London tubes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

One must first have knowledge of that which begs one's loyalty; it helps also to know Loyalty, properly defined.

Mark Twain was possessed of a greater understanding of his country than most people today; he'd actually read the founding documents once or twice.

The institutions and office-holders have not, for the most part, changed.

BTW-

I claim no omniscience, but I reckon that if Mr. Twain were posting in this thread, you would be astounded at his opinions on the matters at hand.

---

Ah, Kev mate.. you knew this was aimed directly at yourself and Hank :P

In my explanations to those that dont know what i mean...

If one does not criticise those in power when its known they are breaking the laws/rules, just because they belong to the party that you support... that is being Loyal to your Political Party, not your country.

It is the responsibility of those loyal to their country to bring all transgressors to account, not just those politically opposed to them.

For example:

I hear many grumblings about "Food for Oil", but none about many more missing Billions in a much smaller space of time from a known personality...and explanations are not sought.

OR

A member of the administration leaks the personal details of a CIA operative, and is not criticised at all, despite this leak being illegal and the type of leak would be against ANY countries interest.

HOWEVER... the opposition gets a blow job, and its all hell breaks loose..

This is loyalty to a PARTY, not a COUNTRY.

I find myself thinking those that do raise hell about these things in the USA, and did against Clinton too... to be the real US patriots. :P

---

RF! You give the the 'Right To Bear Arms' lobby a reason for existence.:rolleyes:

Why would anyone want a pair of bear arms?

And who's thinking of the bears?


That's what I want to know :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

Why would anyone want a pair of bear arms?

And who's thinking of the bears?


That's what I want to know :dry:

---

:lol:

Is that not the reason why they go out and shoot them? Or anything else that moves.:( They must get burnt in this hot weather.:cry:

I dont think that any country can stand up to close scrutiny of it finances and those that control them. Sadly lying and corruption are essential in order to succeed in the political arena. The use of words like excoriate early on a Monday morning I also find deplorable.:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I've brought this up before, many times-with the limited time I have for this board, and the overwhelming time required to entertain all the negative commentary about the U.S., Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bremer, Rice, and wharever else you people come up with, there is precious little time to devote exclusively to the negative subjects upon which you'd prefer.

It is not that I'm blind; I am not, it's just that coming here is, most of the time, a fire-fighting exercise-nobody here ever says anything positive about the U.S., it is just not done.

If the commentary were anything but one-sided, there might be time for me to discuss the negatives in-depth, but I have a job and a rather extensive honey-do list, along with trying to squeeze in anything else that I might want to do.

---

I share the same sentiment, besides the honey do list.

There is so much negativity towards the President and every little thing that the administration does that I don’t have the time or the energy defend every crack pot accusation. During the lead up to the election I didn’t mind because I thought that it was an important time. But anything that Bush does now the Democrats take the opposite side and criticize Bush.

This board is entertainment and I sure as hell don’t feel like fighting tooth and nail every single time that I log on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

After all, it is not as if this board is lacking the numbers to properly excoriate the U.S. for it's shortcomings; even amongst it's U.S. contingent, I can count the pro-U.S. cohort on one hand.

---

What do you count as domestically being "pro-U.S."? I have seen the word "patriotic" re-defined in recent years.
I consider myself pro-U.S. I love this country, I love the people (but not all of them) and I think we do many things better than other nations. This does not mean I think we do ALL things better. Some nations do many things better than we do.

People on message boards tend to talk about things that they dislike more than things they like. It doesn't make them anti (insert nation here), it makes them anti that particular "thing" (edit: although I do agree some people are just anti US)

When the Tsunami came the US excelled in humanitarian aid...this aspect of foreign policy I agree with.... there are other aspects I disagree with and I can see where we create problems for ourselves because of these parts. It is not anti-U.S. to believe in a different approach and changes cannot be made if one keeps quiet when one disagrees.

You wouldn't run your company the way our country is run and if you had shares in a company you would be vocal at the company meetings if you didn't agree with how the board was running your investment....that doesn't make you anti-that company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

But anything that Bush does now the Democrats take the opposite side and criticize Bush.

---

I can't recollect much support from the right for anything Clinton did ;)

What is the point of a multi party system if there is no opposition?

Hey, i've gave credit where its due :P

Some of the States are more than very good on environmental issues for example.

However, i would like to see you state that you agree when you do.. even if it is against a particular policy/situation. To not do so, gives the impression that you are a republican 1st, an American 2nd..

A little like what Hank just implied he is with his post.. (however i dont think he realises it reads that way ;) )

Hank, you either miss the point or are deliberatly misunderstanding...

Are you saying you agree that the missing Billions from Iraq should be investigated, and that the person that released the CIA agents details should be prosecuted... or are you saying its "All a Democrat accusation that should be ignored"..


J2, quite clearly stated that he was bothered by the shoddy accounting.. which is the thing i was trying to discover.

You just say: "anything that Bush does now the Democrats take the opposite side "...

In this particualr case it isnt the Democrats as much as the rest of the world btw...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I've brought this up before, many times-with the limited time I have for this board, and the overwhelming time required to entertain all the negative commentary about the U.S., Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bremer, Rice, and wharever else you people come up with, there is precious little time to devote exclusively to the negative subjects upon which you'd prefer.

It is not that I'm blind; I am not, it's just that coming here is, most of the time, a fire-fighting exercise-nobody here ever says anything positive about the U.S., it is just not done.

If the commentary were anything but one-sided, there might be time for me to discuss the negatives in-depth, but I have a job and a rather extensive honey-do list, along with trying to squeeze in anything else that I might want to do.

---

I share the same sentiment, besides the honey do list.

There is so much negativity towards the President and every little thing that the administration does that I don’t have the time or the energy defend every crack pot accusation. During the lead up to the election I didn’t mind because I thought that it was an important time. But anything that Bush does now the Democrats take the opposite side and criticize Bush.

This board is entertainment and I sure as hell don’t feel like fighting tooth and nail every single time that I log on.

---

Have you ever thought that maybe it's because Bush does many things ass-backward? :1eye:

Even when there was an honest-to-goodness thread about his accomplishments as President there were crickets chirping and tumbleweed blowing about.

No one cried foul of Afghanistan but did on Iraq. Why do you think that is?
It ain't rocket science.

Bush doesn't even share some of the more conservative ideals that I liked such as small government.

He's a shit liberal as well as a shit conservative. :snooty: .....and that's pretty fucking bad.

Oh but he's a Christian. :ph34r:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Hank, you either miss the point or are deliberatly misunderstanding...

---

Did you read what I said? Just in case you missed it:

Quote:

---

This board is entertainment and I sure as hell don’t feel like fighting tooth and nail every single time that I log on.

---

I come on hear to read and to enjoy the time I spend while on the board. I don’t want to spend every free second that I have criticizing or defending ever little thing the government does like you.

Just because I didn’t post anything about Bremmer doesn’t automatically mean that I support him. Hell I don’t even know the accusations, which is why I didn’t post anything about it.

Rat you really need a hobby.