PDA

View Full Version : Iraq War - Pro and Anti Rallies


Secretariat
09-26-2005, 03:35 PM
From the AP:

"The [anti-war] protest following a massive demonstration Saturday on the National Mall that drew a crowd of 100,000 or more, the largest such gathering in the capital since the war began in March 2003.

On Sunday, a rally supporting the war drew roughly 500 participants."

I would have thought Rove could have paid off a few more people for a better turnout than that.

Bobby
09-26-2005, 03:43 PM
Yeah, I think everyone will agree that the military is stretched too thin. Iraq, afghan, louisiana. Bush said in the newspapers that the military should handle natural disasters. I agree. But to have to take the Louisiana guard out of Iraq to go home & help clean up. That's not good.

lsbets
09-26-2005, 03:45 PM
But to have to take the Louisiana guard out of Iraq to go home & help clean up. That's not good.

???? They were already scheduled to rotate home. What kind of medication do you take there at work that gives you these delusions?

Bobby
09-26-2005, 03:49 PM
So, who cares if they were scheduled to go home or not. That's moot. They weren't at home in Louisiana and hurricanes have been popping up all summer long. And every time there's a hurricane the guard is called out.

A delusion? Your in the Army right?

lsbets
09-26-2005, 03:53 PM
You said they were pulled out to go home and clean up, I corrected you by pointing out they were already scheduled to go home. Then you say well thats moot. So, yes - you appear to have delusions based on your posts. And yes, I proudly serve in the Army Reserve.

lsbets
09-26-2005, 03:56 PM
Most of the Texas guard is in Iraq - and guess what you never heard about before this storm hit, even with the increased media attention to the preperations for the storm? You didn't hear about most of the Texas guard being in Iraq. Why? It wasn't an issue because state and local leaders had a decent plan and executed it with the available resources at their disposal.

JustRalph
09-26-2005, 03:59 PM
So, Sec and Bobby are for a larger military. Good, I suggest that a draft is implemented immediately. This means we can shut down welfare and give all of those people jobs in the military. How about all of those displaced in New Orleans? Instant jobs........start writing your congressmen.......Bobby........Sec........you're up.......

Bobby
09-26-2005, 04:02 PM
LS: I guess the point is that govt had to get troops from somewhere. B/C they weren't at home and there equipment was not at home. So who better to send than natives? Don't you think they woulda been pulled out anyway whether scheduled or not?

And I know for a fact that just b/c the troops come home DOESN'T NECCESAIRLY MEAN that the equipment goes home.

lsbets
09-26-2005, 04:07 PM
And I know for a fact that just b/c the troops come home DOESN'T NECCESAIRLY MEAN that the equipment goes home.

Bobby, please do explain to me the intricacies of Stay Behind Equipment (SBE), how it is designated, who can leave equipment for whom, and how units leaving equipment behind are then given equipment to use once they return home. Since you seemed so emphatic when telling me you know so much about it, I was hoping you could fill me in.

Bobby
09-26-2005, 04:45 PM
Most of the Texas guard is in Iraq - and guess what you never heard about before this storm hit, even with the increased media attention to the preperations for the storm? You didn't hear about most of the Texas guard being in Iraq. Why? It wasn't an issue because state and local leaders had a decent plan and executed it with the available resources at their disposal.


yeah after a town of 1 million is obliterated. You bet TX officials they'll have a plan of action.

Bobby
09-26-2005, 04:53 PM
Bobby, please do explain to me the intricacies of Stay Behind Equipment (SBE), how it is designated, who can leave equipment for whom, and how units leaving equipment behind are then given equipment to use once they return home. Since you seemed so emphatic when telling me you know so much about it, I was hoping you could fill me in.


Well, it said repeatedly in the newspaper here that either (I can't remember exactly ) a. AR guard was using texas equipment or b. TX guard was using Arkansas equipment. I don't know the intricacies and don't care. I do know that each should have their own equipment though. It makes sense for the TX guard to have their equipment in TX when their home and vice versa.

lsbets
09-26-2005, 04:58 PM
Well, it said repeatedly in the newspaper here that either (I can't remember exactly ) a. AR guard was using texas equipment or b. TX guard was using Arkansas equipment. I don't know the intricacies and don't care. I do know that each should have their own equipment though. It makes sense for the TX guard to have their equipment in TX when their home and vice versa.

Well, at the end, you finally get to the point. You have no clue what you're talking about, nor do you care, but everyone should have their (note the use of their, and not there or they're - you should look that up one day) own stuff. Very good - your grasp of complex issues continues to amaze!

Bobby
09-26-2005, 05:02 PM
Well, at the end, you finally get to the point. You have no clue what you're talking about, nor do you care, but everyone should have their (note the use of their, and not there or they're - you should look that up one day) own stuff. Very good - your grasp of complex issues continues to amaze!


You certainly are anal. That's kinda typical for the Army though. Had you rather me say c u n a bit or see you in a bit? Just curious

lsbets
09-26-2005, 05:08 PM
You certainly are anal. That's kinda typical for the Army though. Had you rather me say c u n a bit or see you in a bit? Just curious

Bobby, are you really on a computer at work, or do they have an internet cafe in the grammar school library? I might be "kinda typical for the Army", but I can tell you - the Army would do a kid like you a world of good, you should sign up.

Bobby
09-26-2005, 05:13 PM
My bro was in the Army for 5 years. You kinda remind me of him. He's bossy. If he doesn't get his way, he's pissed.

Me- CPA. I used to get all As too. Believe it or not.

lsbets
09-26-2005, 05:14 PM
Me- CPA. I used to get all As too. Believe it or not.

My vote is not. And that reminds me why I do my own taxes. :D

Bobby
09-26-2005, 05:28 PM
Ur just like him. Do you kinda have one of those fears of someone stealing your identity. Yea, its legitimate. Like do you have a lot of virus protection on your computers and stuff. Is it setup to run every nite at like 2AM? Just curious.

lsbets
09-26-2005, 05:35 PM
Ur just like him. Do you kinda have one of those fears of someone stealing your identity. Yea, its legitimate. Like do you have a lot of virus protection on your computers and stuff. Is it setup to run every nite at like 2AM? Just curious.

If you want people to take you seriously when you write, you really should go to night school or something to learn basic Englisg grammar and composition. B/c Ur seming 2 be not 2 brt 2 day.

Bobby
09-26-2005, 05:38 PM
I do alotta text messaging on the cell phone. That's why I write like that.

lsbets
09-26-2005, 05:42 PM
I do alotta text messaging on the cell phone. That's why I write like that.

On a serious note, not trying to bust your balls - when you write like that people tend to not take you very seriously, and that can really suck if you are trying to make what you see as a serious point.

Bobby
09-26-2005, 05:43 PM
If we really were in grammer school, it would be "burst."

lsbets
09-26-2005, 05:49 PM
If we really were in grammer school, it would be "burst."

No Bobby, the term is bust your balls. You are probably confused with burt your bubble. Unless of course your balls are swollen, but that would be a personal matter I don't care to know about.

Secretariat
09-26-2005, 06:30 PM
So, Sec and Bobby are for a larger military. Good, I suggest that a draft is implemented immediately. This means we can shut down welfare and give all of those people jobs in the military. How about all of those displaced in New Orleans? Instant jobs........start writing your congressmen.......Bobby........Sec........you're up.......

First of all. Please show me in this thread where I stated I was for a larger military.

Second, I am in favor of a draft, and have stated it here previously. I don't beleive military recruitment should appeal to financial necessities of people, but wars should be fought by rich and poor alike. You state "we can shut down welfare and give all of those people jobs". Well ,that takes care of the poor, or were you referring to corporate welfare and how will the rich contribute? btw..who takes care of the children of single mothers who are fighting in combat if we draft welfare mothers? Or is GW's girls gonna get into the fight as well?

Third, you're up.

lsbets
09-26-2005, 06:48 PM
btw..who takes care of the children of single mothers who are fighting in combat if we draft welfare mothers? Or is GW's girls gonna get into the fight as well?

First the single moms issue - single parents are required to have a family care plan. If they do not have a valid family care plan they do not deploy and are processed for seperation from the military. The character of that seperation can be honorable or other than honorable, depending on the reasons they do not have a valid family care plan. So, no one would have to care for the children of single mothers in combat other than folks those single mothers choose themselves.

Second - you lose credibility when you make a statement like are GW's girls going to get in the fight. Seriously, think about security for a second. They would instantly become the biggest targets anywhere they go - they would be the ultimate trophy for a terrorist. I don't think any serious person would want them there because their presence would be such a distraction. Could you imagine if a President's child was kidnapped? I know Prince Harry said he wants to go to Iraq if his unit goes, but I highly doubt he would be allowed to go anywhere there might be danger. If he does good for him, bad for everyone around him. My gunner hated it when I would jump up in the turret with him because he thought my bars were too tempting a target. I'm pretty sure I know how he would feel about a President's kid.

Tom
09-26-2005, 08:29 PM
So, Sec and Bobby are for a larger military. Good, I suggest that a draft is implemented immediately. This means we can shut down welfare and give all of those people jobs in the military. How about all of those displaced in New Orleans? Instant jobs........start writing your congressmen.......Bobby........Sec........you're up.......

Stop all that abortin' them libs do and we could grow a huge army of pissed of people - just tell them all their parents thought they were an inconvenience and tried to kill them! Then give them guns! :D

Tom
09-26-2005, 08:31 PM
My bro was in the Army for 5 years. You kinda remind me of him. He's bossy. If he doesn't get his way, he's pissed.

Me- CPA. I used to get all As too. Believe it or not.


Enron?

PaceAdvantage
09-27-2005, 03:27 PM
Most of the Texas guard is in Iraq - and guess what you never heard about before this storm hit, even with the increased media attention to the preperations for the storm? You didn't hear about most of the Texas guard being in Iraq. Why? It wasn't an issue because state and local leaders had a decent plan and executed it with the available resources at their disposal.

Oh man, you are good! Cut to the quick! Right to the heart of the issue....I love it.

Leave em' speechless and fumbling for more links and talking points from MoveOn.Org....

PaceAdvantage
09-27-2005, 03:32 PM
Is it me, or as Bobby kept getting pressed by lsbets, did he begin to sound more and more like some other poster we all know and love? Maybe they are one in the same? Or maybe I am dreaming.

Bobby
09-27-2005, 04:31 PM
No Bobby, the term is bust your balls. You are probably confused with burt your bubble. Unless of course your balls are swollen, but that would be a personal matter I don't care to know about.


There might be a term called "bust your balls." But, grammatically speaking, it's not correct. For an internet source, see this site. http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000196.htm

lsbets
09-27-2005, 04:44 PM
There might be a term called "bust your balls." But, grammatically speaking, it's not correct. For an internet source, see this site. http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000196.htm

Bobby, I am very glad you found a source to help you with your grammar problems. Admitting you have a problem is the first step towards fixing it. One more word of advice though - if you are ever giving someone a hard time, and you tell him you are just "Bursting his balls" don't be surprised if you get a very strange reaction, unless bursting balls is commonplace where you come from.

Bobby
09-27-2005, 05:25 PM
Maybe I'm confused but I thought it was "bust your ass," as in work your ass off. That's what we say around here.

Bust your balls, my way of thinking, has sexual connotations.

lsbets
09-27-2005, 05:41 PM
Maybe I'm confused but I thought it was "bust your ass," as in work your ass off. That's what we say around here.

Bust your balls, my way of thinking, has sexual connotations.

You are somewhat correct - bust your ass does mean work your ass off. Busting someone's balls means to give someone a hard time.

http://www.clichesite.com/content.asp?which=tip+1756

"Cliché: Bust your balls, To
Explanation: 1. Describes the act of someone scolding or berating you for something that they don't like.
Country: United States

I have now proven you can find anything on the internet!

PA - how many threads have gone as far off topic as this one?

Secretariat
09-27-2005, 07:57 PM
First the single moms issue - single parents are required to have a family care plan. If they do not have a valid family care plan they do not deploy and are processed for seperation from the military. The character of that seperation can be honorable or other than honorable, depending on the reasons they do not have a valid family care plan. So, no one would have to care for the children of single mothers in combat other than folks those single mothers choose themselves.

Second - you lose credibility when you make a statement like are GW's girls going to get in the fight. Seriously, think about security for a second. They would instantly become the biggest targets anywhere they go - they would be the ultimate trophy for a terrorist. I don't think any serious person would want them there because their presence would be such a distraction. Could you imagine if a President's child was kidnapped? I know Prince Harry said he wants to go to Iraq if his unit goes, but I highly doubt he would be allowed to go anywhere there might be danger. If he does good for him, bad for everyone around him. My gunner hated it when I would jump up in the turret with him because he thought my bars were too tempting a target. I'm pretty sure I know how he would feel about a President's kid.

I guess Isbets you are making the point that welfare could not be solved by a draft as JR suggested. But JR is saying that welfare could be eliminated by a draft. In other words he is advocating a change to the current all volunter force with conscription. Since welfare recipeints are covered by Medicaid, I'm sure JR's comment would be that those single mothers could have a family plan added before being being shipped off.

Second point. Prince Andrew was deployed to the Falklands during the Falkland war. I see no reason why GW's kids couldn't at least be available for a draft. If it ws good enough for one of the Queen of England's kids, why shouldn't it be good enough for GW's.

boxcar
09-28-2005, 01:05 AM
My bro was in the Army for 5 years. You kinda remind me of him. He's bossy. If he doesn't get his way, he's pissed.

