"Soldiers dying in Iraq are dying to defend the US against terrorism as a victory in Iraq is a victory in the war on terror. They are dying to defend freedom and democracy in the US and to spread freedom and democracy to Iraq. They are dying for the interests of the US, her allies, and by extension, all Americans (whether they understand it or not). They are not dying for Haliburton, oil, or any other ridiculous shit / slant the anti-war types or conspiracy theorists want to spin. Haliburton is a company (among many others, both US and foreign) that seized a chance to profit in REBUILDING Iraq. There is a big difference between that and war-profiteering. Haliburton did not start the war, terrorists and those that support them did. Putting the chicken before the egg just won’t fly."
-polymath
"[B]efore you [Europeans] write us off as just a bunch of sweaty, hairy-chested, Bible-thumping morons who are more likely to break their fast by dipping a Krispy Kreme into a diet cola than a biscotti into an espresso - and who inexplicably have won more Nobel prizes than all other countries combined,
host 25 or 30 of the world's finest universities and five or six of the world's best symphonies, produce wines that win prizes at your own tasting competitions, have built the world's most vibrant economy, are the world's only military superpower and, so to speak in our spare time, have landed on
the moon and sent our robots to Mars - may I suggest you stop frothing at
the mouth long enough to consider just what are these ideas we hold that you find so silly and repugnant?"
- LynnKramer
"Democracy may have been invented in Greece, but cowardess was invented in France where it lives and thrives to this very day."
- RedTigress
"I'm referring to the Iraqi terrorist bastard fighters. The ones liberals insist are either not in Iraq, or are there by the thousands, depending on which liberal you listen to."
- noguru
"How is it that the Left can believe absolute crazy shit, like the Bush-Saudi Arabian money connection, or the even worse and totally false Bush-bin Laden connection (based on 100% lies) and look at you straight and say there was absolutely no way that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had ties?"
- reducto
I have to say, I expected a lot more from the insurgents. 8 million people voted. 8 million! That's 8 million people standing there in lines vulnerable to attack, yet the terrorists could only manage to kill 44 (which I believe includes the terrorists themselves). So that means the insurgents still have 99.999995% of their job to complete.
Of course, we know what that means. The insurgency is disorganized. The insurgency doesn't have enough support to accomplish any large scale attacks. The Iraqi and coalition troops are doing a great job of cracking down on these guys. Then again, it could just be the whole shutting down traffic thing.
Okay, so I was watching FNC all yesterday and really late the night before, and I am sick and tired of Geraldo Rivera. Geraldo has always rubbed me the wrong way, but I don't know why. He did nothing but talk about how great the election was, how proud we should be of the Iraqis, how good a job our troops are doing, but I couldn't help but be sick of him. I feel guilty attacking the guy because he was being so nice, but it was just so so annoying.
Geraldo: "Today is just a historic day in Iraq. You can't help but feel so incredibly proud of the Iraqis who are finally electing representatives who will be held accountable by the people. The coalition troops and the Iraqi security force are just doing such an outstanding job at protecting the polling places. Cut to the footage of the polling places for a second. You see Iraqis cheering as they enter and it's just an amazing sight to behold. I am overcome with this amazing sense of pride in what is going on here. Against constant death threats they are making the long walk to the polling stations where coalition troops and Iraqi security forces are doing an incredible job. I'm here with [insert soldier's rank and name here] and I can't thank you enough for your service and the job your doing. The entire country appreciates what you're doing as do the Iraqi people. What do you think about the Iraqis finally being able to vote after years of political oppression?"
Soldier: "Well Geraldo, we're really glad that this day has finally come and we hope that it all goes over smoothly and there's a new Iraqi government up and running."
Geraldo: "It definitely looks like that will happen, and again, I can't thank you enough for all you're doing. Now if we can cut to the streets where Iraqis are walking to the polling stations. I can't express how proud I am of these Iraqis who are putting it all on the line to come out and vote today. It's really an amazing sight to behold. I just want to thank our troops for the amazing job they're doing......"
And on and on and on for hours. I wanted to watch the election, but I couldn't stand Geraldo. I agree with what he's saying, but he just wouldn't stop. What's he even doing in Iraq? Didn't they kick him out after his little sand incident?
