Apparently, Wisconsin is pulling its troops out of Iraq. Or something. (Hat tip: A Nun Mouse, who was probably hoping that I would post something slightly less glib. Oh, well.)
What an oddly written article. “Voters in the majority of 32 towns” … just tell us how many towns! (Given the vagueness, I’m guessing it went 17-15.)
I got a chuckle out of this:
“This sort of reminds me of Vietnam,” said Nicole Bartelme, 22,
Yeah, I’m sure Nicole has vivid memories from her childhood bubbling to the surface these days. Who could possibly forget Reagan’s illegal and immoral war of aggression against Vietnam in the mid-1980s? :)
Well, I said it was a guess. And I was more criticizing the writer of the article for being so obtuse, which in turn most naturally led to the suspicion that the majority wasn’t that great. I mean, given your number (which I assume is accurate and all that), the writer could have said something like “A large majority, 24 out of 32 towns” or “75% of the 32 towns” or something like that, anything like that. Would have sounded a lot more impressive.
It seems really odd that the lead of the article was so imprecise, and even odder that more detail was never provided in the story.
Of course, now you have me curious about the aggregate totals involved, since you’ve described it as a “vast” and “large” majority of all voters voting on the issue.
Added together, the referendums produced a resounding 40,043 to 25,641 vote against the continued US occupation of Iraq–producing an antiwar margin of 61 percent to 39 percent.
“And something can “remindâ€? you of something else without you having actually been around at the time.”
Of course. It’s clear that’s what she meant. But the theme of the thread here is glibness.
To be less glib about it, though, it’s kind of humorous that she’s reminded of Vietnam because the Green Party is pulling a political stunt in an apparently gullible state. Granted I don’t have personal memories of the Nam era either (although I, at least, was born during it), but my impression of it from history books and video clips is that the division, divisiveness, and dissent was far more contentious and widespread then than it is now. Which is to say, I acknowledge that public opinion now is not too far off from what it was then; but the level or intensity of outrage was broader then. Right now the true anger/dissent is contained to a relatively small minority. A larger number disapprove of what’s going on, but don’t care enough to do anything about it. I see that as a fundamental difference between this situation and Vietnam.
That, and the fact that our casualty rate is a fraction now of what it was then, which is not insignificant (and probably has a lot to do with the lack of broad outrage).
Okay, the silly permalink is saying I already posted the Yahoo Story here but I dont see it so I’ll try again:
“Added together, the referendums produced a resounding 40,043 to 25,641 vote against the continued US occupation of Iraq–producing an antiwar margin of 61 percent to 39 percent.”
The permalink is not letting me post the Yahoo News tory about the total percentages so here’s the quote without the link:
“Added together, the referendums produced a resounding 40,043 to 25,641 vote against the continued US occupation of Iraq–producing an antiwar margin of 61 percent to 39 percent.”
Yes, like maybe how many Wisconsin troops have died?
The reason I didn’t cite this statistic probably has something to do with the fact that I do not share your view that the number of deaths in Iraq indicates that the war is a failure, and therefore proves that the opinion of these Wisconsin residents is the correct one. No one ever claimed that the war would be without considerable sacrifice. The number of deaths has actually been quite low by historical standards, but that doesn’t change the fact that each death is a tragedy. However, the fact that X number of soldiers have died does not undermine the case that the war is and was just and necessary. The two issues, though not entirely separate, are certainly not one and in the same.
I’ll make a deal with you. Folks on your side of the debate hate it when folks on my side cite the number of deaths as a reason why we need to keep fighting, “lest they have died in vain.” I actually agree with you on that point; if the war were unjustified, wrong-headed and/or unlikely to succeed, it would be asinine to contend that we should keep fighting merely because we’ve already lost a bunch of soldiers in the service of an unjustified/wrong-headed/doomed war. But, by the same token, if the war isn’t unjustified, wrong-headed or unlikely to succeed — if it’s actually a worthy and important mission with a good chance of success — then the number of casualties doesn’t make it any less worthy/important/likely to succeed. So can we please stop uncritically citing the number of casualties as either a pro- or anti-war argument? The soldiers who have died are not numbers and they are not an argument; they are individual heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country (regardless of whether the country’s leaders were right to ask that sacrifice of them). We should not demagogue them, but rather, should stick to actual arguments about whether the war is right or wrong.
As for the Wisconsin thing… the reason I was glib about it is because I always find it rather silly when small local jurisdictions issue official proclamations on international matters about which they have no control whatsoever. If a bunch of conservative towns in Utah announced their support for an invasion of Iran, I’d feel the same way. I can easily envision a BrendanLoy.com headline along the lines of “Utah invades Iran.” Does that mean these people don’t have the right to express their opinions in a democratic matter? Of course not, but it’s still silly. States, cities and towns don’t decide foreign policy; Congress and the president do.
I can say “America reminds me of the Roman Empire� but obviously I was not alive during the time.
And if you were alive during that time I have no doubt you would be calling for the resignation of Caesar due to his unjust and immoral agression against the Gauls.
What a bullshit point. I’m not being “glib about war,” I’m being glib about a particular action by a bunch of people in Wisconsin. My comment above about the war itself, whether you agree or disagree with it, is thoughtful and honest, not glib.
Of course, people on your side of the debate love to scream “CHICKENHAWK!!!” as if that ends the debate, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by your asinine comment. Consider this, though: I could just as easily say, it’s easy to advocate a policy that would turn Iraq into a failed state and a terror safe haven when you live in a part of the country that is extremely unlikely to be attacked by terrorists. But I wouldn’t say that, because it’s not a valid argument. Neither is the argument that a person’s support for the war is invalid unless that person is a member of the military. We ALL have a right to our opinions — pro- or anti-war — regardless of our military status.
[T]he reason I was glib about it is because I always find it rather silly when small local jurisdictions issue official proclamations on international matters about which they have no control whatsoever. If a bunch of conservative towns in Utah announced their support for an invasion of Iran, I’d feel the same way. I can easily envision a BrendanLoy.com headline along the lines of “Utah invades Iran.� Does that mean these people don’t have the right to express their opinions in a democratic matter? Of course not, but it’s still silly. States, cities and towns don’t decide foreign policy; Congress and the president do.
Is that sufficiently clear, or would you like me to repeat it again? I can copy and paste as many times as necessary until you understand the difference between being “glib about war” and being glib about a particular political action that you find to be silly.
Then again, I suppose I can understand your confusion, since people on the Left are NEVER glib about political actions related to the war that are taken by President Bush and the Republicans.
It was a glib comment. It was a glib comment about a vote on war. Hence, it was a glib comment about war. Frankly, it was almost as “asinine” as Bush pretending he was looking for WMD during the correspondents’ dinner a couple of years ago. Don’t blame me for your poor judgement.
So glib comments about all matters related to the war are now completely off-limits? Awesome. You’d better tell the folks at Daily Kos and other similar sites about the new ground rules, as they’re going to have to stop saying glib things about President Bush when they related to the war.
My poor judgment? I didn’t exercise poor judgment, so by definition I’m not blaming you for it. The only reason you think my “glibness” is inappropriate is because you disagree with my underlying position. If I was being glib in a manner that suited your political tastes, you would have no objection. I call bullshit.
You would have a valid point if I had made a glib comment about the number of casualties or about Iraqi civilian deaths or something along those lines. As it is, you are pathetically grasping at straws.
P.S. If your comment had any validity or credibility whatsoever, it would have lost it when you said:
Frankly, it was almost as “asinine� as Bush pretending he was looking for WMD during the correspondents’ dinner a couple of years ago.
Right. A glib post by a blogger about a referendum in Wisconsin is “almost as” objectionable as the President of the United States joking about the collapse of a central tenet of his case of war. Of course!
Did I say you were upset? No, I said you have an objection, which you clearly do. I applaud you for “calling it as [you] see it” — I always strive to do the same — but what you “see” is clearly impacted by your anti-war position. If I had made a glib comment about how President Bush launched us into war because he’s a dumbass who looks like a chimp, I seriously doubt you would have made the same objection. As for why I’m upset, perhaps it has something to do with the fact that you basically implied that I am callous and don’t care about the sacrifices of our soldiers? “It’s easy to be glib about war when there is no chance of you fighting in it” — in other words, because there’s no chance of me fighting in the war, I don’t sufficiently understand its seriousness and therefore am making glib remarks. Yeah, it’s upsetting for someone to say that about you, especially when it’s totally false and unsupported.
“Cheeseheads for Peace. Apparently, Wisconsin is pulling its troops out of Iraq. Or something.”
That’s not a glib comment about the war at all. “Hey you dumb Cheesehead who lost your son in the war. What are you thinking voting to pull troops out? You have no power? Don’t you know that?”
FYI: The more I re-read your comment “I’m just calling it as I see it. I’m not the one upset,” the more I feel that you are a complete asshole. You provoke me with an insulting comment, I react with a very specific series of arguments as to why your insult is totally unjustified, and you respond by wondering why I’m upset?
I didn’t call anyone dumb. I didn’t address my comment at a grieving parent. Had I done either of those things, it would have COMPLETELY changed the nature of my post.
You made fun of people who are concerned about what the war is doing to people.
No, I satirized a particularly silly method which a group of people used to express their opinion about the war. I have a history of making fun of such methods in the past, and I’ll do so again in the future.
Had I said, “ha ha, a bunch of dumbasses in Wisconsin think it’s sad that some dumb Cheeseheads died in Iraq,” THAT would be offensive. What I said? Perfectly legitimate glibness. You keep ignoring this point, but it’s absolutely true: if what I said is off-limits, humor is basically dead when it comes to commentary on political affairs. Might as well cancel Jay Leno and David Letterman’s shows right now. That joke Letterman told the other night about the administration’s justification for war? So glib! So offensive! Any time a topic is related to the war, we must talk about it only in serious, solemn tones.
