Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room What July 4 Is All About

Larry and JBryan, are you disparaging people simply because of where they live and the image of that location in some people's minds? I thought you both found such attacks as offensive and bigoted (if I recall your comment correctly, Larry).

But then, maybe I am wrong about that. Maybe I need to look at things as you do -- if they agree with you, such an general attack is bigotry. If they don't -- well, we all know what THOSE people who live there think and we can easily dismiss them as irrelevant.

You're building a strawman, George. I never said a thing about people's location, or the total population of the towns or the colleges. Read the article.

Nice try, Larry. But your protests and JBryan's about comments concerning people in the South ring very hollow now.

But then, we have had this discussion of how debating tactics on this Board are acceptable in one instance but not in another before.

The point is again driven home. No need to belabor it again.

This is what I said George:

Are you now telling me that Ann Arbor and Berkeley are not hot beds of leftist sentiment and that supporters of the current administration abound in these locales? You would look silly making that argument and you know it. THAT is all I was saying and is a whole lot different from what YOU said which was:

Now when I have I ever made a point of you being from Massachusetts or the Northeast and attempted to dismiss you on that basis.

Are you now telling me the South is NOT a hot bed of conservative sentiment and that opponents of the current administration abound in that locale?

LOL!

We'll file your comment under the "But-let-me-spin-my-earlier-comment" file.

Good try, JBryan.

Point made again.

Sorry if I seemed to have edited my post after yours but my browser would not let me keep two copies open of Pianoworld and edit one without an error so I had to post the first part and edit it afterwards. You actually responded before I was finished.

"Guard against the postures of pretended patriotism." ~ George Washington

"Truth is great and will prevail... unless deprived of (its) natural weapons, free argument and debate." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Let the history of the Federal Government instruct mankind that the mask of patriotism may be worn to conceal the foulest designs against the liberties of the people." ~ Benjamin Bache, 1798

"A people living under the perpetual menace of war and invasion is very easy to govern. It demands no social reforms. It does not haggle over expenditures on armaments and military equipment. It pays without discussion, it ruins itself, and that is an excellent thing for the financiers and manufacturers for whom patriotic terrors are an abundant source of gain." ~ Anatole France

"Why, of course the people don't want war ... That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along... That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." - Hermann Goering, Hitler's Deputy

"Criticism is more than a right; it is an act of patriotism - a higher form of patriotism...than the familiar ritual of national adulation. All of us have the responsibility to act upon the higher patriotism, which is to love our country less for what it is than for what we would like it to be." ~ William Fulbright, former senator from Arkansas


"In other hopeful news, mainstream columnists are beginning to report on the increasingly audible dissent within the U.S populace at large with the government's War on Terrorism . Check out this article that appeared last week, "A New Questioning of the War", by Washington Post writer, David Broder:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64313-2002Jun28.html

"
the above was the july 4th message i came home to.

I read the Broder column.

What he said in synopsis, is that the hard left of the Democratic party is starting to challenge the President's stance on the war on terror.

This is news?

The hard left A) Can't stand him anyway. B)Still think they wuz robbed. C)Would oppose free candy canes for children, on the grounds that candy causes tooth decay!

pique

Thanks for the quotes. Fascinating. I agree with you, those are what July 4th is really all about; it is not about knee jerk support for the adminstration in power as some sort of representative of what is great about America. Rather it is about support of the true values of America not the politicans and bureaucrats running things.

Re: the above quote. As seen from the President's dropping popularity and lots of anecdotal evidence, it is clear people have begun to analyze what is happening, rather than just being glad that something, anything, is happening. What will the Il Duce regime do as this grows? So far, when they have been questioned, they have gone on the attack and said the criticizer is unpatriotic. But they cannot do this as the people themselves become the critics.

I think we'll have asome clue how political Il Duce and his cohorts want to make this war by how his actions vis-a-vis Iraq parallel the November elections. My fear is that all will be ratched up to have an impact on the elections. At the least we will hear ever increasing saber rattling. But I fear we will find the building up of troops underway then, or even worse an attack being imminent or underway by late October/early November.