Secondly, it is significant that there is a vote in Iraq. But no one in the United States or in the world -- and I'm confident of what the world response will be -- no one in the United States should try to overhype this election.
....Because there are no WMDs in Iraq.
A kind of legitimacy. I mean, it's hard to say that something is legitimate when a whole portion of the country can't vote and doesn't vote.
Remember the Bush ad that said "Pessimism has never created a job"? I guess that pessimism wasn't just some election thing, it's actually part of his personality....
RUSSERT: Will you run for re-election in the Senate in 2008?
KERRY: Tim, I'm not thinking about 2008 right now. I'm really focused on what we're doing now. I'm excited about what I'm doing now. There are any number of potential things that I may wind up doing, and I'm going to keep all my options open.
RUSSERT: Including running for president?
KERRY: I'll keep all my options open.
....then again, maybe this is just year 1 of his second campaign for president.
Believing in a God Makes You a "narrow minded and self-righteous religious elitist"
I usually respond to these things in the comment window, but I figured why waste precious time writing so much that nobody else would see.
Now, I thought maybe I was going crazy, because I have never met anyone to come to the conclusion that I am a narrow minded and self-righteous religious elitist simply because I believe in God and believe that my god is the real god.
For everyone out there who believes in a god, any god or gods, do you believe that your god is the real one? Of course you do, you wouldn't be believing in that god otherwise, but please comment and tell Mr. Kurt here.
Check the comment section of this blog to see what I'm talking about:
Let me just catch ya'll up. I say "Considering muslims are a small minority, I like that the only god's name invoked by liberals was Allah." Fair enough right? I mean it's a factual statement, there's nothing wrong with that. So how could saying that make me a " narrow minded and self-righteous religious elitist"? There is one more question I answered to get me there.
Kurt: "i'm assuming from your comments about "allah" that you're god is the true god and that is why you were glad that a liberal mentioned allah in his post."
Me: "I do believe my god is the true god, but I don't care if other people don't."
Can anyone else out there make this connection? Come on dude, this is all you're running off of. You're jumping the gun a little don't you think?
Now lets get right back in this thing.
Kurt: "You must just be ill-informed. There are gads of leftist Christians both in the U.S. and even more abroad -- particularly in Central America and South America. There are many, many, many more Christian leftists in Amerca than there are Muslims. I would research the statistics if I had time but this is just so well-known that it shouldn't be neccessary to do that legwork. I've heard this line before that the American press is more friendly to Muslim extremist than to Christianity. You are the one making the assertion so you are the one who needs to provide your evidence. You won't be able to do that because it simply isn't true..."
Yes there are gads of leftist Christians in the U.S., mostly because gads is such a vague term. I could care less if there are gads of anybody outside the U.S. because if they participated in the "Not One Red Cent" protest, they'd be hurting their own country. Now I'm not putting it past leftists to do something stupid like that, but they probably wouldn't.
The truth is, the people posting in favor of the "Not One Red Cent" protest are hardcore leftists. None of them mentioned God. One of them mentioned Allah. Say all you want about leftists being Christian but you can't change that.
The radical left is not Christian-friendly. Do I have to point you to our fellow tbloggers? Yes there are radical Christian leftists, just like there are republicans in the ACLU or black professional golfers. Only a fool would suggest that Christians are not significantly underrepresented among the radical leftists. Because Christians so vastly outnumber muslims in this country, you can't point to raw numbers to prove your point, because we're talking about proportions here.
Me: "I made one little remark about Allah"
Kurt: "Yes, and a very telling remark. It is these little remarks that are markers of your mindset and reveal more about your perspective than you would like it to reveal or that you are comfortable accepting yourself or just plain blind toward."
No, you just don't get it. It means exactly what it says. You can claim there is a hidden meaning there, but there isn't. It was just an observation. I have made plenty of them throughout my blogging.
Kurt: "Why bother so much with .001% of political views? Hitler is now used by the left in exact same way that conservatives have used the "communist" charge against liberals for decades..."
