Here's my new one. Surely it won't offend anyone, will it?


jl

Jim,

I doubt you will be accused of being politically correct!

Jim

Jim
Sure to fire up the afternoon ! enjoy!!

ps. I LIKE IT!!!

Rick

These days, I find almost any political commentary offensive - regardless of whether it comes from the Dems or the GOP - because it invariably demonizes the 'other' side and makes productive political discourse impossible. As long as partisans are more interested in pitting Americans against each other than in working together in the nation's best interest, we're stuck in a cycle of mutual hatred that leads nowhere.

So yeah, Jim, you accomplished your goal of being politically offensive...which isn't much of an accomplishment, any more.

Only DemOcrats with guns.

Personally I'd rather be politically offensive than politically correct any day!
Jim

I like it Jim,wish I thought of doing it.Sure to PO the socialists !
At least on here it will stay up not like that "other board"

No offense taken here, Jim . . . but especially since it's campaign time, and since we're Ground Zero here in Iowa (someone said recently that you can't swing a dead cat in Iowa without hitting a candidate!), I'd have to say that the Dems are too noisy and too disorganized for a sleeper cell.

Well it offends me. Not because I belong to the Democratic Party, I don't, I'm a registered Libertarian, but because plenty of Democrats have defended, bled and died for the USA. Normally I wouldn't even reply to such an idiotic post but you've crossed the line from stupid into disgusting.
npm

Hey Jack, lighten up a bit. If you're more concerned about tag-lines rather than the content of the boards, 20 mg of fluoxetine may be just what the doctor ordered.

Well I thought my post about scope mounts for a Mannlicher Schoenaur carbine was OT enough but this posting is too much, I have no idea what a tag is except for the one on the gun in the store stating the price. This post does not belong here.
Mike

I thought that we all liked and respected Dave.
What has happened to bring about another case of grief for him so soon after that last kerfluffle???
Best,
John

If a person wants their tag line to make a political, or social or other such statement, so be it. They have that right as far as I am concerned. They can use words any way they want and tag themselves as they see fit.
I find I am much in agreement with Jack M's statement above but if someone wants to be identified based on an invective, ok by me.
Personally, I sort of prefer to keep my options open and stive to keep my opinions the same way. But hey, that's just my take. Regards, Jake

PS. One other thing; Sidelocks or boxlocks and with double or single triggers? And, for the bonus question; Ejectors?

I'm a registered Dem and Jim's friend and I sure as hell don't let one get in the way of the other.

jack

Actually, woodcocker, I'm more concerned about the future of this country than I am about partisan yahoos with bumper-sticker brains. But I can't let cr@p like this be thrown without speaking out against it.

Close to half of all voting Americans will be backing Democrats next year (I won't be among them). A lot of Democrats are risking their lives for you in Iraq and Afghanistan right now (I thank God for them). Maybe you can "lighten up" about equating decent Americans with terrorists - I can't.

I have to agree with Jack M. I expect more than a few Democrats who love double guns frequent this board. What's gained by gratuitous insult to them? Guess it might have seemed funny in 9th grade.

Jay

I just did this to see what would crawl out of the woodwork. It worked! Some saw my tongue-in-cheek but some didn't.
Amazing how it's OK for Democrats to call the President of the United States a "Hitler", "a Nazi", "the worst terrorist of all", "a liar", "an idiot" and in the next foul breath, accuse Republicans of being "Demonizers".
Amazing but not surprising,

Would you kindly list all these Democrats for the edification of the rest of us. We'll make sure they're voted for in 2008.
Jim

Jim, I understood what you did and why you did it. And, I stand by your right to do it for whatever reason. Regards, Jake

I'm a Republican...

So you'll have to excuse me for being alitte slOw...

What's a "Libertarian" ?

....a Democrat hooked on "fluoxetine".

Lets pray he doesn't create another disaster before his term is up.

I don't know how he survived the crash of 9/11...didn't you know he was flying the first plane.