Me- CPA. I used to get all As too. Believe it or not.

Sure, this is believable. All it takes for a -C student to earn "all As" is for the school to lower its testing standards. Many public schools today do just this in order to help preserve students' self-esteem. It doesnt' matter that the kids are "feeling good" over a false sense of accomplishment. What's all-important is that the kids just feeeeel soooo good about themselves.

Boxcar

boxcar
09-28-2005, 01:51 AM
PA - how many threads have gone as far off topic as this one?

Par for the course around here. But, permit me to help get this thread back on track, since you asked.

Since this thread is about Iraqi War rallies, then surely any ol' rally of this genre will do, right? It doesn't have to be the Washington rally, right?

Anyone with a half a brain in his head knows how the mainstream media just love to spin things in accordance with its left-wing bias. Sometimes, the media will just out-and-out lie. But other times the media will lie by omission, which can really distort the whole truth of a matter.

The link to the site below is elf-explanatory. This anti-war rally took place in San Francisco and the photog/blogger caught the SF Chronicle red-handed (very bad pun intended) in how it engineered its deceitful story; for this publication published a picture in a manner designed to hide the whole truth. What they didn't want their readhership to see is that there were Red organizers in that rally, also. (Recall my "Lie Down With Dogs, Wake up with Fleas" thread?)

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/anatomy_of_a_photograph/

Boxcar

boxcar
09-28-2005, 02:03 PM
From the AP:

"The [anti-war] protest following a massive demonstration Saturday on the National Mall that drew a crowd of 100,000 or more, the largest such gathering in the capital since the war began in March 2003.

This number is highly suspect. Somone took an aerial photo of the demonstration from high up. Some guy took the photo, zoomed way down on the heads of the people, and with his program superimposed a grid of a certain size over the heads, and then extrapolated from that one grid how many people were marching. He claimed that 10,000 people would be a very generous number, and that the figure was in all probability closer to around 6,900.

If I can find that source or site again, I'll post the link here.

Boxcar

PaceAdvantage
09-28-2005, 02:14 PM
Crowds are always under/over estimated, depending on the slant of the person doing the "counting"

boxcar
09-28-2005, 02:35 PM
Crowds are always under/over estimated, depending on the slant of the person doing the "counting"

Yes...this has, historically, been the case. But in this day and age, with the technology available to us, fairly accurate counts could be obtained -- if accurate counts were wanted.

Someone is way, way off the mark here -- 10,000 (at the most generous) v. 100,000. Who do I tend to believe? Well, the mainstream media's credibity is practically zero, as far as I'm concerned. So, go from there.

Boxcar

46zilzal
09-28-2005, 02:51 PM
these rallies are going to become more fequent as time goes by.

Secretariat
09-28-2005, 02:54 PM
I suppose the police chief could be wrong.

"Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey, noting that organizers had hoped to draw 100,000 people, said, "I think they probably hit that.""

boxcar
09-28-2005, 03:03 PM
I suppose the police chief could be wrong.

"Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey, noting that organizers had hoped to draw 100,000 people, said, "I think they probably hit that.""

Now you're using your noggin for something more than sun shade.

Boxcar

Secretariat
09-28-2005, 06:24 PM
Now you're using your noggin for something more than sun shade.

Boxcar

Yeah, how would the Chief of Police who was actually there, know against your evidence supplied by "some guy" with a photo by "someone" and his superimposed grid. Keep em coming Box.

"Somone took an aerial photo of the demonstration from high up. Some guy took the photo, zoomed way down on the heads of the people, and with his program superimposed a grid of a certain size over the heads, and then extrapolated from that one grid how many people were marching. He claimed that 10,000 people would be a very generous number, and that the figure was in all probability closer to around 6,900."

lsbets
09-28-2005, 06:29 PM
There were 100,000 people there. Pretty bad turn out considering the organizers were saying there would be over a million.

Did you catch Cindy Sheehan's comments complaining about the media coverage of the hurricane instead of her? She said so what if there was some rain and some wind, there's other news out there. Yeah, she's a real caring Mom.

Bobby
09-28-2005, 06:34 PM
It's the start of a movement LS. It's only going to grow.

lsbets
09-28-2005, 06:37 PM
In case you want the quote:

rita (3.33 / 3)

i am watching cnn and it is 100 percent rita...even though it is a little wind and a little rain...it is bad, but there are other things going on in this country today...and in the world!!!!


by CindySheehan on Sat Sep 24th, 2005 at 06:29:15 PDT
[ Parent ]

here was a good reply:

Shame (3.20 / 5)

it is 100 percent rita...even though it is a little wind and a little rain

I'm in Southeast Texas with family on the coast and in Lake Jackson, LA.

I'd like you to tell us it's just a little wind and rain. They've lost their homes, jobs and businesses and gone through fear and panic while you bask in your fan's adulation, party with your celebrity friends and play the star.

Shame on you, you're jealous of media coverage of other's suffering. You've become a caricature and I no longer support you. I'm ashamed I ever did.


by hibsnet on Sat Sep 24th, 2005 at 18:19:40 PDT

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/9/24/85619/4714/25#25

There were several other replies from folks to make the whole thread worth reading. Initially, Cindy attempted to say she did not post that, but after it was prven to be her, she admitted that she did make that post and apologized if she offended anyone. Busted!

lsbets
09-28-2005, 06:42 PM
It's the start of a movement LS. It's only going to grow.

Bobby - do you know who organized the march and what they stand for? (Hint - if you give the wrong ANSWER I will belittle you and make you look silly and uniformed, so before you reply, I suggest you look up the ANSWER)

JustRalph
09-28-2005, 06:43 PM
It's the start of a movement LS. It's only going to grow.

you were saying that a month ago. I think the movement is in your pants........when you realize that this lady is being ignored by most of the public

hcap
09-28-2005, 07:32 PM
BoxheadThis number is highly suspect. Somone took an aerial photo of the demonstration from high up. Some guy took the photo, zoomed way down on the heads of the people, and with his program superimposed a grid of a certain size over the heads, and then extrapolated from that one grid how many people were marching. He claimed that 10,000 people would be a very generous number, and that the figure was in all probability closer to around 6,900.

If I can find that source or site again, I'll post the link here.
Your rationality is highly suspect
Try this view.....

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/DC9-24i/

Btw, sometimes a little bleeding from the heart, is good for the soul.



LSbetsThere were 100,000 people there. Pretty bad turn out considering the organizers were saying there would be over a million.
Ls, how many did the PRO WAR gang expect?
They said 10,000.
Let's see, 1 million divided by 100,00 for peace
10,000 divided by 400 for the gung-hoers

You lose by a factor of 2 1/2 to 1.

Sorry, you really are the minority. As all the polls show.

Ya want some flowers to to wear for the next peace march?
:rolleyes:

hcap
09-28-2005, 07:57 PM
http://www.ocbq.com/cdpix/gannon-er-guckert.jpg

"Jeff Gannon (nee Guckert) at the Sunday Pro-War rally attended by 400 people."


Sorry couldn't find an actual photo of the other big name giving a speech before the adoring 400. I guess a file photo will do...

http://www.liddyshow.us/images/liddypr.jpg

Must make you guys proud to be Amuricans.

lsbets
09-28-2005, 08:19 PM
Hcap, good to see you back (I'm being serious when I say that).

As someone typically on your side pointed out, if you base the rightness of your position on polls, than you don't have much to back it up. I could care less about the pro-war rally. My pro-war rally lasted 13 months, and a lot more than 10,000 were there.

hcap
09-28-2005, 08:49 PM
Been checking in on you guys on and off.
Been busy building the "black box" :bang: :bang:

However this thread is " Iraq War - Pro and Anti Rallies"
Just thought I would illustrate the numbers.
One picture is worth.....etc, etc.

I don't base my opinion on polls. I think you know my postion from pre-war days. But it does show clearly the mood of the country. And how things have changed.

And yes Answer should step aside. They are not representative of the moderate and yes true liberal voices being raised against the war
Not all of us that protest are stalinists or communists.
I guess not all on your side are all G Gordon Liddys.
Of course when I watch Hannity, I begin to wonder

Ls, on occasion I find myself agreeing with some of your posts.
Maybe I am moving to the center.
Maybe not.

Now if I could only control my gag reflex I could agree with Box.
Maybe not

Suff
09-28-2005, 08:52 PM
Dissent and Opposition is good. Dissent and opposition on matters as grave as War is great. I don't fear it. I watched both rallys and I found each one equally unattractive.

Tom
09-28-2005, 09:26 PM
these rallies are going to become more fequent as time goes by.

.....and accomplish nothing. As usual.

46zilzal
09-28-2005, 09:29 PM
yeah just like the ones in the 60's had NOTHING to do with effecting that war either!

Tom
09-28-2005, 09:34 PM
War didn't end unitl 1975, so and throughout the 60's escalatio was the SOR, so I guess, yeah, just like the ones inth 60's didn't do squat.
The damn war ended when it did so nixon could have his legacy, not at all becsue of the demonstrations. THe US government then and now doesn't listen or care what "we the people" think or want. Didn't you know that?????

lsbets
09-28-2005, 10:06 PM
And yes Answer should step aside. They are not representative of the moderate and yes true liberal voices being raised against the war
Not all of us that protest are stalinists or communists.
I guess not all on your side are all G Gordon Liddys.



That's why I respect you - too many folks won't knock answer simply because they protest Bush.

Secretariat
09-28-2005, 10:52 PM
Welcome back Hcap. Glad you're here. I'm going to be on vacation coming up and will probably be off the board until after Columbus Day starting sometime next week.

Hopefully, you can keep Lefty and Boxcar in tow.

Tom
09-29-2005, 01:06 AM
Hmmmm,

You never see Clark Kent and Superman together, now Sec and Hcap are suspiciously apart!

Hmmmmmmm....

boxcar
09-29-2005, 01:44 AM
Yeah, how would the Chief of Police who was actually there, know against your evidence supplied by "some guy" with a photo by "someone" and his superimposed grid. Keep em coming Box.

Hmm...I knew I was getting too optimistic in your case. How 'bout just because the Chief sez it, doesn't it mean it's necessarily so. Maybe he's got an axe to grind over this war? Nah...can't be. As Chief, he'd be 100% objective, right?

And further more, I didn't provide any evidence, simply commented on something I read during my search for other related info.

Boxcar

ljb
09-29-2005, 10:37 AM
Does it really make a difference how many people were at the rallies ? When I was in an anti-war rally prior to the invasion of Iraq, there were an equal number of pro-war folks standing on an opposite side of the street. We all expressed our opinions. The exact number of protesters means no more then the polls showing Bush's waning popularity.

Bobby
09-29-2005, 11:39 AM
Bobby - do you know who organized the march and what they stand for? (Hint - if you give the wrong ANSWER I will belittle you and make you look silly and uniformed, so before you reply, I suggest you look up the ANSWER)


No. I do not know who organized. I just know its anti war in IRAQ. I'm for it on that alone. Yea, Cindy Sheehan is too much. I'll admit that.

lsbets
09-29-2005, 11:44 AM
Does it really make a difference how many people were at the rallies ? When I was in an anti-war rally prior to the invasion of Iraq, there were an equal number of pro-war folks standing on an opposite side of the street. We all expressed our opinions. The exact number of protesters means no more then the polls showing Bush's waning popularity.

Now I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with ljb.

boxcar
09-29-2005, 02:43 PM
And yes Answer should step aside. They are not representative of the moderate and yes true liberal voices being raised against the war Not all of us that protest are stalinists or communists.

Geesh, and here I thought you were out there helping the commies orgainize the event.

But seriously, I have a problem with what you stated because many "true liberal voices" either don't care or are indifferent about lying down with the dogs, while others actutally welcome them. Let's face it: Both the commies and the libs, generally, have a lot more in common than not, in terms of ideology. Unquestionably, the commies are attracted to libs like flies to horse manure. (Or is it the other way around?)

I didn't read or hear about any of those voices of the "true liberals" at the rally kicking out the ANSWER folks -- disowning them, disavowing any allegiance to them, disassociating themselves from ANSWER etc. It certainly would have been the ideal place and time to make a such public statements. (But perhaps I didn't hear all those voices because the loud, deafening volume of all the "hate Bush" vitriol and venom drowned them out.)

You see, sir, the issue is not that ANSWER "should step aside", but that all those "true liberal voices" should take the initiative by stepping up to the plate and and publicly disassociating themselves from such groups and condemning them for what they stand for! Anything less than this amounts to a mere pretense of any real, substantial differences between libs and commies.

Boxcar

46zilzal
09-29-2005, 02:50 PM
and here I thought old "tail gunner" Joe and all his ilk were long dead.

46zilzal
09-29-2005, 03:03 PM
Bravo for your sticking by your point of view, and the bear looks a lot better than Tyson

hcap
09-29-2005, 03:41 PM
Box,

Did you check out my link to photos of the crowd?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/DC9-24i/

A lot more than 6900 as you babbled. Of course Gordon Liddy counts for at least 100,000 peace protesters so your guys REALLY didn't come up short with apparently only 400 attending.

I don't agree with Answer on many issues, as I'm sure the 100,000 + also were not Answer members.