P.S. This is reminiscent of your comment to Andrew a few days ago about how he actually hates all Muslims and wants them to die. It’s amazing how you know everyone’s motivations better than they do.
Looking at the painfully obvious absence of intellectual depth in your comments, it’s no wonder you are so comfortable tossing around accusations of glibness, A&A.
When someone says A, and you claim that A means B, and the person who said A explains explicitly, that no, it doesn’t mean B… then, no, it is NOT “pretty self-evident” that you are correct.
Joe Mama, it should be noted that I admitted glibness. The issue isn’t that A&A accused me of glibness, it’s that he mischaracterized my glibness, and in the process, accused me of not understanding that war is a serious business because I don’t have to fight in it, and of not respecting the troops or the grieving parents of dead soldiers.
“Joe Mama, it should be noted that I admitted glibness. The issue isn’t that A&A accused me of glibness, it’s that he mischaracterized my glibness, and in the process, accused me of not understanding that war is a serious business because I don’t have to fight in it, and of not respecting the troops or the grieving parents of dead soldiers.”
Brendan, since you seem to think that every method of protest against a war that was a very bad decision is silly and or stupid and or illogical and or other things. What, pray tell, would you see as a good protest against the war? How many more people have to die for a bad decision before it becomes worth protesting about in your opinion? How many more people have to die before you start taking their deaths seriously? Our very brave and very well trained men and women in uniform are over in Iraq fighting and sacrificing their lives and our politicians here in the states can’t seem to get their heads far enough out of the to put in place a functional strategy and you don’t see the as a problem? You don’t think that is worth protesting about? Every time we try and confront this problem you are dismissive and glib about it. You are attitude is demeaning the sacrifice our soldiers are making. When you fail to take real problems seriously you are as bad as Bush and enabling poor decision making.
Seriously Brendan, I can’t see eye to eye with you on this one. How many people have to die in Iraq until you take this war Seriously? And how would you suggest protesting this really terrible decision on behalf of Bush and his cronies how have the strategic acumen of shell fish?
I am curious myself what form of protests you might feel are more appropiate/effective/etc. Not trying to pick a fight just want to understand where you are coming from.
I mean, sure, in practical terms this vote doesn’t actually DO anything, but it does atleast start to send a message, and after all isn’t that what democracy and freedom and that whole power to the people concept are all about?
I just don’t see how expressing their opinions through a vote is any different than say, someone expressing their opinion through a blog post.
I guess my question is, what would you have them do? What should people who see Bush’s actions as so wrong do to try and change things. Yes they could have voted against him in the election, but its entirely possible that alot of them did.
I certianly think that AA went overboard in this thread, but I also think there is a grain of truth in his/her and dcl’s frustrations about the attitude you are presenting this in. I mean I don’t think you are the type of person who thinks that you should only try and change something if you have the actual power to practically do it, but the view being presented here, from my reading atleast, seem to be leaning in that direction. Basically a, “Well you can’t change it so don’t try” vibe.
No one ever claimed that the war would be without considerable sacrifice.
Flowers and candy, anyone?
When the New Yorker asked Douglas Feith if it was perhaps unreasonable to expect that “Iraqis would greet American troops with flowers,” Feith responded that Iraqis were “still too intimidated by the remnants of Saddam’s Baath Party…but they had flowers in their minds.”
Regarding the use of citations of casualty numbers to justify either pulling out or to keep fighting “lest they die in vain,” I agree, Brendan, that they are not alone sufficient to justify such policy decisions. However, they are legitimate costs that must be weighed in conjunction with other factors, similar to the way we supposedly factored in the number of expected casualties for an invasion of the Japanese home islands in the Second World War.
That said, the Wisconsin thing is a bit absurd. Even if this war is ill conceived and poorly prosecuted, a town vote in Wisconsin is just a waste of time. They should write or call their congressional representative instead.
Well, given that they are getting more attention voting to do this then they would have had the called their congressmen - I mean we are talking about it aren’t we? I think it is a good way to draw attention to the issue that they would not otherwise have received.
“What, pray tell, would you see as a good protest against the war?”
I’m not sure about what constitutes a good “protest” in the Marxist-Leninist, Int’l ANSWER sense of the word, but in terms of what I would have anti-war advocates do if they wanted to be effective, how about:
1. Putting forth a clear alternative on how to deal with countries like Iraq, Syria, and other Middle Eastern nations whose totalitarian regimes breed hatred and resentment of the West, and who have the motive, opportunity, and “soft power” to obtain WMDs or facilitate their use in terrorist attacks that their gov’ts can disavow.
2. Stop obsessing over WMDs when you know damn well you would’ve opposed the war anyway, and did so since before it began.
3. If by chance an activist’s opposition to the war did in fact hinge upon the absence of any WMD’s in Iraq (doubtful, but let’s stipulate for argument’s sake), then propose how to deal with countries like Iran and North Korea, who openly admit to the pursuit of WMDs and threaten repeatedly to use them, the invasion of which would there have to be even more justified than Iraq’s.
4. Stop equating neck-slicing Islamofascists with the enlightened Founding Fathers of the U.S.
5. Don’t calling the 3,000+ workers who died when the WTC fell on 9/11 “little Eichmanns” (alright, only one a*shole did that).
6. Stop pretending that the abuses committed by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib were even remotely on a par with the wholesale torture, rape, and murder committed there over decades by Saddam Hussein, who is now on trial for his barbarities.
7. Stop invoking Nazis and/or the Taliban to describe our duly-elected officeholders.
8. Stop shouting down those who disagree with you in the name of free speech.
Better yet, they should throw a coin in a well and wish really, really hard.
As some of the former congressional staffers who read this blog might tell you, that despite how idealistic or corny it may sound, writing/calling your congressman is surprisingly effective, especially when it includes the stick and/or carrot of large campaign contributions.
” Added together, the referendums produced a resounding 40,043 to 25,641 vote against the continued US occupation of Iraq–producing an antiwar margin of 61 percent to 39 percent.”
“Added together, the referendums produced a resounding 40,043 to 25,641 vote against the continued US occupation of Iraq–producing an antiwar margin of 61 percent to 39 percent.”
1. We can’t topple every dictator. We need to win the war of ideas. There’s not enough bullets in the world to kill every bad person who might do us harm.
2. Not only liberals would have opposed the war, but so would have many conservatives. WMD was a blatant fabrication to ramp up the war machine.
3. Promoting Democracy internally through trade, sanctions and working with internal groups - it’s how Reagan won the Cold War, dumbass. Right now our actions have resulted in crackdowns on Democratic reforms in Iran and other countries.
4. Never done it. Just another lie fabricated by the RNC to paint Dems as supporters of terrorists.
5. One guy said it. Maybe we should start saying the Klan represents the views of all Republicans.
6. Wrong is wrong. America is supposed to be better than that. Quit watching 24. That shit doesn’t work in the real world.
7. Stop invoking Stalin.
8. It’s my free speech right to shout you down, fucker. Shout back if you don’t like it.
A&A, it’s jerkoffs like you that remind us why that which would be obvious to even the most casual observer, or anyone with more than a 3rd-grader’s understanding of the world, needs to be propounded again and again:
“We can’t topple every dictator. We need to win the war of ideas. There’s not enough bullets in the world to kill every bad person who might do us harm.”
This is what’s known as letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. If you want to keep from doing just about anything, anywhere, at any time, trot out this rationale.
“Not only liberals would have opposed the war, but so would have many conservatives.”
I don’t see how this responds to anything I said, and deserves no response in return.
“WMD was a blatant fabrication to ramp up the war machine.”
Self-discrediting.
“Promoting Democracy internally through trade, sanctions and working with internal groups - it’s how Reagan won the Cold War, dumbass. Right now our actions have resulted in crackdowns on Democratic reforms in Iran and other countries.”
This shows a stunning naivete about the threats we now face in the world, not to mention remarkable historical ignorance. First of all, contrary to what many conservatives think, Reagan didn’t win the Cold War all by himself. Life isn’t that simple. Gorbachev — and more importantly, the unsustainability of communism when paired against a free-market foe that has no truck with spending astronomical amounts of capital on nat’l defense — is what led to the end of the Cold War. If you think “trade, sanctions and working with internal groups” was what brought down the USSR, then I have some monuments you may be interested in buying.
“Right now our actions have resulted in crackdowns on Democratic reforms in Iran and other countries.”
You mean crackdowns like additional political parties in Egypt, elections in Palestine, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon after Syria’s withdrawal . . . those “crackdowns?” Idiot.
“Never [equated neck-slicing Islamofascists with the Founding Fathers]. Just another lie fabricated by the RNC to paint Dems as supporters of terrorists.”
I think I speak for everyone here when I say no one cares what you’ve done, and that there is more to the anti-war movement than you, A&A. Anyone even remotely familiar with the rambling stupidity of anti-war figures like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan, who repeatedly equate jihadists with the Minuteman, know this to be true, and that you’re full of sh*t.
“One guy said [those who died on 9/11 were ‘little Eichmans’]. Maybe we should start saying the Klan represents the views of all Republicans.”
Thanks for repeating me, douchebag. And funny you should mention it, as I recall you trying to tar all Republicans with the words of idiots like Pat Robertson many times.
“Wrong is wrong. America is supposed to be better than that. Quit watching 24. That shit doesn’t work in the real world.”
Self-discrediting.
