"Cliff" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 27 May 2005 06:18:24 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Its the same tired rhetoric Ive heard before..in the 60s.

You really do miss killing childern in Vietnam.

Children get killed in war, but calling vets "baby killers" or the like,
then or now, without specific individual evidence just marks you as a first
class jerk. Soldiers are among those least responsible for the ugly
consequences of war, while at the same time paying the highest price for it.

The really
sad part..isthat then, .it was directed against the war because of its
alleged immorality. Today, while lip service is payed to that
convention as a convient cover..its no more and no less a cover to
hide your anti conservative, anti Bush, anti Right bigotry.

Gunner has it backwards. The reality is that most people who are opposed to
(not "hate" as the NeoCon spin would have it) Bush think that way because of
his lies leading us into the war, among other good causes. But gullible
fools have been taught by their thought leaders that black is white, and
that because we "hate" Bush, we oppose his policies. By reversing reality
in this way, they push the debate into the arena of personal attacks, where
they are more comfortable, instead of having to deal with the fact their
opponents have legitimate objections to their policy. It works for them,
because Bush is a likeable guy personally to a lot of people who nonetheless
might not support him if there was a vigorous and open debate about his
policies. This has been the case in, for example, the ongoing debate over
his proposals to change Social Security.

Jeff