Hilarious--pro-war demonstrators in Crawford chase out their own

[Cleon]

Ok, so here's the lowdown. Some good, upstanding conservative youth show up at a pro-war/anti-Sheehan rally in Crawford with some "ironic" signs, such as "War has never solved anything--except for slavery, fascism, and communism."

Their fellow demonstrators didn't get it. They shouted at them and chased them out, even as these guys were explaining "We're on your side! We're on the right!"

Video here (http://www.indybay.org/uploads/protest-warriors_sm.wmv)

Hilarious. :D

[Cylinder]

That sounds like Protest Warrior (http://www.protestwarrior.com/). They don't always try to stand out as counter-protesters.

http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/the_sign.jpg

[Matabiri]

Reminds me (a little) of the photo circulating ages ago (which seems to be impossible to track down now...) of a big crowd of angry anti-abortion protestors, with one man standing at the back holding a sign saying, "Fetuses aren't people. They're not even chickens. Who cares?".

He had a look on his face which said, "Any second now someone here's actually going to read my sign..."

[Random]

The message is too complicated for the average Bush supporter. It requires knowledge of history, irony, and an attention span of greater than five seconds. They need something more accessible. Perhaps something like “Bush Good!�, or maybe “W=:)"

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Random
The message is too complicated for the average Bush supporter. It requires knowledge of history, irony, and an attention span of greater than five seconds. They need something more accessible. Perhaps something like “Bush Good!�, or maybe “W=:)" Something more subtle, more nuanced. Like this:

http://www.protestwarrior.com/gallery/lefties/55.jpg
I got five bucks for anyone who can give a coherent explanation for this.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Something more subtle, more nuanced. Like this:


I got five bucks for anyone who can give a coherent explanation for this.

Oh, explaining the poster is easy enough. Making the guy who made it seem coherent is the impossible part.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Random
The message is too complicated for the average Bush supporter. It requires knowledge of history, irony, and an attention span of greater than five seconds. They need something more accessible. Perhaps something like “Bush Good!�, or maybe “W=:)"

The inability to recognize irony is hardly confined to any one side. Even reputable press organizations can fall victim to it:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050425/gallery/8.html

http://i.timeinc.net/time/covers/1101050425/gallery/photos/photo08.jpg

Caption:"Pro-G.O.P protesters at the Republican Convention in New York City last year

Correction: The original caption incorrectly stated that these protesters were blasting Coulter."

They managed to catch their mistake, but the print version had already gone out.

[Jas]

During the WPC (World Petroleum Congress), there were plenty of hippy protestors. An aquaintance of my sister's got a lot of people together, dressed up as 'eco-warriors', and held up signs saying things like 'Protesting Doesn't Work'. I can't remember any of the funnier ones though.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Jas
During the WPC (World Petroleum Congress), there were plenty of hippy protestors. An aquaintance of my sister's got a lot of people together, dressed up as 'eco-warriors', and held up signs saying things like 'Protesting Doesn't Work'. I can't remember any of the funnier ones though.


I'm reminded of when Dogma came out and Kevin Smith went to the protest of his movie and joined in. Pretty damn funny.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Caption:"Pro-G.O.P protesters at the Republican Convention in New York City last year

Correction: The original caption incorrectly stated that these protesters were blasting Coulter."

They managed to catch their mistake, but the print version had already gone out.

Um. Isn't the correction wrong, too?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Cylinder
That sounds like Protest Warrior (http://www.protestwarrior.com/). They don't always try to stand out as counter-protesters.



It is Protest Warrior in the video.

[Skeptic]

Reminds me of the photo of a feminist rally going around the 'net: people holding signs saying "Equal Rights for Equal Work", "Down with Domestic Violence", etc.--except for a guy in the back with a homemade sign "IRON MY SHIRT, BITCH!".

The message is too complicated for the average Bush supporter. It requires knowledge of history, irony, and an attention span of greater than five seconds.

(Shrug)

I dunno about that. The entire "youth revolution against opressive capitalism" of the 60s was financed, to the last dime, by the "rebels" parents who were members of the selfsame "capitalist system", yet it took the intelligent, perceptive, long-attention-span, sensitive left fifteen years to see the irony in that.

Not seeing irony is rather universal, if you ask me. For example, Jonathan Swift got numerous death threats for "A Modest Proposal" by people who missed the point. For that matter, the greatest ironical work of all time--Don Quixote--gave Quixote, who is obviously an insane fool, numerous opportunities to "explain" to Sancho without a shread of doubt all the most absurd dogmas of the Catholic Church, and it flew right over the censors' head.

[Silicon]

Some day protest warrior's going to get their asses kicked.

They don't seem to realize that rednecks are going to run trucks over people, and they're not going to stop to read the sign and see that it's ironic.

Hostility begets hostility, and PW is nothing if not hostile.

[Skeptic]

They don't seem to realize that rednecks are going to run trucks over people, and they're not going to stop to read the sign and see that it's ironic.

Hostility begets hostility, and PW is nothing if not hostile.

It's good to know you're not hostile like PW and those idiot, violent rednecks...

It's ironic you don't see the irony of your own post, a post talking about how other people don't see irnoy.

Then again, maybe you meant this post ironically, in which case it is ironic that I didn't realize you are being ironic in pretending to miss the irony of your own post which criticizes lack of irnoy in other people.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Skeptic
They don't seem to realize that rednecks are going to run trucks over people, and they're not going to stop to read the sign and see that it's ironic.

Hostility begets hostility, and PW is nothing if not hostile.

It's good to know you're not hostile like PW and those idiot, violent rednecks...

It's ironic you don't see the irony of your own post, a post talking about how other people don't see irnoy.

Then again, maybe you meant this post ironically, in which case it is ironic that I didn't realize you are being ironic in pretending to miss the irony of your own post which criticizes lack of irnoy in other people.


Wait. Are we talking about irony or irnoy?:D

[WildCat]

:D

Just goes to show, people don't read the fine print...

Protest Warrior also shows up at anti-war rallies, and those people think they're on their side, it's not just rednecks who don't read the fine print...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Silicon
Some day protest warrior's going to get their asses kicked.

They don't seem to realize that rednecks are going to run trucks over people, and they're not going to stop to read the sign and see that it's ironic.

Hostility begets hostility, and PW is nothing if not hostile. I would say they are far less hostile than most protestors. I have watched the videos on the web site and it would seem that most portestors are hostile. Most groups rip up there signs and and have even used physical force against them. I'm really curious why you say PW is hostile? ????

[Silicon]

Originally posted by RandFan
I would say they are far less hostile than most protestors. I have watched the videos on the web site and it would seem that most portestors are hostile. Most groups rip up there signs and and have even used physical force against them. I'm really curious why you say PW is hostile? ????

That's people's honest reaction to the way PW demonstrates.

It's the "infiltrate the other guy's protest and masquerade as them to subvert the message."

Plus, they have very confrontational signs.

Would you like it if I showed up at your "I support Iraqi freedom" rally and masquraded as a righty and had a sign that says "Nuke Mecca,"and "Send more troops, they're mostly only Blacks anyway" and hope nobody reads the fine print (If I remembered to even PUT fine print on it.)

Or if I just had a web-address to the fine print, like PW does on their signs which aren't ironic, like the anti-coulter one above.

What if I showed up at your support the troops rally and instead of "Communists for Kerry" I and ten of my friends carried "Klansmen for Bush" signs?



Note, not at MY OWN Rally, but in the middle of yours?

Would you like that? or would you tear my sign up? Or at least be tempted to yell at me?

Or would it be live and let live?


That's why ass-kicking is coming. They're not merely counter-demonstrating. They're asking for an ass-kicking, so that they can get it on tape and show the world the mean libruls.

They just need to stay away from republican events with that crap. I mean, face it, people who AGREE with them want to kick their asses! There's the proof, They act like ********!

I would NEVER walk into a protest of people who disagreed with me and start spouting off. That's ass**** material.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Silicon
That's people's honest reaction to the way PW demonstrates.

It's the "infiltrate the other guy's protest and masquerade as them to subvert the message."

Plus, they have very confrontational signs.

Would you like it if I showed up at your "I support Iraqi freedom" rally and masquraded as a righty and had a sign that says "Nuke Mecca,"and "Send more troops, they're mostly only Blacks anyway" and hope nobody reads the fine print (If I remembered to even PUT fine print on it.)

Or if I just had a web-address to the fine print, like PW does on their signs which aren't ironic, like the anti-coulter one above.

What if I showed up at your support the troops rally and instead of "Communists for Kerry" I and ten of my friends carried "Klansmen for Bush" signs?



Note, not at MY OWN Rally, but in the middle of yours?

Would you like that? or would you tear my sign up? Or at least be tempted to yell at me?

Or would it be live and let live?


That's why ass-kicking is coming. They're not merely counter-demonstrating. They're asking for an ass-kicking, so that they can get it on tape and show the world the mean libruls.

They just need to stay away from republican events with that crap. I mean, face it, people who AGREE with them want to kick their asses! There's the proof, They act like ********!

I would NEVER walk into a protest of people who disagreed with me and start spouting off. That's ass**** material.
Those examples are hardly comparable, Silicon. PW didn't call anyone names, or masquerade as a radical group - they were NOT the ones w/ the "Communists for Kerry" signs.

