Excellent editorial

but I've had family serving in Iraq, I've taken part in fundraisers to send care packages to soldiers, and I do what I can to support my government where I can.
By the way, that was a weak attempt to disqualify the editorial by challenging Duckman's efforts, especially when you have no evidence that Duckman doesn't actively support our troops and despite the fact that it was another who wrote the editorial.
Why don't you try to make intelligent conversation by actually debating the points made in the editorial...

The editorial is political

So the only thing we can discuss is "personal support" for the troops.

I think some people think that "shouting down" (loud lip service) anyone that speaks against the war qualifies as "doing their bit to support the troops"

do far more "shouting down" than their opponents.

if a post is political or not. It is not up to you to decide what may or may not be discussed.

And I decide if I will respond to a part of a post that I think is political.

but not what you said:
The editorial is political

So the only thing we can discuss is "personal support" for the troops.

that liberals admit the war is political. That 'splains a lot

How many posts might we find if we were to look where you, EdH, have been 100% against the "judgement" of the mods?

Ironic you should have made this stance in this situation.

I am merely supplying correct information. Not making any kind of "stance" at all. My personal feelings do not enter into it in any way.

My opinion that the "rule" is stupid and contradictory is unchanged. But that is another topic.

Lip service is putting a cheap Chinese yellow ribbon on your car, uddering platitudes like ?I support the troops but not the mission? while actively protesting and obstructing every thing the administration does while voting for and supporting officials that want to defund the war. That is lip service

Last time I read the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that fell under Free speech.

I think the thing your confusing here DM, is there are those who follow an unthinking, popular opinion (on both the liberal and conservative sides) with those who expect transparency and results for our leadership instead of a government dedicated to helping only those who voted for it, the political party it owes allegiance to.

As for the war? Should we fail to achieve a stable solution in Iraq, it will destroy what little credibility the US has left in the world. Sad that this could have been prevented if we had just decided to ignore ideology driven strategy like the Rumsfeld Doctrine. The dem failing is the shortsightedness they display in their policy... unfortunately the reps were never any better. GW stated publicly during his first campaign that he was not looking to be a nation builder for the world... I think it has been proven that this was exactly one of the things he had in the back of his mind.

How do I support "THE" war ?

Well, if 3 siblings having served there wasn't enough... I support "THE" war the same way I support "THE" peace. I volunteer in the community whenever I can. I take part in food drives, work with community organizations, drop in on my neighbors to see what they might need. The last thing a military person needs to worry about is their family back home. In short, it is very possible to support our soldiers without supporting GW.

Political support for your party is not supporting the troops... it is politics. Ask any soldier. They do what their COUNTRY asks them to do. Politics is the last thing they want to discuss because then they will have to talk about how screwed up the whole prosecution of the war has been. Sit down with a few noncoms sometime who have been to Iraq... get them drunk... and ask them about the politics. You might be surprised by what you hear.

kills strengthens our enemy

but thats what it seems to me that the democrats want for a defeat

and every one complains about the people that stand up to you you will continue to be the bully.

and same as the insurgents in Iraq. they gather strength from the protesters and kill more

... I can't speak to the accuracy of your insight.

BTW... how attuned are you to the media that Iraqi insurgents are exposed to. Do you really think that any news from the US is reported accurately to the prospective bomber getting ready to go plant an IED or strap on a suicide belt?

I have to ask though... your original statement is basically a case that free speech is harmful?

How do you reconcile such a position with the idea that our troops are fighting for freedom?

when you yell fire in a theater and people panic and there wasn't a fire you get people killed.

so when the democrats say leave at a certain date you give strength to your enemy's and they fight harder kill more.

Take them to court.

It's a criminal offense to shout "fire"

We are discussing the constitution and the bill of rights here.

My disdain for comments in favor of censoring free speech because it kills troops is...

? You can't be in favor of selective censorship and also be in favor of strict constitutional interpretation.

? The assumption that middle eastern press coverage would suddenly start reporting to Iraq about the unified will of US society if criticism of the Bush presidency would suddenly stop.

? There is not one iota of documentation that comments made in the US press caused a person from the middle east to become an insurgent.

? The assumption that free speech criticizing Bush is responsible for today's sorry state of affairs in Iraq. Bush basically had a free pass from public sentiment against his policies being reported in the US press for several years... indeed, a ridiculously high approval rate for years... yet public support in favor of him, and a 2nd term election win, did nothing to deter the Iraqi insurgency.

Are we to assume that all the bad things in Iraq happened simply because of the way public perceives the US administration? In short... is the press responsible for the war between Oceania and Eastasia?

can this sub thread get closed so the post doesn't get ruined??

the newest member realizes what will occur.

something akin to teats on a bull?


.,

in post? please link to it ?

and seems the person angie? said sub thread closed why is that and if so why didn't you follow that .

How did you make out with your e-mail problem?

I've seen a couple other people with the same problem.