ANSWER may be an enemy of liberalism. And ANSWER's parent organization, the Workers World Party, is not at all squeamish about supporting war, oppression, and even genocide if the perpetrator is China and the victims are, for example, pro-Democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square or Tibetan Buddhists.

They are now beside the point with "free Mumia" and such.

BUT Boxhead, the fact remains that the enormous majority of people who marched around the White House on Saturday were there for one purpose--to oppose Bush's War in Iraq. And the enormous majority of people who marched around the White House on Saturday likely have nothing else in common with ANSWER but opposition to the war in Iraq.

But the Left is not ignoring Answer. At some point they will be submerged.

Steve Gilliard wrote at the Newsblog that it's way past time for the antiwar movement to cut ANSWER loose.

Should the protest be cancelled because a minority with extreme views shares the same views about the war as the 100,000 others?
And does that nullify the reality that close to 60% of this country now oppose this war? You seem to imply by this post and others-"lie down with fleas"-is it ?, that if we protest with groups like Answer we will all wake the next day as rabid Stalinists. Guilt by association Box.

lsbets
09-29-2005, 03:55 PM
Should the protest be cancelled because a minority with extreme views shares the same views about the war as the 100,000 others?


Hacp - I won't dispute that most of the people there are turned of by ANSWER and could care less about Free Mumia and don't support war from stalinist regimes and are turned off by the pro-Paletinian croawd that chants "Death to Israel". But, this protest was organized by ANSWER. There seems to be no one in the liberal mainstream willing to step up and kick them to the curb, instead, they just show up an ANSWER's parties and say they don't like the host.

hcap
09-29-2005, 04:33 PM
You remember Some Like it Hot Tony Curtis, Jack Lemmon?
At the very end Joe E Brown- Osgood Fielding III is being extremely accomodating to Lemmons' character accepting every objection 'Daphne'-Lemmon in drag- is making, to marrying him.

Finally Daphne in frustration yanks off her wig and says "Osgood I'm a man!!"
Osgood who is unperturbed by the fact that Lemmon is, in fact, a man replys

"Well nobody is perfect"

Neither are we
Yep it is time for Answer to leave. There are rumblings on the left. May not happen for a while. May not happen.
The realpolitik of politics

But Answer in no way nullifies the peace march it helped to organize.
I think the right is focusing on the wrong issue. The group who helped organize the protest with a shady rep is not a major issue.

But it is obvious that you gentlemen who only managed to pull a disapointing 400, consider it major flaw in the peace moment. A little disengenous don't ya think?

Rather, the main point is the ordinary folks-mainstream-who disagree with the war. And the polls that bear that out.

So are liberals to blame for associating with fringe groups. Perhaps

Then again the right has it's share of loonies as well.

ljb
09-29-2005, 04:50 PM
From hcap

Then again the right has it's share of loonies as well.
And some of the republicans tend to relish in their fanatical ravings. Ann Coulter and Zell Miller come to mind.
Of course not all supporters of the republicans support these two so, we should not group them together for failing to chastise these two.

hcap
09-29-2005, 05:20 PM
Maybe only Answer members took part in this poll?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050929/pl_nm/iraq_poll_dc

Iraq war leaves Americans skeptical of force

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The war in Iraq has left Americans skeptical about the use of military force as a tool to spread democracy, according to a poll released on Thursday.

Seventy-two percent of those questioned said the conflict has made them feel worse about the use of military force "to bring about democracy" down the road, compared to only 20 percent who said it made them feel better about such a prospect, the survey found.

It also found that nearly three of every four Americans believe overthrowing Iraq's government and trying to establish a democracy in its place was not a good enough reason to go to war there. The survey did not address the question of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Face it gentlemen, you guys are representative of a diminishing minority.

The numbers at the peace protest vs the war supporter protest just verify the real sentiment of this country now.

Too bad the LOONIES in charge did not listen to us before we invaded.
Now we broke it and we own it.
Thank you veery mooch meester boosch

Bobby
09-29-2005, 05:32 PM
Thanks 46

HCAP - yes a diminishing minority.

And we also get hammered on our reps. Yet the majority of Americans, at least 55%, are with us and our point of view. We're getting ready to have to rebuild essentially a whole state and half of the gulf coast and we're dropping hundreds of billions on the sheiks and tribes of IRAQ.

46zilzal
09-29-2005, 06:53 PM
kind of wasteful given the domestic troubles

Tom
09-29-2005, 08:35 PM
Now I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with ljb.

Gotta lie down....me too!:D

The only thing that the number of people at a rally means is that many people are skipping work. I would not go to any rally for any reason.
What does it acconplish? The only expression of your beliefs that means annything is your vote.
As we saw demonstrated in the last election, Brucie Sprinstein could pack 'em into free concerts, but they didn't flock to the polls, and Kerry got no electoral votes for concert attendence (I understand he did get a BS greatest hits CD, though!)

lsbets
09-29-2005, 09:00 PM
Gotta lie down....me too!:D

The only thing that the number of people at a rally means is that many people are skipping work.

Tom, you're assuming the protest crowd has jobs, and you know what they say about assuming. :lol:

boxcar
09-30-2005, 02:22 AM
Box,

Did you check out my link to photos of the crowd?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/DC9-24i/

A lot more than 6900 as you babbled. Of course Gordon Liddy counts for at least 100,000 peace protesters so your guys REALLY didn't come up short with apparently only 400 attending.

Yeah...what head count did you come up with, again? Oh yeah, 100,000. Maybe there was. Maybe there wasn't. I guess it largely depends on who was doing the counting and if they used Calypso Louie's Magical Mathematical Formula when he came up with his 1,000,000 men.

I don't agree with Answer on many issues, as I'm sure the 100,000 + also were not Answer members.

But I bet you dollars to donunts you agree with far more than you don't.
Here's the link to their parent site. Why don't you tell us about all the things about which you're in disagreement.

http://www.workers.org/wwp.php

ANSWER may be an enemy of liberalism. And ANSWER's parent organization, the Workers World Party, is not at all squeamish about supporting war, oppression, and even genocide if the perpetrator is China and the victims are, for example, pro-Democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square or Tibetan Buddhists.

You say, may be an enemy.... How about this: ANSWER and WWP are enemies of the United States of America? Forget about your insignificant, vapid, insipid liberal ideology!

BUT Boxhead, the fact remains that the enormous majority of people who marched around the White House on Saturday were there for one purpose--to oppose Bush's War in Iraq. And the enormous majority of people who marched around the White House on Saturday likely have nothing else in common with ANSWER but opposition to the war in Iraq.

You're living in a dreamworld, sir. Absolturely without a clue. Commie orgnaizations dont' expend all their effort, time and money on these kinds of events because they have so little in common with liberals and liberalsim. As I stated earlier, these subversive anti-American, anti-capitalistic organizations have one major mission in life: Proseltyze as many as possible by any means possible. Organizations like these are drawn to Libs and Lib causes like a magnet is to steel. You wont' find these Commies trying to convert conservatives. They know better than to waste their precious time. Why should they? They already have a "ready made" liberal audience just waiting to be pushed over the edge -- or often just nudged over!

I know exactly of what I speak. I grew up in family consisting mostly of liberals. And two of the members were hardcore commies. My uncle expended quite a bit of time and effort trying to fill my young mind with commie propaganda. But thanks be to God, that as teenager and young man growing up, I had virtually no interest in politics or world affairs. All his efforts and his wife's were in vain. But I did get some pretty good glimpses into their sordid, communistic world when I lived with them for a while in Frisco. Yeah...they were antiwar, too....and anti-everything else that had to do with America!

And then are we supposed to believe that the "100,000 person rally was composed of mostly businessmen, soccer moms, surburbanites, etc.? You don't think other exteme leftist groups were represented in force there -- like Moveon.org, members of Dummies Underground, subscribers to Daily Kos -- just to mention a few? You say, you don't have much in common with commies. Well, I betcha the brainwashed, gullible followers of these groups would find they have lots in common!

But the Left is not ignoring Answer. At some point they will be submerged.

What does this mean..."submerged". Who's going to do the submerging? The Left? The mainstream media? Yeah, right! And I have a newsflash for you: Neither are the commies ignoring the Left, either!

Steve Gilliard wrote at the Newsblog that it's way past time for the antiwar movement to cut ANSWER loose.

It seems you Leftists at the rally didn't get Gillard's message. As stated earlier, the time and place for you Libs to distance yourselves from the commies was at the rally. But what did the Libs do? They allowed ANSWER to organize this thing! Great teamwork! Nice cooperative effort!

You seem to imply by this post and others-"lie down with fleas"-is it ?, that if we protest with groups like Answer we will all wake the next day as rabid Stalinists. Guilt by association Box.

You bet! Perception is very frequently confused for reality. But then again, there would be many men, for example, who wouldn't mind being seen walking down the street arm-in-arm with the local streetwalker.

And finally, you said elsewhere that a bleeding heart cleanses the soul, eh? Just like they used to think bloodletting "cleansed" the body, I bet.

Boxcar

hcap
09-30-2005, 08:21 AM
This is you Box..
But I bet you dollars to donunts you agree with far more than you don't. Here's the link to their parent site. Why don't you tell us about all the things about which you're in disagreement.
This is "tail gunner" Joe
Answer the question, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?
You have outdone yourself Boxhead. Of all the "debates" I have had with you, this post reaches a new low.

Why don't you show up at the next peace march buy a good Joe Mccarthy mask and a super dooper bullhorn and shout out....

Answer the question, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?


By the way, should I assume because of your literal interpretation of the bible, you are an end times fanatic; or at least are in agreement? If not denounce them as fringe. Denounce, or you may not be entitled to your beliefs.

Or because you are a fundamentalist you agree with Osama-another fundamentalist? And if so do we assume you are in lock step with everything he says?

Btw, you never answered my qurestions from the " The Bible On Trial" thread

1-Do you interpret Genesis literally.
2-Do you think the theory of Creationism is as valid as the theory of evolution?
3-Did the story of Noah and the flood occur as described.
4-Do you think "End Times" and the "rapture", as proposed by the more literal minded fundamentalists, should be given any credence?

Go ahead make my day. Start another thread entitled "Why I am different than all other religeous fanatics". That way we can determine if you have the right to believe- although others who also believe may be violent extremists.

Guilt by association is a bitch and cuts both ways.

boxcar
10-01-2005, 01:12 PM
This is you Box..

This is "tail gunner" Joe

You have outdone yourself Boxhead. Of all the "debates" I have had with you, this post reaches a new low.

Why don't you show up at the next peace march buy a good Joe Mccarthy mask and a super dooper bullhorn and shout ou....

Answer the question, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?

Look, 'cap .you're putting words in my mouth. I never said you are a communist. All I've maintained all along is that there are more points of agreement between liberalism and communism than there are differences. If this wasn't so, the commies wouldn't be actively seeking recruits from the ranks of liberals. They wouldn't be marching side-by-side, hand-in-hand with liberals.

I have also said in the past that liberals, generally, tend to be "soft" on Socialism, Marxism, Communism and the like.. Many Liberals are likely to lend a more sympathetic ear toward commie doctrine and ideology than they are toward the U.S. Constitution, for example.

Your own words bear these observations out and betray your sympathies. In your first post, you neatly and surreptitiously, as it were, put the responsibility on the shoulders of ANSWER for "stepping aside" -- for distancing themselves from liberals -- as though they are going to assume the proactive role. Talk about unrealistic! Being out of touch with reality!

Even in your second post you used this odd term "submerged" -- not really indicating who's going to do the submerging. Maybe the use of this rather strange and ambiguous term (in this context) was a Freudian slip of your subconscious that meant that this organization would have to go "underground" -- in the Democratic Party, perhaps? That the organization would have to become less visible to the public eye? "Submerged" like a stealth submarine, maybe?

Your next statement was even more revealing when you told us that, "ANSWER may be an enemy of liberalism..." MAY BE? You're not at all too sure are, you? Your convictions about this commie organization are a tad bit soft, weak, watered down, don't you think? (Regardless, I do!)

And since you're not too sure that these kinds of subversive, commie organizations are really enemies of libealism, then you've got to be just as uncertain about the bigger picture, i.e. all America -- all Americans. Your comments betrayed your true loyalities -- which is not the American Good, but Liberalism. Liberalism trumps the Public Good. Cute.

Then you cite some statement by this Gillard character where he allegedly said, "that it's way past time for the antiwar movement to cut ANSWER loose". His mindset, too, is telling, due to what he didn't say. He didn't say that it was high time for Liberals to cut ANSWER loose. There was no blanket codemnation of ANSWER or its parent organization. No, not at all. His statement was far more restrictive. He limited this "cutting loose" to just the antiwar movement -- which represents only one aspect of what ANSWER and its parent Workers World Party are all about.

I bet if Gillard had been a shutterbug at the SF rally, he, too, would have neatly censored his pics so that the SF Chronicle could portray the false impression that "kids of color" formed a grassroots organization all by themselves to protest the war.

But let me clue you in as to why this guy may be somewhat embarrassed by ANSWER: This orgnaization is anti-semetic and, as you pointed out, is not all that opposed to war -- especially if it's the US who's on the short end of the war -- much the way your Left Wing extremist soul mates feel about things, "coincidentally". To Gillard's way of thinking, it's probably best to keep these kinds of "antiwar" expressions suppressed -- hidden from public view. What value is there in shocking the masses? Incrementalism is the best approach.