[Manny]

Originally posted by WildCat
Those examples are hardly comparable, Silicon. PW didn't call anyone names, or masquerade as a radical group - they were NOT the ones w/ the "Communists for Kerry" signs. In fairness, we do usually go to the same bar afterwards.

I mean they. They go to the same bar afterward. I heard.

[Skeptic]

Plus, they have very confrontational signs.

Yes, we wouldn't want any of THAT in the "Chimp Bushitler is the World Dumbest Fascist" demonstrations, would we?

It always amazes me how people who are quite willing to call others "murderers", "baby-killers", "racists", etc., etc., etc. at a moment's notice cannot stand being spoofed.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by WildCat
Those examples are hardly comparable, Silicon. PW didn't call anyone names, or masquerade as a radical group - they were NOT the ones w/ the "Communists for Kerry" signs.

I never said that they called anyone names.

I said they act like ******** and go into other people's protests to masqurade as members of that protest.

http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/thumb/pw_sign_07.gif

http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/thumb/pw_sign_12.gif



My examples above of "Send more troops, they're mostly only black people anyway" are totally compatible with these protest warrior signs.

As in "by ******** for ********"

They provoke people, on purpose, to get yelled at and then display the video online as some kind of freeper porn.

To have randfan and maybe you too, I think disingenuously asking the question "why do you think PW is hostile, I can't imagine why anyone would want to kick their asses....?" I think that's pretty off the mark. I think you know full well why people want to kick their asses. They're ********. On purpose. They purposfully want to provoke people so they can videotape the reactions.

To prove what point exactly? Peacenicks kick ass too when faced with ********?

I'm not sure.

[Silicon]

http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/thumb/pw_sign_28.gif

http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/thumb/pw_sign_30.gif

Gee, I can't imagine why anyone would want to kick these kid's punk asses.

To attack Wesley Clark by playing the race card? WTF?!!

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by Random
The message is too complicated for the average Bush supporter. It requires knowledge of history, irony, and an attention span of greater than five seconds. They need something more accessible. Perhaps something like “Bush Good!�, or maybe “W=:)"

Yeah, and there's only one political extreme lacking knowledge of history, irony, and an attention span of greater than five seconds...
:rolleyes:

When are the two political extremes going to realize how much they have in common? :)

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Skeptic
They don't seem to realize that rednecks are going to run trucks over people, and they're not going to stop to read the sign and see that it's ironic.

Hostility begets hostility, and PW is nothing if not hostile.

It's good to know you're not hostile like PW and those idiot, violent rednecks...

It's ironic you don't see the irony of your own post, a post talking about how other people don't see irnoy.

I'm not being ironic. I wasn't hostile until PW made me hostile. My own hostility proves my point! If I WASN'T hostile, if I was kind of "ehhh, so what?" that would refute my point!

Hostility begets hostility. So I'm hostile to them. Their fault. They've sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind of Silicon's Wrath. All PHEAR ME!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Silicon
That's people's honest reaction to the way PW demonstrates. Protests themselves are often confrontational. That seems to be their nature. It seems a bit odd to complain about protestors being controversial.

Would you like it if I showed up at your "I support Iraqi freedom" rally and masquraded as a righty and had a sign that says "Nuke Mecca,"and "Send more troops, they're mostly only Blacks anyway" and hope nobody reads the fine print (If I remembered to even PUT fine print on it.)

Or if I just had a web-address to the fine print, like PW does on their signs which aren't ironic, like the anti-coulter one above.

What if I showed up at your support the troops rally and instead of "Communists for Kerry" I and ten of my friends carried "Klansmen for Bush" signs? I wouldn't have a problem with it. As long as you kept your hands to yourself. Last I checked speech was free in this country. Any speech.

Hey, I don't like it when protestors turn up at UCLA and delay my entrance to my client for half an hour. The protestors can be loud and noisy and I might prefer that they not be there. Sorry, RandFan, that is the nature of protest and free speech.

Would you like that? or would you tear my sign up? Or at least be tempted to yell at me? I would certainly not tear up your sign and would stop anyone who tried. You've asked the question from the wrong person. I always prefer speech to subversion of it no matter what (I have a hard time with Fred Phelps).

That's why ass-kicking is coming. They're not merely counter-demonstrating. They're asking for an ass-kicking, so that they can get it on tape and show the world the mean libruls. Perhaps liberals AND conservatives need to learn that freedom of speech is enjoyed by everyone and not only when it is convenient.

They just need to stay away from republican events with that crap. I mean, face it, people who AGREE with them want to kick their asses! There's the proof, They act like ********!

I would NEVER walk into a protest of people who disagreed with me and start spouting off. That's ass**** material. Your post is kind of ironic since this is how lots of folks who don't protest feel about protestors in general. And some people DO beat up protestors because the protestors are spouting off and disagreeing. {sheesh} That IS protest.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Silicon
To have randfan and maybe you too, I think disingenuously asking the question "why do you think PW is hostile, I can't imagine why anyone would want to kick their asses....?" Protestors ARE hostile. They get their asses kicked. They ARE confrontational.

I'm really not getting you. What is it that you think protests are? You seem to have a very bizzare notion about protests.


http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/frame_from_video.jpg

http://highdefinition.net/images/Anti-Bush-Protest.jpg

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Plus, they have very confrontational signs.

Yes, we wouldn't want any of THAT in the "Chimp Bushitler is the World Dumbest Fascist" demonstrations, would we?I didn't see those. Where were they?

[RandFan]

Silicon,

Why do protestors intentionally get themselve arrested? Why do they chain themselves to doors? Why do they block entrances?

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/portland/083002criticalmass658th.jpg

Protestors want attention. They do what they can to generate attention. Protest Warriors have found that they can get attention by protesting the protestors. I think it's great. I don't know of any Geneva Convention for protestors.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Bjorn
I didn't see those. Where were they? Geez, watch the news some time.

http://puppethead.com/blog/archives/2003/misc/bush_hitler.jpg

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/bush_is_hitler.jpg

http://www.kein-plan.de/bitte-ziehen-sie-durch/pics/Bush_-_HitlerFake.jpg

http://www.parallel-youniversity.com/images/adolph_-bush%202.jpg

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm really not getting you. What is it that you think protests are?

I think some believe that protests are a chance for the left to show the divine righteousness of their cause, and for the right to show themselves as the evil bigoted fascists that they are. Geez, RandFan, I thought you were smart enough to figure these things out?
:rolleyes:

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Freakshow
I think some believe that protests are a chance for the left to show the divine righteousness of their cause, and for the right to show themselves as the evil bigoted fascists that they are. Geez, RandFan, I thought you were smart enough to figure these things out?
:rolleyes: :D

[rikzilla]

Well it's not just PW working the ironic angle.

Did you guys see the episode of P&T's BullSh!t where they went to an environmental rally and got hundreds of people to sign a petition seeking to ban a substance used by nuclear power plants and other heavy industry? A compound they called hydrogen dioxide. Yes,... they got hundreds of signatures from people who consider themselves friends of the earth to ban water. :rolleyes:

Link (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0603/steigerwald060303.asp)

Q: I saw a show where you did "Candid Camera" kind of stunts with the environmentalist people and asked them to talk about the rain forest in some scientific way. And you had people sign a petition to ban hydrogen dioxide -- which is H2O. It was sort of Michael Moore at the libertarian end of the spectrum.

A: Talk about damning with faint praise, but yes. It was political, although I hope that people noticed, especially on the environmental show, our words were weighed very carefully. We tried not to make any claims that couldn't be backed up.

The essential point of the show was really not as hard-hitting as people might have thought. It's just that the environmentalists are such a sacred cow that anything you say that questions them gets a big "Ohh, ohh." But really our point was, "Maybe, you should know what you're talking about before you get into this."

How ****** true! Gee I love those guys. They are correct, rude about it, and never get censored. JREF take heed!

-z

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Well it's not just PW working the ironic angle.

Did you guys see the episode of P&T's BullSh!t where they went to an environmental rally and got hundreds of people to sign a petition seeking to ban a substance used by nuclear power plants and other heavy industry? A compound they called hydrogen dioxide. Yes,... they got hundreds of signatures from people who consider themselves friends of the earth to ban water. :rolleyes:

Link (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0603/steigerwald060303.asp)



How ****** true! Gee I love those guys. They are correct, rude about it, and never get censored. JREF take heed!

-z

Something that people need to keep in mind...there can be many motives to support environmental causes. And these motives are not always actually related to the environment. I liked that P&T episode. :)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by rikzilla
A compound they called hydrogen dioxide. Yes,... they got hundreds of signatures from people who consider themselves friends of the earth to ban water. :rolleyes: I loved the show but it is Dihydrogen oxide.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by RandFan
I loved the show but it is Dihydrogen oxide.


Dihydrogen monoxide.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by fowlsound
Dihydrogen monoxide.

Arrgh! I knew that was wrong...just couldn't remember what they called it. Yes! Dihydrogen monoxide!! Sorry, it's late.

Anything monoxide just really sounds sinister doesn't it! That show was right up there with the bottled water episode for humor!