Me: "Conservatives use communist to mean anti-American and liberals use Hitler to mean genocidal maniac. There's a little bit of a difference. Not to mention liberals, or at least the vocal ones getting all the attention, often are communists. It's impossible for a conservative to be Hitler. That's why being called fascist doesn't bug me too much."
Kurt: "Impossible? Why is that? It is no more impossible for a conservative to become like Hitler than it is for a liberal to become like Stalin! That is just ridiculous statement. It should be impossible for either Hitler of Stalin to ever exists in America. I believe it is, in fact, impossible for this to happen."
It's impossible unless you believe Hitler can come back to life in the body of an American, or that he is still alive and has become an American citizen. I for one think that is for all practical purposes, impossible, maybe you don't. I have never called a liberal Stalin. I've never even heard a liberal called Stalin. I have never heard Clinton or Carter called Stalin. Maybe you have, but it's definitely not common, whereas I can't visit a liberal blog without seeing Bush compared to Hitler.
Me: "Conservatives use communist to mean anti-American and liberals use Hitler to mean genocidal maniac. There's a little bit of a difference. Not to mention liberals, or at least the vocal ones getting all the attention, often are communists."
Kurt: "What a self-serving and just plain inaccurate declaration! Liberals use Hitler to mean excessive Nationalism and an inclination toward the use of the military complex for political reasons. Conservatives use the charge of "communist" as a fail-safe attack on anyone seeking to regulate the excesses of corporatism that unchecked due to their protection from true market forces via government favor and, sometimes, via outright government protection from market forces."
I could easily go to the DU, but here's some quotes from fellow tbloggers: (quotes may not be theirs but from articles they reposted, but for our purposes it doesn't matter.)
"Whereas hitler's evil was more overt in its cruelty and sadism, Bush’s dark side is much more hidden and disguised, which makes it particularly dangerous." - CheckItOut
"It looks like current administration has studied Saddam, Hitler, and Stalins methods of judicial administration." - DianneMaire
"TIME Magazine's Man of the Year in 1938 was Adolf Hitler [link] ... In 2004, Herr Fuhrer Bushy-boy, the Mass-Murderer is given this distinction for he is truly a Fascist War Criminal of enormous proportions ..." - PatriotActs
Not to mention you got our definition of communist wrong. When calling liberals communist, it's more often than not about being enemies of the state rather than them being actual communists.
Me: " Saddam was a threat. Imminent threat, not really, even though he was planning attacks on the U.S. However, the only important people to really call the threat imminent were McLellan, who's just a press secretary, and Cheney, who's crazy. We may have been wrong about Iraq if by we you mean Americans and many foreign leaders both for and against the war, not just republicans. We did hold people accountable for intelligence failures, and liberals went crazy because we were blaming the intelligence community for intelligence failures rather than Bush."
Kurt: "You must not have read my statement very closely. I'm fine with our actions in Iraq. Having said that -- your facts are just wrong. Colin Powell and George Bush and Condi Rice made the specific and explicit argument that Sadaam was an "imminent" security threat to the U.S. Why would say otherwise? Heck, you can look up their pre-war speeches easily on-line. Taking out Sadaam and installing a democrocy in Iraq is the centerpiece of the neoconservative agenda. This has been the case since before 9/11. 9/11 gave them just enough opening to fit their plan into the mix under the guise of responding to terrorism. "
I know you're okay with Iraq, but, for the other stuff, link me. I'd like to know when Bush has ever called Saddam an "imminent" threat. I know he's called him a bunch of other kinds of threats, but I'd like to see that quote. As for Condi and Powell, I haven't been following what they've said too closely, but I have never heard them use the words "imminent threat" either.
I always thought killing gays, lynching blacks, or an M-16 in every home were the centerpieces of the neo-conservative agenda? Nobody wanted Saddam in power. Everybody wants, or I should say wanted, democracy in Iraq. So I wouldn't say that was a neo-con thing. Iraq was about WMDs. Yes, we didn't find them, I know. We would not have gone into Iraq, yet, had we not suspected him of having WMDs. It was WMDs that justified going in, not terrorism. Getting rid of terrorist training camps or a terror supporting dictator may have justified having gone in, but it was not our justification for going into Iraq in the first place. So it wasn't under the guise of responding to terrorism.
