Korea is the biggest threat to Japan, so Japanese want to see Bush blow up N. Korea asap, but N. Korea is not wellknown in the US. I don’t agree with people killing each other. War is beyond my capability to discuss. War is one of the hardest issue and question of debate. Well, I bet that sound still inconsistent to you.

But let me ask u this, Annoying Old Guy, don’t you think killing innocents is wrong? Don’t u care about innocent lives? This war is regrettable. Don’t u think removing Sadam without war was the best? Do u think war was the only solution? What we need is peace and stability in the world. So, everybody lives happily.

Lolito, do you think the 3,000 who died that sunny day in September wanted to die? Do you think their killers wanted to kill again? Without a war, how do you propose we stop them from killing again, from killing thousands or even millions more just as innocent as those who died that day? How?

bp, u make me sad. No. Of course, nobody wanted to die. Osama said he will attack us again. If Vietnamese try attacking US, their motive is at least understandable because we screwed them, but why Osama? We didn’t screw him. His Saudi fellows are rich by selling us oil with unreasonalbe price. He has no reason to kill us. Osama is a rich Saudi, his family is rich, no problem living luxurious life, spending vacance at Tahiti resort with supermodels. He can have all the pleasure he wants. I can never get any clue of why he wants to kill us. Why don’t he leave us alone?

To be honest, I don’t know how. I don’t know why genocide, ethnic cleasing, torture, these evils happen. But what I’m sure is war is not the best solution. Bloodshed will only responded with bloodshed. I need to seek Jesus for a solution. Why can’t we love each other but hate and kill each other even today? Too many bloodshed. I can’t bear it. Too many casualities in war and it torments me too much. However, I still believe someday the world will be peaceful like John Lennon dreamed. Don’t u think war is tragic? Don’t u wish we could live without war and bloodshed?

Thugee: “But back to Gilson, he was parading, not as a veteran on duty, which would prohibited by law, but as an civilian individual expressing a political opinion in favor of Bush (god forbid). He put himself in the civil line of fire and he deserves what he asked for, whether cheers or boos. He was acting as a partisan in a political way and he has no immunity from different points of view. He was not asking for support for the troops in Iraq, but for a vote for that goofy Bush.”

I would think if anyone has earned a right to express his political opinion it would be Gibson. What have the these lower life forms who called him Babykiller done to deserve the privilege. I don’t think they would care a whit about babies being killed if were American babies. They would tell us we needed to ask ourselves, “Why do they hate us?”

There were American babies killed on 9-11. They were on those planes that the terrorists used as missiles. One two-year-old girl was on her way to see Disneyland for the very first time, until terrorists killed her and her whole family. To date, leftist protestors have never called the terrorists “baby killers,” though.

I wonder why.

I knew we would eventually get around to the “babykiller” epithet. It was only a matter of time and softening up the electorate. It started with the cartoon showing Sharon eating a baby, then the “painting” of Bush eating the baby to get the meme established. Now it has trickled down from the sophisticated cadre to the rank and file of the Left.

It’s richly ironic that this is the same faction that supports a woman’s right to rip their babies from their wombs.

Again, the Left has no restraint in their tactics. Every viscious lie, every vile slander, every distortion is useful in damaging their opponents.

I thought the majority of Republicans were supporting our choice of abortion, weren’t they? Well, they don’t agree with a concept of abortion, but they agree with that we should be left with choice. No? As far as our governor Schwarzenegger is pro-choice, and many CA Republicans are for abortion. I don’t think Californians are liars or swindlers or leftists, but we’re liberal, diverse, and our major religion is Catholicism, so are our governor and former governor Davis. We are like French, liberal and secular Catholic.

Well, Catholic used to say within 11 weeks or 80 days after conception, abortion was ok. Because St. Augustine said soul enters fetus after 80 days. It’s just a recent thing that Catholic denied Augustinian dogmatism and changed their stance to that life starts from conception. So, I don’t know about religious authorities. I guess neocons are fundamentalists in religious issues, so I don’t agree with neocons. I agree with that people are entitled to have choices.

I don’t know about Bush eating Baby. It must be funny to Bush-haters and shocking to Bush-fanatics. Christian terrorists killed doctors by bombing abortion clinics. And pro-life people used dolls of aborted fetus to shock us. So, some people supporting a small faction of Republican party, which is neocon, are also insane as some leftists are.

People have sex. 99% people have sex. Because sex is irresistible to us. Only monks and nuns don’t do or can’t enjoy it. And America is a country of sexual freedom, but not as much as France. So, birth control, contraceptive, abortion need to be available. It’s the best if people use condom properly. But schools hesitate to give condom lessons to kids in America. Condom eduction will reduce unwanted pregnancy, so abortion rate will descrease. But choice need to be left for us.

Please don’t misconstrue my point, I believe a woman has a right to end an unwanted pregnancy up to the 18th year. And since it is mostly liberals who have abortions, too bad they haven’t adopted my “pro-choice” stance.