Sounds like the old childhood whine: "he did it first!" But I can't recall anyone else in this forum doing any of the above. Which is one of the reasons I prefer this forum over the "others" - it's about guns, not politics. As a member wisely posted recently:

I see nothing wrong with using a tag line of a political nature. Wouldn't see anything wrong with "Rush is a big, fat idiot" as a tag line either. Why worry about it? You're going to see bumper stickers of that nature on vehicles belonging to people just like those who post here. If you don't want to discuss politics with said individual . . . don't. Ignore the bumper sticker. Ignore the tag line. Talk guns. Jim's a valued contributor here, and he would remain one whether he's a right wing crazy or a Commie pinko creep.

Lots of folks see nothing wrong in demonizing remarks about "kikes" and "niggers" and "greasers," Larry - that doesn't mean you should let them pass unchallenged. Silence can imply complicity.

Mutual respect is one of the hallmarks of this forum. It's worth an effort to keep it that way.

Jack, if you can't see a difference between a racial slur and a bumper sticker-like slogan during a political campaign, then you need new glasses. My long-time hunting partner and best friend is a former candidate for the Iowa senate, as a Democrat. Even he sees the humor (and certainly no harm) in the "Life's a bitch--don't vote for one!" bumper sticker.

Personally, I liked the bumper sticker I saw recently in the UP: "EARTH FIRST! We'll log the other planets later!"

The interesting thing about tag lines is that they're not directed at any individual, and especially not at any individual participant on this board. They're simply a reflection of the poster's philosophy, political or otherwise.

People these days take offense far too quickly. I spent too much time on campus and saw far too many instances of PC run amok to accept a PC police force as a good idea.

Things are sad indeed when folk mistake a metaphor for a simile, and don't see a distinction between "political discussion" and hate speech.

Debate on topics such as fiscal and foreign policy, health care, civil rights, immigration reform and - yes - gun control is political discussion. Equating a major American political party with terrorists is hate speech.

If more Germans had stood up against Nazi hate speech in the 1920s and '30s, a lot of lives - including American lives - might have been spared in WWII. Instead, they "lightened up" and let Germany descend into the Holocaust.

I believe in free and vigorous political discussion - that's how we resolve our differences in a democracy. But bumper-sticker hate speech resolves nothing - it only magnifies differences by setting Americans against each other. Those who accept demonization as legitimate political speech (and that's all too common these days) may be contributing to the demise of the world's greatest democracy.

"Hate speech" . . . Jack, you've even fallen into PC terminology. When you can't see the poster's face nor hear his voice, how do you know he "hates" anyone? Perhaps he's saying it with a smile . . . or have you forgotten that famous line from the classic Western novel, "The Virginian": "When you call me that, smile!"? If someone says, "Jack, you dirty SOB!"--well, you probably know from the tone of voice whether it's a serious insult . . . or maybe a "term of endearment" from a friend. Even more so if you're looking at the individual and can see his facial expression. In cyberspace? Not a chance.

Those who go around accusing others of "hate speech" every time they hear anything that offends them might want to take a closer look at the first amendment to the Constitution. It doesn't guarantee freedom of speech only if said speech offends no one. Freedom of speech carries with it the freedom to offend. And as long as others are free to say "that offends me", seems to me that's far enough--as opposed to shouting down the "offender" and his right to offend, if he wishes to do so.

I should leave this alone. Honest, I should. But Larry, certainly you are aware that political "discussion" in the era of talk radio has become so laced with invective and vituperation that it serves no purpose as dialog or discourse let alone verbal intercourse. You may not like the term "hate speach" but if it walks with a waddle and quacks, it is what it is.
Hell, I believe we have a right to "hate speach." I don't like it. It can even make me cringe. But the right to freedom is not limited by taste.
But it strikes me as inconsistant to denigrate Jack M. for his offense at the spewed invectives and then to say:
"Freedom of speech carries with it the freedom to offend. And as long as others are free to say "that offends me", seems to me that's far enough..."
My interpretation of Jack's take is that he believes such vituperation stifles true discourse.
My best regards, Jake

Ben Franklin said it best, "We need to hang together, or rest assured we will all hang seperately" (or words to that effect).

Gentleman,

We are about to take part in one of the most important elections in the history of our great nation. Today, the SCOTUS announced that they will hear the DC gun ban case. Up until now, guns and hunting has not been an issue on the campaign. You can bet that no matter how they rule, it will become one now.

The last time I looked, Republicans, Democrats, Independants, Greenies or what have you are ALL Americans first, last and always.