Me: "I like your view that people who believe in a god are narrow minded religious elitists. Please, explain how you arrived at this conclusion. But remember, you can only go off what I have said. Absolutely no assuming anything."
Kurt: " I didn't say that people who "believe in God" are "narrow-minded elitists". I said the people who believe in an special and exclusive truth about God are narrow-minded elitists. This shouldn't offend a believer because my accusation is just an extension of the logic of their beliefs. It isn't whether or not you "believe in God" that is relevant to my statements but it is *what you believe about God* that is relevant. Why aren't you more willing to say more about what you believe about God than just continuing to declare the you "believe in God"? You leave me to make assumptions because of your lack of being forthright and detailed about your beliefs. So, I'll ask again another way --
What do you believe about God and why? If you are not a Christian who adheres to the belief the the only path to salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ, and only Jesus Christ, as the Lord and Saviour of the Universe, then just say so. If you are, just say so! I'm not the one being intentionally arcane about my beliefs -- you are. Most everyone I know believes Jesus Christ is the Saviour and worships, when they actually get to church, at a Christian church of some denomination. Interestingly, however, when I speak with them individually about the logical implications of their stated beliefs -- most of them are uncomfortable with the clear facts about their own religion. My agenda isn't to "out" you as a Christian. Of course, I can't imagine why a Christian would mind being "outed" for their beliefs. My agenda is to "out" exclusivity and the divisive influence of exclusive religion on society."
Where did this exclusive truth thing come from? I never said God came to me and told me to worship him or anything, but apparently you think I did. I don't know why you're thinking that.
I could tell you what else I believe, but I don't see why it matters. All that matters is I worship a god and believe that god to be the real god, like most of the world. I have never even said I was Christian. I haven't said the word Jesus to you at all. Will you reflect on that and see how many assumptions you have made? If I am not forthright about what I believe, that is not a "assume all you want about me for free" card.
How can I be a "narrow minded and self-righteous religious elitist" if all you know about me is that I believe a god to be real. How is that narrow minded? How is that self-righteous? Sure, it's religious. How is that elitist? Maybe if I were saying, "Listen not to this 'science', ye peasants, for I the great Defensor know that it can all be explained away by Trangor the Almighty god!" Then you might have something.
I'm getting bored and it's getting late, so I'll end there.
Kerry Campaign Employees Charged With Slashing Tires
Ya'll remember that whole thing about the 100 GOP vehicles that had their tires slashed on election day? I was thinking it could've been the GOP slashing their own tires to gain some sympathy points, but sure enough, it was just disobedient liberals.
MILWAUKEE -- The sons of a first-term congresswoman and Milwaukee's former acting mayor were among five Democratic activists charged Monday with slashing the tires of vans rented by Republicans to drive voters and monitors to the polls on Election Day.
Sowande Omokunde, son of Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., and Michael Pratt, the son of former Milwaukee acting mayor Marvin Pratt, were charged with criminal damage to property, a felony that carries a maximum punishment of 3 1/2 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
The activists - all employees of the John Kerry campaign - are accused of flattening the tires on 25 vehicles rented by the state Republican Party to get out the vote and deliver poll watchers Nov. 2.
The GOP rented more than 100 vehicles that were parked in a lot adjacent to a Bush campaign office. The party planned to drive poll watchers to polling places by 7 a.m. and deliver any voters who didn't have a ride.
A criminal complaint said the defendants originally planned to put up Democratic yard signs, placards and bumper stickers at the Republican office in a scheme they called "Operation Elephant Takeover." But the plan was dropped when they learned a security guard was posted at the GOP office, the complaint said.
One witness told investigators the five defendants, dressed in "Mission Impossible" type gear, black outfits and knit caps, left the Democratic Party headquarters at about 3 a.m. on Nov. 2, and returned about 20 minutes later, extremely excited and talking about how they had slashed the tires.
Democratic Party of Wisconsin spokesman Seth Boffeli said the five were paid employees of Kerry's campaign, but were not acting on behalf of the campaign or party.