Eau de robinet! ...and it all came out of a hose out back! :D

-z

[RandFan]

Originally posted by fowlsound
Dihydrogen monoxide. I find nearly equal references on google. However google gives the nod to you. I did find two dictionaries that lists it as dihydrogen oxide.

http://www.answers.com/topic/water

[CurtC]

On a somewhat related note, I was forwarded a link to a newspaper story a couple of days ago, that a guy was arrested in Crawford for carrying a sign that said "B*TCH IN THE DITCH", after he was asked to take it away. The sign referred to Sheehan or whatever her name is. And the strange thing is, I know the guy who got arrested. He lives in my neighborhood, and we play pool together.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Something more subtle, more nuanced. Like this:

http://www.protestwarrior.com/gallery/lefties/55.jpg
I got five bucks for anyone who can give a coherent explanation for this.

Oh man. I can't wait until the LaRouchies at school put that poster up. Sadly, all they had the other day was, "Free Trade is for Idiots," and asking me to, "stop Bush from nuking Iran."

Totally tempted to sweetly tell them that's what I wanted.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by RandFan
I find nearly equal references on google. However google gives the nod to you. I did find two dictionaries that lists it as dihydrogen oxide.

http://www.answers.com/topic/water

I think either is probably correct, but monoxide definitely sounds more sinister. Where's Dr. Stupid when you need him?

[Matteo Martini]

Still nobody seems to be willing to reply to my question:

" Look at what few bearded terrorist have done with just some planes.
Think about what they could do with one or more nuclear bombs.
Maybe:
1) Pick up an estremist ( there should be no shortage of them );
2) Send him to the US with the bomb ( somehow, this is not impossible to do );
3) Tell him that he will go to heaven if he explodes the bomb anywhere in New York.

How many people would die? "

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
Still nobody seems to be willing to reply to my question:

" Look at what few bearded terrorist have done with just some planes.
Think about what they could do with one or more nuclear bombs.
Maybe:
1) Pick up an estremist ( there should be no shortage of them );
2) Send him to the US with the bomb ( somehow, this is not impossible to do );
3) Tell him that he will go to heaven if he explodes the bomb anywhere in New York.

How many people would die? " A lot.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by RandFan
A lot.

Maybe millions, maybe more.
Maybe with 2 bombs, one in the centre of NYC the other one in Washington, America` s economy would completely break down, people in fear would escape from cities, etc.
And the results of this would affect world` s economy as well.

Not a nice scenario

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

there are 4 types of politically vocal people that I am wary of

pundits, activists, those that speak in absolutes, and those that spout statistics.

I love all types of satire, because satire can really show just how absurd the satired subjects are, and how easy we can all emotionally invest ourselves in ideology, symbols, and sound- bites.

Is Bush a chimp? Nope, but I chuckle almost every time I see his visage and say, "Hey, he does look like a chimp today." I think it is okay to be irreverant, but I guess that is just my lower-class bias showing through.

Does the current Bush admin have a policy of sending young, poor, black and Hispanic men and women into a meatgrinder? Nope, but I do recognise that African Americans and Hispanics are more likely to die in the armed services than wealthy white people.

Satire has its uses. Unfortunately satire has historically been responded to with knee jerk reactions, and /or been misunderstood.

to Paraphrase some John or another "You can communicate your message effectively to some of the people some of the time, but you can't communicate effectively to all of the people all of the time."

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
Maybe millions, maybe more.
Maybe with 2 bombs, one in the centre of NYC the other one in Washington, America` s economy would completely break down, people in fear would escape from cities, etc.
And the results of this would affect world` s economy as well.

Not a nice scenario I'm just not getting your point. This has what to do with the protest warriors?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by fowlsound
Wait. Are we talking about irony or irnoy?:D

HA! You didn't realize I was being IRONIC!

Isn't it ironic you didn't realize I was being ironic when I was talking about how irnoic it is that I don't realize that Silicon was being ironic when he pretend not to see the irony in him saying right-wingers cannot see irony because they are "hostile" while he himself, ironically, was being even more hostile?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Plus, they have very confrontational signs.

Yes, we wouldn't want any of THAT in the "Chimp Bushitler is the World Dumbest Fascist" demonstrations, would we?


Not in the middle of YOUR righty demonstration, no, I wouldn't.


Okay, everyone has posted offensive leftist posters too. I get that. I've seen them, the left can be ******** too. BIG NEWS FLASH there, righties. I never said "The rightwingers are such ******** in a way that nobody in the left ever is." I merely said that PW's got an asskicking coming.

Because PW takes their assholery to OTHER PEOPLE'S PROTESTS. They masqurade as the other people.

Not across the street. Not a counter-protest.


That's what PW does. They take their most incendiary stuff, and go to the opposing camp with it to try and get their asses kicked. So they can film it and post it on their website. If nobody's threatening to kick their asses, they go back and make a new sign that's even worse.

They win over nobody on the issues. I'm sure wildcat giggles like a schoolgirl when he watches the videos, but that's normal for him. ;-)


These guys are ******** by profession. If they weren't being ********, nobody would be mean to them, and they'd just chill and smoke a joint with the hippies and have a mellow time. That wouldn't make for a great video for them to show.

That tape posted above makes the case, even people who agree with them want to kick their asses!

All I'm saying is, be an *******, don't go crying when even your own people don't like you anymore.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Silicon
Not in the middle of YOUR righty demonstration, no, I wouldn't.

That's what PW does. They take their most incendiary stuff, and go to the opposing camp with it to try and get their asses kicked.

When the ass kicking comes, I hope they cry like the babies they are. I still don't get this. Protesters are very often confrontational. Have you not seen them throwing rocks, getting arrested, screaming and cursing? Do those folks deserve to get their asses kicked?

When it comes to protest what is sacred and why? Why won't you address my posts?

[Manny]

Originally posted by Silicon
That's what PW does. They take their most incendiary stuff, and go to the opposing camp with it to try and get their asses kicked. Interesting interpretation, that someone carrying a sign is "trying" to get his ass kicked. In fact, the group only started beginning-to-end taping of events after pro-terrorist protest organizers started to get violent at being exposed for who they are. It's worse out west -- the pro-terrorist groups that organize the big east-coast demonstrations like International A.N.S.W.E.R. are much more disciplined.

When the ass kicking comes, I hope they cry like the babies they are. Hee! Come on down and kick away. It's OK -- the leaders, unfortunately, won't let us carry guns or retaliate in any way. We'll just sit there and let you demonstrate how pro-peace and pro-dissent you are.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by RandFan
I still don't get this. Protesters are very often confrontational. Have you not seen them throwing rocks, getting arrested, screaming and cursing? Do those folks deserve to get their asses kicked?

When it comes to protest what is sacred and why? Why won't you address my posts?

Oh yeah. Protest is sacred.

So's ass-kicking.

You don't think that If I did EXACTLY what PW does at a righty rally, I wouldn't get my ass kicked? HELL, the PW guy was almost gonna get his ass kicked, and they agreed with him!

I'm not saying ass-kicking is right. It's wrong and I'm a very very agreeable person.

But I know that ass-kickings come.

Should I have gone to that right-wing "Cindy doesn't speak for me" rally in the middle of texas and burned a flag, I would be smart to have a will made out for me ahead of time. That's just reality.

I think folks should have a right to burn a flag, but I wouldn't do it in the lion's den and not expect to get my ass kicked.

Now I might have gotten the ass-kicking videotaped and then put it on my website and say "See? They call themselves Christians, but they are really violent, I WONDER WHY?!!!"

[Silicon]

To clarify my point.


There's nothing illegal about being an assh#le. People are within their first amendment rights to be ********.


I'm just saying these guys are ********.

I'm not going to do the kicking. I'll fight for their right to be as big of ******** as they want.

But I'll still call them ********.


That's MY right! ;-)

[Cleon]

Originally posted by manny
Interesting interpretation, that someone carrying a sign is "trying" to get his ass kicked. In fact, the group only started beginning-to-end taping of events after pro-terrorist protest organizers started to get violent at being exposed for who they are.

So PW shows up with signs reflecting their interpretation of what the anti-war people are saying, and somehow this "exposes pro-terrorists for who they really are."

:dl:

[Giz]

Originally posted by Silicon
To clarify my point.


There's nothing illegal about being an assh#le. People are within their first amendment rights to be ********.


I'm just saying these guys are ********.

I'm not going to do the kicking. I'll fight for their right to be as big of ******** as they want.

But I'll still call them ********.


That's MY right! ;-)

Fine, you could even make up a sign to that effect.

[Manny]

Originally posted by Cleon
So PW shows up with signs reflecting their interpretation of what the anti-war people are saying, and somehow this "exposes pro-terrorists for who they really are."

:dl: I said "pro-terrorist organizers." I stand by that statement. The vast, vast majority of the mass "anti-war" demonstrations in this country have been organized by avowedly, admittedly, objectively pro-terrorist groups like International A.N.S.W.E.R. That lefties are willing to line up behind Stalinist pro-terrorists and call other people "sheeple" would be an example of their problem, not mine. But my statement is factually correct. The protest organizers are pro-terrorist and admit it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Silicon
Now I might have gotten the ass-kicking videotaped and then put it on my website and say "See? They call themselves Christians, but they are really violent, I WONDER WHY?!!!" Sounds good to me. I don't see a problem with that. I think it is as dangerous as just about any protest. I'm still not certain why you think this is different from any other protest. Protests are by nature confrontational. You won't acknowledge that. Protests are meant to get people's attention. You don't seem to get that. I don't understand why you think this is different. You keep making the same argument but that argument can be made of just about any protest. Protests ARE confrontational. They DO piss people off. That IS what they are. You seem to think there is something significantly different about these protests without really addressing what that something is. Oh well.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Silicon
I'm just saying these guys are ********. Aren't most if not all protestors ********?

http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/frame_from_video.jpg

You still haven't addressed why these ******** are different from the garden variety ******** who block traffic, chain themselves to bridges, block entrances to buildings, perform sit-ins stopping school and business, throw rocks, shout insults and epithets, carry provactive and inflammatory picket signs, and generally act like ********.