“Stop invoking Stalin.”
Not sure what that’s supposed to mean, and given the a*sshole’s view of history you espouse, I doubt you do either.
“It’s my free speech right to shout you down, fucker. Shout back if you don’t like it.”
If I wanted to follow you down the rathole to which you drag every thread, I would. I may already be dumber for actually taking the time to correct your nonsense as it is.
1. Putting forth a clear alternative on how to deal with countries like Iraq, Syria, and other Middle Eastern nations whose totalitarian regimes breed hatred and resentment of the West, and who have the motive, opportunity, and “soft power� to obtain WMDs or facilitate their use in terrorist attacks that their gov’ts can disavow.
Two points. First, being a civilian I don’t have the necessary resources to put together a comprehensive plan to deal with all those countries. HOWEVER, that does NOT mean that I can’t recognize a bad solution when I see one. One does not need to be able to compose a symphony to tell when one has been poorly composed.
Second, plenty of people have proposed alternative policies, Bush and co (and you) just don’t like them.
2. Stop obsessing over WMDs when you know damn well you would’ve opposed the war anyway, and did so since before it began.
How does one prove a statement is false? Simple, provide a counter example. Counter example in case, ME. My opposition to the war occured only AFTER it became apparent that we had been misled by this administration about the presence of WMDs.
Add on to that the fact that Bush decide to change the reasoning of the War AFTER THE FACT because his previous excuse fell flat and you can see why people might be upset about the WMD angle.
3. If by chance an activist’s opposition to the war did in fact hinge upon the absence of any WMD’s in Iraq (doubtful, but let’s stipulate for argument’s sake), then propose how to deal with countries like Iran and North Korea, who openly admit to the pursuit of WMDs and threaten repeatedly to use them, the invasion of which would there have to be even more justified than Iraq’s.
Um, what does this have to do with anything, but how about the fact that now we are involved in the quagmire of Iraq, a country which the evidence did NOT support having WMD’s we don’t have as many options of dealing with those other countries, this is infact a HUGE slam AGAINST Bush. In addition if we hadnd’t absolutely squandered international good will by acting in such a hotheaded unilateral fashion we might be in a better place to deal with those other countries.
4. Stop equating neck-slicing Islamofascists with the enlightened Founding Fathers of the U.S.
WTF??
5. Don’t calling the 3,000+ workers who died when the WTC fell on 9/11 “little Eichmanns� (alright, only one a*shole did that).
Precisely ONE person on that side of the debate said that. ONE. How about not calling everyone who disagrees with Bush’s handling of the war terrorist sympathizers?
6. Stop pretending that the abuses committed by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib were even remotely on a par with the wholesale torture, rape, and murder committed there over decades by Saddam Hussein, who is now on trial for his barbarities.
For one thing, torture is torture, sure Saddam did it on a grander scale, but that does not excuse what we did at Abu Ghraib nor does it defend the GOP’s and right wingers who consistently defended it as an acceptable thing to do!
7. Stop invoking Nazis and/or the Taliban to describe our duly-elected officeholders.
Guess who else was a duly elected office holder? Regardless, when valid comparsions can be made based on specific instances, and in this case they can, there should be no problem with them being made! If Bush’s wiretapping starts resembling the spying on its own citizens and encouraging informing on your neighbors that happened in Germany why shouldn’t we be able to point out the similarities? No, whats worse is the people who refuse to accept at all the idea that Bush and co might be doing things that are edging us in that same direction,because those are the kind of people who would keep ignoring such behavior until its too late,
8. Stop shouting down those who disagree with you in the name of free speech.
Sorry but the right is FAR more guilty of this then the left. Need I remind you of the Presidents own owrds “You’re either with us, or against us”, or the numerous rallies and “town meetings” he has held where only people who agree with him are allowed in? Or how about the numerous accusations of being terrorist sympathizers because one disagress with Bush. Or the one I hate the most, being called the Hate-America-First crowd, just because we don’t blindly follow Bush.
I don’t particularly care if you and AA continue in your little cat fight, but this comment is utterly inane.
I think I speak for everyone here when I say no one cares what you’ve done, and that there is more to the anti-war movement than you, A&A. Anyone even remotely familiar with the rambling stupidity of anti-war figures like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan, who repeatedly equate jihadists with the Minuteman, know this to be true, and that you’re full of sh*t.
You are basically painting EVERY SINGLE PERSON who opposes the war by the actions of a very very small minority. Its absolutely ridiculous and hypocritical given what you said in reply.
But the real bottom line is, your entire thing has been a critique of some behaviors by some people who are opposed to the war. No where in there do you offer any answer to the real question about how one is supposed to be able to oppose through protest. In a typical right wing neo-con style fashion you have tried to divert from the real question by making an attack on Democrats intstead of addressing the actual critique at hand. Sad.
look i read this blog, and i’ve never asked for much, but i’d like to put in my FIRST and hopefully last request:
could KEEP IT GOING never again drop a metaphor like “brendan’s vagina has sand in it” please? i know you probably mean well… i mean, how could you not mean well with a name like KEEP IT GOING…
that’s one, two… why is everyone getting their g’damn jock-straps in such a twist? calm down you big tough cookies you… how do we judge an attitude or opinion? sorry gloomy gus, this wisconsin thing has comedic potential. i think college students dressing up like cows and locking themselves in cages is the funniest thing i’ve ever seen. that doesn’t mean i think locking baby cows in boxes for veal is funny. veal may be very tasty, but it’s not funny. oh, wait that can be funny. crap when am i going to take animal rights seriously?!?!?! gosh. same goes for wisconsin. i’m glad people are voicing their opinions, but it is ALSO kinda funny to read: majority of 32 wisconsin towns vote for iraq pullout. REALLY? only 32 towns? wisconsin? a “majority”? what a demographic!
and how should we do it? just leave? that’ll go over well: “sorry we blew the crap out of your country, sorry your government is in shambles, but come one, we’ve got to get out of here.” Yup, won’t foster any resentment there. good relations.
i’m with brendan 100% angrier and angrier and dlc. brendan takes war seriously, and never implied that he didn’t. AND he clarrified his jokes, feeling and opinions, jokes feelings and opinions which he’s more than entitled to. and he makes more sense in doing it than you two ever have. is that the only way you can justify for puny, whiny little anger, angrier and angrier, by twisting others thoughts and opinions so you can spout off? you come across as such an ass.
“No where in there do you offer any answer to the real question about how one is supposed to be able to oppose through protest.”
Actually David, I did. But you evidently can’t take them up because you’re just “a civilian” with an ear for bad symphonies. Your “WMD angle” is predicated on faulty, unsubstantiated premises of bad faith which blithely ignore everything said on the subject by every prominent Democrat prior to the war. Moreover, you have absolutely nothing worthwhile or constructive to say about the threats posed by Iran or North Korea, except sputtering on hindsightedly about Bush (”UNILATERAL! SQUANDERED GOOD WILL!!” yawn). You’re so narrow-minded that you can’t see these issues as anything but “a HUGE slam AGAINST Bush,” when in fact they’re obvious examples of the intellectual vapidity of anti-war activists, and demonstrate quite clearly the unseriousness of critics like yourself, next to whom Bush’s incompetence looks almost Churchillian by comparison.
could KEEP IT GOING never again drop a metaphor like “brendan’s vagina has sand in it� please?
that’s one, two… why is everyone getting their g’damn jock-straps in such a twist?
is that the only way you can justify for puny, whiny little anger, angrier and angrier, by twisting others thoughts and opinions so you can spout off? you come across as such an ass.
And you’re asking OTHER people to stop with the crass metaphors? Jesus Christ, you gotta be kidding me…
Yes, this vote has us talking about their views. By mocking them. At which point the thread descends into rehashing the same partisan arguments which have been offered up repeatedly for well over a year.
And Dane, where do you get off saying that Brendan isn’t taking this war seriously? He has repeatedly expressed his views about the necessity of it, the graveness of the abuses he sees having been made in its name, the difficulty of obtaining the proper position on the continuum between security and freedom, the problems with citing body counts as a meaningful argument about whether the war is innately important/moral/working/failed/pointless (different from whether or not it’s worth the cost, which is a separate argument and a legitimate place to bring up such numbers). He does mock what he sees as idiotic actions. And I agree with him–voters in a town referendum are opening themselves to be mocked when attempting to decide issues like foreign policy. Brendan certainly hasn’t mocked all protests against the war, though he has routinely mocked specific actions of individual protestors as either silly or hurtful to their own cause. But not taking the war seriously because he makes fun of people who do really silly things in the name of a cause? No. You’re overreaching here.
Mike, the problem, as I see it, is that Brendan dismisses any anti-war actions as stupid silly left wing-nut action. Regardless of how it is carried out. I see no objective problem with using the democratic process to proclaim your displeasure with government action. And yet Brendan simply belittles them. He seems to be unwilling to allow for the possibility of a justifiable protest. And occasionally he needs to get slammed for his grossly bad behavior in this regard.
And I see nothing wrong with poking fun at people for passing referendums on items over which they have no rational claims to jurisdiction. I’d also make fun of my school board if they passed a resolution condemning the proliferation of nuclear arms in Pakistan, regardless of agreeing that Pakistan gaining access to greater destructive capabilities is a bad thing. Why? Because it’s not my school board’s business to decide these things any more than it’s the business of any given town in Wisconsin to determine whether troops should be withdrawn from Iraq. There are appropriate channels.