"This is not something we engage in, or encourage. We had to make it clear that this is something these individuals were doing on their own," Boffeli said.
Rick Wiley, state GOP executive director, discovered the vandalism on the morning of Election Day.
"It was unbelievable that people could stoop this low in a political campaign," he said. "I figured it had to be someone from the opposition. But I didn't think someone on the paid Kerry campaign would do this."
Wiley didn't say whether the vandalism prevented anyone from voting, but said poll watchers were about two hours late.
Moore attended the court appearance for her son, but declined to address the felony charge after the proceeding, saying only that she had to catch a plane. A message left on Marvin Pratt's cell phone was not immediately returned.
The judge denied a motion made by Omokunde's attorney, James Shellow, to dismiss the charges based on a flawed criminal complaint.
Also charged were Lewis Caldwell, Lavelle Mohammad, and Justin Howell.
As if keeping Nader off the ballot wasn't undemocratic enough. I want to know what those guys were thinking in the first place.
Liberal #1: "Satan be praised guys!! We should so totally slash some tires."
Liberal #2: "Dude, isn't that like....wrong?"
Liberal #1: "Wrong? Life is freakin' wrong man!"
Liberal #2: "But if people like...you know....see tires slashed, wouldn't they be all, 'we should vote for those dudes?'"
Liberal #1: "What are you turning fascist of something?!? Don't you know where those cars are going? The neo-con stormtroopers will load into 'em and go lynch black voters before they get to the polls!"
Liberal #2: "Dude, you are so like...smart and stuff."
I don't think they deserve 3 1/2 years in prison. I'd prefer just letting them off with a fine and forcing them to keep a huge Bush/Cheney sticker unaltered on the back of their car for the next year.
CNN LOSES 63% OF AUDIENCE OVER INAUGURATION 2001 Fri Jan 21 2005 23:52:24 2005
CNN hemorrhaged more than half their audience from the 2001 Inauguration, overnights show. The troubled news network only averaged 779,000 viewers during yesterday's Inauguration coverage from 10am-4pm with just 168,000 of those viewers landing in the coveted 25-54 demo.
Like CNN, MSNBC also suffered major losses, only averaging 438,000 viewers throughout yesterday's coverage (141,000 in 25-54), down a whopping 68% over 2001 and faring even worse in primetime with just 385,000 viewers.
In contrast, Fox News averaged 2,581,000 viewers from 10a-4p (up 30% over 2001) and their 25-54 demo average of 705,000 came close to CNN's total coverage ratings yesterday.
PRIMETIME:
FNC -- 2,439,000 (up 57% OVER '01) CNN -- 1,353,000 (down 14% over '01) MSNBC -- 385,000 (down 47% over '01)
It's a new dawn for fair and balanced media. News stations like CNN and CBS will never be able to get rid of that liberal stigma, ever. Nothing short of making Rush and Coulter news anchors will help them, which is why they are doomed.
Air America is a failure and NPR is astonishingly boring, so the right controls the radio. We've even got the rock stations. I can't turn one on without hearing that we need to support the troops, which not directly an endorsement of either side is definitely helping the right.
The only place the left still controls is the internet, probably due to the rather large english-speaking international community. Or at least that's what I used to think. It seems throughout this past election year I kept hearing all these liberals complaining about the blogosphere. I don't remember hearing any conservatives complaining about it. So maybe, although that is the extent of my proof, we dominate the blogosphere. If that's the case, sweet.
Remind anybody of a certain Simpsons episode? Speaking of the Simpsons, what's with all the liberal propaganda they've been inserting into their shows?
WASHINGTON Even as plans to celebrate President George W. Bush's inauguration were taking final shape, the capital on Tuesday appeared more like a city under siege.
Hour by hour, the city of grand buildings and marble statues seemed to disappear behind curtains of steel security fences and concrete barriers.
Piece by piece, the massive security plan that officials promised would be the tightest ever in post-9/11 America began taking final shape despite the absence of any specific threat and seemingly without regard to the temporary inconveniences to local residents and visitors.
Utility crews with acetylene torches snarled traffic as they welded shut manhole covers along the route of the inaugural parade.