Come on Silicon, what is it that you think protests are? I keep asking the question and you keep ignoring it.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by manny
I said "pro-terrorist organizers." I stand by that statement. The vast, vast majority of the mass "anti-war" demonstrations in this country have been organized by avowedly, admittedly, objectively pro-terrorist groups like International A.N.S.W.E.R. That lefties are willing to line up behind Stalinist pro-terrorists and call other people "sheeple" would be an example of their problem, not mine. But my statement is factually correct. The protest organizers are pro-terrorist and admit it.

:rolleyes:

Whatever.

[Manny]

Do you deny it? Because truth be told, one of the main reasons PW does what it does is to try to point out to other marchers just what pro-terrorist scumbags they willingly line up behind. The MSM, for some reason, won't tell them. But it's true. At the Republican National Convention, half a million or so people attended a pro-terrorist rally sponsored by admitted Stalinists and didn't even know it.

Here's the permitholder's site: www.internationalanswer.org Check it out for yourself.

Better still, check with United Peace and Justice, which has finally started at least thinking of breaking with A.N.S.W.E.R. over their pro-terrorism. Ask them, "How come there were originally going to be two separate marches on September 24 in Washington, then just one?" Ask them, "Whatever happened to your statement of May 23 (http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=2853), where you said you'd be working separate from ANSWER and the Troops Out Now coalition?" Ask them, "Did you become comfortable with TON's insistence that 'the Iraqi people have a right to resist occupation by whatever means they choose?'" Ask them, "Is it one of the messages of this march that Iraqi terrorists have the 'right' to use terrorism to frustrate the will of the millions who voted? Will the people coming to this march know that?"

Seriously, I encourage you to check this stuff out for yourself; to learn who these alleged "anti-war" people really are. Or, if that's really what makes you happy, keep rolling your eyes. But don't be surprised when I call people who willingly and knowingly march behind pro-terrorists pro-terrorist. And be on notice that you now know.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by manny
I said "pro-terrorist organizers." I stand by that statement. The vast, vast majority of the mass "anti-war" demonstrations in this country have been organized by avowedly, admittedly, objectively pro-terrorist groups like International A.N.S.W.E.R. That lefties are willing to line up behind Stalinist pro-terrorists and call other people "sheeple" would be an example of their problem, not mine. But my statement is factually correct. The protest organizers are pro-terrorist and admit it.

Well, I have to agree with you manny.

Even other leftists can't stand them, especially Anarchists, see www.infoshop.org for more info.

[Theodore Kurita]

Ah, here we go.

Here is a link to a direct critique of A.N.S.W.E.R.:

http://www.infoshop.org/texts/wwp.html

And another page setup by the folks at infoshop:

http://www.authoritarianopportunistswhocozyuptogenocidald ictators-forpeace.org/

[Cleon]

Originally posted by manny
Do you deny it? Because truth be told, one of the main reasons PW does what it does is to try to point out to other marchers just what pro-terrorist scumbags they willingly line up behind. The MSM, for some reason, won't tell them. But it's true. At the Republican National Convention, half a million or so people attended a pro-terrorist rally sponsored by admitted Stalinists and didn't even know it.

Here's the permitholder's site: www.internationalanswer.org Check it out for yourself.

Better still, check with United Peace and Justice, which has finally started at least thinking of breaking with A.N.S.W.E.R. over their pro-terrorism. Ask them, "How come there were originally going to be two separate marches on September 24 in Washington, then just one?" Ask them, "Whatever happened to your statement of May 23 (http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=2853), where you said you'd be working separate from ANSWER and the Troops Out Now coalition?" Ask them, "Did you become comfortable with TON's insistence that 'the Iraqi people have a right to resist occupation by whatever means they choose?'" Ask them, "Is it one of the messages of this march that Iraqi terrorists have the 'right' to use terrorism to frustrate the will of the millions who voted? Will the people coming to this march know that?"

Seriously, I encourage you to check this stuff out for yourself; to learn who these alleged "anti-war" people really are. Or, if that's really what makes you happy, keep rolling your eyes. But don't be surprised when I call people who willingly and knowingly march behind pro-terrorists pro-terrorist. And be on notice that you now know.

Having been intimately involved in both ANSWER and UFPJ, I can safely assure you that:

#1 - you really have no idea what you're talking about
#2 - you REALLY have no idea what went on around September 24
#3 - :rolleyes:

You essentially want to paint the anti-war movement as "pro-terrorist" and communist. Have at it, if it makes you (and PW) feel all warm and tingly on the inside--I really have nothing further to say to you on the matter. As far as I'm concerned, every time you use "pro-terrorist" in the same sentence as the anti-war movement, I get another reason not to take your opinions remotely seriously.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by Cleon
Having been intimately involved in both ANSWER and UFPJ, I can safely assure you that:

#1 - you really have no idea what you're talking about
#2 - you REALLY have no idea what went on around September 24
#3 - :rolleyes:

You essentially want to paint the anti-war movement as "pro-terrorist" and communist. Have at it, if it makes you (and PW) feel all warm and tingly on the inside--I really have nothing further to say to you on the matter. As far as I'm concerned, every time you use "pro-terrorist" in the same sentence as the anti-war movement, I get another reason not to take your opinions remotely seriously.

Well, I wouldn't say they are "Pro-Terrorist", however I am willing to make an argument that they are VERY pro-statist.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by manny
At the Republican National Convention, half a million or so people attended a pro-terrorist rally sponsored by admitted Stalinists and didn't even know it. How's about that. Half a million people demonstrated in favour of terrorism and they didn't even know it. They thought they were demonstrating against war. This is why all their signs said stuff like "war is bad", instead of "terrorsim is good", and why they shouted "down with Bush" instead of "up with Osama".

It looked like an anti-war demonstration, all the demonstrators thought it was an anti-war demonstration, all the signs and slogans were anti-war, but using your magical powers of Right Wing Logic, you know that in fact they were demonstrating in favour of terrorism.
:dl:
What's the weather like on your planet?

[Manny]

Originally posted by Cleon
Having been intimately involved in both ANSWER... Well I'll be damned. An actual terrorist supporter, right here on these forums. Ain't America grand, that someone can do that right out in the open? Good thing your side is losing, otherwise eventually you'd disagree with something your side said and be put to death for it. How's the Dear Leader doing now that he dropped his title? Oh, and poor, sweet, insane, Ramsey Clark? How's he doing with Saddam firing him and all?

OK, then I'll ask you: Do Iraqi people have a right to resist occupation by whatever means they choose? Is it one of the messages of this march that Iraqi terrorists have the "right" to use terrorism to frustrate the will of the millions who voted? Will the people coming to this march know that?

[Manny]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
all the signs and slogans were anti-war...

[Cleon]

Originally posted by manny
Well I'll be damned. An actual terrorist supporter, right here on these forums. Ain't America grand, that someone can do that right out in the open? Good thing your side is losing, otherwise eventually you'd disagree with something your side said and be put to death for it. How's the Dear Leader doing now that he dropped his title? Oh, and poor, sweet, insane, Ramsey Clark? How's he doing with Saddam firing him and all?

OK, then I'll ask you: Do Iraqi people have a right to resist occupation by whatever means they choose? Is it one of the messages of this march that Iraqi terrorists have the "right" to use terrorism to frustrate the will of the millions who voted? Will the people coming to this march know that?

Thank you for reinforcing my opinion.

Meanwhile, I've reported your post.

[Manny]

Make my day. It is my opinion that all persons connected with ANSWER are pro-terrorist. That opinion is backed up by their documented history and by their own website. You are connected with ANSWER, therefore you are pro-terrorist.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by manny
Make my day. It is my opinion that all persons connected with ANSWER are pro-terrorist. That opinion is backed up by their documented history and by their own website. You are connected with ANSWER, therefore you are pro-terrorist.

:rolleyes:

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by manny
Make my day. It is my opinion that all persons connected with ANSWER are pro-terrorist. That opinion is backed up by their documented history and by their own website. You are connected with ANSWER, therefore you are pro-terrorist. George Bush has a joyful tear in his eye, he will be so proud to hear his faithful continue to march in lockstep.


Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html)

[Skeptic]

Having been intimately involved in both ANSWER and UFPJ

Well, while I cannot say I would have predicted this is the case based on your posts on this forum, I can't say I'm particularly surprised, either.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Well, while I cannot say I would have predicted this is the case based on your posts on this forum, I can't say I'm particularly surprised, either.

I can't say I really care.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by DavidJames
George Bush has a joyful tear in his eye, he will be so proud to hear his faithful continue to march in lockstep.


Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html)

Only he's quite correct on this one.

He is repeating what George Orwell said long ago: that the peace camp is "objectively pro-fascist", or, as Edmund Burke said even before Orwell, that "all that is needed for evil to conquer is for good men to do nothing".