Cynical? Yes. But based on what I have seen to date, I have no reason to be otherwise. I hope I am wrong, though.

With regard to Iraq, anything short of a complete stand down by the Bush Administration will be characterized by the left as an attempt to influence the elections. I hope they proceed with vigor against Iraq for reasons other than elections.

BTW, Pique, those are all excellent quotes and, if you'll pardon the cliche, words to live by. We should all keep these thoughts in mind during these troubled times.

Oh? And you know this how? You have heard the leaders of the left (as if it is some monolithic movement) saying this when?

If I recall correctly, the Democratic leaders in the Congress, who I assume you would consider part of the leadership of the left, have publicly encouraged Il Duce to preemtively attack Iraq. Have you heard them now call for the US to stand down against Hussein in the next four months?

The politicians in Washington (Republican and Democrat) are going to say just what the polls tell them people want to hear. Any action against Iraq before the elections will be characterized by those on the left exactly as you have done so already. Your own words speak for themselves.

And I stand by those words because I believe them to be true. If Il Duce decides to use Iraq as a way of helping the GOP gain control of the Congress, state houses and state legislatures, it does not matter if I am on the right, on the left or wacko (don't even go there JBryan! ) -- he will have done it for political reasons.

I simply assume all politicians do everything for political reasons -- it is all measured by their staffs and by them by what they can gain or lose politically. Il Duce is no different than Clinton, Godfather Bush, Reagan or any of the others.

If a movement is made before November 5, yes, I will see it as politically motivated, as I have done with every President who has made major military moves within the couple of months before an election or when they're having political problems.

There is no reason Il Duce can't wait until November 6 to make any sort of move or announce any sort of move -- unless we are attacked directly by IRAQ itself, which changes everything because it is no longer a preemtive strike.

Yes, all politicians are aware of the political impact of everything they do.

The difference here George, is that it will be a justified military action. Unlike the infamous Sudanese asprin factory bombing ordered during the time BC was purjuring himself during his impeachment. (BTW, that is also why there *is* a difference between BC and the others)

And while we all have a right to be suspicious of the timing, there is always that possibility that the timing is based on expectations for the most successful military outcome.

Not everyone has the same ethical standards of BC. Thank God.

I think most politcians sold their souls long ago to get where they are at. And they all will lie, looking directly into the camera, if it suits their political needs. They will do what they have to do to get power and to hold on to it.

No, I do not believe Il Duce or any of the others have/had higher ethical standards than Clinton. They are all whores who will sell themselves to the highest bidder and/or to get the highest poll numbers. And the desire for the poll numbers is simply so they have more to sell. It is only the standards of the American people who, when kept informed by a free press, that keeps them from going too far off base.

Do all politicians sell out at one time or another? Yes, they do. Does that make them all equal? Well no, not in my eyes. They may share common traits but that does not make them complete equals. Although I will admit I don't much care for any politician. And, believe it or not I have never been a big Bush fan.

I think your back to the old "everybody does it" explanation. It explains why nothing BC did should be viewed poorly and why anything Bush does is to be suspect. Neat trick George. Having it both ways.

In my wishful thinking mode, I might have said "informed by a free, unbiased press."

When have you ever heard me say that nothing Clinton did should be viewed poorly and anything Il Duce does is suspect? To me, there are no "both ways" to have it. Both sold their souls. Both are whores. Both need/needed to be watched with high vigilance. Indeed, I know of no President in my lifetime that did not fit that description and did not need to be watched.

I guess I just do not see things in a strictly partisan manner -- Democrat versus Republican -- JohnC. Apparently you do. Or at least you see an attack on one as defending the other.

And yes, they ALL do it -- they all whore for whatever group(s) financed them and got them into office. A President getting sexually serviced in the White House is the least of our problems with them. Selling out the nation to pay off their political owners is a much greater concern to me.