Although I am not yet sold on the front runners on the Republican side, the other alternative (a certain NY Senator) is flat out scary and will spell disaster for this country, IMHO .

Lets be polite, be Gentleman, agree to disagree, hear both sides, and when it comes time to pull the lever, pull it for the right person who will take us forward and protect ALL of OUR God given rights.

Now, back to double guns (and gun dogs).

Jake, Jack's response is proof enough that nothing was "stifled". And it's his position (and the whole hate speech/hate crime nonsense) that I'm denigrating, not him. And as I pointed out earlier, a tag line isn't "discourse" anyhow. It's simply an expression of the individual's philosophy (or perhaps an attempt at humor). There's no need to respond to it at all. It's not like Jim said, to any specific Democrat, "Hey, if you're a Democrat, you might as well be a member of AQ."

As Voltaire said, "I may not believe in what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

DOUBLE GUNS! DOUBLE GUNS! DOUBLE GUNS!

We never did see all those pics...

Voltaire huh? Good to know. In a book? Jake

Like Jakeroo, I really shouldn't get enmeshed with this thread, but sometimes I can't ignore it. Mike Bonner and John Mann have it right. What part of Weber's directive don't some of our members understand? Having said that, I'll now indict myself with the rest of the posters. Rabbit -- Hate the sin but love the sinner? Gunflint's observation is largely correct. It is offensive. It is tasteless. It is, indeed, an order of magnitude less than mature and thoughtless in the extreme. Jakeroo -- if we abide by Weber's dictum, he doesn't have the right on this forum. He does have the right to say anything he believes, however small-minded or tendentious, and Jack M., I and others have an equal right to disagree -- but we shouldn't have to do it here. Larry B. -- words a man writes do not have to have a face to be transparent. Did Jack M. or others of us "crawl out of the woodwork"? Poor choice of words -- or a good indication of the writer's mindset? Larry, I can't help but feel you didn't spend enough time on campus parsing language or logic, which is odd since your published work indicates a passing familiarity with the written word (and has my admiration). Let's see, as long as he didn't name a specific Democrat, the tag line doesn't really mean what it says. Does this mean that what a man writes or says may depend on what the definition of "is" is?
None of this is meant to be confrontational, but Weber's directive needs to be more closely observed.
Regards to all of you, Democrats and Republicans. In equal measure. Will

Well Jake, Voltaire wrote a lot of different things: plays, poetry, books, letters on various subjects. But we can be pretty sure it was on paper--since there wasn't any internet back then!

Yeh, Amazing........CONFUCKULATIONS.

Larry, That I assumed. Wondering if you had the direct source. Well, with the power of Google it appears that the quote may be a paraphrase.

http://www.classroomtools.com/voltaire.htm

Regards, Jake

Wasn't that Bill ClintOns line.

Well, Joe those pics were posted and commented on, you must not be reading the right stuff...I have had enough of this post, skipping it from now on, this last above has nothing to do with anything I want to read about....Trash

"I detest what you write, but I would give my life so that you can continue to write" looks pretty close. I'll have to see if I can track down the original. The exact wording may have even fooled me, with an MA in French Lit.

Will, what part of the famous "When you call me that, smile!" line is unclear to you? You've never had anyone say to you, "Why you old SOB!" in a friendly manner? In order to know what Jim really meant, your only choice is to ask Jim. He may simply have been suggesting that Dems are misguided, unintentionally aiding the terrorists. (As a former intelligence officer, I can verify to you that not everyone in a "sleeper" cell is fully aware of the operation in question. Just like many loyal Americans joined the Communist Party back 50 or more years ago--not because they hated their country, but because they thought Communism was the best system.)

But what we can certainly say is that Jim's "offensive" tag line did anything but "stifle" discussion. Here we are on page 5, still discussing it. Maybe "stifle" has a different meaning in some folks' dictionaries than it does in mine.

Legg’s tag line is obviously intended to offend. But the most self-advertised intelligence officer since Valerie Plame believes that equating Democrats with terrorists is philosophical, maybe endearing, perhaps humorous (and by the way, Democrats may be inadvertent al Qaeda sleepers). And he conflates sleepers with sympathizers - two totally different things. With airy-fairy "intelligence" like that, it’s no wonder bin Laden’s still on the loose!