To choose to do nothing, to choose to see no moral difference between the great democracies and their fascistic, atavistic enemies, is moral abdication and de facto support of the fascistic, atavistic enemies.

Neither I nor Bush are speaking here about those who voted democrat, or those who opposed the war in Iraq as such. But we ARE talking about the people from ANSWER and UFPJ--those who, at most, see Bush equal to bin Laden, and usually worse. "Invading Iraq was a mistake" is one thing; "Bush is worse than bin Laden", quite another.

[Manny]

Originally posted by DavidJames
George Bush has a joyful tear in his eye, he will be so proud to hear his faithful continue to march in lockstep.


Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html) Jeez, DJ, you're making it look like I'm calling Bill Clinton the enemy or something. Are you not following along? ANSWER and its affiliate groups were actual, real-live supporters of Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosovich. They are actual, real-live terrorist supporters. Am I wrong? Then dispute it? If not, cut the crap.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by RandFan
Aren't most if not all protestors ********?

You still haven't addressed why these ******** are different from the garden variety ******** who block traffic, chain themselves to bridges, block entrances to buildings, perform sit-ins stopping school and business, throw rocks, shout insults and epithets, carry provactive and inflammatory picket signs, and generally act like ********.

Come on Silicon, what is it that you think protests are? I keep asking the question and you keep ignoring it.

Some protests are, some aren't.

I don't think that the protest in that video, the large "Cindy doesn't speak for me" protest was any assholery at all. Just a bunch of people, some singing songs, some eating ribs, some talking about supporting the troops. Nothing assholly about it.

Now the guy with the sign obviously wanted to provoke, and he was unwelcome, and they thought he was a pro-cindy provocateur, so they gave him the civil end of the boot, but the boot nonetheless.

But for example the larger protest he was in, not a protest by and of ********, just folks speaking their minds.

Big difference.

I've been to the good kind. Nice quiet candlight vigils with guitar music. Not stopping traffic, permitted by the local government, calm, civil, orderly, not disrupting anything.

And I've seen the other kind on tv, where folks are chaining themselves to things, throwing rocks, bottles, incendiary devices all the way up. As far as you want to go, you can call it a "protest" if you want, RandFan, and to some degree you're right.

But the former are cool, and the latter are ********. And there's such a thing as "fighting words" and "provoking a disturbance".

I support folk's freedom of speech and all. But if the Nazis want to march in Watts, I wouldn't cry a tear if they got some smackdown.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Silicon
I support folk's freedom of speech and all. But if the Nazis want to march in Watts, I wouldn't cry a tear if they got some smackdown. Fair enough. I've said my peace and I understand.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm just not getting your point. This has what to do with the protest warriors?

Many against-was people maybe do not realize what the consequences of terrorists with A-bombs in their hands might be

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
How's about that. Half a million people demonstrated in favour of terrorism and they didn't even know it. They thought they were demonstrating against war. This is why all their signs said stuff like "war is bad", instead of "terrorsim is good", and why they shouted "down with Bush" instead of "up with Osama".

It looked like an anti-war demonstration, all the demonstrators thought it was an anti-war demonstration, all the signs and slogans were anti-war, but using your magical powers of Right Wing Logic, you know that in fact they were demonstrating in favour of terrorism.
:dl:
What's the weather like on your planet?

If you are against war, you should provide an alternative solution to the problem " terror ".
With " terror " I mean the possibility of terrorists to get hold of any WMD.
From the news: " Iran has failed fully to reveal its secret nuclear programme and has produced tons of chemicals for uranium enrichment in defiance of international demands, the United Nations atomic watchdog said yesterday in a report that could provoke political and economic sanctions "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/03/wiran03.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/09/03/ixportal.html

Other question:
What Iran needs nuclear energy for, since they have billions of barrels of oil under their feet?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
Many against-was people maybe do not realize what the consequences of terrorists with A-bombs in their hands might be Damn, I'm taking the wrong drugs. All I have is rum and Coke. Dude, what ever it is you got keep doing it.

I'm with ya (I think) Was not was could be, right?

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by RandFan
Damn, I'm taking the wrong drugs. All I have is rum and Coke. Dude, what ever it is you got keep doing it.

I'm with ya (I think) Was not was could be, right?

OK RandFan, I assume you are not ironic here.
But I would like to hear what against-war people have to say..

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
OK RandFan, I assume you are not ironic here.
But I would like to hear what against-war people have to say.. Hey Matteo, don't mind me.

Are you sure you are in the right thread? Your first post in the thread starts out "Still nobody seems to be willing to reply to my question:" I'm missing something. But that is ok. And I'm not being ironic but I am being sardonic. But don't worry about it. I'll back off. Carry on. And I'm damn serious about the rum and Coke.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by RandFan
Hey Matteo, don't mind me.

Are you sure you are in the right thread? Your first post in the thread starts out "Still nobody seems to be willing to reply to my question:" I'm missing something. But that is ok. And I'm not being ironic but I am being sardonic. But don't worry about it. I'll back off. Carry on. And I'm damn serious about the rum and Coke.

RandFan...clean out your PM box. It's full. :)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Freakshow
RandFan...clean out your PM box. It's full. :) Wierd, I only had one PM and that was even when I selected the "from the begining" option. I PM'd you my Email address if you can't PM me.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by Freakshow
RandFan...clean out your PM box. It's full. :)

I have the same problem, it says that my Inbox is full but there are no messages there

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
OK RandFan, I assume you are not ironic here.
But I would like to hear what against-war people have to say..

Sure. I hate war and killing so here's what I have to say:

People need to stop being dicks to each other.

Until that magical day happens, we're going to have to kill, maim, and make war with the other members of our species.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
Sure. I hate war and killing so here's what I have to say:

People need to stop being dicks to each other.

Until that magical day happens, we're going to have to kill, maim, and make war with the other members of our species.

So you agree that wars sometimes are necessary?
What about Iraq?

[Skeptic]

How's about that. Half a million people demonstrated in favour of terrorism and they didn't even know it.

Not only is this not impossible, it is in fact rather common.

The "America-first" isolationists of the pre-Pearl Harbor period were demonstrating for fascism and for the holocaust without knowing it.

The "revolutionary" student movement of the 1960s was demonstrating for gulags, secret police, and execution squads--the highly predictible result of what would happen if their Communist revolution ever succeeded, since that's what happened in every such revolution--without knowing it.

So it not only is possible to support terrorism (or genocide or gulags) without knowing it, it's rather common.

But here we have something else. It was not a "Do not Invade Iraq" demonstrations. That is not necessarily supporting terrorism, of course. That, however, was only ONE of the conclusions supported by the anti-war demonstrators.

The language of their signs--"Bush is Hitler"; "America deserved 9/11"; "Free Palestine! (=Destroy israel and expel the jews!)"; and so on were not signs of being "anti-war": rather, the crowd decided to take sides between Bush and Saddam... and wholeheartedly, enthusiastically, embraced Saddam, the PLO, al Quaeda, and their worldview of the evil-USA-has-it-coming ethos.

That goes far beyound opposition to the war; it is, openly and clearly, support for terrorism.

[Electron #1]

So pro war "kill em before THEY kill us" marchers who
advocate war by walking in peace marches get
kicked out of a peaceful pro war rally.


Too funny!

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
I have the same problem, it says that my Inbox is full but there are no messages there

Have you cleaned out your outbox?

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Have you cleaned out your outbox?

0 messages in the Inbox
0 messages in the Outbox

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
0 messages in the Inbox
0 messages in the Outbox Did you check the "from the beginning" option.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
If you are against war, you should provide an alternative solution to the problem " terror ". You seem to have wandered off.

Let me clarify. If manny had said: "Without knowing it, these half million Americans (patriots all) were (with the best of intentions) playing into the hands of terrorists, because they're freakin' idiots", then that would be a matter for factual debate.

But instead, he says that although they said they were against war, and chanted slogans agianst war, and waved banners against war, it was really a pro-terrorist demonstration, and really the USA harbours (at least) half a million pro-terrorists (although they don't know it --- and he does).

This is either paranoid lunacy, or propagandist gibble.

Either way, he should face reality, which is that people can disagree with him without being evil and in league with the enemies of civilisation. If I disagree with manny about gun laws, I may eventually call him a "freakin' idiot", but I shall not describe him as "pro-murder". The sort of invective on which the American right bases its arguments lies just beyond the point at which I draw the line. That's the wishy-washy liberal in me, I guess.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The "America-first" isolationists of the pre-Pearl Harbor period were demonstrating for fascism and for the holocaust without knowing it. No, they were playing into the hands of fascists and the architects of the holocaust witout knowing it. As we know in retrospect. But it would be stupid and malicious to say that when Americans were (by and large) isolationist, America was "pro-fascist" or "pro-holocaust".

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
So you agree that wars sometimes are necessary?
What about Iraq?

Until that magical day happens, we're going to have to kill, maim, and make war with the other members of our species.

I have grave concerns about the whys of going in there. However, now that we're in there, we need to get the country on its feet, stablizied, and back into the hands of its people as soon as possible.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally stated byGeorge W Bush
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

The shear eloquence of the man brought tears to my eyes and after New Orleans and Iraq so true, so true.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The shear eloquence of the man brought tears to my eyes and after New Orleans and Iraq so true, so true. Rhetorical.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Randfan
Rhetorical.

False pedantry - especially as I laughed out loud at that last pearl.