By the way, should I assume because of your literal interpretation of the bible, you are an end times fanatic; or at least are in agreement? If not denounce them as fringe. Denounce, or you may not be entitled to your beliefs.

The same ol' tired, worn out diversionary tactic. Take the focus off the topic at hand, and turn it to my personal religious beliefs -- as if those beliefs have any bearing to the topic. Allow me to givea nother clue: You're lost and have strayed miles off-topic.

And you're so far over the top, you're beyond the point of any return! (And you dare tell me, I've reached a "new low point"!? Apparrently, the undeniable truth of the connections between many liberals and the commies, and the affinity that each political group has for the other must have really stung you badly.) For one thing, you really don't know what I believe. You don't know to what theological school I subscribe. You don't have the first clue, and you will never have. Once more, you speak out of the dark depths of your ignorance -- something to which you're clearly predisposed to doing.

And why do you persist, after all these months, in beating a dead horse? Are you so dull of mind that you do not understand what "no" means? How many times have I answered this, and given you reasons why -- both biblical and extra-biblical?

Or because you are a fundamentalist you agree with Osama-another fundamentalist? And if so do we assume you are in lock step with everything he says

This makes no sense -- except to a liberal mind, naturally Even IF I were a fundamentalist Christian, my convictions would seriously conflict with Islamic beliefs. (The operative phrase here is "seriously conflict".) But why am I not surprised that you brush aside and dismiss what any person of average ingtelligence would be able to deduce, i.e. that there would be many contradictions between the two religious beliefs? That the fundamental differences (bad pun intended) would be numerous, deep, broad, wide and most importantly...irreconcilable.

Go ahead make my day.

Wow! We have a Dirty Harry Wwanna-Be in our midsts! How long have you been suffering under this delusion, Mr. Tough Guy? How did you come come to be afflicted with this condition? Became overly emersed in too many cops and robbers games when you were kid? Became too enamored and attached to your cap gun collection, maybe?

Start another thread entitled "Why I am different than all other religeous fanatics". That way we can determine if you have the right to believe- although others who also believe may be violent extremists.

Oooh..what malevolence toward Christians, you have. One could almost think we're living in AmeriKa. But I tell you a truth: With this kind malice, you could easily and quickly become a darling of organizations like ANSWER, Workers World Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, etc. These groups are intolerant of evangelical Christians, also. A religious bigot like yourself would move up their ranks in no time flat.

And, yes, I have a right to believe what I want. A document called the U.S. Constitution guarantees me that right. Just like you have the right to put your faith in Liberalism, Socialism or even Communism, if you so desire. So, what's your point, Mr. Tough Guy?

We both know what you're attempting to say. You're trying (but once again in vain) to draw a paralell between my involvement in the Christian Church and your involvment in Liberalsim. But you really should refrain from overtaxing your brain with these artificial analogies or paralells because the lib mind is not very well adapted to making these kinds of things.

You seem to have forgotten that I have stated on other occassions that the two chief characteristics of the Christian church in this current age (these "last days" to use the biblical phrase) are apostasy and heresy. Very sadly, this is the way things are. The way things must be. But I'm joyous to report, nonetheless, that the bible predicts that this would be the overall spiritual state of the church in these "last days" -- this age between Christ's First and Second Advents.

Therefore, as a bible believing Chrisitan, I have faithfully obeyed all the biblical injunctions with respect to how true Chrisitians ought to deal with all the wide-spread spiritual declension throughout the universal church You see, I have repudiated the apostate church. Since I know what I believe and why I believe it, I have good reasons for why I shun one sect here and another there, or why I'm not a member of this denomination or that one, or why I don't break bread with this group of professing Christians, or have fellowship with another, etc. So your see, sir, I have assumed a very proactive role in distancing myself and my family from the very large and ever-growing apostate portion of the church. Wouldn't you agrree, 'cap, that actions speak louder than words? That by my actions, I have "denounced" the apostate church?

Conversely, I see no evidence that you have assumed such a role. Or that you have condemned the commie organizations that wish to ifiltrate the ranks and files of liberals. All you've said is that you don't agree with everything they say. Big deal! When I pointed you to a page of Workers World Party that states what they're "about", I asked you to very simply state for us what the points of disagreements are between you and them. Either you typed those points in invisible fonts, or you were hard-pressed to find very many.

Guilt by association is a bitch and cuts both ways.

You'll have to fly solo on this guilt trip, 'cap. My conscience is clean. Just make sure that you're not so overcome with it that you decide to fall on that two-edged sword and cause that heart of yours to bleed even more than it already is.

In closing, Dirty Harry Wanna-Be, permit me to once more respectfully decline your invitation to "make your day" in terms that most intelligent people would readily understand: I will not waste a nanosecond of my valuable time defending my beliefs to anyone whose intellectual mendacity is, perhaps, exceeded only by the depth of his religious bigotry. You, sir, may feel free to deposit my unambiguous sentiments for safekeeping into the vault that protects your gray matter -- when or if you're ever able to penetrate its incredible density.

Boxcar
P.S. And I'd be remiss if I didn't express my appreciation to you for unwittingly validating my latest tagline, also. You're surely a champion of the Marketplace of Diverse Ideas and Thought -- just so long as they all fit into Liberalism's template, that is.

Secretariat
10-01-2005, 04:36 PM
....
Many Liberals are likely to lend a more sympathetic ear toward commie doctrine and ideology than they are toward the U.S. Constitution, for example.


Define "many".

JustRalph
10-01-2005, 04:37 PM
Define "many".

A bunch.............

Secretariat
10-01-2005, 04:49 PM
A bunch.............

lol..is a bunch more than one or less than 10. More than 10 but less than 50. more than 50 but less than 1000. More than...you get the idea....

hcap
10-01-2005, 04:55 PM
Boxhead,

After first trying to downplay the numbers attending, you were PROVED wrong, and having nothing else of any significance to say, jumped on the "Answer is a bunch of commies wagon and so your peace march is commie propaganda, etc, etc ".

The facts are 100,000+ for the pro peace faction, a measly 400 for the pro war faction. The political beliefs of Answer are not shared by the overwhelming majority of folks who protested against the war.

I never said you called me a communist. This is what i said....

Why don't you show up at the next peace march buy a good Joe Mccarthy mask and a super dooper bullhorn and shout out....
Answer the question, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?

You lumped all those attending into one mass and implied Answers' influence was invasive and shrugged off the underlying motivations for patriotic americans to protest.
Organizations like these are drawn to Libs and Lib causes like a magnet is to steel. You wont' find these Commies trying to convert conservatives. They know better than to waste their precious time. Why should they? They already have a "ready made" liberal audience just waiting to be pushed over the edge -- or often just nudged over!

And then are we supposed to believe that the "100,000 person rally was composed of mostly businessmen, soccer moms, surburbanites, etc.? You don't think other exteme leftist groups were represented in force there -- like Moveon.org, members of Dummies Underground, subscribers to Daily Kos -- just to mention a few? You say, you don't have much in common with commies. Well, I betcha the brainwashed, gullible followers of these groups would find they have lots in common!

OK, now that you have confirmed once again you are a end times believer..you seem to have forgotten that I have stated on other occassions that the two chief characteristics of the Christian church in this current age (these "last days" to use the biblical phrase) are apostasy and heresy. You will allow me to NOW lump you with some extremist religious whackjobs. Let’s go back to 9/11 four years ago. Reverends Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell went on television to proclaim that the terrorist attacks were God’s punishment for a corrupt America.

So let's see, God withdraws favor from sinful nations-the terrorists were meant to be God’s wake-up call.

Meanwhile Osama bin Laden had also been reading his sacred book closely and literally, and had called on muslims to resist what he described as a “fierce Judeo-Christian campaign” against Islam, praying to Allah for guidance “to exalt the people who obey Him and humiliate those who disobey Him.” Allah will work his whammy according to Bin ladens' literal understanding

So lets apply some of your faulty set theory.
1- you believe in end times.
2- So do Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell
3- Robertson and Falwell also believe god sent retribution and we deserved it
4-You therefore also believe we deserved it
5- Osama believes god or in his case, Allah will bring retribution upon the infidels
6-Osama therefore actually agrees with Robertson and Falwell
5-You believe in divine retribution just like Bin Laden, and Falwell and Robertson
7-You and Osama share fundamental beliefs, and how do we know for sure since, you believe in divine retribution' you are not rooting for him?

Clue, I and those 100,000+ peace protesters are not rooting for Stalin


Answer the question Box, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of AL Qeda??

hcap
10-01-2005, 05:04 PM
Sec and Ralph,

Even if 450 out of 100,000+ were dirty rotten commie pinko vermin, that was more than the entire pro war gung hoers could muster

Ok how many in the pro war crowd were Nazis? Klu klux clanners and other wackos?

Clue- they held bigger barbecues and couldn't make it :jump: :jump:

boxcar
10-02-2005, 06:10 PM
Boxhead,

The facts are 100,000+ for the pro peace faction, a measly 400 for the pro war faction. The political beliefs of Answer are not shared by the overwhelming majority of folks who protested against the war.

Mere speculation on your part. Neither you or I know to what extent the political ideology of the "overwhelming majority" overlapped with commie ideology. Let's face it: There are too many unknown factors, such as how many left-wing extremists were in attendance, how many were in attendence to strictly protest the Iraqi War, how many were in attendance primarily to bash Bush on everything or anything, etc.? Your statement above, therefore, is silly and meaningless.

You lumped all those attending into one mass and implied Answers' influence was invasive and shrugged off the underlying motivations for patriotic americans to protest.

I believe the appropriate term is "pervasive", not "invasive" -- unless a lot of those "patriotic americans'' were allowing ANSWER to implant tiny electronic receiving devices into various orifices for purposes of long-term internal and subliminal indoctrination.

Again, it's simplistic to think that everyone in attendance had just one motive for being there -- even so I never lumped everyone together, as you falsely assert. Events like this are looked upon by opportunists as great opportunities to get into the public eye and sound off on many different issues. From what I've read and heard, there was indeed a great deal of Bush bashing going on for all kinds of reasons. (What else is new?)

OK, now that you have confirmed once again you are a end times believer..[/I] You will allow me to NOW lump you with some extremist religious whackjobs. Let’s go back to 9/11 four years ago. Reverends Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell went on television to proclaim that the terrorist attacks were God’s punishment for a corrupt America.

So let's see, God withdraws favor from sinful nations-the terrorists were meant to be God’s wake-up call.

Meanwhile Osama bin Laden had also been reading his sacred book closely and literally, and had called on muslims to resist what he described as a “fierce Judeo-Christian campaign” against Islam, praying to Allah for guidance “to exalt the people who obey Him and humiliate those who disobey Him.” Allah will work his whammy according to Bin ladens' literal understanding

So lets apply some of your faulty set theory.
1- you believe in end times.
2- So do Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell
3- Robertson and Falwell also believe god sent retribution and we deserved it
4-You therefore also believe we deserved it
5- Osama believes god or in his case, Allah will bring retribution upon the infidels
6-Osama therefore actually agrees with Robertson and Falwell
5-You believe in divine retribution just like Bin Laden, and Falwell and Robertson
7-You and Osama share fundamental beliefs, and how do we know for sure since, you believe in divine retribution' you are not rooting for him?

Answer the question Box, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of AL Qeda??

Goooood grief! The more you babble out of your ignorance, the more you look foolish. Someone needs to call the men in white jackets to put your mind in a straightjacket -- for your own safety and the public good!

What Robertson and Falwell believe about the "why" behind 9-11 is but one small aspect of of their particular school of eschatological thought. And in turn, is a "miniscule detai"l in the context of the much broader scope of their overall theological outlook of the bible (Eschatology being just one branch of Theology).

Likewise, what bin Laden believes about his brand of Islamic eschatology represents a relatively small detail in the grand scheme of his overall theology.

While two competing, conflicting ideologies or theologies can share certain beliefs (even "core" beliefs in some cases!), this doesn't mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that adherents on both sides also subscribe to the oppossing side's overall beliefs. This is so because the fundamental differences in their respective theologies are too numerous and too deep, and are, therefore, irreconciable. Whatever similarities there may be, the best that can be said is that such are coincidental, incidental or even superficial in nature. These minor similarities, relatively speaking, are never enough to tip the scale to the point where they balance or outweigh the many fundamentally important differences within two competing ideological or theolgoical systems. Now, permit me to demonstrate all this with your own list, which you have so graciously provided to us.

Let's say for the sake of argument that I'm in agreement with Falwell's and Robertson's take on the non-political, vertical/divine explanation for 9-11. And let's say that I'm in a really generous mood today, and I also grant you that this particular "end time" belief is a "core" belief -- is as fundamentally important as my belief in theism, for example. Now, when I examine your list, I see that point #5 (err..the first #5 on your list) contains a fundamentaly important difference between Christianity and Islam. (Remember: eschatology is but one branch of theology, and a branch is not the tree, is it!?) To a Christian, Muslims are the infidels; whereas to the Muslim mindset, Christians are. This is a kinda important irreconcilable difference, don't you think?.