Fighter jets screamed across the skies, practicing for the pre-inaugural fly-by on Wednesday. Drivers found no-parking signs, temporary street closures and public warnings that 100 blocks of city streets near inaugural events would be restricted.
Pedestrians had it no better. Officials tightened the broad perimeter surrounding the Capitol, the parade route and the presidential reviewing stand near the White House as construction teams added more security fencing that put more of the city's public spaces off limits.
Elsewhere, security teams swept dozens of hotels and office buildings overlooking the parade route. Uniformed officers in cruisers from more than a dozen law enforcement agencies seemed to be everywhere at once.
Standing outside a security fence surrounding Lafayette Park, near the White House, Bonnie McKinney, an advocate for veterans benefits, was clearly annoyed. "We obviously have had a security issue in our country, but this is a bit ridiculous," she said. "As a veteran and the daughter of a veteran who died in service, I don't appreciate being disenfranchised from what I always considered my rights and freedoms."
She was hardly alone among residents asked to alter their routines to accommodate security plans and a long schedule of inaugural events, which began Tuesday afternoon with a program to honor American military forces.
Some tourists ignored the forbidding preparations around them. David Chater, a visitor from London, seemed unfazed. "The physical presence is noticeable," he said, "but it's not unexpected."
Government workers, who already had the day off Thursday, were being encouraged to work from home on Wednesday, a day before the inauguration. Local law enforcement officials warned motorists that many streets in the downtown area would be off-limits to vehicular traffic. Local officials said some bus routes would change and some subway stations would be closed.
"Given the hassle factor and the uncertainties, I'm going to work from home on Thursday," said Mit Spears, a lawyer and Republican whose office is on the fringe of areas restricted to traffic. "Driving in is just not worth it."
Federal aviation authorities prepared to impose a no-fly zone that will be in force for private aircraft from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Thursday. Commercial flights will operate as usual, but the authorities are widening the no-fly zone for smaller planes, banning many flights from a radius of about 40 kilometers, or 25 miles, around the region's three airports: Reagan National, Dulles and Baltimore Washington International.
Thousands of federal, state and local law enforcement personnel from around the country poured into Washington all day Tuesday, reporting to command posts responsible for coordinated security, the authorities said.
And as final plans proceeded, meteorologists had bad news. At noon, when Bush raises his hand to take the oath of office, forecasters said, the temperature would be 34 degrees Fahrenheit, or 1 degree Celsius, and snow may be falling.
Maybe the only reason I find this interesting is because I'm a republican and obsessed with firepower and order, or maybe it's because of all these kill bush hits I've been getting lately. I want to be sure this thing is safe. Here's some of the google hits I've gotten:
"i want to kill the president" (U.S.)
"i want to kill president bush" (Canada)
"kill bush" (se, sweden?)
"kill bush" (no, norway?)
"I want to kill the president" (Canada again)
Silly foreigners. I'm suprised Bush has really had that much of an impact on their lives. I've been getting a steady stream of these for a couple weeks, so lets just hope this thing goes off without a hitch.
I realize this has been out there for a while, but I just found it. I'm glad to see liberals are getting more innovative. I think I'll comment on each little bit, just because I can.
Since our leaders don't have the moral courage to speak out against the war in Iraq, Inauguration Day, Thursday, January 20th, 2005 is "Not One Red Cent Day" in America.
Really? I seem to remember a certain election year in which half of our leaders did nothing but speak out against the war in Iraq. But then again, what do I know, I've only been blogging about it for an entire year.
On "Not One Red Cent Day" those who oppose what is happening in our name in Iraq can speak up with a 24-hour national boycott of all forms of consumer spending.
So, does this include utilities? Last time I checked the large utility companies were not liberal powerhouses.
During "Not One Red Cent Day" please don't spend money, and don't use your credit card. Not one red cent for gasoline. Not one red cent for necessities or for impulse purchases. Nor toll/cab/bus or train ride money exchanges. Not one red cent for anything for 24 hours.
But without buying gasoline, the number of people attending protests will take a hit.
On "Not One Red Cent Day," please boycott Walmart, KMart and Target. Please don't go to the mall or the local convenience store. Please don't buy any fast food (or any groceries at all for that matter).