As thousands of Americans have already been murdered by terrorists, it’s hard to see the “humor” in calling anyone a terrorist.

<<Je ne suis pas d’accord avec ce que vous dites mais je me battrai pour que vous puissiez le dire>>.
I've always understood that it was Voltaire - not that it matters, as most of the eejits here would ignore him because he was FRENCH!
Great photograph on the front of the Irish Times today,
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2007/1121/index.html but I'm not sure which one is the turkey ;-)
K.

Where you may err, Larry, is appearing to find approbation for a view of dissent "unintentionally aiding the terrorists." Our governments use that line all the time when, in fact, Canadians and Americans support their troops but criticize the lying and cover-ups weakening the values we're ostensibly fighting for. Dissent is the gospel.

I find "aiding the enemy" notions specious, to say the least. al Qaeda and Taliban monitor our national and international newscasts. They know our public support to the decimal point, as we do. Canada's Chief of Defence Staff spends 70 per cent of his time strengthening public support for our Afghanistan mission.

Last week, our defence minister, my Member of Parliament, had barely arrived at one of our outposts---imagine the security detail--- when the Taliban dropped rockets within its perimeter. With a wry smile and relief that no one was hurt, the outpost commander said he didn't think the stonk was coincidental.

I simply find it mind boggling that as America as we have known it in the past circles the drain after nearly eight years of Republican rule, that there are people like Jim and others who apparently see no problem with that, and in the same breath, equate Dems with terrorists. Wow.

As an American first and foremost, a veteran, an avid sportsman and gun owner, and as a Dem (and former Republican), I don't find it offensive as much as I do pitiful and misguided. There is a word for it however:


my·o·pi·a /maɪˈoʊpiə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mahy-oh-pee-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. Ophthalmology. a condition of the eye in which parallel rays are focused in front of the retina, objects being seen distinctly only when near to the eye; nearsightedness (opposed to hyperopia).
2. lack of foresight or discernment; obtuseness.
3. narrow-mindedness; intolerance.

Kerry, Eejit. New word for me. I find the definition easily enough but not the pronunciation. Is it with a hard e and soft i? Regards, Jake

King has responded to this thread far better than I can. I wasn't going to wade in, but the temptation has won out. The good news is that the American middle is alive and well again. The extremes on the right and the left have reminded us all how much we reject what they are trying to pass off. Americans will listen to the candidates and make a reasonable choice in the upcoming elections, and this time, it won't be a response to our fears that have been appealed to.

My brother-in-law just returned from a trip to China. He is the Vermont Secretary of Agriculture and he headed up a group that went over to look at China's agricultural system. He came back talking about new cities, one with a population of over 6 million and it did not exist ten years ago, new highways, bridges, industrial plants, schools, hospitals, very advanced modern farms; the list goes on and on.

We are bogged down fighting the world's wars and it is going to cost us dearly. We need leaders that remember we are part of a larger world community and are not opposed to including the rest of the world in its business. We cannot continue to try to be the "Lone Ranger." It was ridiculous seven years ago, and it is more so now. We also need leaders that do not try to use their skills in parsing our language to deceive us with their intentions.

I am very tired of the partisanship and I believe I am not alone in this. Democrats can defend this country and so can Republicans. Neither party has a monopoly on all the right ideas or choices of action. Where the idea came from that only Republicans can defend this country baffles me. I am pretty sure that our Presidents in WWI and WWII were Democrats. I am sure that both parties are represented in our current Armed Services.

About the only one being convinced by these silly jingoes, tag lines, and bumper stickers is the person using it. The rest of us are not going along for the ride. Don't kid yourself.


Ed Pirie
West Topsham, Vermont

Ed,
You are a smart guy. Nice post.

Brent

Marklart and Ed among some others have provided very thoughtful posts. Thank you. I just want to add: When someone writes something offensive and then says, in effect ---

'I (or he) was only joking, gee it's no big deal. Wow what's the big deal?!'

---That is even more offensive, and most people would even conclude rather cowardly. It reminds me of what a bully would say in the fourth grade when someone in authority catches him launch some taunt meant to injure and/or invoke a fight.