Interestingly your claim to have put me on your ignore list has once again been shown to be factually challenged or should that be a lie? Please put me back on your ignore list immediately or I shall be forced to post another pearl of confusion from the heart of the White House.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Matteo Martini
Other question:
What Iran needs nuclear energy for, since they have billions of barrels of oil under their feet?

It's interesting to pose exactly the same question in another way.

What does the USA need nuclear energy for, since they have billions of barrels of oil under their feet?

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by RandFan
Did you check the "from the beginning" option.

Yes.
Please do not worry about this, I almost never use PMs.
If you do not mind, let` s go back to the discussion ( we may annoy other people here :) )

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
You seem to have wandered off.

Let me clarify. If manny had said: "Without knowing it, these half million Americans (patriots all) were (with the best of intentions) playing into the hands of terrorists, because they're freakin' idiots", then that would be a matter for factual debate.

But instead, he says that although they said they were against war, and chanted slogans agianst war, and waved banners against war, it was really a pro-terrorist demonstration, and really the USA harbours (at least) half a million pro-terrorists (although they don't know it --- and he does).

This is either paranoid lunacy, or propagandist gibble.

Either way, he should face reality, which is that people can disagree with him without being evil and in league with the enemies of civilisation. If I disagree with manny about gun laws, I may eventually call him a "freakin' idiot", but I shall not describe him as "pro-murder". The sort of invective on which the American right bases its arguments lies just beyond the point at which I draw the line. That's the wishy-washy liberal in me, I guess.

I have never said that " Without knowing it, these half million Americans (patriots all) were (with the best of intentions) playing into the hands of terrorists, because they're freakin' idiots ", if someone else did, this is not me.
However, if you are against war in Iraq, I think you maybe should provide an alternative solution to the problem " terror ", and not just say " I am against the war " and that` s it.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
I have grave concerns about the whys of going in there. However, now that we're in there, we need to get the country on its feet, stablizied, and back into the hands of its people as soon as possible.

In your opinion, what the whys may be?

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
It's interesting to pose exactly the same question in another way.

What does the USA need nuclear energy for, since they have billions of barrels of oil under their feet?

Questionable information.
The US are not even in the first 10 countries as for oil reserves:
1. Saudi Arabia 261.9
2. Canada 178.81
3. Iran 125.8
4. Iraq 115.0
5. Kuwait 101.5
6. United Arab Emirates 97.8
7. Venezuela 77.2
8. Russia 60.0
9. Libya 39.0
10. Nigeria 35.3

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

[Dorian Gray]

Matteo, how does that preclude the fact that the US has billions of barrels of oil under its feet? It WAS a nice attempt at misdirection, but it has failed.

The war is going poorly. The United States Military, thought to be the greatest military in the entire history of the world, cannot even secure the road between Baghdad and the freaking airport. Insurgent weapons are becoming stronger and more sophisticated, and why do you think that is? It's because they are getting lots and lots of OJT by fighting US troops. They are learning how to get to us.

When we can't even deploy troops to a hurricane-devastated city IN OUR OWN COUNTRY until FOUR days later, and when the president of Venezuela is mocking our National Guard, it's time to reexamine the Rumsfeld doctrine.

And who is surprised? Not me. Bush a couple of days after 9/11 said we're going to get the guys who did this. We haven't gotten the guys who did this. Now New Orleans is practically in the Gulf, and does Bush go look as soon as possible? Does he immediately order federal aid? Are troops immediately dispatched? No, no and no.

And that's causing a bipartisan outrage. As an American, I am embarassed by the racism and the slow response time.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Matteo, how does that preclude the fact that the US has billions of barrels of oil under its feet? It WAS a nice attempt at misdirection, but it has failed.

The war is going poorly. The United States Military, thought to be the greatest military in the entire history of the world, cannot even secure the road between Baghdad and the freaking airport. Insurgent weapons are becoming stronger and more sophisticated, and why do you think that is? It's because they are getting lots and lots of OJT by fighting US troops. They are learning how to get to us.

When we can't even deploy troops to a hurricane-devastated city IN OUR OWN COUNTRY until FOUR days later, and when the president of Venezuela is mocking our National Guard, it's time to reexamine the Rumsfeld doctrine.

And who is surprised? Not me. Bush a couple of days after 9/11 said we're going to get the guys who did this. We haven't gotten the guys who did this. Now New Orleans is practically in the Gulf, and does Bush go look as soon as possible? Does he immediately order federal aid? Are troops immediately dispatched? No, no and no.

And that's causing a bipartisan outrage. As an American, I am embarassed by the racism and the slow response time. Sounds like talking points from moveon.org. Can you prove this was the result of racism?

If all of the National Guard is in Iraq where are the National Guard comming from that are pouring in now? I'm not attacking you Dorian. I'm on your side. I really am. From my vantage point there was not enough done and this is a sad state of affairs and a sad preview of what we can expect should there be a serious terrorist attack. But while I'm upset I don't think we need throw everything including the kitchen sink into the accusations?

I don't think this is the result of racism and I think it is rather dubious to simply point to Iraq. We HAD the resources. We know that because they are going there now. Iraq isn't stopping anything. It didn't delay anything. I think FEMA and the Administration were asleep at the wheel. I'm angry and I won't excuse the actions of Bush. But I think we are not served well to simply regurgitate the propaganda of the left.

We should have learned from 9/11. We didn't. Hopefully we can learn now. Let's get prepared.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Matteo, how does that preclude the fact that the US has billions of barrels of oil under its feet? It WAS a nice attempt at misdirection, but it has failed.

I have already post a link to the fact that the US has poor oil reserves, I do not know if above or below 1 billion barrels, but the US reserves are not in the top 10

Originally posted by Dorian Gray


The war is going poorly. The United States Military, thought to be the greatest military in the entire history of the world, cannot even secure the road between Baghdad and the freaking airport. Insurgent weapons are becoming stronger and more sophisticated, and why do you think that is? It's because they are getting lots and lots of OJT by fighting US troops. They are learning how to get to us.



This is not my point

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

When we can't even deploy troops to a hurricane-devastated city IN OUR OWN COUNTRY until FOUR days later, and when the president of Venezuela is mocking our National Guard, it's time to reexamine the Rumsfeld doctrine.


This is not my point

Originally posted by Dorian Gray


And who is surprised? Not me. Bush a couple of days after 9/11 said we're going to get the guys who did this. We haven't gotten the guys who did this. Now New Orleans is practically in the Gulf, and does Bush go look as soon as possible? Does he immediately order federal aid? Are troops immediately dispatched? No, no and no.

And that's causing a bipartisan outrage. As an American, I am embarassed by the racism and the slow response time.

This is not my point

[Matteo Martini]

Nobody willing to reply to my question about what would happen with terrorists with 5 A-bombs in their hands?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Matteo Martini
Questionable information.

I'm afraid that is factually incorrect - see below for the actual figures.
Why are you not willing to answer my question, especially when the figures are easily available from links on the site you posted.

'The US are not even in the first 10 countries as for oil reserves:' So what? It was not even part of the question so is completely relevant?

The following figure for technically recoverable US reserves of oil namely 174.82 billion barrels comes from http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_reserves/current/pdf/appg.pdf which is linked to off the site you quoted.

As you believe it is appropriate to ask the question of Iran perhaps you will now address it as posed for the USA.

'What does the USA need nuclear energy for, since they have billions of barrels of oil under their feet? '

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Randfan
But I think we are not served well to simply regurgitate the propaganda of the left.

I think that we are not served well to simply regurgitate the propaganda of the right. We need to keep the facts of how Bush has actually treated the poor in mind.

It is clear from Bush's own actions that he and the Republican party have little care for the poor and the facts of the experience of the poor and sick people of New Orleans who were unable to leave ahead of Katrina demonstrates this once again. Bush's claimed in Michael Moore's film that the rich who attended his dinner were his base. He was not kidding.

The early history of the first few months of his first administration included: -

Reduced by 86% the Community Access Programme which coordinated care for people without health insurance

Cut $200million from workforce training programmes for dislocated workers

Cut $200 million from Childcare and Development grant,a programme that provides childcare to low-income families as they are forced from welfare to work

Cut $700million in funds for public housing repairs

Overturned ergonomic rules desigtned to protect workers' health and safety.

Cut $15.7 million from programmes dealing with chiild abuse and neglect.

Proposed elimination of the 'Reading is Fundamental' programme, which gives free books to poor children.

etc etc etc.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Matteo Martini
Nobody willing to reply to my question about what would happen with terrorists with 5 A-bombs in their hands?
I believe your question is somewhat similar to asking how many innocent Iraqis have died by 'coalition action' a figure the US military says it doesn't have I understand?

When you ask a how long is a piece of string question don't be surprised when people reply 'How long is a piece of string' .

Perhaps your aim is to suggest that some terrorists actually have nuclear weapons? If so could you let us know who they are and where they got their functioning nuclear weapons from and why they haven't used them by now?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Matteo, how does that preclude the fact that the US has billions of barrels of oil under its feet? It WAS a nice attempt at misdirection, but it has failed.


Where would that rank us when you consider population and usage? How do the costs of recovering these reserves compare to Iran’s cost?

The truth is Iran is simply not comparable to the United States in this. Not only does Iran have the third larges oil reserves in the world but they also have the largest reserves of natural gas. The truth here is that trying to make a comparison with the United States here is its own attempt at misdirection.