I’ve yet to hear Brendan making fun of anyone for writing to their legislators.urging others to do the same/writing an op-ed column disagreeing with current policies. He has disagreed with the views expressed by such people, but he doesn’t make fun of them for expressing their disapproval–although, at times, he will make fun of them for being incoherent about it (in the case of certain oped authors) or for doing so in totally ineffectual ways (such as, oh, this case).
Ack. Accidentally hit the tab key. Anyway, I was trying to add that you continue to assert that Brendan doesn’t allow for the possibility of justifiable protest. Back that up, will you? All he did here was make fun of a specific manner of expressing disagreement, which I happen to agree is really funny. Next up, my father’s homeowner’s association in Florida will vote on whether to enforce stricter border patrols in Arizona. Please. You’ve known Brendan for long enough to know that to him, process does matter, and you should be able to recognize that that’s what he’s attacking here.
And if proper channels are full of obstinate morons you do what? You protest, you try and get around them, you try and get them out of office. Process does matter. But that does not make people trying to voice their opinion silly or worthy of ridicule.
You’ve known Brendan for long enough to know that to him, process does matter, and you should be able to recognize that that’s what he’s attacking here
of course you’d think that mike, but you forget that dcl is fighting his own little war right now, and he never stopped to ask himself: is this fight real? is it necessary? is it stupid? am i not listening?
cause it seems to me he’s reached a preconcieved conclusion based on something simmering in the back of his head, a fight he wanted, and now he’s coming with both his barrels loaded…
scary
(hmm, that last paragraph sounds a lot like anti-war criticism of the bush administration…)
And yes, there’s probably at least an 80% chance that Berkley residents ARE raging liberals (just like there’s about the same chance that residents of Lawrence, Kansas are arch conservatives). And I haven’t seen anyone say that such liberals “don’t matter anymore,” only that their anti-war opinions aren’t news to anyone who understands political demographics. If the rest of Wisconsin is anything like Madison (granted it’s a college town, so the obligatory 20-something flirtation with Marxism is disproportionately represented), then this is a dog-bites-man story.
Rockingham, VT has voted to impeach Bush for lying over Iraq. That’s it, I’m convinced: Time to pull out of Iraq so we can finally get around to invading Canada!!!!!!
WOW
Guess what, it doesnt matter what side your on.
We are all Americans
We made this mess
We need to take responsibilty and clean it up.
No matter how many states have votes or etc….
guess what else boys..
attacking each other doesnt change it at all…
Try donating some supplies to the troops to keep their spirits up, because they are staying as of now
so we damn well better be supportive of them
doesnt mean you have to support the war
support our troops
(I have donated over 3000.00 in supplies to go over there)
Guess what, it doesnt matter what side your on.
We are all Americans
Tell that to all those on the right who keep calling anyone who disagrees with Bush and co. traitors/terrorist-supporters/the Hate-America-First crowd.
We made this mess
No, WE didn’t. Bush did.
We need to take responsibilty and clean it up.
I agree. However when our leadership won’t even acknowledge that its a mess, nor consider that they are handling it wrong, how can we fix it?
No matter how many states have votes or etc….
guess what else boys..
attacking each other doesnt change it at all…
Try donating some supplies to the troops to keep their spirits up, because they are staying as of now
so we damn well better be supportive of them
doesnt mean you have to support the war
support our troops
One can both support the troops and be critical, its not like by having these discussions we are in some way prohibiting ourselves from also sending supplies to the troops.
I do understand your intent, and appreciate what you have done for the troops, please don’t take this in a mean spirited way, I simply don’t agree with all your premises.
Just to be clear, I don’t think you were being glib about the war per se or the dead per se.
Hence my response….
My response was merely emphasizing that I did not see ANYTHING in the story that warranted a glib context.
Thus I posted a deadly serious response to ephasize the above point.
I mean was it deserving of glibness because it was people from Wisconsin, i.e. cheesehaeds, who expressed their opinion about the war? Not sure why Wisconsin would be deserving of that kind of treatment.
Or was it the fact that it was a non-binding referendum? We have al kinds of opinions in this country over things that we can’t do anything about, but we still respect our opinions and the opinions of others even though they might not lead to immediate action. Bush’s dropping poll numbers are a case in point.
Maybe you answered these points above. I just saw nothing glib about the story.
Yeah we did make this mess because the majority of these people of the United States vted him in.
Have you ever heard the phrase United We Stand?
And I certainly didnt say that none of you were donateing to the troops but honestly, how many of you have?
Listen I definately have my frustrations with the administration, and I have gotten really angry. Had several debates with neighbors and what not. ( Inwhich most dont even have ANY of the facts)
The only thing that eleviates it is doing something for those men and women there.
We can definately speak out, but lets be constructive about it.
A&A @ 5:03 pm - we regularly get A Long, commenting frequently, on here …
Dane @ 8:58 pm - silly ? up for debate …
Worthy of ridicule ? Standard debating/discussion technique, when someone on another side of a topic offers a target of opportunity … as long as both (or more) sides are heard, that tends to be healthy … when a side’s best available argument is to shout down their opposition, that side’s action deserves to be called fascist since it strives to deny their opposition the opportunity to be heard …
Alsidair, huh? Are you admitting then that you are wrong? There is a difference between shouting to be heard and shouting someone down. The Bush administration is very fond of shouting people down, though generally they use less overt means of accomplishing the objective.
Would you care to try to offer an example or two of the “Bush administration” actually shouting someone down ? Even by “less overt means” ?
So far, as far as I can tell, no-one from the “Bush administration” has been found in the Vince Foster postion, face down, shot through the back of the head, holding the gun in the non-dominant hand …
your kidding right? The staged press conferences where Bush mysteriously can’t hear difficult questions. But most of the time they just keep those people out in the first place. the free speech zones, and the getting arrested by the secret service for any anti war shirts. and that’s just off the top of my head. You seriously must be smoking dope.
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
April 6th, 2006 at 9:12:30 am
Yes, like maybe how many Wisconsin troops have died?
April 6th, 2006 at 9:15:12 am
What an oddly written article. “Voters in the majority of 32 towns” … just tell us how many towns! (Given the vagueness, I’m guessing it went 17-15.)
I got a chuckle out of this:
“This sort of reminds me of Vietnam,” said Nicole Bartelme, 22,
Yeah, I’m sure Nicole has vivid memories from her childhood bubbling to the surface these days. Who could possibly forget Reagan’s illegal and immoral war of aggression against Vietnam in the mid-1980s? :)
April 6th, 2006 at 9:15:41 am
“This sort of reminds me of Vietnam,” said Nicole Bartelme, 22, a student at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee who voted in Shorewood.
DAMN! You beat me to it.
April 6th, 2006 at 9:16:20 am
List by state of the troops that can’t be called back. Or something. Like less glib.
http://icasualties.org/oif/Statecity.aspx
April 6th, 2006 at 9:18:33 am
This was also helpful:
“Although the referendums are nonbinding”
April 6th, 2006 at 9:19:08 am
Brian Foster,
24 out of 32 …I won’t say “moron” because you might have been right.
It was 24 out of 32 communities and a vast majority of the total people who voted.
Either way you count it, it was a large majority of those who voted.
April 6th, 2006 at 9:20:22 am
And something can “remind” you of something else without you having actually been around at the time.
I can say “America reminds me of the Roman Empire” but obviously I was not alive during the time.
Wow what morons.
April 6th, 2006 at 9:23:07 am
Well, I said it was a guess. And I was more criticizing the writer of the article for being so obtuse, which in turn most naturally led to the suspicion that the majority wasn’t that great. I mean, given your number (which I assume is accurate and all that), the writer could have said something like “A large majority, 24 out of 32 towns” or “75% of the 32 towns” or something like that, anything like that. Would have sounded a lot more impressive.
It seems really odd that the lead of the article was so imprecise, and even odder that more detail was never provided in the story.
Of course, now you have me curious about the aggregate totals involved, since you’ve described it as a “vast” and “large” majority of all voters voting on the issue.
April 6th, 2006 at 9:28:54 am
Added together, the referendums produced a resounding 40,043 to 25,641 vote against the continued US occupation of Iraq–producing an antiwar margin of 61 percent to 39 percent.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060405/cm_thenation/174614;_ylt=A86.I0VjFDRENDQAqgL9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA–
April 6th, 2006 at 9:29:13 am
“And something can “remindâ€? you of something else without you having actually been around at the time.”
Of course. It’s clear that’s what she meant. But the theme of the thread here is glibness.
To be less glib about it, though, it’s kind of humorous that she’s reminded of Vietnam because the Green Party is pulling a political stunt in an apparently gullible state. Granted I don’t have personal memories of the Nam era either (although I, at least, was born during it), but my impression of it from history books and video clips is that the division, divisiveness, and dissent was far more contentious and widespread then than it is now. Which is to say, I acknowledge that public opinion now is not too far off from what it was then; but the level or intensity of outrage was broader then. Right now the true anger/dissent is contained to a relatively small minority. A larger number disapprove of what’s going on, but don’t care enough to do anything about it. I see that as a fundamental difference between this situation and Vietnam.
That, and the fact that our casualty rate is a fraction now of what it was then, which is not insignificant (and probably has a lot to do with the lack of broad outrage).
April 6th, 2006 at 9:31:48 am
Okay, the silly permalink is saying I already posted the Yahoo Story here but I dont see it so I’ll try again:
“Added together, the referendums produced a resounding 40,043 to 25,641 vote against the continued US occupation of Iraq–producing an antiwar margin of 61 percent to 39 percent.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060405/cm_thenation/174614;_ylt=A86.I0VjFDRENDQAqgL9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA–
April 6th, 2006 at 9:32:53 am
The permalink is not letting me post the Yahoo News tory about the total percentages so here’s the quote without the link:
“Added together, the referendums produced a resounding 40,043 to 25,641 vote against the continued US occupation of Iraq–producing an antiwar margin of 61 percent to 39 percent.”