Am I the only one that expects people to just buy more the next day because they've exhausted even more of what they currently have? Won't that offset any damage done?
For 24 hours, please do what you can to shut the retail economy down. The object is simple. Remind the people in power that the war in Iraq is immoral and illegal; that they are responsible for starting it and that it is their responsibility to stop it.
Why retail industry?!? Why did you lead us into an illegal and immoral war?!?
"Not One Red Cent Day" is to remind them, too, that they work for the people of the United States of America, not for the international corporations and K Street lobbyists who represent the corporations and funnel cash into American politics.
I like how international corporations was stuck in there. Why would we want to hurt the international community as well? I thought they were against the war?
"Not One Red Cent Day" is about supporting the troops. The politicians put the troops in harm's way. Now 1,200 brave young Americans and (some estimate) 100,000 Iraqis have died. The politicians owe our troops a plan -- a way to come home.
I wonder if a protest like this took place during WW2 when politicians put troops in harms way. Some estimate? I like how they didn't even cite a source, just told us that "some" estimate it to be that high. For all we know 80,000 of those have died of natural causes.
There's no rally to attend. No marching to do. No left or right wing agenda to rant about. On "Not One Red Cent Day" you take action by doing nothing. You open your mouth by keeping your wallet closed.
Finally, a protest for liberals too fat to attend protests....I know you guys are expecting me to say it, but I won't!
For 24 hours, nothing gets spent, not one red cent, to remind our religious leaders and our politicians of their moral responsibility to end the war in Iraq and give America back to the people.
All this end the war crap I could understand, but give America back to the people? What does that have to do with anything? What does that even mean?
I filled out the survey wishing them luck, and then I stumbled upon other peoples' comments (half of which seem to be republicans). I need a laugh, so lets take a look:
Our country is turning into a 3rd world country. Where will the disaster relied money come from when we see more and more need for it in the US? Hopefully not to wealthy or from the Social Security money for retired people.(Seeing as how we are now considered a 3rd world country, I don't think we should be giving any more money)
Not only am I Not spending One Damn Dime on the 20th I have had my cable service removed, I will not PAY to support a news mis-information system (cable news). I also encourage everyone to Drop Public Television and Radio and join with the hundreds of thousands now enjoying Sirius Radio.(looks like someone from Sirius found a place to advertise)
In The Name of Allah Peace and Greetings, This makes more sense that ANYTHING I've seen so far! I'm on board 1000% I will be putting the info about this on my websites and yahoo groups! I really hope this catches fire with the people! Success to you in your efforts. Peace, Minister Salaam W. Allah(Considering muslims are a small minority, I like that the only god's name invoked by liberals was Allah)
I wasn't able to vote because im only 16 but i would have voted against george w. bush. hes a fucking asshole. This kind of boycotting is a good idea. (I'm convinced)
So we'll probably end up with a couple thousand people max not spending anything on consumer goods that they'll probably just buy more of the next day. There's nothing to worry about, but at least it'll be funny to watch.
As a functional protest, this one is equally off the mark. Although a boycott can be an active form of protest (even though boycott participants are in effect doing nothing, they're following a course of action that directly affects the object of their protest), boycotts succeed by causing economic harm to their targets, thereby putting them out of business or at least requiring them to change their policies in order to remain in business. But the target of this boycott isn't an entity that has the power to bring about the desired resolution (i.e., the government) — those who will be economically harmed by it are innocent business operators and their employees. These people have no power to set U.S. foreign policy or recall troops from Iraq, but they're the ones who would have to pay the price for this form of protest, incurring all their usual overhead costs (e.g., lighting, heat, refrigeration) to keep their businesses open and paying employees' salaries, all the while taking in little or no income. (And no, it doesn't all even out in the end — restaurants, for example, aren't going to recoup their lost business through boycott participants' eating twice as much the next day.)
(CNSNews.com) - California could cut taxes, fully fund education and balance its budget by seceding from the United States, a newly organized group says.
The Committee to Explore California Secession, also known as Move On California, says it hopes to bring people together to consider the merits of an autonomous and independent California.