[Manny]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Let me clarify. If manny had said: "Without knowing it, these half million Americans (patriots all) were (with the best of intentions) playing into the hands of terrorists, because they're freakin' idiots", then that would be a matter for factual debate. Pfft. If the KKK holds a rally and someone marches in it I'm going to call them a racist. So will every other sane person in the world. And they can sing to the heavens that they thought it was "really" just an anti-quotas rally and they personally only carried an anti-quota sign and heck almost everybody was carrying anti-quota signs and there were only just a few signs advocating sending all the black people back to Africa and calling them jungle bunnies and gee it sure would be better if there were rallies organized by someone more moderate than the KKK but there aren't. The can sing it to the heavens because not a single actual human being will care. People who march in KKK rallies are racists.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I think that we are not served well to simply regurgitate the propaganda of the right. We need to keep the facts of how Bush has actually treated the poor in mind. Please to tell me what propaganda I have regurgitated?

It is clear from Bush's own actions that he and the Republican party have little care for the poor and the facts of the experience of the poor and sick people of New Orleans who were unable to leave ahead of Katrina demonstrates this once again. Bush's claimed in Michael Moore's film that the rich who attended his dinner were his base. He was not kidding. Oh BS, Bush set asside funds prior to Hurricanes in the past and was critisized for it. If you want anyone to believe this you are going to have to provide proof of it.

The early history of the first few months of his first administration included: -

Reduced by 86% the Community Access Programme which coordinated care for people without health insurance

Cut $200million from workforce training programmes for dislocated workers

Cut $200 million from Childcare and Development grant,a programme that provides childcare to low-income families as they are forced from welfare to work

Cut $700million in funds for public housing repairs

Overturned ergonomic rules desigtned to protect workers' health and safety.

Cut $15.7 million from programmes dealing with chiild abuse and neglect.

Proposed elimination of the 'Reading is Fundamental' programme, which gives free books to poor children.

etc etc etc. Citations and context please?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Reduced by 86% the Community Access Programme which coordinated care for people without health insurance

Cut $200million from workforce training programmes for dislocated workers

Cut $200 million from Childcare and Development grant,a programme that provides childcare to low-income families as they are forced from welfare to work

Cut $700million in funds for public housing repairs

Overturned ergonomic rules desigtned to protect workers' health and safety.

Cut $15.7 million from programmes dealing with chiild abuse and neglect.

Proposed elimination of the 'Reading is Fundamental' programme, which gives free books to poor children.

etc etc etc. And I quote from another thread:

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Pity Randfan chose not to post any evidence for this claim.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I'm afraid that is factually incorrect - see below for the actual figures.
Why are you not willing to answer my question, especially when the figures are easily available from links on the site you posted.

'The US are not even in the first 10 countries as for oil reserves:' So what? It was not even part of the question so is completely relevant?

The following figure for technically recoverable US reserves of oil namely 174.82 billion barrels comes from http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_reserves/current/pdf/appg.pdf which is linked to off the site you quoted.

As you believe it is appropriate to ask the question of Iran perhaps you will now address it as posed for the USA.

'What does the USA need nuclear energy for, since they have billions of barrels of oil under their feet? '

Because the US has far larger population than Iran but far less oil in their territory.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
I have never said that " Without knowing it, these half million Americans (patriots all) were (with the best of intentions) playing into the hands of terrorists, because they're freakin' idiots ", if someone else did, this is not me. You seem to have completely misunderstood my post. Read it again and come back to me.However, if you are against war in Iraq, I think you maybe should provide an alternative solution to the problem " terror ", and not just say " I am against the war " and that` s it. Your assumption is false. I think the war was ill-conceived, and that the public was lied into supporting it: but neither of those things changes the fact that it would not be helpful to disengage now. I regard the thing as a fait accompli.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by manny
Pfft. If the KKK holds a rally and someone marches in it I'm going to call them a racist. So will every other sane person in the world. Which is the first point at which any possible analogy to what we're actually discussing breaks down completely. And they can sing to the heavens that they thought it was "really" just an anti-quotas rally and they personally only carried an anti-quota sign and heck almost everybody was carrying anti-quota signs and there were only just a few signs advocating sending all the black people back to Africa and calling them jungle bunnies and gee it sure would be better if there were rallies organized by someone more moderate than the KKK but there aren't. The can sing it to the heavens because not a single actual human being will care. People who march in KKK rallies are racists. And if I'd been arguing that the KKK weren't racist, than this would have some relevance. Like so many people, you find it much easier to answer points which I haven't made concerning topics which I haven't mentioned.

[Manny]

Well then help me out, Dr. A. You seem a lot more reasonable than admitted pro-terrorists like Cleon. What am I missing by making that analogy? Is ANSWER less pro-terrorist than the KKK is racist? I'd argue that they're not. Heck, I think they would argue that they're not. My analogy basically boils down to this: avowedly pro-terrorist groups like ANSWER have organized substantially all of the alleged "anti-war" rallies. The anti-war left, rather than organizing rallies of their own, has latched on to these pro-terrorist rallies and thus unknowingly been lending support to terrorism and anti-American causes. In many cases, nominally anti-war groups like UFPJ have knowlingly joined forces with pro-terrorist groups like ANSWER to piggyback on their permits and their (admittedly good) organizational and legal skills, and they have failed sufficiently to notify potential marchers of the devil's deal they have made. Marching behind the banner of a pro-terrorist Stalinst group like ANSWER when one is simply "anti-war" is no better than marching behind a racist group like the KKK when one is simply "anti-quota."

Which of parts of my analogy are in error? If anything, I think I'm being generous by saying that the marchers don't know what they're really supporting, given the evidence all around them when they show up.

[Manny]

Sorry, meant to edit this in and couldn't. Here's another "anti-war" banner from an ANSWER march. I have hundreds of them.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I think that we are not served well to simply regurgitate the propaganda of the right. We need to keep the facts of how Bush has actually treated the poor in mind.

It is clear from Bush's own actions that he and the Republican party have little care for the poor and the facts of the experience of the poor and sick people of New Orleans who were unable to leave ahead of Katrina demonstrates this once again. Bush's claimed in Michael Moore's film that the rich who attended his dinner were his base. He was not kidding.

The early history of the first few months of his first administration included: -

Reduced by 86% the Community Access Programme which coordinated care for people without health insurance

Cut $200million from workforce training programmes for dislocated workers

Cut $200 million from Childcare and Development grant,a programme that provides childcare to low-income families as they are forced from welfare to work

Cut $700million in funds for public housing repairs

Overturned ergonomic rules desigtned to protect workers' health and safety.

Cut $15.7 million from programmes dealing with chiild abuse and neglect.

Proposed elimination of the 'Reading is Fundamental' programme, which gives free books to poor children.

etc etc etc.

Does cutting a social program necessarily mean that it is done out of contempt for the poor? Do you think there can be any other reasons to cut social program funding?

I give the following not as a straw-man argument, but just as an example. You list $700 million in funds for public housing repairs. If that $700 million was to buy a single roll of tape, would you think that it needed to be cut? Of course, it isn't really THAT bad in real life. But sometimes, it is possible to have too much social spending in particular areas. There is only so much money to go around.

There are American citizens that think that social spending is too high in this country. Not because we are mean and evil and hate the poor. But because we think that at some point, people have to take responsibility for themselves. And there is no way for social programs to work other than taking money from those who have earned it, and giving it to those who haven't. While there is a place for that in a free society, I believe it is something that should be done on a very limited and restricted basis. More so than we do now.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
You seem to have completely misunderstood my post. Read it again and come back to me. Your assumption is false. I think the war was ill-conceived, and that the public was lied into supporting it: but neither of those things changes the fact that it would not be helpful to disengage now. I regard the thing as a fait accompli.

I may agree, but this is not an answer to my point:
" However, if you are against war in Iraq, I think you maybe should provide an alternative solution to the problem " terror ", and not just say " I am against the war " and that` s it. "
And please stop saying that my assumptions are " false ".
Only yours are " true "?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
I may agree, but this is not an answer to my point:
" However, if you are against war in Iraq, I think you maybe should provide an alternative solution to the problem " terror ", and not just say " I am against the war " and that` s it. " I took "you" to mean me (ie the person you were talking to) rather than the protestors (ie the people we were talking about). That's the usual difference between the second and third person.

If by "you" you actually meant "they", then they may have an alternative suggestion, but I can't tell you what it is, 'cos I'm not one of them, I'm one of me.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by manny
The anti-war left, rather than organizing rallies of their own, has latched on to these pro-terrorist rallies and thus unknowingly been lending support to terrorism and anti-American causes. In many cases, nominally anti-war groups like UFPJ have knowlingly joined forces with pro-terrorist groups like ANSWER to piggyback on their permits and their (admittedly good) organizational and legal skills, and they have failed sufficiently to notify potential marchers of the devil's deal they have made. Note the underlinings. That's all I'm saying. It's unreasonable to think that you've got half-a-million people (or more) in the US who actually want the terrorists to win.

You claims that ANSWER are "avowedly" pro-terrorist and Stalinist could do with support in the form of quotations where they "avow" these things. I'd be surprised that any organisation should say such things about themselves --- it's such bad publicity.