But even further up on your list (point #3 dealing with retribution), Robertson and Falwell, while believing that this nation has strayed far from God and, therefore, have become a nation of "infidels", don't believe we are such because we don't hold to the tenets of Islam, but because we don't subscribe to the Orthodox Christian faith. Another important fudnamental and irreconcilable difference between Islam and Christianity.

This now brings us to your Point #6 -- one of the the "real winners" here -- wherein you state that bin Laden is in agreement with with Robertson and Falwell! How can this possibly be!? The former believe that Muslims (among many others) are the bad guys. Whereas Osama believes Christians are.

This takes us to your points #5 (the second one) and #7 -- the "really big winners" on your list: Because bin Laden and I both believe in "divine retribution" does not mean that I subcribe to his Islamic beliefs or that I am a card-carrying member of Al Queda. Only a hopelessly conflicted imbecile could at once hold to the Falwell/ Robertson eschatological position and bin Laden's -- both of which contain fundamentally important contradictions -- things that cannot be reconciled! Since this is the case, what does this make you -- the grand author of this "well thought out, I gotcha" list? (Well, I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions.) I will only say that all you've proved (one again) is how pathetically feeble and grossly inadequate the liberal mindset is when it comes to doing some real mental tasking -- some honest-to-goodness thinking!

Where you went wrong, 'Cap, is that there aren't any real paralells to be drawn between my comments on political ideologies and the largely superficial similarities between two very different religions' eschatologies. You took a couple of relatively small but factual details and tried to extropolate from them a big elaborate scheme that would supposedly lead us to your wishful conclusion. You took some twigs (some details) from a branch (eschatology) and represented it to us as being the tree (the whole truth of the matter, or theology in this case. You suffer from a classic case of Mental Myopia.

Stated differently, what you did was take a handful of facts from two different religions' eschatolgies and interpreted those facts outside their larger theological contexts, thereby doing the inevitable, i.e. reach a false conclusion.

Conversely, what I have maintained all along is that there are more and real similarities between Communism and Liberalism -- NOT because libs and commies were rubbing shoulders at two recent protest rallies (a factual but relatively unimportant detail) -- but because both of these political systems represent what we call political ideologies. And by definition, sir, an "ideolgoy" embraces a systematic body of concepts. Ideologies form conceptual frameworks from which to theorize, and even to formualte sociopoltical programs or doctrines. In fact, an ideology ususally embraces a large body of thought. Therefore, all of this stands in very sharp contrast to your irrelevant, ill-conceived argument consisting, essentially, of minutia -- by comparison.

Tell me, 'Cap, have you had a chance to go through that Poltical Agenda List of the WWP and inform us of all the points of divergence between that organization's political agenda and Liberalism's? I would dearly love to see that list.

Boxcar

boxcar
10-02-2005, 06:53 PM
lol..is a bunch more than one or less than 10. More than 10 but less than 50. more than 50 but less than 1000. More than...you get the idea....

I'm tempted to answer in a similar manner to the way your buddie Hcap did, .e.g the "vast majority" in attendance at the DC rally. But then I'd only be emulating a deluded Wanna-be Dirty Harry, wouldn't I?

So, you really wanna know how many is "many"? Okay...see if you can catch this idea and run with it without fumbling: There are as many gullible, naïve, shallow-thinking liberals out there as there are left-wing extremists, for starters. All the left-wing whackos (of which there are more than a few) would be most succeptible to being seduced by commies, commie propaganda, commie doctrine, etc.. This group would be easiy led to blindly following the enticements and lure of the Pied Piper.

Please don't ask me what "more than a few" means. All you have to do to get a fair idea is search the web for the many left-fringe sites, forums, political organizations, bloggers, etc. If roughly, as you libs love to boast, 50% of Americans are Democrats, then a pretty conservative estimate would be that about 50% of these are commies, borderline commies, or at the very least socialists in their thinking. And I haven't even included very large groups in the entertainment world, in the arts, or who hold professorships in higher institutions of learning, etc..

Hope this helps.

Boxcar

hcap
10-03-2005, 07:45 AM
Ok Box I say "The political beliefs of Answer are not shared by the overwhelming majority of folks who protested against the war"

You say "Mere speculation on your part. Neither you or I know to what extent the political ideology of the "overwhelming majority" overlapped with commie ideology".

Let's apply your objection evenly. Let's say 25% were died-in-the-wool stinkin' commies. That leaves 75,000+
Let's say once again 25% of the pro war faction were the rights' version of extremism-Nazis. That leaves 300+

250 to 1 sentiment against the war

No matter what percentage you choose You lose.
Go ahead apply your new found "truth in statistics" evenly and fairly to both sides. Remember fair and balanced? Make my day.

And yes you did attempt to lump everyone togetherAnd then are we supposed to believe that the "100,000 person rally was composed of mostly businessmen, soccer moms, surburbanites, etc.? You don't think other exteme leftist groups were represented in force there -- like Moveon.org, members of Dummies Underground, subscribers to Daily Kos -- just to mention a few? You say, you don't have much in common with commies. Well, I betcha the brainwashed, gullible followers of these groups would find they have lots in common!I then pointed out your faulty logic of lumping all factions together by a simplistic logical fallacy, and you attempt to defeat it by a detailed logical rebuttal. Wasting bandwith and all of our time.

Now unless you really are really rooting for Osama, I would have thought you would not convolute yourself into a huffy fit and recognized that just as not all pro war supporters are Nazis, not all pro peace supporters are commies. Just as not all religious beliefs can be deemed identical due to limited similarities.
I believe the appropriate term is "pervasive", not "invasive" -- unless a lot of those "patriotic americans'' were allowing ANSWER to implant tiny electronic receiving devices into various orifices for purposes of long-term internal and subliminal indoctrination.
You know Mr Boxhead you, I, and others make spelling errors and may chose inapropriate terms. I and others tend to overlook silly errors. You love to nitpick endlessly. You constantly are counting angels dancing on pinheads, Btw, you will not find any on yours', however just to set you right...

One definition of Invasive - Marked by the tendency to spread, especially into healthy tissue: an invasive carcinoma.

I believe the commie threat was in it's heyday looked upon as a cancer.

Could this explain it all?? Could this explain your constant ranting aginst liberals?
I know exactly of what I speak. I grew up in family consisting mostly of liberals. And two of the members were hardcore commies...
..But I did get some pretty good glimpses into their sordid, communistic world when I lived with them for a while in Frisco. Yeah...they were antiwar, too....and anti-everything else that had to do with America! Remember the movie 12 Angry Men?

So instead of wasting bandwith, showing how logical fallacies are eroneous as we all know, illustrated with my example of you, Osama, the Revs fallwell and Robertson, spend some time debating honestly. Or if you wish to continue. Waste your time on these.....


All dogs are mammals
Dogs chase their tails
All Cats are mammals
All Cats chase their tail.


If we pass laws against fully-automatic weapons, then it won't be long before we pass laws on all weapons, and then we will begin to restrict other rights, and finally we will end up living in a communist state. Thus, we should not ban fully-automatic weapons.

I am beginning to believe that you and Osama may share at least one belief. Both of you are literal minded holier-than-thou types, and yes believe in divine retribution. As does Falwell an Robertson.
So although you deny that you have much in common with any of those voices of wisdom, let me remind you that you have explained instances in the bible where god destroys particular cities and countries including all inhabitants. Children, suckling babes, and animals unlucky enough to graze in their masters fields. I believe you have said god is removing sinful tenants from his rented apartments.

So contrary to my silly logical fallacy, maybe all four preachers-the good reverands, Osama and YOU, are all birds of a feather.

Answer the question Box, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of AL Queda?? Make my day.

boxcar
10-04-2005, 01:25 AM
Ok Box I say "The political beliefs of Answer are not shared by the overwhelming majority of folks who protested against the war"

You say "Mere speculation on your part. Neither you or I know to what extent the political ideology of the "overwhelming majority" overlapped with commie ideology".

Let's apply your objection evenly. Let's say 25% were died-in-the-wool stinkin' commies. That leaves 75,000+
Let's say once again 25% of the pro war faction were the rights' version of extremism-Nazis. That leaves 300+

250 to 1 sentiment against the war

No matter what percentage you choose You lose.
Go ahead apply your new found "truth in statistics" evenly and fairly to both sides. Remember fair and balanced? Make my day.

Did I miss something here? Wasn't the recent rally in DC an antiwar rally? And wasnt' this antiwar rally organized and put together by a commie organization?

And the anti-antiwar protesters were organized by who? Did I miss something again? Was there some Nazi group who put it all together for them?

From an historical perspective people, generally, don't go out and organize and participate in "pro-war" rallies because really...virtually no one is "pro-war" in an unconditional sense. But this often isn't the case with antiwar rallies. There are plenty of people out there who are "antiwar" in a such a sense. (We've had this discussion before, remember, Mr. Anti[all]war.) Therefore, it's not surprising to see small turnouts to counter the anti-war message. But that's basically all it is: It's an anti-antiwar protest -- not a pro-war protest, per se.

This situation is analgous to what many people do when they go to the polls to vote. Even though they're cast their vote "for" a candidate, doesn't necessairly mean that they substantially support that person. In many cases, their votes "for" a particular candidate represent votes that are more against the opposition.

For whatever reason, anti-antiwar demonstrations haven't been all that big. Maybe being anti-anti something just doesn't inflame the passions. Or perhaps a lot of people just decide to sit it out and stay out of the way of fools.

And yes you did attempt to lump everyone togetherI then pointed out your faulty logic of lumping all factions together by a simplistic logical fallacy, and you attempt to defeat it by a detailed logical rebuttal. Wasting bandwith and all of our time.

I've long maintained that you're one of the most dishonest people I've ever had the displeasure to meet on the web. (You, sir, rival our former Prevaricator-in-Chief.) I have never lumped everyone together. It has been you who has foolishy done so, sir! Here are your own words:

I don't agree with Answer on many issues, as I'm sure the 100,000 + also were not Answer members (emphasis mine)

You're "sure", you said. You were certain. No shadow of a doubt, right? Tell us, please, how you have come to be so "sure". Do you now or have you ever possessed the powers of clairvoyance? But what makes your statement so absurd is that you're assuming that ANSWER itself had none of its members attend the rally! They all stayed home, according to you! They had to because you excluded them from the "100,000+" fig.) So...what you essentially did (unwittingly, of course) is that you created two "lumps". One lump consisted of the '100,000+", who were all lilly white and as pure as the driven snow. And the other lump was ANSWER who, even though they organized and staged this event, stayed home because you say they did!

But your absurd and stupid notions reach even lower depths when you said:

BUT Boxhead, the fact remains that the enormous majority of people who marched around the White House on Saturday were there for one purpose--to oppose Bush's War in Iraq. And the enormous majority of people who marched around the White House on Saturday likely have nothing else in common with ANSWER but opposition to the war in Iraq. (emphasis mine)

Questions: Can you in any way, shape or form support and substantiate these outlandish claims with hard, solid evidence? Were any radical left-wing groups present at the rally, for beginners?

Conversely, all I've maintained all along is esentially this:

But seriously, I have a problem with what you stated because many "true liberal voices" either don't care or are indifferent about lying down with the dogs, while others actutally welcome them. Let's face it: Both the commies and the libs, generally, have a lot more in common than not, in terms of ideology. Unquestionably, the commies are attracted to libs like flies to horse manure. (Or is it the other way around?)

This one paragraph sums up argument nicely. And the evidence that I presented that supports the above contention is that :

a) The "true liberal voice', the "patriotic americans" who attended the rally made no move to disassociate themselves from ANSWER. To repudiate the group who organized them and to repudiate their commie doctrine.

b] The Gillard character didn't universally repudiate ANSWER either. His call was that libs should distance themselves from such groups in a restrictive sense, i.e. in the immediate context of the antiwar movement.

c) You yourself were uncertain whether ANSWER is a enemy or friend of liberals. The best you could muster up was that this organization "may be an enemy" of liberals.

d) To date you haven't been able to bring yourself to draw up a list of all your poinst of disagreement with the agenda of WWP (the parent organization of ANSWER.)

In the conspicous absence of any condemnation of commie ideology, my conclusion to these cold, hard facts can only be: You Libs are as dumb as sheep, and will let anyone or any group shepherd you regardless of their ideology, or You libs have a lot more in common with commie doctrine than you let on, and are generally sympathetic toward their ideology in many if not most instances. And, perhaps, in many cases libs's feelings have advanced beyond sympathetic or soft to taking a more proactive role in these kinds of orgnaizations.

Then you asked:

So are liberals to blame for associating with fringe groups. Perhaps

Hmm..."perhaps", you say. Well...one thing's fer certain, you and your lib soul mates are guilty for not condemning active commie organizations in this country, and for failing to take all the necessary steps to distance yourselves from evil, subversive organizations who are clearly the enemies of the United States of America. (I'll let you draw your own conclusions about "blame".)

Why don't you get working on that list for us, Hcap? I, for one, would like to know if you're not soft on communism. Your continual failure to answer honestly can only leave but one impression.

But please, don't try to turn this around to make Christians the enemy of the state -- and try to draw some fanciful moral equivalency between radical muslims and the conversative, evangelical Christians because as I have conclusively demonstrated, Christians truly have nothing substantially in common with Islam; whereas this isn't the case with Liberalsim and Communism. Liberalsim and Communism share lots of common ground -- not just "limited similarities", as you have most recently claimed. If these similarities are so "limited', so superficial, then surely you shouldn't mind delineating briefly, all the numerous points of disagreements between the two ideologies.