Saying democrats are the largest sleeper cell of Al Queda is offensive to many... including me. I did not serve and put my life on the line in the US Marine Corp to be told I am part of Al Queda. Not by anyone. Moreover, I do not think ducking under the fabrication that it is just a harmless little joke is being truthful. Not at all. It was NOT intended to be harmless. It may have partially been intended to make right wing nuts laugh, and to be sure it was meant to injure and/or invoke a fight in a fashion that is uncanny in its similarity to the tactics and mentality of a 4th grade bully.

Don't worry this county is too ..... up to save anyway. What does an Irishman care about an Italian or Alaskan about Texan. It's ...... hopeless. Just call almost any 800 number and you have choice between English and Spanish. I'm surprised the recording usually says press 1 for English and not the other way around. Leggs remarks are insignificant. Frankly neither party is worth a warm pitcher of spit! I just click my mouse for news I want, because I do not want to hear most of what they say on TV. I will not vote anymore, because it .ucking doesn't matter anyway. Each party only cares about their party.

Jakearoo,
It's a Hiberno-English word, our pronounciation and colloquial spelling of "idiot." It is always derogatory, as in "He's a right eejit."
Eejit, ee as in knee, jit as in jitney, the pantechnicon that travels to the Hamptons, often full of them!

Gaelic is much more precise, having words for a masculine fool (amadan) and feminine fool (oinseach) and a kinder one for a mentally challenged person (duine le Dia = a person of God)
K.


K.

Jack, you're certainly one smart guy, being able to read obvious intentions in cyberspace. And Jim even posed a QUESTION as to whether it would offend anyone. All you know for sure, Jack, is that it offended you.

Well, here's a little quotation on the subject of words and mutual understanding. Same source as my previous one (Voltaire), only this one is straight from "The New Dictionary of French Quotations". (I was unable to find the one referred to at the end of Jake's Google search.)

"Volumes would be necessary, not only to begin to clarify things, but to begin to reach agreement. It would be necessary to know what clear idea one attaches to each word one utters. But even that isn't enough: it would be necessary to know what idea each word evokes in the mind of the opposing party."

That's why, IMO, the whole "hate speech/hate crime" thing is so silly. A black man assaults a white, or vice versa. Did it have anything to do with race hatred? How about just the wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time? How does anyone know . . . unless there is hard evidence that the speech or crime in question was motivated by hatred? Well, as for me, I did not hear Jim say that he hates all Democrats. But you may ASS-U-ME that to be true, if you wish. As for me, I shall heed the words of Voltaire, and not assume that the "clear" meaning of Jim's tag line in my mind is the same as it is in Jim's mind.

And as for inadvertent assistance to any cause . . . Jack, you should have heard the NPR "Talk of the Nation" program a few years back, when the topic was the now-accessible files of the Soviet KGB and that agency's influence over the American Communist Party. Several old academics called in and protested, "Well, I WAS a Communist--but I was no Soviet agent!" Nope, just a dupe. And it's equally possible to be a dupe of the terroists--as in perhaps by donating money to an innocent-sounding Muslim charity which turns out to have somewhat nefarious connections. Oh, but we haven't heard of any of those . . . have we???

But I certainly hate it that Jim's suggested tag line has stifled debate here!

C'mon guys. Jim stated his reason for his tag line that started this thread and then he deleated it here and everywhere. Much as I enjoy dancing angles on the heads of pins......

Seems like I never got an answer to even one of my burning three (or four or five) questions above. Will no one set foot in these well thrashed and sacred waters? Jake

You Democrats need not worry...the Rebulicans won't let the Democrats take your guns.

JOe, I hope you are right. It darn sure seems to be a fight. Those Republicans may get some help from Democrats and Independants and Libertarians and even Greens or others. Maybe some of those folks like guns too. Could be. Jake

Jim: Are you the canary in the coal mine or prepetuating the problem?

I reflect back on a more polite time when I was city attorney for Rockford IL, in both GOP and Dem administrations. Across from city hall at Erwin's Restaurant the political honchos had a large reserved table every day of the week--one either knew he (or she, our congresswoman and later Secretary of Education) was welcome, or not. There were no party lines. The real players, political money men, presidential candidates, state and federal elected officers, the sheriff, mayor, and news media types would drop by to discuss the hot topics of the day. No one ever called anyone a "liar" or made any derisive personal jabs at risk of being no longer welcome. In other words, there was a vested interest in being civil. The debate involved the clash of points of view, not personalities.

