Great stuf. I imagine the original contstructors of our country would appriciate some of this. I have a 20 year old son who has taken up with liberal crowds and is spewing the company line at every oppurtunity. He wears the clothes, has the bumperstickers, and the lifestyle to go with it. I have to be careful , yet say what needs to be said. He's a young and growing , evolving person with a great deal to learn. I find myself focusing on getting the facts straight, and how what he says affects others. I try to use his natural tendency to question everything, to be his advantage. Youth is drawn to the liberal line because of this.

My Dad told me once, "Liberals are people who have nothing, and want what you have worked for without working for it. They offer no solutions, only discontent."

" While a conservative has worked hard for what he has and wants to protect it. They resist change, and believe you must make a sacrafice to succeed( a very strong work ethic)."

Dad is a republican . And while I agree with some of this, there's plenty of disfunction to go around. And it all stems from one problem. No respect. We can no longer argue and lose. We must "win at all cost". Problem is, "the cost", is our own future. When the conservatives defiled the office of the president for a sexuall matter, I was disgusted. Because I respect the office. I feel you can find fault in anything or anyone if you choose to.
And now the democrats are defiling the office. They are perpetuating a game of destructive politics started whenever. Point is, it's counterproductive. They dont seem to be able to stop themselves. Not either party.

We, brought together because of our fondness of fishing, have a choice. Do we embrace our commonality, and respectfully discuss the issues of our times, or do we stick to the party line and pi$$ it all away in a biatchout? I respectfully admire the responses that ask questions. It's a functional process for finding solutions.


I know i'm rambling, but feel there may be others that feel as I do. I love a spirited discussion, as long as all involved realise it must be done for the sake of truth and discovery, rather than discredditing the oppisition.

I like the conservative aproach at this point in time because they are making the tough decisions to protect the country. I dislike thier policies on the enviornment and personal freedoms. I dont like the fact our political parties have let rich special intrests be a platform which the issue divides the party itself. Such issues would be best served with no party affiliation.

So I'm not sure what that makes me. And I feel pretty good I dont stick to one party line.

But as I told my son, attacking the president for his actions to date are disrespectful to all who put thier lives on the line to protect you! I have no doubt the actions he's taken have saved lives from every civilized country in the world, and all that hope to be so. Which without these actions will never have the chance to be. I asked him to find a way to say what he feels, by asking questions. The seeds we plant will grow. But we must first treat each other with respect, to be respected by others.


No, it's not easy. You cant be perfect. Most of the time you should not pass up the oppurtunity to keep quiet. But the ability to be an impartial advocate for success is what seperates men from boys.

Hairlipangler -

Wonderfully put. That's the attitude needed in order to have mature, thought provoking, spirited discussions.

Hopefully others will realize that a hateful partyline mentality is much more dangerous to the future of this country than the threat of terrorism.

stlhd,

Please show me where I bashed Clinton. I pointed out he had a weak foreign policy because he based his decisions on polling. History clearly shows this. BTW as a conservative I voted for Clinton over Dole and still believe he was the better candidate.

Couldn't agree with ya more GoH. Maybe you should practice what you preach before critiquing others?

Theking, I was simply trying to point out the hypocrisy of some on this board. Some on this board have done nothing but trash Clinton, who was commander in chief over the troops during a few battles, but then turn around and claim some of us are un-american and un-patriotic for disagreeing with the current administration. The bias invalidates any argument they might "sprew".

Pmartin -

Touché.

Although I fail to see the true relevance here of a tongue-in-cheek post I made quite some time ago, it does somewhat corroborate stlhead's comment to Theking. Not that he needed any help, mind you.

By the way, I do find it quite complimentary, and somewhat amusing, that you save my posts for future reference. Just like fingernails on a chalkboard, aint they? Oh, and thank-you for helping me make my point so eloquently.

just used the search function and pulled up your moniker. sort of interesting that the first post I looked at out of your 300+ posts came up with that quote.

Stlhd,

I agree. It is even a trend with the politicains now. It used to be that ex presidents congressman etc would not trash the current admin. Now they do it openly and even over seas. I think that example has set a poor image for most Americans to follow.

Ed...I have been thinking about what you are asking here and wondered about a couple of things. First, why do you feel the need to "support the troops"? It sounds like a guilt thing when it comes from someone so vehemently opposed to the mission and the commander in chief. It almost seems like you may feel that the soldiers are also opposed to their mission and their commander in chief and are being forced to serve both. Since all of them are volunteers I don't suspect many oppose their mission and I know most of them respect their commander in chief. I'm sure all of them would rather be home but understand what their job is.

A simple analogy would be likening this to a football game. The members of the team hate the game and despise their coach but play the game anyway. So you could support the players in their dilemma and still hate the coach and despise the game. If the football team was made up of players who loved the game and loved and respected their coach they would probably question your motives for "supporting" them.

Most of the soldiers in Iraq I have heard on the news being interviewed say that what they want most is to know that America is behind them all the way and their mission and when they say support they don't mean it the same way you might.

I saw the footage of President Bush's visit to Iraq and I also saw the footage of Hillary Clinton's visit to Iraq. There was a huge difference in the reception they both got from the soldiers. Hillary was "supporting the troops" but trashing the mission and the commander in chief . The president, on the other hand, was there letting everyone know that we are not going to cut and run and he was letting the soldiers know that it is because of them that America stays safe. I am quite confident that the soldiers welcomed the president's "support" much more than Hillary's.

So I guess the bottom line is this: Can you realistically support the troops and still belittle their mission and their commander in chief? I honestly don't believe you can. You can be polite and nice to an individual soldier with gifts or emails or whatever but include your anti-war, anti-Bush message as a footnote to your "support" and see what kind of reception your "support" gets.

I know you are an intelligent , level headed guy who I respect and like very much but we will continue to disagree on political issues I guess. If I could only convince you to move over to the Sharpton campaign!

Grandpa2,

You've come a long way from:

"sit down and shut up!"

Okay, I think we've had enough for the NFR politics today. Thanks