But here's the site again, in case you find a modicum of courage and honesty:

http://www.workers.org/wwp.php

Boxcar

dav4463
10-04-2005, 04:49 AM
Would we have won WW II if the fringe groups got the press that they get today? You do realize that there were insurgent groups in Nazi Germany just as in Iraq.

hcap
10-04-2005, 07:30 AM
Sec started this thread-"Iraq War - Pro and Anti Rallies", comparing both.
You have tried to dispute the numbers with silly arguments and after being proven wrong, called patriotic americans communists, based on speculation, innuendo and apparently a painful childhood, growing up with a twisted exposure to anti war extremists. I know exactly of what I speak. I grew up in family consisting mostly of liberals. And two of the members were hardcore commies. My uncle expended quite a bit of time and effort trying to fill my young mind with commie propaganda.
Huh? you appear to be fighting with your uncle endlessly. Perhaps your brand of divine retribution religious ferver doesn't give much weight to psychoanalysis, but I think you should give it serious consideration.

You continue to draw unsupported conclusions.
Neither of us know what the percentage of fringe groups, extremists or other wackos showed up in either protest.Yet you pull this out of your ass..Please don't ask me what "more than a few" means. All you have to do to get a fair idea is search the web for the many left-fringe sites, forums, political organizations, bloggers, etc. If roughly, as you libs love to boast, 50% of Americans are Democrats, then a pretty conservative estimate would be that about 50% of these are commies, borderline commies, or at the very least socialists in their thinking. And I haven't even included very large groups in the entertainment world, in the arts, or who hold professorships in higher institutions of learning, etc..To claim that since Answer, was the main organizer of the peace protest it does NOT logically follow, that a sizable number of attendees were in agreement with minority views espoused by Answer. This was not a pro socialist or pro marxist rally. This was a peace-anti war rally. Aren't you aware of the findings of all recent polls? Are these polls taken by socialist or pro marxist organizations?

There is very little support for this war. You are pulling meaningless numbers out of your rear. Your unsupported "communist conspiracy theory" is just that a theory.
Real numbers. Comparing pro peace to pro war. First the pro war...

1-The recent Pentagon's 'Freedom Walk', organized by the bushies drew only 10,000.

2-Bush ties to raise money for Iraq, manages only $600.
"An extraordinary appeal to Americans from the Bush administration for money to help pay for the reconstruction of Iraq has raised only $600, The Observer has learnt. Yet since the appeal was launched earlier this month, donations to rebuild New Orleans have attracted hundreds of millions of dollars."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1577797,00.html

3-400 show up at the pro war rally.

Now the anti war...

1-100,000 show up at the peace rally.
2-All polls show the public against the war.

Your inability to think clearly is clouded by your anti-liberalism prejudice.
And I will make you a deal. I will gladly tell you on what issues I and Answer agree, if you will simply answer these few questions...

1-Do you interpret Genesis literally.
2-Do you think the theory of Creationism is as valid as the theory of evolution?
3-Did the story of Noah and the flood occur as described.
4-Do you think "End Times" and the "rapture", as proposed by the more literal minded fundamentalists, should be given any credence?
5-Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of AL Qeda?

boxcar
10-04-2005, 02:47 PM
Sec started this thread-"Iraq War - Pro and Anti Rallies", comparing both. You have tried to dispute the numbers with silly arguments and after being proven wrong, called patriotic americans communists, based on speculation, innuendo and apparently a painful childhood, growing up with a twisted exposure to anti war extremists.

You lie again! Provide the quote wherein I "called patriotic americans communists".

And actually, what I've been disputing far more than the "numbers" is your foolish notion that everyone in attendance at the DC rally was there only for one purpose, i.e to protest the Iraqi war.

You continue to draw unsupported conclusions.
Neither of us know what the percentage of fringe groups, extremists or other wackos showed up in either protest.Yet you pull this out of your ass.

Only to present a viable alternative to the picture you painted for us which consisted of 100,000+ saintly mainstream Americans. It was you who drew the unsupported and simplistic conclusions about the composition of the crowd, i.e. strictly antiwar and nothing else -- no other agenda.

To claim that since Answer, was the main organizer of the peace protest it does NOT logically follow, that a sizable number of attendees were in agreement with minority views espoused by Answer. This was not a pro socialist or pro marxist rally. This was a peace-anti war rally. Aren't you aware of the findings of all recent polls? Are these polls taken by socialist or pro marxist organizations?

There are polls, and there are polls. There are straightforward, honest questions asked sometimes, but most of the time the questions are like cards in a crooked, stacked deck -- full of leading questions designed to get specific desired results. (A really great example of this was when reporters were asking black Katrina victims in Houston if they blamed Bush for their plight.)

As far as the sources for most of these polls -- well, since the mainstream media is doing most of the asking, I'd say the deck is pretty well stacked.

But more importantly, the war polls do not have to necessarily reflect the actual ideological composition or overall motivation of the demonstrators at any particular rally. This is your logical fallacy, sir.

Your mere words aren't worth diddly squat. You have essentially said that the antiwar protestors at these rallies represented "mainstream Amercians" whose only reason for showing up was to protest the Iraqi war. Yet, these "patriotic americans"(your phrase) didn't do squat to repudiate the commies who organized them or commie ideology. Neither did Gillard. Neither have you. And for that matter, neither have your darlings -- the mainstream media! Instead, the lib rag (SF Chronicle), for example, failed to factually report a commie presence at the SF rally. The paper's photog went out of his way to conceal this fact by essentially censoring his pics. Neither was it widely reported in the mainstream press about the commie element in the DC rally. Whatever may have been said, we can be sure, that for the most part it was "tucked away" in the midst of lots of verbiage on some back page.

Actions speak louder than your mere words, 'cap. These aforementioned facts tell me that libs, generally, can be or are soft on communism. That libs are capable of giving tacit approval or support to commie ideology because there is a great deal of common ground shared between Liberalsim and Communism. Or once again in lieu of all this -- that you libs are just downright dumb sheeple, who will follow anyone or any group, indiscriminately -- who will allow anyone to put rings in your noses to lead you around.

Real numbers. Comparing pro peace to pro war. First the pro war....

You're dreaming, Dirty Harry. "Pro-war" peoople are all but non-existent, as explained previously.

Your inability to think clearly is clouded by your anti-liberalism prejudice. And I will make you a deal. I will gladly tell you on what issues I and Answer agree, if you will simply answer these few questions...

How did I know this was coming? Surely, 'cap, you would want me to be true to my faith, wouldn't you? You wouldn't want me ignore the biblical injuntions relative to dealing with fools, would you?

'Cap, you are hopelessly lost. How far would I get with anyone who is uncertain about whether or not commie organizations are really enemies of liberals?

Your persistent refusal to condemn Communism and all it stands for speaks volumes. Go your way, in your uncertainity, and fondle and ogle over your cap gun collection, Mr. Wanna-be Dirty Harry.

Boxcar

ljb
10-04-2005, 04:18 PM
You lie again! Provide the quote wherein I "called patriotic americans communists".

Boxcar
Box,
It is hard to provide any quote from you as you tend to ramble on some. But in note number 84 above you said this:
If roughly, as you libs love to boast, 50% of Americans are Democrats, then a pretty conservative estimate would be that about 50% of these are commies, borderline commies, or at the very least socialists in their thinking.
Now then are you saying Democrats are not patriotic americans or are you not saying 50% of Democrats are commies ?

hcap
10-04-2005, 04:27 PM
You lie again! Provide the quote wherein I "called patriotic americans communists".

Pull some more out of your rear
YOU SAID ALL OF THIS NONSENSE...


Please don't ask me what "more than a few" means. All you have to do to get a fair idea is search the web for the many left-fringe sites, forums, political organizations, bloggers etc. If roughly, as you libs love to boast, 50% of Americans are Democrats, then a pretty conservative estimate would be that about 50% of these are commies, borderline commies, or at the very least socialists in their thinking. And I haven't even included very large groups in the entertainment world, in the arts, or who hold professorships in higher institutions of learning, etc..
And then are we supposed to believe that the "100,000 person rally was composed of mostly businessmen, soccer moms, surburbanites, etc.? You don't think other exteme leftist groups were represented in force there -- like Moveon.org, members of Dummies Underground, subscribers to Daily Kos -- just to mention a few? You say, you don't have much in common with commies. Well, I betcha the brainwashed, gullible followers of these groups would find they have lots in common!So, you really wanna know how many is "many"? Okay...see if you can catch this idea and run with it without fumbling: There are as many gullible, naïve, shallow-thinking liberals out there as there are left-wing extremists, for starters. All the left-wing whackos (of which there are more than a few) would be most succeptible to being seduced by commies, commie propaganda, commie doctrine, etc.. This group would be easiy led to blindly following the enticements and lure of the Pied Piper.

Now go a head, pick apart each word showing us what you think is your erudite reasoning while parsing nonsense into fragments of nonsense.

Don't forget this
I know exactly of what I speak. I grew up in family consisting mostly of liberals. And two of the members were hardcore commies. My uncle expended quite a bit of time and effort trying to fill my young mind with commie propaganda.
Fight your uncle in the privacy of your home. A horseracing board is not the correct venue to get your head shrunk

Go ahead make my day!

Secretariat
10-04-2005, 05:43 PM
If roughly, as you libs love to boast, 50% of Americans are Democrats, then a pretty conservative estimate would be that about 50% of these are commies, borderline commies, or at the very least socialists in their thinking. And I haven't even included very large groups in the entertainment world, in the arts, or who hold professorships in higher institutions of learning, etc..

Hope this helps.

Boxcar

So let me get this right. 50% of Americans are Democats and 50% of that 50% are "commies, borderline commies, or at the very least socialists in their thinking." And you've "not included" the entertainment industry or the arts or higher educations of learning. Box, you coulda been Joe McCarthy's front man.

I think in your heart you belevie that what you preach would make America better, but I gotta tell you...Your post above is a wakeup call that it is time for you to truly think about therapy at this point. I mean this Box. You need help if you're seeing Commies in 1 out of every 2 Democrats. Step away from it a bit, and talk to somebody in the medical profession about it.

Bobby
10-04-2005, 05:47 PM
Your post above is a wakeup call that it is time for you to truly think about therapy at this point. I mean this Box. You need help if you're seeing Commies in 1 out of every 2 Democrats. Step away from it a bit, and talk to somebody in the medical profession about it.


:D :D :D

:lol: :lol: :lol:

JustRalph
10-04-2005, 06:33 PM
I don't think Box is that far off. I can tell you that I know several Dems who advocate socialist or near socialist ideals. They believe the Government should provide, and worse yet, be in charge of just about everything. They think that the government should provide a large majority of things. Including free schools, health care, Free College Education and on and on.
They also believe in the edict that Government "knows better" and can take better care of these things.

Ask Randy Weaver what he thinks of the Government taking care of his family? How about those professors that advocate overthrow of our government? They think that they know better...........and that the masses (read; red states) don't know what they are doing.

Look at other countries that provide these "free Government Services" and you will find Socialist Ideals and down right Communist repression. Box is not that far off.

ljb
10-04-2005, 06:46 PM
Randy Weaver,
wasn't he that anti-government nazi sympathizer guy from out west someplace ?
Here is a snippet from an interesting link on Mr. Weaver
Randy Weaver is a prime example of the mental process of many Christian fundamentalists. He is utterly convinced the Apocalypse is due any day, the government is "out to get us," and that it is OK to kill anyone whom he sees as "in league with Satan" (meaning the government.) His ravings about the government declaring martial law over Y2K have been proven total nonsense. But this religious right bull**** prompted Sullivan County government to put the county on emergency alert for the "end of the world" on December 31st and had some county residents hiding in their basements. One associate of mine was so convinced of this nonsense he went out and bought a 6000-gallon water tank, generator, dried food, and crates of toilet paper. He refused to answer any questions on January 2nd.


and here is the link





http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/dispatch/weaver1.htm

hcap
10-04-2005, 07:05 PM
Classic Herb Block from May 8, 1950

http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/swann/herblock/images/s03408u.jpg

Secretariat
10-04-2005, 07:23 PM
Like I said Box..therapy...and if JR agrees with your statement, well then maybe dueling couches are recommended....

ljb
10-04-2005, 08:16 PM
Like I said Box..therapy...and if JR agrees with your statement, well then maybe dueling couches are recommended....
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Suff
10-04-2005, 11:38 PM
I. They believe the Government should provide, and worse yet, be in charge of just about everything. They think that the government should provide a large majority of things. Including free schools, health care, Free College Education and on and on.
.

I see the conservative party as as having many more policies that insert Government into Americans lives.

Terri Schiavo being the perfect example. When I read the Constitution I don't see a fundamental right to a Feeding Tube. That is Patient/Doctor. The Conservatives want in.

When I listen to Conservatives talk about legislating marriage and Heterosexual relationships I see more involvement. That's adult/adult. The Conservatives want in.

When I see conservatives legislating for Christian theology in public education, I fear more govt involvement. That is Teacher/Student. Conservatives want in.

When I see Conservatives consuming huge amounts of political capital to force Pregnant woman to stay that way, I see more Govt. Involvement. That is a Woman's Choice. Conservatives want in.

The truth is, each party has a view on what role Government plays in America.