Oh! how this has changed. I'm no longer in the political arena, so I don't know whether the politicos are still civil face to face, but in the media they have crossed the line. Even some of my personal friends have no qualms about calling Geo. Jr. a "liar" and "stupid." I questioned this at dinner last week; my friend Dave is mentioned in Ch. 6 of Parker Guns: The "Old Reliable", and he used the "S" word. I asked how a person who went to Harvard and Yale and was a fighter jet pilot could be stupid...and Dave's reply: "well, I understand he didn't get good grades." This is what substitutes for intelect nowadays.

People are so caught up in the fast times of the Internet, 24 hour cable news, iPhones, instant messaging, e-mail, blogging, Blackberries, and the like that every debate that used to be time consuming, real face-to-face, and civil has been compressed to one word or less--what Rush calls "drive-by." Alas! EDM

Kerryman, isn't it a feckin eejit? How's the shooting this year, I haven't been back since last June.
npm

Hi Nial,
Quite right, it is feckin' eejit in the Kingdom, but "bleedin' eejit" in Dubland. Shooting here is terrible; was out 10 days ago in Sneem area and between 4 guns we saw one woodcock. Had a Brit friend over and although he did not fire a shot had a great time and thought the weather & scenery wonderful. (There are some flowers on some of the wild rhododendron and butterflies in my garden...in mid November!) B-in law remained and shot three more days, 2 snipe and two w.cock in Ballinskelligs (raining.) Last weekend I had a walk-up day on our Dublin Shoot and had a reasonable bag, despite the rain my friend with the springers worked miracles and made them fly really well. We've tried a more melanistic strain this year and they are STRONG!
Best & great to hear from you,
K.

EDM, you're correct: way too much nonsense passing for intellect today. But I do hate to see political correctness stifle free speech. This is Dave's board, and while we can all freely offer our opinions concerning Jim's tag line, the only one who can delete it--besides Jim himself--is Dave. And that's exactly as it should be.

By the way, it's my understanding that while some refer to W's "mediocre" performance at Yale, his grades were actually better than Al Gore's!

It seems fashionable to equate civility with political correctness these days. Too bad. One would think that civility and interest in double guns might be strongly correlated - but no.





Talk about damnation by faint praise! I cannot imagine attempting to justify his actions with such a comparison.

Brent

Larry, re inadvertent assistance, many of the American and Canadian intelligentsia and plain Joes disillusioned by the Crash and seeking something better during the Depression joined the Communist Party. Anyone who wasn't at least thinking along those lines at that time wasn't thinking at all.

Some saw through it over time as another totalitarian system and got out. My father left early because of the Party's anti-semitism and went on to distinguished service in war and journalism. Lindbergh and The Bund favoured fascism, Germany over Great Britain, and over time saw through it and left it.

"Dupes," for seeking neither riches or gold but something as intangible as an ideal? Many of those idealists reside in the pantheon of illustrious contributers to our respective societies today. We're all dupes, on your terms, for changing our minds and looking for an improvement because of deception.

Regards, King

In the U.S., we still deport old men who sided with the Nazis but Bolshevik sympathizers like you get a pass. I'm not buying your romantic crap.

King, the ones here in the States--can't speak for the Party in Canada, but I rather expect it was the same deal--were indeed dupes, because they failed to see the hand of the KGB pulling the strings of their puppet party, all the way from Moscow. The Soviets liked to pretend that the various foreign CP's were independent, but the opening of the KGB files has proven otherwise. Those of us that worked against the KGB during the Cold War were well aware of it, but those on the left with some remaining sympathy for former party stalwarts still refused to believe the degree of Soviet penetration of the Western democracies, both through the puppet parties and through American and Canadian KGB recruits who distanced themselves from the party for cover purposes. A number of trials at the end of WWII showed the extent to which our Soviet "allies" were working against us at the time--but some still refused to believe. Some, like Kim Philby in Great Britain, remained true to "the cause" even through the crushing of the revolt in Hungary and the Prague spring.