Those benefits would be both financial and political: "For every dollar Californians give to the federal government we see only 78-cents come back," the group's website says. It also expresses concern about "the diminishing voice of Californians in national politics" and "national trends that are tipping the balance in the direction of the religious conservative agenda."
[Contrary to what Move On California claims, California Republicans now chair six U.S. House committees, giving California more congressional clout than any other state, Fox News reported.]
Jeff Morrissette, the founder of Move On California, says the secession buzz began shortly after the November 2004 re-election of President Bush. But, he says, politicians from both parties object to subsidizing other states at a time "when those California tax dollars could be better spent at home to shore up our own fiscal problems."
According to Morrissette, if Californians could control the $40 billion that goes to pork barrel spending projects in other states every year, they could give state taxpayers a $20-billion tax cut and still have enough money to fully fund California spending priorities, specifically education, and balance the budget at the same time.
Morrissette says momentum is building for the California secession movement. "While secession may be a long-shot," he says, "it will succeed in bringing awareness to many of the grievances California has politically, socially and fiscally."
"Californians are getting pushed around and it's time we pushed back," he said.
Now I know there are a lot of people out there who will just say stupid things like this, but how many will form their own organization to carry it out?
Is it even legal to plot secession? Eh, it would be entertaining to say the least.
Let me just reiterate what I’ve stated elsewhere. This isn’t about starting a civil war. We are talking about peaceful secession and the creation of an independent California. Time will judge if a majority of Californians agree that independence is the best way. If and when that happens it is our desire that cooler heads prevail and a diplomatic, peaceful, political resolution comes about.
Maybe Mr. Morrissette is a little rusty in the history department, but last time somebody tried a peaceful secession and the creation of an independent nation, hundreds of thousands of people died.
You should read the rest of that first article, it's pretty funny. I want to see Californians try to secede, especially with Arnold as governor. That would be awesome. Especially watching the liberal pacifists faced with the choice of fighting for their "independence" or remaining true to their nonviolent nature.
A viewer is suing NBC for $2.5 million, contending that he threw up because of a "Fear Factor" episode in which contestants ate rats mixed in a blender.
Story Continues Below
Austin Aitken told The Associated Press he watches "Fear Factor" often and had no problem with past installments where the reality show's participants ate worms and insects in pursuit of a $50,000 prize — but eating rats went "too far."
"It's barbaric, some of the things they ask these individuals to do," Aitken said Thursday.
Aitken's handwritten lawsuit contends the rat-eating made his blood pressure rise, resulting in being dizzy and lightheaded — and vomiting. Because he was disoriented he ran into a doorway, "causing suffering, injury and great pain."
Asked why he didn't shut off his television before the rat-eating segment, Aitken said he couldn't do it quick enough.
Fear Factor has been on for years now. I've seen them eat everything from coagulated blood paste mixed with bile and worms, penises from every animal you can imagine, to live African cave-dwelling spiders, so this guy has no right to start complaining now.
What I love his how he described his experience. His blood pressure rises, and he's leaving the channel on. He starts getting dizzy, and he's leaving the channel on. He starts puking, and he's leaving the channel on. Disoriented, he runs into a doorway in his own house, never bothering to either change the channel or, heaven forbid, look away from the TV screen. Running into the doorway caused him great pain, which I'm sure it will when you sprint into a doorway in the middle of your unfamiliar home.
Maybe I should sue CBS over graphic images of things exploding.
Can anyone out there answer this question for me? If two brothers want to marry in Massachusetts, can they legally do so? I've searched high and low and the only answer I've gotten came from the word of someone who's a resident of Massachusetts. He's a pro-gay marriage person, but I'd still like a link or at least someone else to tell me because I hate going on the word of one person I know on the internet.
He said that gay siblings can't marry. Now, if this is the case, isn't that the same prejudice that the gays are fighting against? Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the only reason siblings or close relatives can't marry because they might have children with birth defects? Now I believe that excuse already doesn't hold water, but if you take that away, what justification is there for prohibiting gay relatives from marrying?
I'm going to keep from shooting my mouth off any more until I know for sure whether or not gay siblings are being unfairly discriminated against by the gay rights movement.