A vast majority….
April 6th, 2006 at 9:40:14 am
Permalink sucks
April 6th, 2006 at 9:45:17 am
permalink sucks
April 6th, 2006 at 9:55:11 am
permalink suck suck sucks
Is this thing broke?
April 6th, 2006 at 10:20:46 am
Yes, like maybe how many Wisconsin troops have died?
The reason I didn’t cite this statistic probably has something to do with the fact that I do not share your view that the number of deaths in Iraq indicates that the war is a failure, and therefore proves that the opinion of these Wisconsin residents is the correct one. No one ever claimed that the war would be without considerable sacrifice. The number of deaths has actually been quite low by historical standards, but that doesn’t change the fact that each death is a tragedy. However, the fact that X number of soldiers have died does not undermine the case that the war is and was just and necessary. The two issues, though not entirely separate, are certainly not one and in the same.
I’ll make a deal with you. Folks on your side of the debate hate it when folks on my side cite the number of deaths as a reason why we need to keep fighting, “lest they have died in vain.” I actually agree with you on that point; if the war were unjustified, wrong-headed and/or unlikely to succeed, it would be asinine to contend that we should keep fighting merely because we’ve already lost a bunch of soldiers in the service of an unjustified/wrong-headed/doomed war. But, by the same token, if the war isn’t unjustified, wrong-headed or unlikely to succeed — if it’s actually a worthy and important mission with a good chance of success — then the number of casualties doesn’t make it any less worthy/important/likely to succeed. So can we please stop uncritically citing the number of casualties as either a pro- or anti-war argument? The soldiers who have died are not numbers and they are not an argument; they are individual heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country (regardless of whether the country’s leaders were right to ask that sacrifice of them). We should not demagogue them, but rather, should stick to actual arguments about whether the war is right or wrong.
As for the Wisconsin thing… the reason I was glib about it is because I always find it rather silly when small local jurisdictions issue official proclamations on international matters about which they have no control whatsoever. If a bunch of conservative towns in Utah announced their support for an invasion of Iran, I’d feel the same way. I can easily envision a BrendanLoy.com headline along the lines of “Utah invades Iran.” Does that mean these people don’t have the right to express their opinions in a democratic matter? Of course not, but it’s still silly. States, cities and towns don’t decide foreign policy; Congress and the president do.
April 6th, 2006 at 10:46:10 am
Now that’s amusing. The Mouse calling someone else a moron. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle …..!!!
April 6th, 2006 at 10:49:59 am
I can say “America reminds me of the Roman Empire� but obviously I was not alive during the time.
And if you were alive during that time I have no doubt you would be calling for the resignation of Caesar due to his unjust and immoral agression against the Gauls.
April 6th, 2006 at 11:01:02 am
It’s easy to be glib about war when there is no chance of you fighting in it.
April 6th, 2006 at 11:06:03 am
What a bullshit point. I’m not being “glib about war,” I’m being glib about a particular action by a bunch of people in Wisconsin. My comment above about the war itself, whether you agree or disagree with it, is thoughtful and honest, not glib.
Of course, people on your side of the debate love to scream “CHICKENHAWK!!!” as if that ends the debate, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by your asinine comment. Consider this, though: I could just as easily say, it’s easy to advocate a policy that would turn Iraq into a failed state and a terror safe haven when you live in a part of the country that is extremely unlikely to be attacked by terrorists. But I wouldn’t say that, because it’s not a valid argument. Neither is the argument that a person’s support for the war is invalid unless that person is a member of the military. We ALL have a right to our opinions — pro- or anti-war — regardless of our military status.
April 6th, 2006 at 11:11:20 am
P.S. And I repeat:
[T]he reason I was glib about it is because I always find it rather silly when small local jurisdictions issue official proclamations on international matters about which they have no control whatsoever. If a bunch of conservative towns in Utah announced their support for an invasion of Iran, I’d feel the same way. I can easily envision a BrendanLoy.com headline along the lines of “Utah invades Iran.� Does that mean these people don’t have the right to express their opinions in a democratic matter? Of course not, but it’s still silly. States, cities and towns don’t decide foreign policy; Congress and the president do.
Is that sufficiently clear, or would you like me to repeat it again? I can copy and paste as many times as necessary until you understand the difference between being “glib about war” and being glib about a particular political action that you find to be silly.
Then again, I suppose I can understand your confusion, since people on the Left are NEVER glib about political actions related to the war that are taken by President Bush and the Republicans.
April 6th, 2006 at 11:14:01 am
It was a glib comment. It was a glib comment about a vote on war. Hence, it was a glib comment about war. Frankly, it was almost as “asinine” as Bush pretending he was looking for WMD during the correspondents’ dinner a couple of years ago. Don’t blame me for your poor judgement.
April 6th, 2006 at 11:17:47 am
So glib comments about all matters related to the war are now completely off-limits? Awesome. You’d better tell the folks at Daily Kos and other similar sites about the new ground rules, as they’re going to have to stop saying glib things about President Bush when they related to the war.
My poor judgment? I didn’t exercise poor judgment, so by definition I’m not blaming you for it. The only reason you think my “glibness” is inappropriate is because you disagree with my underlying position. If I was being glib in a manner that suited your political tastes, you would have no objection. I call bullshit.
You would have a valid point if I had made a glib comment about the number of casualties or about Iraqi civilian deaths or something along those lines. As it is, you are pathetically grasping at straws.
April 6th, 2006 at 11:19:12 am
I’m just calling it as I see it. I’m not the one upset.
April 6th, 2006 at 11:21:16 am
P.S. If your comment had any validity or credibility whatsoever, it would have lost it when you said:
Frankly, it was almost as “asinine� as Bush pretending he was looking for WMD during the correspondents’ dinner a couple of years ago.
Right. A glib post by a blogger about a referendum in Wisconsin is “almost as” objectionable as the President of the United States joking about the collapse of a central tenet of his case of war. Of course!
April 6th, 2006 at 11:24:42 am
Did I say you were upset? No, I said you have an objection, which you clearly do. I applaud you for “calling it as [you] see it” — I always strive to do the same — but what you “see” is clearly impacted by your anti-war position. If I had made a glib comment about how President Bush launched us into war because he’s a dumbass who looks like a chimp, I seriously doubt you would have made the same objection. As for why I’m upset, perhaps it has something to do with the fact that you basically implied that I am callous and don’t care about the sacrifices of our soldiers? “It’s easy to be glib about war when there is no chance of you fighting in it” — in other words, because there’s no chance of me fighting in the war, I don’t sufficiently understand its seriousness and therefore am making glib remarks. Yeah, it’s upsetting for someone to say that about you, especially when it’s totally false and unsupported.
April 6th, 2006 at 11:24:59 am
“Cheeseheads for Peace. Apparently, Wisconsin is pulling its troops out of Iraq. Or something.”
That’s not a glib comment about the war at all. “Hey you dumb Cheesehead who lost your son in the war. What are you thinking voting to pull troops out? You have no power? Don’t you know that?”
That’s basically what you are saying.
April 6th, 2006 at 11:27:42 am
FYI: The more I re-read your comment “I’m just calling it as I see it. I’m not the one upset,” the more I feel that you are a complete asshole. You provoke me with an insulting comment, I react with a very specific series of arguments as to why your insult is totally unjustified, and you respond by wondering why I’m upset?
April 6th, 2006 at 11:30:46 am
My comment isn’t totally unjustified. You made fun of people who are concerned about what the war is doing to people. I’m sorry you don’t see that.
April 6th, 2006 at 11:31:48 am
That’s basically what you are saying.
Except it’s not. At all.
I didn’t call anyone dumb. I didn’t address my comment at a grieving parent. Had I done either of those things, it would have COMPLETELY changed the nature of my post.
Don’t put words in my mouth, you ass.
April 6th, 2006 at 11:33:51 am
That’s essentially what you meant.
April 6th, 2006 at 11:38:34 am
You made fun of people who are concerned about what the war is doing to people.
No, I satirized a particularly silly method which a group of people used to express their opinion about the war. I have a history of making fun of such methods in the past, and I’ll do so again in the future.
Had I said, “ha ha, a bunch of dumbasses in Wisconsin think it’s sad that some dumb Cheeseheads died in Iraq,” THAT would be offensive. What I said? Perfectly legitimate glibness. You keep ignoring this point, but it’s absolutely true: if what I said is off-limits, humor is basically dead when it comes to commentary on political affairs. Might as well cancel Jay Leno and David Letterman’s shows right now. That joke Letterman told the other night about the administration’s justification for war? So glib! So offensive! Any time a topic is related to the war, we must talk about it only in serious, solemn tones.
April 6th, 2006 at 11:39:13 am
That’s essentially what you meant.
Don’t you fucking tell me what I “meant.” I know what I meant, and I’ve already explained it quite clearly above. You don’t have a clue.
April 6th, 2006 at 11:40:57 am
P.S. This is reminiscent of your comment to Andrew a few days ago about how he actually hates all Muslims and wants them to die. It’s amazing how you know everyone’s motivations better than they do.
April 6th, 2006 at 12:03:31 pm
I only know what people write on here and the meaning is pretty self-evident.
April 6th, 2006 at 12:09:44 pm
Looking at the painfully obvious absence of intellectual depth in your comments, it’s no wonder you are so comfortable tossing around accusations of glibness, A&A.
April 6th, 2006 at 12:10:34 pm
“I only know what people write on here and the meaning is pretty self-evident.”