And Lindbergh never favored fascism. Sorry to see you bought into that old wive's tale. FDR, for all his other qualities, was an extremely vain man. Lindy was the only American more popular than FDR. FDR actually sent Lindy to Germany to assess their air power. Lindy returned and reported that we'd better get busy building up our own. The majority of Americans at the time (including Lindbergh) were basically isolationists. Just because they didn't want to enter WWII prior to Pearl Harbor didn't make them fascists. But it was convenient for FDR to make Lindbergh look like a fan of Hitler, even when Lindy brought back a very valuable assessment on the buildup of the Luftwaffe. And if he could make Lindy less popular by making him appear to be pro-German, so much the better for his own ego.

And Brent, I'd say that being smarter than the man who invented the Internet (and maybe global warming too!) is no small achievement.

Larry, I did think that at least you were smarter than that...

Oh well.
Brent

With Thanksgiving Day coming up, I want to express my thanks to all here who have stood up for civility on this board. You have reassured me that the wingnuts on either side have not yet succeeded in demolishing the center, and that reasonable political discourse is still possible.

Also, a tip o' the hat to post #67371 above, for reminding us that even on the best-run board, someone's likely to post moronic graffiti more appropriate to public toilet stalls. Way to go, Jagermeister!

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

Larry, no quarrel from me with your points of view of the situation 50 years or so ago; I was referring to decades before that, before the war, when no one needed directions from anywhere to want food and jobs at home.

We'll have to disagree on Lindbergh, who advocated more than U.S. neutrality. Either way, the US didn't need Lindbergh's word on Germany's military capacity and prowess. Intelligence knew and Hitler later displayed it to the world.

(My late friend Bill Greenaway, British motorcycle and spin- and fly-casting champion, hung out on Goring's estate and with his hunting and angling crowd before the war. He was a major in British intelligence.)

We may agree that the isolationists were duped, using your term, until that other powerful modern military machine struck in the Pacific and they realized that only mobilization could save the US goose from being cooked.

The isolationists were not bad Americans. They dissented and they changed their minds as circumstances changed, as persons usually do, and as our countries are doing now concerning our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They were not then and are not now providing inadvertent assistance to our opponents. The US was made from dissent. Remove dissent and we're lost.

Enough already!

King, the isolationists didn't join a political party that was controlled by a foreign power, the goal of which was to overthrow the Western democracies and put the entire world under their totalitarian system. That is, other than those that joined the Bund--and I'm certainly not apologizing for them like you are for the Commies. You don't dissent by allowing yourself to be used as the tool of a foreign power that's plotting to destroy democracy.

As for prewar intelligence in the United States, I highly recommend to you a book called "Roosevelt's Secret War", by Joseph Persico. Unlike Great Britain, the United States had no national intelligence organization prior to the creation of the Office of Strategic Services, which did not come into being until after WWII. Much of FDR's foreign intelligence gathering consisted of his sending private citizens--like Donovan (who eventually headed OSS) and Lindbergh--on "unofficial" missions abroad. He even had his friend Vincent Astor, who headed an unofficial intelligence-gathering network called "the Room", go snooping around in the Pacific on his yacht to gather intelligence on the Japanese. Such was the sad state of American intelligence prior to WWII.

But we certainly haven't silenced dissent nor stifled discourse here. Seven pages worth of relatively reasoned exchanges between posters. I've seen much more heated debates on the merits, or lack thereof, of this or that double.

I'm fairly certain that this whole thing started on another post because Jim didn't like my tag. He then put his own tag in and I do believe it was in jest like he stated later to get a reaction. Now, hopefully it is DONE and we get get back to what the forum is all about DOUBLE GUNS.
So enough of the chiding and leave the politics to another site.

One more thing Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Do you think the Goverment really lied to the indians ?

Or were the indians too dumb to undersatand what the Goverment was telling them ?

According to our "former intelligence officer":

In fact, the OSS was established on June 12, 1942.

Now - about those WMDs...

Joe,
Yea, they lied. Ever talk to a politician? Stop stirring the pot. It is barely simmering and ready to cool.

Gee jOe, do you think Native Americans are celebrating thanksgiving?

We still have at least the concept of a loyal opposition. Why don't we all stop with the "aiding and abetting" smear. From now on I'll try to remember Dubya is dumbing down his summa cum sis boom bah intellect in order that I may understand what he's saying.

jack

I pay no attention to him. When was the last time he was right about anything? Fanks to him this Empire is going to crumble a little sooner.