By my math, Conservatives are extremely zealous about getting into your Bedroom, into your Doctors office, into your spirit, and into your morality.

I'll take a government role in education and healthcare before I take the above.

Tom
10-05-2005, 12:18 AM
50% of dems are commies?

I thought it was 75%, and the other 25% in jail! :lol:

JustRalph
10-05-2005, 12:43 AM
I don't give a damn about Randy Weaver's religious beliefs and I don't care about him getting the local county all riled up over Y2k. I was referring to the wholesale attack on him and his family that occurred at Ruby Ridge. If you don't know that story (the FBI shooting his son and Wife, while she was holding a 2nd infant son, I believe it was a son) over what turned out to be a high class misdeamenor crime. The rest of the religious stuff I don't care about. The overzealous FBI used excessive force and some were actually charged with Murder. They beat the rap on grounds that the FBI agents themselves can't be held responsible when following orders etc..etc.....

Suff: The fact that you believe that all conservatives are religious driven is an error. Many are not driven by religion. (as many here already know, I consider myself an Agnostic, leaning heavily into atheist territory) We are driven by the principles of right and wrong. Plain and simple. We believe in absolute right and wrong, no matter "the culture" in which these acts occur. I believe there are certain acts that are inherently wrong. One is using abortion as birth control. This is the only reason I am against it. My wife is pro abortion, under certain circumstances. But not for birth control alone. Even she see's the fallacy of making "the choice" more than once for convenience. The Popular Liberalmindset finds no fault at all in a women having 4-5 abortions over her lifetime because "it is her choice" I happen to believe that at some point you have to start thinking about when life begins. And making certain decisions that don't force a women to have to make "a choice" Of course much of this argument has to do more with cultural issues and much of that comes back to different ethnic groups and their wholesale assault on "good judgement" when it comes to birth control. There is startling evidence that certain ethnic groups have disabled entire generations with situational circumstancial poverty. Wherein the sexual conduct of the parents seals the fate for their children. These acts of "mis-judgement" if you will, are present in Whites, Blacks and others. But some groups use abortion to solve the problem, others don't. It has become a crutch to rely on. I don't condone it for this reason. No Religious grounds on my end. It is used as a get out of jail free card for those who can afford it. Those who can't, suffer also. And often for a longer period of time. It is a sad state of affairs that is made worse by Doctors who chase the almighty buck on the grounds of "it is a womens choice" and I know they do it for those reasons. I worked a few years for a hospital that owned abortion clinics and they lobbied for pro abortion causes because it made them big money. It just adds to the sad state of affairs and the politicalization of abortion.

As it comes to Government in our lives, I believe that the constitution as written was/is a pretty damn fine document. I don't give a damn if the founders didn't envision computers and the "modern advancement " that I hear quoted everytime some Lib want's to amend the constitution. Libs love to wrap themselves in the Constitution ala the 1st Amendment whenever they feel they are being censored etc. But, mention the 2nd Amendment and they get all goofy about "what the founders meant" The Government never gave a damn about citizens carrying guns right on their hips throughout the country for a hundred years plus. I think the intent was pretty obvious. It is a fairly new notion all things considered when it comes to "Gun Control" It is only the last 100 years or so wherein gun control is even mentioned in a serious light. Or at least one that is taken seriously. Some say that Lincoln's assasination was the first event that began the discussion of gun control. I have read other opinions on gun control, but it really took off after 1968 and the assasinations of King and Kennedy. Most individuals don't realize that the 2nd Amendment was meant to allow the people of this country to rise up and shoot the members of their government. Plain and simple. If this country becomes tyrannical in nature the people can protect themselves from it. End of story. That is why the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of rights. Self protection came secondary.........yet was an obvious given considering the nature of society at the time the document was written. It was common practice to carry a weapon.

I believe that the other parts of the constitution should be interpreted the same way. Read it and weep. Don't add, don't take away. National Defense and the basics. That is all. I agree that lately the damn Repubs are more intrusive than the Dems. But then again, they are the ruling party and I believe that given the chance the Dems would have done the same things, maybe even more. Just me............thinking here.

I don't want in your bedroom, your church, your doctors office and most of all your spirit. I don't give a damn about your definition of Morality. But don't force me to "accept your version" publicly. I don't tell you how to live your life, but don't make a political movement out your sex life. which is what I believe the Gay or homosexual lobby is trying to do with Gay Marriage etc. Hell, I don't care if Gays want to get married, as long as it doesn't have any effect on me or my wallet. As of today.........it does. Sorry about that. So for the moment I guess I am pseudo against Gays getting married. This speaks mostly to health issues and insurance etc. I wont' get into that debate, it can go either way. But I can tell you that my insurance agent tells me that my insurance company would stop doing business in Ohio if the state allows Gays to marry. Therefore it does have an effect on me. So you get my point. Your points on the "Conservatives" wanting to intrude in every area of your life are overblown. You act as if the bible belt is forming an army. They are not. Although some think they are an army. It is all words and rhetoric. I blow it off too....I suggest you not take them so seriously....Ralph Reed and his kind, Falwell and the like are the same as the guy who is trying to sell you the latest pocket fisherman at 3 a.m. If you can't see that, then opt for the pocket fisherman. Just maybe you can catch a meal or two. Reed and Falwell can't say that much..............

Tom
10-05-2005, 12:53 AM
What happened at Ruby Ridge and Waco could happen to you or me.

What really scares me more than China, Iran, or terroists is the idealogy Bush is bantering about lately - first, use the military for disastor relief, now , today, talking about using the military for isolated quarentine in the event of bird flu outbreaks.
Using the military inside our borders is the begining of a bad end. Yabol! :eek:

JustRalph
10-05-2005, 12:58 AM
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/ruby2.html

Ruby Ridge info

Weaver Awarded $3.1 Million from US Government

see the link...........

Suff
10-05-2005, 01:14 AM
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/ruby2.html

Ruby Ridge info

Weaver Awarded $3.1 Million from US Government

see the link...........

This story got a lot of play here because the agent Killed lived in Quincy MA. I was very familiar with it.

It is an anomaly and an overreach of Law enforcement. I have to get up early so I'm off to bed, . I read your post and I'll comment on that tomorrow.

However, I think it important to note the reason they set up Weaver. I agree they did set him up on Bullshit weapons charges... But the reason they did it was that he was attending meetings of a White Supremacy group that the Govt was trying to infiltrate. They used the weapons charges to try and get him to inform on that Group.

His argument to the Govt was that he only attended the meetings because his friends went and it was his rare social interaction. As you may know, he was a real recluse.

So although the Govt overreached and mismanaged the investigation... The intent was proper.

Suff
10-05-2005, 01:20 AM
What happened at Ruby Ridge and Waco could happen to you or me.

Yabol! :eek:

You had a guy down there banging 13 year old girls in the name of God while ammasing an ARMORY full of weapons.

Relguious freedom one thing. Raping Teenagers using the Bible.....another.

boxcar
10-05-2005, 01:25 AM
So let me get this right. 50% of Americans are Democats and 50% of that 50% are "commies, borderline commies, or at the very least socialists in their thinking." And you've "not included" the entertainment industry or the arts or higher educations of learning. Box, you coulda been Joe McCarthy's front man.

I think in your heart you belevie that what you preach would make America better, but I gotta tell you...Your post above is a wakeup call that it is time for you to truly think about therapy at this point. I mean this Box. You need help if you're seeing Commies in 1 out of every 2 Democrats. Step away from it a bit, and talk to somebody in the medical profession about it.

For all your hot air, Sec, I haven't heard you once repudiate communism -- just like your buddy, 'cap hasn't. I gotta think both of you fall into one of the aforementioned groups (as in "1 out of every 2 Democrats" aren't necessarily "Commies") -- or both of you are really dumb sheeple.

Boxcar

boxcar
10-05-2005, 02:34 AM
Hey, Libs, are you for or against Affirmative Action? Do you think it's good law? Do you think it has helped the blacks?

Boxcar

ljb
10-05-2005, 02:37 AM
Hey Boxcar, are you going to answer my question regarding your calling american patriots commies ? do you think it was a good call or do you want to take it back ?

ljb
10-05-2005, 02:49 AM
Justralph,
Here is a link that gives a less biased opinion of Ruby Ridge.
http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/ruby-ridge-incident/
since you chose to give the NRA's view I thought it should be viewed this way also.
I do agree the fbi was wrong but, both sides made mistakes in this incident. His child was an innocent victim of this catastrophy, his wife appears to be an accomplice in his lunacy.

dav4463
10-05-2005, 03:46 AM
Hey, Libs, are you for or against Affirmative Action? Do you think it's good law? Do you think it has helped the blacks?

Boxcar


I'm not a Lib, but I know it hurts white males.

hcap
10-05-2005, 08:39 AM
Hey Boxhead,

Answer failed in spreading communism-the news coverage was about the war, not the communist, socialist or marxist message. The peace folks have added to the anti-war message

Do you want to make sure YOU are not the unwilling pawn of commie or anti-"god fearin" regimes? Then you better....

1-Look carefully at the bottom of your shoe. Does it say "Made in China?" If you're wearing sneakers, it probably does. Check your normal shoes as well

2-Buy anything from Wal-mart? Dump,em in the trash.

3-Eat any big macs or whoppers, or other fast food lately? They all have branches in RED CHINA

4-Open up the computer you babble away on. Check the components.
Any say made in China?

5-Own any stocks in buisnesses that trade with China? Drop them now.

6-Buy any toys for your grandchildren? Did you check to make sure NONE were produced in China?

If you are guilty of any of the above, you are MORE guilty than peace protesters who marched against the war. You have succeeded in supporting communism in a real way. With cash. For shame.

Remember the name of mccarthy's committee? HUAC The House Un-American Activities Committee. So how many other repressive un-American regimes do you support now? You allow your taxes to be spent on aid to many countries that have been called out on violations of human rights, without writing your congress person-correct me if I am wrong

What were you doing with your tax dollars when we propped up the "butcher of bahgdad", back in the 80's? The bathists were criminals, terrorists and socialists as well.

What would ole' tail gunner joe have to say

BTW, before you answer my questions about your biblical interpretations, please answer ljb..
Hey Boxcar, are you going to answer my question regarding your calling american patriots commies ? do you think it was a good call or do you want to take it back ?

And your avatar is totally disrespectful to women. Is that supposed to be Hilary or Blanco? Add this to your sessions on the couch getting your needed head shrinkin, women sit. You need some lessons in biology

hcap
10-05-2005, 09:19 AM
Box, I have found a snapshot of one of your mentors from your younger days.
Probably does not do him justice. Good choice on hair stylist tho' :jump: :jump:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/images/mather1.gif

Cotton Mather

JustRalph
10-05-2005, 09:24 AM
Justralph,
Here is a link that gives a less biased opinion of Ruby Ridge.
http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/ruby-ridge-incident/
since you chose to give the NRA's view I thought it should be viewed this way also.
I do agree the fbi was wrong but, both sides made mistakes in this incident. His child was an innocent victim of this catastrophy, his wife appears to be an accomplice in his lunacy.

been there, done that. Read that one before. I don't care about how nuts weaver is. He has a right in the U.S. to be a white seperatist. He can worship whatever the hell he wants. Just because he didn't want to be an informant the government went after him. I can't name very many things, if any, the government does better than the private sector.........especially when it comes to law enforcement. Been there, done that too..........

ljb
10-05-2005, 11:26 AM
been there, done that. Read that one before. I don't care about how nuts weaver is. He has a right in the U.S. to be a white seperatist. He can worship whatever the hell he wants. Just because he didn't want to be an informant the government went after him. I can't name very many things, if any, the government does better than the private sector.........especially when it comes to law enforcement. Been there, done that too..........
Just, I agree he can worship anywhere he wants. I also agree the fbi went overboard in their handling of Weaver. There has been some concern that the creation of the Homeland Security Dept. will make this type of activity even worse. In reading your reply to Suff, I come up with the thought, your main concern is gun control. You expressed opinions of slight concern on abortion and other areas. I agree with you on most of those opinions.

boxcar
10-05-2005, 11:50 AM
Hey Boxcar, are you going to answer my question regarding your calling american patriots commies ? do you think it was a good call or do you want to take it back ?

First: You have to define "american patriots". Secondly, you have the same reading comp problem as Hcap does; for I never said what you claim. Without doubt both of you graduated from DumbDown High with a 4.0 (which in the real world is more like a 2.5).

Now, why don't you tackle my questions about Affirmative Action.

Boxcar

ljb
10-05-2005, 12:31 PM
First: You have to define "american patriots". Secondly, you have the same reading comp problem as Hcap does; for I never said what you claim. Without doubt both of you graduated from DumbDown High with a 4.0 (which in the real world is more like a 2.5).

Now, why don't you tackle my questions about Affirmative Action.

Boxcar
Boxhead,
You are the one with the reading comp problem. See note 84 in this thread. This is the note where you called Democrats commies. Now try to stay on track here, your attempts at trying to spin this discussion to affirmative action will not work until you respond to my question.

boxcar
10-05-2005, 01:30 PM
Hey Boxhead,

Answer failed in spreading communism-the news coverage was about the war, not the communist, socialist or marxist message. The peace folks have added to the anti-war message

Do you want to make sure YOU are not the unwilling pawn of commie or anti-"god fearin" regimes? Then you better....

