Sometimes a posting may contain ideas that apply, not ONLY to the posting to which one is making an immediate reply, but also to other postings that may be found elsewhere but have a related theme. So for instance, at the moment we're taking about military service and what immunities, if any, that might confer upon the person with the service regarding what they might say or do following that service.

For instance, I mentioned Randy "Duke" Cunningham. He was a U.S. Naval aviator and a highly decorated F-4 Phantom pilot in Vietnam. In fact HE was the initial "force" behind the establishment of the "Top Gun" fighter pilot training program popularized by the Tom Cruise movie of the same name. If you're a regular viewer of the History Channel, you may have seen Cunningham as a featured pilot, recounting his exploits in the skies over Vietnam. In short, a war hero.

Cunningham ended up a Congressman from California. Well, that's not exactly true. He has ended up in prison convicted of taking bribes and kickbacks in his capacity as a high ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee. None of his previous military honors did much to deflect the "current reality" of his being a crook in the House of Representatives. Still, he accomplished in Vietnam what he accomplished in Vietnam, and he is STILL one of the founders of Top Gun and he is still a highly decorated fighter pilot "ace" from a by-gone war. But he's still in prison, too.

Very often the political left tends to put up "unassailable" spokespersons to deflect criticism of their message. Recent examples would be Cindy Sheehan whose anti-war stance was deplorable. But anyone daring to disagree with her was quickly reminded how her son died in war and how can you criticize the grieving mother and boo hoo hoo. Disgusting!

Another example would be the "Jersey Girls" who have done some pretty incredible Bush-Bashing, yet anyone daring to disagree with them, notably Ann Coulter, was damned for being uncaring. "Oh how can talk like that about those poor, poor women who lost their husbands on 9/11? Oh boo hoo hoo."

And then there's the case of former Senator Max Cleland, a triple amputee who accidentally blew himself up with a grenade in Vietnam (that part of the story, of course, is conveniently overlooked) being sent to Crawford, Texas by the ever-cynical John Kerry to deliver a protest letter to George Bush, who happened to be in Washington at the time. "Oh how can you criticize poor Senator Cleland. Boo hoo hoo."

So a couple of weeks ago I heard John Murtha's outrageous condemnation of the "Haditha Marines" being defended on TV by someone who reminded everyone that, after all, Murtha had served in the marines. This was apparently intended to make Murtha bullet-proof to criticism. The reply to that was, "Lee Harvey Oswald was a marine, too. What's your point?"

Moving along, the reference to the "ex-Catholics" merely provided some immediacy to show how who or what you used to be does not necessarily mitigate who or what you are now. The correlation being that being an ex-Catholic doesn't mitigate current virulent anti-Catholic rhetoric I've seen elsewhere in our forums any more than being a former member of the military mitigates current vitriolic statements directed at the military in the Town Meeting.

Does that help explain things for you?

That's "Please draw your claws back in and get your knickers unknotted, MA'AM".

You've bemoaned the fact that "the people are sheep" many time over the years, Lawmage. What you completely don't get is that you are one of the ones who creates sheep.

And when the sheep try to shed their wool and show some teeth, you don't seem to like it much at all. When you encounter people who don't baa like sheep, bow their heads, and graze, you break into outbursts of self-righteous rage.

You need to spend some time searching yourself and recognizing this.

You hate "sheeple", but you are one of the self-appointed shepherds.

Dax will continue to disagree with you, he will continue to despise and criticize George Bush, he will continue to love this country and mourn what has been done to it, and he will continue to stand up to attempts to belittle, intimidate, silence, and suppress his opinions and speech by those who are outraged by his individuality and defiance.

As an aside, I can personally vouch that Dax has never knowingly lied in anything he's ever said to you in these boards. There have been times when he has erred, and when that was confirmed for him, he acknowledged his error quickly and painlessly, adjusted his views appropriately and moved on. If you search back through his posts you'll see that. I tell you that when Dax speaks, he is no liar, so now, the next time you call him a liar, you will be calling me a liar as well. Does Dax hate Bush? Yeah, he does. Does he bash Bush? Yeah, he does. Does Bush deserve it? Yeah, he does. Even you admit that.

It's still America. Just as you can speak... Dax can speak. Get over it. And spend a little time ridding youraelf of Ray's slogans. They never did *him* much credit and they sound even worse coming from you. Go back to being a Libertarian... the collar isn't as tight. More blood will reach your brain. Leave the McCarthyism to Ray.

It doesn't seem to change the truth I've come to believe. Your examples seem to lead back to my original conclusion that simply going after the person rather than the issue seems to be intelligent conservatism.

What was Ann Coulter's criticism of the "Jersey Girls" message, for example? Was there one issue in particular she disagreed with as an issue?

Why would this be intended to make him bullet-proof to criticism and not just make one question why a former marine would simply come out and criticize the marines for absolutely no reason. Isn't that as valid a thought as intending to make him bullet-proof? The reply you find so entertaining might apply if Oswald was remebered as someone who criticized the marines but I don't remember that part of history being played up. What was the Point of the Oswald comparison. To make Murtha look like he shot a president?

What did the point end up being?

Well...as the wise woman once said:




You, Helice. You and your ilk created the "monster." Poor Lawmage did his best to be a good Moderate. I've watched many times as he tried (and continues to try) to use logical argument and dignified debate to illuminate issues on a wide range of topics. But he has been exposed to the constant, vicious, illogical, uninformed rantings of the political left long enough that, apparently, he has come to realize a number of my "slogans" are spot on.

My "signature" line isn't a bumper sticker. It's a pithy encapsulation of a pathetic truism.