Actually, my point wasn’t about abortion, per se, but at the hypocrisy of the Left, to whom hypocrisy is a badge of honor. Remember the Leftist’s credo: the ends justify the means.

By the way, I’m not a Republican. I’m not particulary conservative, but to those clustered at the Left Pole of politics, every opinion unlike theirs is right wing.

btw, I’m not a Democrat, since I’m not registered to any political party. Yes, some left wings are hypocrits and some right wings are imposters. They always break their promises to voters, and the question always remains, “Why did I vote for him or her?” And, I’m not particularly a left, but just a citizen of California and the United States, who desires to make our community better.

Yes, liberals seem to indulge themselves in sex more than the people who stick to traditional values. But I think some of them are willing to adopt your stance.

btw, I’m glad that u’re a pro-choice.

Lolito;

I think killing innocents is wrong. That’s why, when I decide on which policy to support, I try to chose the one that results in the minimal killing of innocents. Sometimes this means war, as in Iraq. The deaths in the war were actually less than would have occurred without the war, by letting the Ba’ath continue their murders. Yes, it would be best to have toppled the Ba’ath without war, but here in the real world it was tried for twelve years and the result was far more death and misery for innocents than a war. So, war wasn’t the only solution, but it was the solution that involved the fewest deaths. Why do you consider that wrong?

When people claim to abhor such deaths yet continue to support policies that cause more of it to avoid “war”, I tend to have strong doubts as to how much they really abhor the deaths of innocents. Can you explain that to me? Is the death of a child by a bomb during “war” worse than one starving to death during a genocide or choking to death from poison gas during “peace”?

Annoying Old Guy, I need to change your name to Ironying Old Guy, since Socrates was very annoying by his irony.

Yes, logically that would be right. It’s a terrible culculation, counting how many will be better off by how many will die. But my conscience tells killing a single person is wrong. In that situtation, we are forced to make a choice like Sartre described French situation under Nazis occupation. Fasle dichotomy won’t work. I’m nor for it, i never agree, but i condone it. It’s not because I want to, but need to. Genocide, gas chamber, pool drowning, amputation of arms, those acts must be stopped at any cost. If any president send the peace enforcement troops to Angola, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, I’ll need to support him.

Maybe this world is ruled by violence tragically. in fact, our nation is founded by war. National Anthem is also about war. Some other nations are found by Gods like in Roman mythology, but America is established by war heroes. So war heroes are like gods to us. Goddess of Libertus, Statue of Liberty depicted on a French painting guides people with a rifle in her hand, so American freedom is protected by a gun, a symbol of “force”. But I’ll say “violence” instead of “force.” I think that’s more appropriate word to use. Mao-Tse-dong said, “What rules human society is not money, law, and religion, but violence.” Hitler also said the same, “Violence rules.” It’s not right to quot from dictators, but well, screw it. Hitler abused it so bad but ironically Third Reich had extremely low crime rates. I think that’s true, order are maintained by violence, military force, police, and sherrifs. You can tell it from the words: police is “law-enFORCEment,” and military is “peace-enFORCEment.” These are justified violence, approved by authorities.

But I’m a pacificist, if u see the emblem of US, an eagle’s talons holding the laurel branch on left and the arrows on right. But the eagle is facing left, to the laurel, a symbol of peace, so i follow this eagle’s wish.

I hate violence, yet we need it. I wish one day all the people in the earth will live without the ultimate violence, “war.”

Correct me, if I’m wrong, Mr. Ironist.

Lolito;

I don’t actually understand what you’re trying to say, so it’s difficult to state whether or not I think you’re wrong. My best response would be

• The absence of war doesn’t mean peace. Ba’athist Iraq was at peace but more innocents were dieing than during the subsequent war. You seem to be making a category mistake by conflating “war” and “killing innocents”.
• While it would be nice to live in world without war, we don’t. When we discuss here what policies to support, there is an implicit assumption that these are policies to be applied to the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.

Ok, sorry for redundancy. my point is that, well, I don’t want to support war policy, but I got to support. War and killing innocents are not really the same because war is a big scale, but killing innocent would happen in war. And that’s the matter we can’t omit if we discuss war. That’s my answer. In reality, current situation, war seems to be the only choice, eyes for eyes, teeth for teath like torah, and I don’t want that. But I don’t have a choice, so I got to support it. My point is I don’t like war at all. Is that clear?

You’ve completed misread my posts. I am only pro-choice in the sense that please make appropriate choices BEFORE you find it necessary to kill your babies. Have sex, fine (I like it too!) but accept the consequences of your choices.

ALL Leftists are hypocrites, otherwise their true agenda would make it impossible to win any elections (except in Berkely, Cambridge, etc.) which is why they rarely use the electoral process for important social issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.).

If you want to change your community, try changing yourself and your family. Leave me alone.