Montrosefan
By OTS or you referring to OCS officer candidate school? If you are your right I have not been to OCS. Are you implying that because you are an officer your perspective is above or better than non-officers?
If you are, I saw many incompetent officers during my time in.
Elk, Hey 
“Do you think there are any people besides us lost liberal hippies that don’t agree with dubya’s policy or the war? Could there be any conservatives out there that feel this way?”
This is slightly flawed logic if you are trying to imply the liberal viewpoint must be right because some conservatives are buying into it. The conservatives have just as valid a point with Zell Miller starting Democrats for bush, with a good bit of sucess I might add.
If you were just goofing around then nevermind. Ya big scary antler-biker!
Elk, I know Montrose…he’s an officer in the Army. Im in the Air Force. Maybe what he means is that you were classifying anyone who supports the president or is more on the “right” side of things poliically, as sheep…morons who cannot think for themselves critically. We are taught in OCS or OTS or ROTC to think critically.
Your stereotyping people who are conservatives as “puppets” as someone else said and as “sheep” as YOU say is painting with a broad brush that makes “liberal hippies” look bad.
Which is one thing I never understood: liberal hippies were historically the rebellious types who didn’t like government control: How is it that liberals now what MORE government control…such as the democrats voting to ban teen tanning? or liberals trying to CONTROL MORE of the constitution by getting things taken out of it that you don’t agree with? I mean…to the average person…its pretty “closeminded” to say that there is no God. I thought the whole idea of liberalism was “enlightenment” and “openmindedness”? Seems lots of liberals are not to openminded about people who DO believe in God or are more conservative. Seems like they enjoy calling them “religous bigots” without even knowing them personally…or “fundamentalists” without even knowing them personally…or “religous…right wing zealots” without knowing them. Can you please explain the seeming contradiction in the “liberal” philosophy and what is being practiced?
Perhaps there is a little “hypocrisy” on your part?..not for sure…butjust maybe???
Ptrdr, I think the religion argument is a non-starter.
Removing religion from government and articles of government does nothing to restrict ones belief or practice of belief.
However, I think it is a good thing, as religion should not directly set government policy. There is danger in this, as should be demonstrated by religious theocracies currently generating most of the worlds fanatic terrorists. What exactly are we at war with if not religion gone awry? How are enemy combatants being conditioned if not with religious doctrine?
Keep religion out of government and practice it privately. This also protects those that want to practice a different belief system then the “one” embraced officially.
Freedom does not mean freedom to impose one view of religion on everyone. Freedom means freedom for every individual to have their own view of religion without government intervention. You are free to tell me about your view if I want to listen, but you shouldn’t be free to force me to listen.
The fact that someones view of religion may be similar to the current government view is merely a happy accident and does not represent any type of repression.
I don’t see this as a control issue. You can try to convince me it is if you wish. Have I missed something?
Vegita
I wasn’t trying to imply anything about being right, just asking because anyone who isn’t for the war is labeled a liberal democrat. I was just wondering if you guys knew there are a lot of conservatives as well that are not happy with Bush or the war!
PtrDr
Okay the sheep comment doesn’t lend itself to healthy debate, I apologize. As far as the religion comment, I could care less if my neighbor worshipped a head of lettuce. As long as he did not want to shove it down my throat! Is that to liberal or not liberal enough?
Peace Bro
Oh yeah, Vegita
Zell Miller is a double agent, or he’s insane!
J/K
Vroom, I think Ptdr’s point was not that religion in government is right, but the fact that if we do happen to have an opinion other than that of the liberal’s we are automatically labeled with names that do not represent what we truly stand for. Please attempt to tackle the question at hand not dodge it by arguing your side of the coin.
For us on the T-forums, I think we pretty much know where each other stands, at least as far as the regulars on the OT forum goes. What I would like to see is better communication skills across party lines, on both sides.
example, Poster A asks why he is painted with the broad brush of “right wing Religous fanatic”, when he simply believes the pledge to be a historical account and should not be altered.
logical responses could include,
A) screw you, you are a religious fanatic and you will be the death of america.
B) I am sorry that I categorized you as such, my mistake, but I still disagree with you on the pledge thing.