Yeah: You’re a putz.
April 6th, 2006 at 12:15:13 pm
When someone says A, and you claim that A means B, and the person who said A explains explicitly, that no, it doesn’t mean B… then, no, it is NOT “pretty self-evident” that you are correct.
Joe Mama, it should be noted that I admitted glibness. The issue isn’t that A&A accused me of glibness, it’s that he mischaracterized my glibness, and in the process, accused me of not understanding that war is a serious business because I don’t have to fight in it, and of not respecting the troops or the grieving parents of dead soldiers.
April 6th, 2006 at 12:43:43 pm
I just think that your take on the Wisconsin vote would be a whole lot different if you were at risk of being drafted. Do you disagree?
April 6th, 2006 at 1:27:30 pm
And something can “remind� you of something else without you having actually been around at the time.
I can say “America reminds me of the Roman Empire� but obviously I was not alive during the time.
Wow what morons.
Damn, would you expect anything less from ANM?
April 6th, 2006 at 1:59:51 pm
“Joe Mama, it should be noted that I admitted glibness. The issue isn’t that A&A accused me of glibness, it’s that he mischaracterized my glibness, and in the process, accused me of not understanding that war is a serious business because I don’t have to fight in it, and of not respecting the troops or the grieving parents of dead soldiers.”
Duly noted. I stand corrected.
A&A, you’re still a putz.
April 6th, 2006 at 2:11:14 pm
Ha ha, I love when Brendan’s vagina gets sand in it.
April 6th, 2006 at 2:47:19 pm
Sorry, Keep It Going. I’m too asinine and too much of a putz to know what gets sand in Brendan’s vagina.
April 6th, 2006 at 3:03:46 pm
Brendan, since you seem to think that every method of protest against a war that was a very bad decision is silly and or stupid and or illogical and or other things. What, pray tell, would you see as a good protest against the war? How many more people have to die for a bad decision before it becomes worth protesting about in your opinion? How many more people have to die before you start taking their deaths seriously? Our very brave and very well trained men and women in uniform are over in Iraq fighting and sacrificing their lives and our politicians here in the states can’t seem to get their heads far enough out of the to put in place a functional strategy and you don’t see the as a problem? You don’t think that is worth protesting about? Every time we try and confront this problem you are dismissive and glib about it. You are attitude is demeaning the sacrifice our soldiers are making. When you fail to take real problems seriously you are as bad as Bush and enabling poor decision making.
Seriously Brendan, I can’t see eye to eye with you on this one. How many people have to die in Iraq until you take this war Seriously? And how would you suggest protesting this really terrible decision on behalf of Bush and his cronies how have the strategic acumen of shell fish?
April 6th, 2006 at 3:37:59 pm
I am curious myself what form of protests you might feel are more appropiate/effective/etc. Not trying to pick a fight just want to understand where you are coming from.
I mean, sure, in practical terms this vote doesn’t actually DO anything, but it does atleast start to send a message, and after all isn’t that what democracy and freedom and that whole power to the people concept are all about?
I just don’t see how expressing their opinions through a vote is any different than say, someone expressing their opinion through a blog post.
I guess my question is, what would you have them do? What should people who see Bush’s actions as so wrong do to try and change things. Yes they could have voted against him in the election, but its entirely possible that alot of them did.
I certianly think that AA went overboard in this thread, but I also think there is a grain of truth in his/her and dcl’s frustrations about the attitude you are presenting this in. I mean I don’t think you are the type of person who thinks that you should only try and change something if you have the actual power to practically do it, but the view being presented here, from my reading atleast, seem to be leaning in that direction. Basically a, “Well you can’t change it so don’t try” vibe.
Just my 2 cents.
April 6th, 2006 at 4:28:32 pm
No one ever claimed that the war would be without considerable sacrifice.
Flowers and candy, anyone?
When the New Yorker asked Douglas Feith if it was perhaps unreasonable to expect that “Iraqis would greet American troops with flowers,” Feith responded that Iraqis were “still too intimidated by the remnants of Saddam’s Baath Party…but they had flowers in their minds.”
Regarding the use of citations of casualty numbers to justify either pulling out or to keep fighting “lest they die in vain,” I agree, Brendan, that they are not alone sufficient to justify such policy decisions. However, they are legitimate costs that must be weighed in conjunction with other factors, similar to the way we supposedly factored in the number of expected casualties for an invasion of the Japanese home islands in the Second World War.
That said, the Wisconsin thing is a bit absurd. Even if this war is ill conceived and poorly prosecuted, a town vote in Wisconsin is just a waste of time. They should write or call their congressional representative instead.
April 6th, 2006 at 4:33:19 pm
“They should write or call their congressional representative instead.”
Damn, that’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all week. Better yet, they should throw a coin in a well and wish really, really hard.
April 6th, 2006 at 4:34:08 pm
Well, given that they are getting more attention voting to do this then they would have had the called their congressmen - I mean we are talking about it aren’t we? I think it is a good way to draw attention to the issue that they would not otherwise have received.
April 6th, 2006 at 4:37:25 pm
Seems to me 70% of Americans don’t want the “immigration reforms” being proposed by the Senate, yet they are going through anyway.
April 6th, 2006 at 4:43:52 pm
“What, pray tell, would you see as a good protest against the war?”
I’m not sure about what constitutes a good “protest” in the Marxist-Leninist, Int’l ANSWER sense of the word, but in terms of what I would have anti-war advocates do if they wanted to be effective, how about:
1. Putting forth a clear alternative on how to deal with countries like Iraq, Syria, and other Middle Eastern nations whose totalitarian regimes breed hatred and resentment of the West, and who have the motive, opportunity, and “soft power” to obtain WMDs or facilitate their use in terrorist attacks that their gov’ts can disavow.
2. Stop obsessing over WMDs when you know damn well you would’ve opposed the war anyway, and did so since before it began.
3. If by chance an activist’s opposition to the war did in fact hinge upon the absence of any WMD’s in Iraq (doubtful, but let’s stipulate for argument’s sake), then propose how to deal with countries like Iran and North Korea, who openly admit to the pursuit of WMDs and threaten repeatedly to use them, the invasion of which would there have to be even more justified than Iraq’s.
4. Stop equating neck-slicing Islamofascists with the enlightened Founding Fathers of the U.S.
5. Don’t calling the 3,000+ workers who died when the WTC fell on 9/11 “little Eichmanns” (alright, only one a*shole did that).
6. Stop pretending that the abuses committed by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib were even remotely on a par with the wholesale torture, rape, and murder committed there over decades by Saddam Hussein, who is now on trial for his barbarities.
7. Stop invoking Nazis and/or the Taliban to describe our duly-elected officeholders.
8. Stop shouting down those who disagree with you in the name of free speech.
April 6th, 2006 at 4:45:59 pm
Better yet, they should throw a coin in a well and wish really, really hard.
As some of the former congressional staffers who read this blog might tell you, that despite how idealistic or corny it may sound, writing/calling your congressman is surprisingly effective, especially when it includes the stick and/or carrot of large campaign contributions.
April 6th, 2006 at 4:55:12 pm
especially when it includes the stick and/or carrot of large campaign contributions.
Which would not be me.
April 6th, 2006 at 4:57:43 pm
Haha…do a search on Technorati for “Loy.” EVERY entry is now from “The Irish Bruin’s Blog.”
CLASSIC!
April 6th, 2006 at 5:11:43 pm
Finally tally of all the Wisonsin referenda:
” Added together, the referendums produced a resounding 40,043 to 25,641 vote against the continued US occupation of Iraq–producing an antiwar margin of 61 percent to 39 percent.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060405/cm_thenation/174614;_ylt=A86.I0VjFDRENDQAqgL9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA–
April 6th, 2006 at 5:13:31 pm
Finally tally on the overall Wisconsin referenda:
“Added together, the referendums produced a resounding 40,043 to 25,641 vote against the continued US occupation of Iraq–producing an antiwar margin of 61 percent to 39 percent.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060405/cm_thenation/174614;_ylt=A86.I0VjFDRENDQAqgL9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA–
April 6th, 2006 at 5:15:58 pm
bite me permalink
April 6th, 2006 at 5:20:28 pm
Dumbass Joe…
1. We can’t topple every dictator. We need to win the war of ideas. There’s not enough bullets in the world to kill every bad person who might do us harm.
2. Not only liberals would have opposed the war, but so would have many conservatives. WMD was a blatant fabrication to ramp up the war machine.
3. Promoting Democracy internally through trade, sanctions and working with internal groups - it’s how Reagan won the Cold War, dumbass. Right now our actions have resulted in crackdowns on Democratic reforms in Iran and other countries.
4. Never done it. Just another lie fabricated by the RNC to paint Dems as supporters of terrorists.
5. One guy said it. Maybe we should start saying the Klan represents the views of all Republicans.
6. Wrong is wrong. America is supposed to be better than that. Quit watching 24. That shit doesn’t work in the real world.
7. Stop invoking Stalin.
8. It’s my free speech right to shout you down, fucker. Shout back if you don’t like it.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:04:34 pm
A&A, it’s jerkoffs like you that remind us why that which would be obvious to even the most casual observer, or anyone with more than a 3rd-grader’s understanding of the world, needs to be propounded again and again:
“We can’t topple every dictator. We need to win the war of ideas. There’s not enough bullets in the world to kill every bad person who might do us harm.”
This is what’s known as letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. If you want to keep from doing just about anything, anywhere, at any time, trot out this rationale.
“Not only liberals would have opposed the war, but so would have many conservatives.”
I don’t see how this responds to anything I said, and deserves no response in return.