(Actually, no-one is "pro-terrorist". 'Cos if you're in favour of terrorists, they're freedom fighters. Have you heard of the Minutemen? Definitely "illegal combatants", I fear...)

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I took "you" to mean me (ie the person you were talking to) rather than the protestors (ie the people we were talking about). That's the usual difference between the second and third person.

If by "you" you actually meant "they", then they may have an alternative suggestion, but I can't tell you what it is, 'cos I'm not one of them, I'm one of me. 　　　　　
　　　　
Sorry, when you said " you ", I thought you meant " you " ( that is, me! ), not " they "
So difficult not to be a native speaker..
:(

Now if you ( that is, Dr Adequate ) like, please reply to my ( that is Matteo` s ) point:
" However, if you are against war in Iraq, I think you maybe should provide an alternative solution to the problem " terror ", and not just say " I am against the war " and that` s it. "
Also maybe you ( that is, Dr Adequate ) can reply to my ( that is Matteo` s ) question that everybody here, except RandFan, seems ignore:
" What would happen with terrorists with 5 A-bombs in their hands? "

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
Now if you ( that is, Dr Adequate ) like, please reply to my ( that is Matteo` s ) point:

" However, if you are against war in Iraq, I think you maybe should provide an alternative solution to the problem " terror ", and not just say " I am against the war " and that` s it. " As I have pointed out, I am not against the war in Iraq. Also maybe you ( that is, Dr Adequate ) can reply to my ( that is Matteo` s ) question that everybody here, except RandFan, seems ignore:
" What would happen with terrorists with 5 A-bombs in their hands? " Please save me from these terrorists with enormous hands!

What are you talking about?

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate

What are you talking about?

You wrote:
" You seem to have wandered off.
Let me clarify. If manny had said: "Without knowing it, these half million Americans (patriots all) were (with the best of intentions) playing into the hands of terrorists, because they're freakin' idiots", then that would be a matter for factual debate.
But instead, he says that although they said they were against war, and chanted slogans agianst war, and waved banners against war, it was really a pro-terrorist demonstration, and really the USA harbours (at least) half a million pro-terrorists (although they don't know it --- and he does).
This is either paranoid lunacy, or propagandist gibble.
"

I have replied:
" However, if you are against war in Iraq, I think you maybe should provide an alternative solution to the problem " terror ", and not just say " I am against the war " and that` s it. "

Is it more clear now?
If not I give up..

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
However, if you are against war in Iraq... I'm not.

Is that clear now?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Matteo Martini
Because the US has far larger population than Iran but far less oil in their territory.
How much oil per person are you allowed before you are not allowed to start a nuclear programme?

The USA developed its nuclear programme many years ago. before they were in any danger of running out of oil.

It appears that your question implies standards for other countries that you do not feel the USA should meet.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
How much oil per person are you allowed before you are not allowed to start a nuclear programme?

The USA developed its nuclear programme many years ago. before they were in any danger of running out of oil.

It appears that your question implies standards for other countries that you do not feel the USA should meet.

I repeat, please show me how Iran might need nuclear technology now, when the US are not building any new plant since 1979
" In the aftermath of the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, the U.S. nuclear market was the first to deteriorate. No new nuclear plants have been ordered since then, and nuclear generating capacity is now lower than it was a decade ago. Not only have U.S. power companies stopped building nuclear power plants, they have closed six reactors since 1996 that had become too expensive to operate. Meanwhile, seven of Canada's 21 reactors have been "laid up" due to safety concerns and are unlikely to operate again "
http://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/1999/03/04/

Consider the population of Iran and that of the US
And consider the oil reserves of Iran
And then tell me why they would need so badly nuclear technology

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I'm not.

Is that clear now?

You wrote:
" You seem to have wandered off.
Let me clarify. If manny had said: "Without knowing it, these half million Americans (patriots all) were (with the best of intentions) playing into the hands of terrorists, because they're freakin' idiots", then that would be a matter for factual debate.
But instead, he says that although they said they were against war, and chanted slogans agianst war, and waved banners against war, it was really a pro-terrorist demonstration, and really the USA harbours (at least) half a million pro-terrorists (although they don't know it --- and he does).
This is either paranoid lunacy, or propagandist gibble.
"

I have replied:
" However, if you [ = the people chanting against the war ] are against war in Iraq, I think you [ = the people chanting against the war ] maybe should provide an alternative solution to the problem " terror ", and not just say " I am against the war " and that` s it. "

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Randfan
Please to tell me what propaganda I have regurgitated
It seems that your claims to have put me on ignore cannot be trusted.

In relation to this question can you please quote where I specifically claimed that you had regurgitated propaganda?Oh BS, Bush set asside funds prior to Hurricanes in the past and was critisized for it. If you want anyone to believe this you are going to have to provide proof of it. BS? Surely you are not hinting at profanities? If you simply cannot bring yourself to properly spell out your own oaths perhaps you might at least have read the rest of the post where I specifically cited a number of examples of Bush's actions. Citations and context please? Chapter 2 Stupid White Men Michael Moore

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Randfan
And I quote from another thread:
And did you? I have.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
It seems that your claims to have put me on ignore cannot be trusted. I put people on I take people off. Did I say I would never read or respond to your posts ever again? After the rules for the Politics forum were changed I took everyone off of my ignore list.

...you might at least have read the rest of the post where I specifically cited a number of examples of Bush's actions. And failed to prove your claims.

Chapter 2 Stupid White Men Michael Moore So the answer would be no then.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Freakshow
Does cutting a social program necessarily mean that it is done out of contempt for the poor? Do you think there can be any other reasons to cut social program funding?
Not necessarily on an individual or limited basis, but on the scale proposed ands implemented by the Repnblican party it certainly is. See http://www.thebushpresidency.org/TaxCuts.htm .

It is also important to bear in mind the pattern and the aims of the programmes. 'Consider the congressional testimony of Joe Allbaugh, George W. Bush's 2000 campaign manager, who assumed the top position at FEMA in 2001. He characterized the organization as "an oversized entitlement program," and counseled states and cities to rely instead on "faith-based organizations . . . like the Salvation Army and the Mennonite Disaster Service."' from http://www.bushwatch.com/

I give the following not as a straw-man argument, but just as an example. You list $700 million in funds for public housing repairs. If that $700 million was to buy a single roll of tape, would you think that it needed to be cut? Of course, it isn't really THAT bad in real life. But sometimes, it is possible to have too much social spending in particular areas. There is only so much money to go around.

There are American citizens that think that social spending is too high in this country. Not because we are mean and evil and hate the poor. But because we think that at some point, people have to take responsibility for themselves. And there is no way for social programs to work other than taking money from those who have earned it, and giving it to those who haven't. While there is a place for that in a free society, I believe it is something that should be done on a very limited and restricted basis. More so than we do now. This is at the core of the argument. When measuring the achievements of any country one of the primary measures should be how it treats the weakest in its society from the mentally ill, to the poor and the sick etc. When politicians are openly bought and sold by corporate interests and the law of the land is changed for their benefit to the detriment of the poor and needy things need to be highlighted. EG 'Bush Threatens Medicaid Funding Cuts
At a recent meeting with the National Governors Association, Bush emphasized his plan to cut tens of billions of federal dollars to Medicaid, the program that provides health care for 53 million poor and disabled people in the U.S. ' from http://www.thetruthaboutgeorge.com/domestic/

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
And did you? I have. No, no you didn't. You have an odd notion of proof.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Randfan
I put people on I take people off. Did I say I would never read or respond to your posts ever again? After the rules for the Politics forum were changed I took everyone off of my ignore list.
I already know I cannot trust your claims about your ignore list. I trust you understand that what you do in that regard is a matter of complete indifference to me. If you want to go into regular huffs feel free.
And failed to prove your claims.
I never promised to prove anything. I provided the source for my claims. If you are claiming that my source is wrong in any way you I notice that you have failedf to provide proof for your claim. So the answer would be no then. You asked for citations and context. I supplied you with the source of my information. It appears that you are implying that everything Michael Moore published that I cited is wrong yet strangely you have provided not one iota of evidence to support that position. Not very sceptical is it?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Randfan
No, no you didn't. You have an odd notion of proof.

If you want to debate your own strawmen feel free. If you don't, please quote where I talked about proof?

Have you any support for your owen claim yet other than you think it was true? Until you come up with some I will assume that you just made it up.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I already know I cannot trust your claims about your ignore list. ??? Not a clue dude.

I trust you understand that what you do in that regard is a matter of complete indifference to me. If you want to go into regular huffs feel free. You care but don't care. Whatever.

I never promised to prove anything. No but you did make a claim. And then you failed to provide proof for that claim while demanding I prove my claim. It is called hypocrisy.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
If you don't, please quote where I talked about proof? Ok,

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1871047112&highlight=Pity+Randfan+evidence#post1871047112)
Pity Randfan chose not to post any evidence for this claim

[b]Have you any support for your owen claim yet other than you think it was true? Until you come up with some I will assume that you just made it up. Which claim? That there was money? I have explained that if we could raise money now we could have raised money then. I'm not claiming the money was allocated only that America is quite capable of raising money to fix the levees. Why is this even important? I think we have moved on.

[President Bush]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm not claiming the money was allocated only that America is quite capable of raising money to fix the levees.
http://www.readingrobot.com.ar/images/therealbush.jpg
Always be fair. But if you can't be fair, be arbitrary.