C) I never called you that, you must be thinking of someone else.
Responses that don’t make sense are those that ignore the posters direct questions and instead just continue to argue the points of the debate. (even if done in a nice orderly manner this is still directly ignoring the person and is rude, and insulting).
examples,
A) just because you believe in god doesn’t mean we should all suffer and have to actually have the word god in the pledge.
B) whatever, you just proved our point that you are a religious bigot, duh can’t you see how hypocrytical you are.
As you can see the last two do not address the concerns about being labeled, but somehow still fire shots to try and win the argument.
(this was dramatized to show effect) Please be good sports, just want to show you how I see things.
Vegita summed up what I was thinking and alluded to as for as name calling that you guys have been doing.
To Vroom and Elk: NOTE: In the belief in God instance…I NEVER mentioned religion! Belief in God and a religion are NOT the same thing! You can believe in God and not be religous at all. Religion only means a “practice or discipline in which you try to reach up to God” more or less. I am not into that…and I would NOT want that forced on you either; whether in the form or forced prayer(no one can MAKE YOU PRAY) or forced organized “corporate” worship. THAT is religion. And THAT is what the government can NEVER force us to do. That is why our forefathers came to this country! To practice or NOT to practice a particular “religion”…ie…“way of worship”.
In all due respect; I would think this is clear to you: That belief or non belief in God are not requirements or excluding criteria for “religion”…?..Your religion…or worship…which means what you value and how you pattern your life AFTER those values; can be anything from working out…to making money…to reading…playing guitar…ANYTHING!
I humbly suggest you look up the idea of “religion” and “worship” before you automatically connect it to belief or NON belief in God.
OKAY,OKAY,
PtrDr whether your religion is a belief in a god, or playing guitar, or curling in the squat rack, if I don’t want to do it, I should not have Gov. pressure to do it!
This seemed appropriate, for some reason.
Friend…I don’t want that for you either…and thank goodness we don’t have it that way…
PtrDr
You are a good Joe, I will overlook your misguided leaning to the conservative right and invite you to the Kerry victory party me and JeffR are planning for Nov. Have a good evening Bro!
Ok my friend! I will be waiting to hear about your party! remember though…I vote libertarian…so I am not sure who I am voting for!
Peace Elk!
Ptrdr, must be some other liberals then… nobody around here wants to cop to that charge…
“Responses that don’t make sense are those that ignore the posters direct questions and instead just continue to argue the points of the debate.”
–>Man, how many times has this happened to me!!! With Moisture, MuscleRobBeefPants (wonder which names they use now…?), and even you, my friend, Vegita.
RSU, you missed my main point from the post…maybe that’s my fault. It’s not that there aren’t good criticisms offered, but rather…they seem to get lost in the emotionally laden personal attacks, which often are intertwined in the opinions offered, along with other unsavory comments.
In other words, when someone throws a personal barb (or another attack on another’s pride/identity), they have no one but themselves to blame when the other party to the debate focuses on that comment, rather than the substantive part. Emotional attacks get more play than reasonable arguments. Go figure.
~enter sarcasm~
Like…Fuck Hillary, that wench…if I called someone a pinko-leftist tree-hugging hippie commie cowboy, and then went on to debate the finer points of the Iraq situation (Spanish panzies!!!), peppering my analysis with allegations that they like to fuck sheep and small children, I doubt they’d be responding to my analysis on Iraq. Those cock-suckers!
I hope that clarifies what I was trying to say, dude?
RSU, … But I have seen the light brother! no longer will I dodge direct questions, and instead make witty and snyde remarks that incorrectly characterize the other side of the debate.
anyways just clownin, of course we have all done this. I’m sure you all know how tempting it is to get a quck stinging one liner in on someone. It just doesn’t make for very good debate. Well it does make it entertaining to those just reading i’m sure.
great points Little Jay. I concur.
Is the assumption that someone is being stopped from criticizing the President? Have you even watched TV or read any news or opinion at all over the past 3 years?
Or does this mean you just don’t like to have your criticisms examined?
Dur, the notion is that people who criticize the president or the administration are often labelled unpatriotic…
Is that hard to understand?