“WMD was a blatant fabrication to ramp up the war machine.”
Self-discrediting.
“Promoting Democracy internally through trade, sanctions and working with internal groups - it’s how Reagan won the Cold War, dumbass. Right now our actions have resulted in crackdowns on Democratic reforms in Iran and other countries.”
This shows a stunning naivete about the threats we now face in the world, not to mention remarkable historical ignorance. First of all, contrary to what many conservatives think, Reagan didn’t win the Cold War all by himself. Life isn’t that simple. Gorbachev — and more importantly, the unsustainability of communism when paired against a free-market foe that has no truck with spending astronomical amounts of capital on nat’l defense — is what led to the end of the Cold War. If you think “trade, sanctions and working with internal groups” was what brought down the USSR, then I have some monuments you may be interested in buying.
“Right now our actions have resulted in crackdowns on Democratic reforms in Iran and other countries.”
You mean crackdowns like additional political parties in Egypt, elections in Palestine, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon after Syria’s withdrawal . . . those “crackdowns?” Idiot.
“Never [equated neck-slicing Islamofascists with the Founding Fathers]. Just another lie fabricated by the RNC to paint Dems as supporters of terrorists.”
I think I speak for everyone here when I say no one cares what you’ve done, and that there is more to the anti-war movement than you, A&A. Anyone even remotely familiar with the rambling stupidity of anti-war figures like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan, who repeatedly equate jihadists with the Minuteman, know this to be true, and that you’re full of sh*t.
“One guy said [those who died on 9/11 were ‘little Eichmans’]. Maybe we should start saying the Klan represents the views of all Republicans.”
Thanks for repeating me, douchebag. And funny you should mention it, as I recall you trying to tar all Republicans with the words of idiots like Pat Robertson many times.
“Wrong is wrong. America is supposed to be better than that. Quit watching 24. That shit doesn’t work in the real world.”
Self-discrediting.
“Stop invoking Stalin.”
Not sure what that’s supposed to mean, and given the a*sshole’s view of history you espouse, I doubt you do either.
“It’s my free speech right to shout you down, fucker. Shout back if you don’t like it.”
If I wanted to follow you down the rathole to which you drag every thread, I would. I may already be dumber for actually taking the time to correct your nonsense as it is.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:19:07 pm
1. Putting forth a clear alternative on how to deal with countries like Iraq, Syria, and other Middle Eastern nations whose totalitarian regimes breed hatred and resentment of the West, and who have the motive, opportunity, and “soft power� to obtain WMDs or facilitate their use in terrorist attacks that their gov’ts can disavow.
Two points. First, being a civilian I don’t have the necessary resources to put together a comprehensive plan to deal with all those countries. HOWEVER, that does NOT mean that I can’t recognize a bad solution when I see one. One does not need to be able to compose a symphony to tell when one has been poorly composed.
Second, plenty of people have proposed alternative policies, Bush and co (and you) just don’t like them.
2. Stop obsessing over WMDs when you know damn well you would’ve opposed the war anyway, and did so since before it began.
How does one prove a statement is false? Simple, provide a counter example. Counter example in case, ME. My opposition to the war occured only AFTER it became apparent that we had been misled by this administration about the presence of WMDs.
Add on to that the fact that Bush decide to change the reasoning of the War AFTER THE FACT because his previous excuse fell flat and you can see why people might be upset about the WMD angle.
3. If by chance an activist’s opposition to the war did in fact hinge upon the absence of any WMD’s in Iraq (doubtful, but let’s stipulate for argument’s sake), then propose how to deal with countries like Iran and North Korea, who openly admit to the pursuit of WMDs and threaten repeatedly to use them, the invasion of which would there have to be even more justified than Iraq’s.
Um, what does this have to do with anything, but how about the fact that now we are involved in the quagmire of Iraq, a country which the evidence did NOT support having WMD’s we don’t have as many options of dealing with those other countries, this is infact a HUGE slam AGAINST Bush. In addition if we hadnd’t absolutely squandered international good will by acting in such a hotheaded unilateral fashion we might be in a better place to deal with those other countries.
4. Stop equating neck-slicing Islamofascists with the enlightened Founding Fathers of the U.S.
WTF??
5. Don’t calling the 3,000+ workers who died when the WTC fell on 9/11 “little Eichmanns� (alright, only one a*shole did that).
Precisely ONE person on that side of the debate said that. ONE. How about not calling everyone who disagrees with Bush’s handling of the war terrorist sympathizers?
6. Stop pretending that the abuses committed by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib were even remotely on a par with the wholesale torture, rape, and murder committed there over decades by Saddam Hussein, who is now on trial for his barbarities.
For one thing, torture is torture, sure Saddam did it on a grander scale, but that does not excuse what we did at Abu Ghraib nor does it defend the GOP’s and right wingers who consistently defended it as an acceptable thing to do!
7. Stop invoking Nazis and/or the Taliban to describe our duly-elected officeholders.
Guess who else was a duly elected office holder? Regardless, when valid comparsions can be made based on specific instances, and in this case they can, there should be no problem with them being made! If Bush’s wiretapping starts resembling the spying on its own citizens and encouraging informing on your neighbors that happened in Germany why shouldn’t we be able to point out the similarities? No, whats worse is the people who refuse to accept at all the idea that Bush and co might be doing things that are edging us in that same direction,because those are the kind of people who would keep ignoring such behavior until its too late,
8. Stop shouting down those who disagree with you in the name of free speech.
Sorry but the right is FAR more guilty of this then the left. Need I remind you of the Presidents own owrds “You’re either with us, or against us”, or the numerous rallies and “town meetings” he has held where only people who agree with him are allowed in? Or how about the numerous accusations of being terrorist sympathizers because one disagress with Bush. Or the one I hate the most, being called the Hate-America-First crowd, just because we don’t blindly follow Bush.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:25:57 pm
I don’t particularly care if you and AA continue in your little cat fight, but this comment is utterly inane.
I think I speak for everyone here when I say no one cares what you’ve done, and that there is more to the anti-war movement than you, A&A. Anyone even remotely familiar with the rambling stupidity of anti-war figures like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan, who repeatedly equate jihadists with the Minuteman, know this to be true, and that you’re full of sh*t.
You are basically painting EVERY SINGLE PERSON who opposes the war by the actions of a very very small minority. Its absolutely ridiculous and hypocritical given what you said in reply.
But the real bottom line is, your entire thing has been a critique of some behaviors by some people who are opposed to the war. No where in there do you offer any answer to the real question about how one is supposed to be able to oppose through protest. In a typical right wing neo-con style fashion you have tried to divert from the real question by making an attack on Democrats intstead of addressing the actual critique at hand. Sad.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:35:34 pm
look i read this blog, and i’ve never asked for much, but i’d like to put in my FIRST and hopefully last request:
could KEEP IT GOING never again drop a metaphor like “brendan’s vagina has sand in it” please? i know you probably mean well… i mean, how could you not mean well with a name like KEEP IT GOING…
that’s one, two… why is everyone getting their g’damn jock-straps in such a twist? calm down you big tough cookies you… how do we judge an attitude or opinion? sorry gloomy gus, this wisconsin thing has comedic potential. i think college students dressing up like cows and locking themselves in cages is the funniest thing i’ve ever seen. that doesn’t mean i think locking baby cows in boxes for veal is funny. veal may be very tasty, but it’s not funny. oh, wait that can be funny. crap when am i going to take animal rights seriously?!?!?! gosh. same goes for wisconsin. i’m glad people are voicing their opinions, but it is ALSO kinda funny to read: majority of 32 wisconsin towns vote for iraq pullout. REALLY? only 32 towns? wisconsin? a “majority”? what a demographic!
and how should we do it? just leave? that’ll go over well: “sorry we blew the crap out of your country, sorry your government is in shambles, but come one, we’ve got to get out of here.” Yup, won’t foster any resentment there. good relations.
i’m with brendan 100% angrier and angrier and dlc. brendan takes war seriously, and never implied that he didn’t. AND he clarrified his jokes, feeling and opinions, jokes feelings and opinions which he’s more than entitled to. and he makes more sense in doing it than you two ever have. is that the only way you can justify for puny, whiny little anger, angrier and angrier, by twisting others thoughts and opinions so you can spout off? you come across as such an ass.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:48:50 pm
“No where in there do you offer any answer to the real question about how one is supposed to be able to oppose through protest.”
Actually David, I did. But you evidently can’t take them up because you’re just “a civilian” with an ear for bad symphonies. Your “WMD angle” is predicated on faulty, unsubstantiated premises of bad faith which blithely ignore everything said on the subject by every prominent Democrat prior to the war. Moreover, you have absolutely nothing worthwhile or constructive to say about the threats posed by Iran or North Korea, except sputtering on hindsightedly about Bush (”UNILATERAL! SQUANDERED GOOD WILL!!” yawn). You’re so narrow-minded that you can’t see these issues as anything but “a HUGE slam AGAINST Bush,” when in fact they’re obvious examples of the intellectual vapidity of anti-war activists, and demonstrate quite clearly the unseriousness of critics like yourself, next to whom Bush’s incompetence looks almost Churchillian by comparison.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:50:28 pm
could KEEP IT GOING never again drop a metaphor like “brendan’s vagina has sand in it� please?
that’s one, two… why is everyone getting their g’damn jock-straps in such a twist?
is that the only way you can justify for puny, whiny little anger, angrier and angrier, by twisting others thoughts and opinions so you can spout off? you come across as such an ass.