Larry: "commies"? Dude, you're dating yourself.

jOe: there's a difference between dumb and naive.

Chopper: agree with that!

The Govt most definately lied to the Indians. Speakin of Indians...I just returned from the Rez and brought his guy back with me.

Very Nice:
5x5 or 5x4??
Jim

6x6, but his 2 smallest points are broken down to nubs.
Steve

Very Kool, Steve! Come on over and shoot one here! I'll see if I can scrounge up a tag...Gonna trade with you, Pick up the "H" and drop off a DS16...I'mm looking at a 6x6, as of this morning his points are intact, they are in full rut, so they may be busted by Wed. when the season opens...Congrats!!!!

Jack, I'm proud of you. You caught me on that one! (Of course unlike some, I'm quite willing to admit it when I goof.) I meant to say "until after WWII began".

WMD's . . . excellent article on the subject, recently posted at http://www.aina.org/news. What the "WMD naysayers" have never been able to answer is: Since we knew Saddam did indeed have WMD's at one time . . . where did they go? That article provides what appears to be a pretty well-researched answer.

F2F, although we've done a pretty good job of kicking Communism onto the ash heap of history, they're still out there. See North Korea, Cuba, China . . . and the campuses of far too many American universities, especially in liberal arts. And since we still use the word "Nazis", why would "Commies" be dated?

We've now reached 9 pages of "stifled discourse". Darn that Jim, causing us all to shut up with his evil tag line.

But as you now point out, Larry, free speech has not been stifled here.

BTW - You've used "stifle" at least 7 times in this thread. Are you trying to set a trend - or just being repetitive?

I don't know; it's just so "cold war".

Larry, re your take on U.S. military intelligence late coming up to speed, the British, desperately appealing for assistance, were sharing information long before US entry in the war, and in 1941 were working directly with US intelligence through the Canadian Sir William Stephenson's Intrepid New York office. Bletchley Park had broken German codes and ULTRA was the main reason the British were able to reduce U- Boat depredations in the Atlantic in the second half of 1941. I worked for years with the author of A Man Called Intrepid. Donovan and Stephenson were joined at the hip. It was a time when Canadian operatives were carrying out "wet operations" on New York streets. I knew one, as a friend.

There's the first use of "stifle" in this discussion, Jack . . . someone interpreting what you said relative to Jim's "offensive" tag line. But hey, even though Voltaire said you can't really be certain you're understanding the other guy--and he wasn't even working in cyberspace--there are some that may think they're smarter than he was and are capable of doing so.

But glad to see you can count to 7. For some folks your age, that's quite a chore. Woops . . . did I just offend the elderly?

King, I'm well aware of the history of Intrepid, etc. What you're forgetting is that many people realized there was a political nature to what the Brits were telling us. They obviously wanted us in the war, in the worst way (and FDR pretty well agreed with them, as did Donovan). But the isolationists did not. After all, some remembered simialar ploys (which were effective) back in WWI. Therefore, the isolationists were likely to view the Brits' "sharing" of their intel with us with a very jaundiced eye.

Hell, I was proud of the word "vituperation" let alone the stifling of discourse.
And, I can only count to 7 carefully "at my age."
What is even harder is counting the number of angles that can dance on the head of a pin. (Or, on the point if it is different.)
Jake

No offense taken, Larry - it's the best we can expect from you. You've been preaching that no one can be sure how to interpret statements made in cyberspace. Yet apparently you feel it's okay to belabor one word from a second party's interpretation of a third party's statement. Interesting.

Jake - perhaps "pinhead" is the word you're looking for. But "how many angles" might be just right!

Jack, Told you it was hard at my age. I can't count the angels or the angles. Jake

When it is hard at my age, I'm grateful.

Please stop! the length of this thread is threatening mine on French guns

Well Jack, I only did as you suggested and stood up against your attempt to "stifle" Jim's tag line. If only it had spared us more of your tortured rhetoric . . . but as long as we keep it light on both sides, I'd say no harm, no foul. And we're now up to 10 pages, with views on either side of the issue. I don't think our democracy is in any sort of peril . . . nor even the democracy of this website.