And you’re asking OTHER people to stop with the crass metaphors? Jesus Christ, you gotta be kidding me…
April 6th, 2006 at 6:54:19 pm
Yes, this vote has us talking about their views. By mocking them. At which point the thread descends into rehashing the same partisan arguments which have been offered up repeatedly for well over a year.
And Dane, where do you get off saying that Brendan isn’t taking this war seriously? He has repeatedly expressed his views about the necessity of it, the graveness of the abuses he sees having been made in its name, the difficulty of obtaining the proper position on the continuum between security and freedom, the problems with citing body counts as a meaningful argument about whether the war is innately important/moral/working/failed/pointless (different from whether or not it’s worth the cost, which is a separate argument and a legitimate place to bring up such numbers). He does mock what he sees as idiotic actions. And I agree with him–voters in a town referendum are opening themselves to be mocked when attempting to decide issues like foreign policy. Brendan certainly hasn’t mocked all protests against the war, though he has routinely mocked specific actions of individual protestors as either silly or hurtful to their own cause. But not taking the war seriously because he makes fun of people who do really silly things in the name of a cause? No. You’re overreaching here.
April 6th, 2006 at 7:17:00 pm
i was kidding anon, i was kidding
April 6th, 2006 at 7:23:56 pm
So what’d I miss?
April 6th, 2006 at 7:45:06 pm
Mike, the problem, as I see it, is that Brendan dismisses any anti-war actions as stupid silly left wing-nut action. Regardless of how it is carried out. I see no objective problem with using the democratic process to proclaim your displeasure with government action. And yet Brendan simply belittles them. He seems to be unwilling to allow for the possibility of a justifiable protest. And occasionally he needs to get slammed for his grossly bad behavior in this regard.
April 6th, 2006 at 8:03:42 pm
And I see nothing wrong with poking fun at people for passing referendums on items over which they have no rational claims to jurisdiction. I’d also make fun of my school board if they passed a resolution condemning the proliferation of nuclear arms in Pakistan, regardless of agreeing that Pakistan gaining access to greater destructive capabilities is a bad thing. Why? Because it’s not my school board’s business to decide these things any more than it’s the business of any given town in Wisconsin to determine whether troops should be withdrawn from Iraq. There are appropriate channels.
I’ve yet to hear Brendan making fun of anyone for writing to their legislators.urging others to do the same/writing an op-ed column disagreeing with current policies. He has disagreed with the views expressed by such people, but he doesn’t make fun of them for expressing their disapproval–although, at times, he will make fun of them for being incoherent about it (in the case of certain oped authors) or for doing so in totally ineffectual ways (such as, oh, this case).
April 6th, 2006 at 8:07:41 pm
Ack. Accidentally hit the tab key. Anyway, I was trying to add that you continue to assert that Brendan doesn’t allow for the possibility of justifiable protest. Back that up, will you? All he did here was make fun of a specific manner of expressing disagreement, which I happen to agree is really funny. Next up, my father’s homeowner’s association in Florida will vote on whether to enforce stricter border patrols in Arizona. Please. You’ve known Brendan for long enough to know that to him, process does matter, and you should be able to recognize that that’s what he’s attacking here.
April 6th, 2006 at 8:58:09 pm
And if proper channels are full of obstinate morons you do what? You protest, you try and get around them, you try and get them out of office. Process does matter. But that does not make people trying to voice their opinion silly or worthy of ridicule.
April 6th, 2006 at 8:58:22 pm
You’ve known Brendan for long enough to know that to him, process does matter, and you should be able to recognize that that’s what he’s attacking here
of course you’d think that mike, but you forget that dcl is fighting his own little war right now, and he never stopped to ask himself: is this fight real? is it necessary? is it stupid? am i not listening?
cause it seems to me he’s reached a preconcieved conclusion based on something simmering in the back of his head, a fight he wanted, and now he’s coming with both his barrels loaded…
scary
(hmm, that last paragraph sounds a lot like anti-war criticism of the bush administration…)
April 7th, 2006 at 3:32:44 am
Right, it’s only news when conservatives want a war…THAT is news!
April 7th, 2006 at 3:36:10 am
JO
So obviously if someone lives in Berkley they are a raging liberal and worthy of no notice….
And the Americans who disapprove of Bush– 60% or more– they’re clearly just raging liberals so no need to pay attention to them….
The 60% of Americans who now think Bush lied to them to get us into a war…well, they’re clearly just full on rging liberals…..
Just ignore them all until we get some SOLID news….
April 7th, 2006 at 4:18:19 am
So what you are implying JO, atleast as it appears to me is that the opinions of people who opposed Bush before simply don’t matter anymore?
April 7th, 2006 at 9:45:43 am
If the 60% of Americans who now think Bush lied to get us into a war is the same 60% who thought Iraq was behind 9/11, then I’m not too concerned.
April 7th, 2006 at 9:52:24 am
And yes, there’s probably at least an 80% chance that Berkley residents ARE raging liberals (just like there’s about the same chance that residents of Lawrence, Kansas are arch conservatives). And I haven’t seen anyone say that such liberals “don’t matter anymore,” only that their anti-war opinions aren’t news to anyone who understands political demographics. If the rest of Wisconsin is anything like Madison (granted it’s a college town, so the obligatory 20-something flirtation with Marxism is disproportionately represented), then this is a dog-bites-man story.
April 7th, 2006 at 3:54:19 pm
Rockingham, VT has voted to impeach Bush for lying over Iraq. That’s it, I’m convinced: Time to pull out of Iraq so we can finally get around to invading Canada!!!!!!
April 7th, 2006 at 3:54:42 pm
WOW
Guess what, it doesnt matter what side your on.
We are all Americans
We made this mess
We need to take responsibilty and clean it up.
No matter how many states have votes or etc….
guess what else boys..
attacking each other doesnt change it at all…
Try donating some supplies to the troops to keep their spirits up, because they are staying as of now
so we damn well better be supportive of them
doesnt mean you have to support the war
support our troops
(I have donated over 3000.00 in supplies to go over there)
so trying being constructive
April 7th, 2006 at 5:03:25 pm
Brenda-
Can’t we all get along?
April 7th, 2006 at 5:48:31 pm
Guess what, it doesnt matter what side your on.
We are all Americans
Tell that to all those on the right who keep calling anyone who disagrees with Bush and co. traitors/terrorist-supporters/the Hate-America-First crowd.
We made this mess
No, WE didn’t. Bush did.
We need to take responsibilty and clean it up.
I agree. However when our leadership won’t even acknowledge that its a mess, nor consider that they are handling it wrong, how can we fix it?
No matter how many states have votes or etc….
guess what else boys..
attacking each other doesnt change it at all…
Try donating some supplies to the troops to keep their spirits up, because they are staying as of now
so we damn well better be supportive of them
doesnt mean you have to support the war
support our troops
One can both support the troops and be critical, its not like by having these discussions we are in some way prohibiting ourselves from also sending supplies to the troops.
I do understand your intent, and appreciate what you have done for the troops, please don’t take this in a mean spirited way, I simply don’t agree with all your premises.
April 8th, 2006 at 7:17:47 am
Brendan,
Just to be clear, I don’t think you were being glib about the war per se or the dead per se.
Hence my response….
My response was merely emphasizing that I did not see ANYTHING in the story that warranted a glib context.
Thus I posted a deadly serious response to ephasize the above point.
I mean was it deserving of glibness because it was people from Wisconsin, i.e. cheesehaeds, who expressed their opinion about the war? Not sure why Wisconsin would be deserving of that kind of treatment.
Or was it the fact that it was a non-binding referendum? We have al kinds of opinions in this country over things that we can’t do anything about, but we still respect our opinions and the opinions of others even though they might not lead to immediate action. Bush’s dropping poll numbers are a case in point.
Maybe you answered these points above. I just saw nothing glib about the story.
April 9th, 2006 at 11:22:13 am
David–
Yeah we did make this mess because the majority of these people of the United States vted him in.
Have you ever heard the phrase United We Stand?
And I certainly didnt say that none of you were donateing to the troops but honestly, how many of you have?
Listen I definately have my frustrations with the administration, and I have gotten really angry. Had several debates with neighbors and what not. ( Inwhich most dont even have ANY of the facts)
The only thing that eleviates it is doing something for those men and women there.
We can definately speak out, but lets be constructive about it.
April 10th, 2006 at 9:25:17 pm
A&A @ 5:03 pm - we regularly get A Long, commenting frequently, on here …
Dane @ 8:58 pm - silly ? up for debate …
Worthy of ridicule ? Standard debating/discussion technique, when someone on another side of a topic offers a target of opportunity … as long as both (or more) sides are heard, that tends to be healthy … when a side’s best available argument is to shout down their opposition, that side’s action deserves to be called fascist since it strives to deny their opposition the opportunity to be heard …
April 11th, 2006 at 1:22:36 pm
Alsidair, huh? Are you admitting then that you are wrong? There is a difference between shouting to be heard and shouting someone down. The Bush administration is very fond of shouting people down, though generally they use less overt means of accomplishing the objective.
April 12th, 2006 at 6:23:46 pm
Alsidair ???
Would you care to try to offer an example or two of the “Bush administration” actually shouting someone down ? Even by “less overt means” ?
So far, as far as I can tell, no-one from the “Bush administration” has been found in the Vince Foster postion, face down, shot through the back of the head, holding the gun in the non-dominant hand …
April 12th, 2006 at 7:10:41 pm
your kidding right? The staged press conferences where Bush mysteriously can’t hear difficult questions. But most of the time they just keep those people out in the first place. the free speech zones, and the getting arrested by the secret service for any anti war shirts. and that’s just off the top of my head. You seriously must be smoking dope.