I love watching you libs squirm whenever a discussion turns to the ideologiies of communism and liberalism. All your large bold print tells me that you're shouting at the top of your lungs and are about to burst a blood vessel. Better calm down and take a few deep breaths.

Now, you try to draw another stupid analogy between the events in the DC rally and the U.S. government trade policies that have largely dictated our market dynamics. Unlike you, sir, I have often repudiated the policies which have put the this country in the position in which it's in. I believe that China is a "giant" who is no longer "sleeping", and one day, our national policies will come back to haunt us -- policies that were set into motion first by Nixon, but continued by all subsequent adminstrations -- Republican and Democrats alike.

So, while I must buy certain things that are made in that evil country, I only do so because I need to -- not because I want to. (In fact, my wife and I make conscious efforts to buy as few Chinese goods as possible.) For example, neither of us would be banging out messages across the Internet if we didn't have computers with Chinese-made components in them. Try buying one that doesn't have any!

But this kind of situation has been forced upon us by our elected leaders' foreign and dimplomatic policies, and is quite different from people freely choosing to lay down with mangy dogs in order to get their fleas. There was no need to go this route. You libs could have organized your own rally. Or you libs, at the rally, could have publicly repudiated the communist organizers. The mainstream media could have expressed its outrage at the role the commies played, etc. But no...none of this happened. You know why? Because libs and commies are ideolgical "family", in manner of speaking. To some libs, a commie might be a third cousin. To others a first cousin. Yet, to others a more "immediate family" member. The closeness of the relationship depends on how radical and whacked out any given lib is. (An anti[all]war nutcase at the rally, for example, would probably consider a commie to be his "brother'" or "sister".)

So...I take it that you object to this trade situation our government has forced upon us? Yet...you libs are all gaga over big government. You want government to take care us from cradle to grave. You expect the federal government to solve all our social ills and economic problems, etc. How is it that you can be so trustful of the institution (federal government) who has gotten us into this serious mess with China?

I, on the other hand, am not a member of any political party. And I have often voiced my cynicism of government. Like the Founding Fathers, I am very wary of power, and the natural tendency for people to abuse it.

Your analogy falls flat because I am only morally accountable, personally, for the policies that others make (elected government officials) insofar as I'm in agreement with those policies. But this isn't the case with the rally. Others didn't make the choice for you libs to participate in a demonstration that was organized by commies. Others didn't make the choice for you libs to not distance yourself from the commie presence. Others didn't make the choice for you libs to not repudiate the commie presence and all that communism stands represents. Others didn't decide for Gillard on what he should say and how he should say it about ANSWER's involvement with libs.

And here's one of the major reasons why, Hcap, libs are morally culpable -- now get this carefully: Because there are many Hcaps out there who really don't know if commies are their friends or their foes! They just haven't been able to make up their minds. Maybe they are, maybe they're not. They lack conviction. They're lukewarm. They're confused -- just like you!

And your avatar is totally disrespectful to women. Is that supposed to be Hilary or Blanco? Add this to your sessions on the couch getting your needed head shrinkin, women sit. You need some lessons in biology

My avatars aren't much appreciated by any of you libs. Yawn.... And I thought you were so big on "nuance" -- yet, you just can't appreciate its message. You are dull of mind.

Boxcar

boxcar
10-05-2005, 01:38 PM
Boxhead,
You are the one with the reading comp problem. See note 84 in this thread. This is the note where you called Democrats commies. Now try to stay on track here, your attempts at trying to spin this discussion to affirmative action will not work until you respond to my question.

#84 doesn't even contain the phrase "patriotic americans'". I stand by what I said earlier: You definitely have a reading comp problem in more ways than one. Even the roughly 25% of Dems in that post were not classified as all being "commies". Go back and read it.

Boxcar

ljb
10-05-2005, 01:52 PM
#84 doesn't even contain the phrase "patriotic americans'". I stand by what I said earlier: You definitely have a reading comp problem in more ways than one. Even the roughly 25% of Dems in that post were not classified as all being "commies". Go back and read it.

Boxcar
Number 84 contains the statement 50 percent of dems are commies. Are you saying dems are not patriotic americans ? Can I make this any clearer for you ?

hcap
10-05-2005, 02:36 PM
Mr Boxhead,

You you have the choice from day one NOT to purchase anything from china. There are plenty of alternatives. Or if you did believe so strongly in the commie-chinese menace, you could do without some things where you may have no choice.

We all choose our own lifestyle and the trinkets associated with that lifesyle. I'm not talking about as you put it-"U.S. government trade policies that have largely dictated our market dynamics". That is them not you. You sound like you do everything the gov wants you to do. Stand on your own feet and take responsibility for your own actions. Boycott china. Hey shouln't be so hard.
You guys did France!

What about the Saudis and other tyranical regimes our gov't has supported?
I believe you copped out on that one in response to Sec by basically claiming "realpolitik". Your anti Christian ( ironic ain't it ?) morality is showing. You will spread rumours about the "commie menace" and peace protesters in one breath, and you will excuse in another, a "realpolitik" sleezy oil partner.

Make up your mind. Either you are with evil, or are against it. Or are you claiming nuance?It's not too late brother Boxcar, denounce all that you claim as evil. Not just we libs and dems- as evidentaly your uncle taught you.

PS. Don't forget to check your shoes. Who knows you could be walking in the footsteps of evil....

Proverbs 6:16-19
‘There are six things which the Lord hates; yes seven which are an abomination to Him:
(a) Haughty eyes,
(b] a lying tongue,
(c) and hands that shed innocent blood;
(d) a heart that devises wicked plans,
(e) feet that run rapidly to evil
(f) a false witness who utters lies,
(g) and one who spreads strife against brothers.’

Since you already have some experience with (b), and (f), you don't wanna tempt fate with (e). Can you hear me. Or is that the your conscience shouting?

hcap
10-05-2005, 03:57 PM
You saidFor example, neither of us would be banging out messages across the Internet if we didn't have computers with Chinese-made components in them. Try buying one that doesn't have any! But this kind of situation has been forced upon us by our elected leaders' foreign and dimplomatic policies, Did you even try to purchase a computer with as few chinese parts as possible? Go to a local computer shop and ask for only non chinese parts. I believe you can get major components made elswhere. Did you even consider that? No need for dimplenomacy

Or if you are so anti-communiist as you claim, do without a computer.
Sure would save all of us time, and since you would not have an easy outlet for your "voice" on the internet, you could try visiting a shrink instead. Take your uncle along. Family therapy might do you some good

boxcar
10-06-2005, 12:53 AM
You said Did you even try to purchase a computer with as few chinese parts as possible? Go to a local computer shop and ask for only non chinese parts. I believe you can get major components made elswhere. Did you even consider that? No need for dimplenomacy

Sure I have. But it ain't easy. Ever try getting any type of computer-related cables that aren't made in China. Or try getting something as mundane as a telephone cord that installs between a telephone handset and the base? And being a good steward of my money, I do very little shopping at local shops since there are so few in my area, plus online shopping is cheaper.

Or if you are so anti-communiist as you claim, do without a computer.

Sure...just like I should do without anything else for which I have a need.

Sure would save all of us time, and since you would not have an easy outlet for your "voice" on the internet, you could try visiting a shrink instead. Take your uncle along. Family therapy might do you some good

Cut my poor ol' unc some slack already, will ya? He's been dead for over 20 years now.

I'm glad to see that you've taken my advice and have cooled down some. I was really worried about you; for I easily pictured you behind your keyboard seeing red(s) at every stroke.

Boxcar

boxcar
10-06-2005, 01:35 AM
Mr Boxhead,

You you have the choice from day one NOT to purchase anything from china. There are plenty of alternatives. Or if you did believe so strongly in the commie-chinese menace, you could do without some things where you may have no choice

Nonsense. When a foreign source has a virtual monopoly in a market for any particular item, then the consumer doesn't have very much of a choice.

But believe me...I watch carefully where the products are made that I buy. The things I cannot easily get that are either domestically made or made in some non-commie country, then I have no choice. I'm certainly not going to make a 100-mile trip, for example, to go buy some $2.50 extension cord that I need to, or some hardware items to finish a project. These kinds of things of mundane, common things are hardly "trinkets" -- but in many cases are necessities of life.

We all choose our own lifestyle and the trinkets associated with that lifesyle. I'm not talking about as you put it-"U.S. government trade policies that have largely dictated our market dynamics". That is them not you. You sound like you do everything the gov wants you to do. Stand on your own feet and take responsibility for your own actions. Boycott china. Hey shouln't be so hard. You guys did France!

Figures you would compare a France with China -- when there's really no comparison! France makes virutally nothing that my wife or I need. We certainly don't need their wine, their tires, their Danon yogurt, their Car and Driver mag, their sleazy Motel 6s, their cosmetics, perfumes, etc., etc. Unlike France, China manufactures far too many, mundane, needful, everyday items that are often very diffiicult to source out elsewhere -- thanks to the policies of the federal government.

By the way, since you've climbed on your high and mighty white moral charger, I take it that you're standing firm and holding tough on your antiwar principles by refusing to pay your taxes to the federal government? After all, your tax money is helping to pay for the Iraqi war. Your tax dollars are helping the U.S. government to kill people, and are getting our soldiers killed, also. Why... a man of your "high moral" character shouldn't have any problem at all at risking prison for yourself and your entire family. We're talking life and death here! People are dying because of your tax dollars! If every liberal and every commie in America marched to DC and told the government that "we're mad and we aint' gonna take it anymore, and we're certainly not going to pay our taxes so that Bush can kill innocent people..." -- then you libs should be ready to sacrifice all, if necessary. Family, friends, jobs, homes. All these things pale in comparison to the value of human lives.

So, tells us...have you been bangin' out your posts from a prison cell?

Boxcar

boxcar
10-06-2005, 01:48 AM
Number 84 contains the statement 50 percent of dems are commies. Are you saying dems are not patriotic americans ? Can I make this any clearer for you ?

What's abundantly clear to me is that you can't read.

I never said what you claim. What I said is that about 50% of Dems are either "commies, borderline commies or at the very least socialists." This is what I said in that post. But in other posts I added a fourth category: The category of ignorance whereby many libs really don't know and don't care who's leading the charge. These are the "dumb sheeple", who are easly led around by their nose rings.

Are you now clear on this?

hcap
10-06-2005, 08:23 AM
Boxhead, you finaly speak the truth...
People are dying because of your tax dollarsTrue. Yours as well. That's what I have been trying to tell you for some time.
Are you suggesting I and others go to prison for the mistakes of the bush administration? How'bout they go to prison?

Ok, you claim to avoid chinese products. I have my doubts about your rabid anti-commie ferver as applied to the practical aspects of doing so.Cables of all sorts may be bought onliine from american companies.You may have to pay a bit more. But it is doable. In the age of the internet, Monopolies are avoidable.

But be that as it may, according to your "guilt by association" logic, others that buy, whether knowingly or unknowingly, are commie supporters. That is I would guess at least 50% of American consumers. Don't ya think repubs may buy as many chinese products as dems? Do all of these americans-patriotic-until proven unpatriotic- fall into this category?
"These are the "dumb sheeple", who are easly led around by their nose rings." Also don't ya think, considering that many large corps-probably inhabited by MORE repubs than dems, conducting buisness in china, are more guilty of outright fellow traveling?

boxcar
10-06-2005, 02:43 PM
Boxhead, you finaly speak the truth...
True. Yours as well. That's what I have been trying to tell you for some time.
Are you suggesting I and others go to prison for the mistakes of the bush administration? How'bout they go to prison?

Sure I'm suggesting it! It's your tax dollars that are funding this war. And it you libs who are saying Bush made all these mistakes. (As for me, I don't mind my tax dollars funding the war.) Well, then, stop funding those "mistakes" with your tax dollars. It's your tax dollars that are perpetuating those "mistakes". It's your tax money that is enabling this war policy. Think about this for a moment: If every antiwar protestor (which would be about 50% of registered voters) refused to pay his or her taxes, how long could the war last? Not only would you cripple the war effort, but you'd bring the entire country to its knees! You know the old saying: "Money talks; everything else walks."

Ok, you claim to avoid chinese products. I have my doubts about your rabid anti-commie ferver as applied to the practical aspects of doing so.Cables of all sorts may be bought onliine from american companies.You may have to pay a bit more. But it is doable. In the age of the internet, Monopolies are avoidable.

Ahh...but there is a point when trying to put your principles into practice (i.e. being "practical") becomes quite impractical. Sure, I could spend hours or even days of time shopping all the web for a $4.99 item, making numerous phone calls in an attempt to find a product's country of origin, etc. -- and then after all that, spend double or triple for the product. Why? Because it's made in China -- a nation not even at war right now? I would hardly be a good steward of my time or money, according to biblical principles and even clear injunctions. (I don't believe the good Lord above would want me to make a career out of shopping for, sourcing and buying non-Chinese products.)

But be that as it may, according to your "guilt by association" logic, others that buy, whether knowingly or unknowingly, are commie supporters. That is I would guess at least 50% of American consumers. Don't ya think repubs may buy as many chinese products as dems? Do all of these americans-patriotic-until proven unpatriotic- fall into this category? Also don't ya think, considering that many large corps-probably inhabited by MORE repubs than dems, conducting buisness in china, are more guilty of outright fellow traveling?

Only in a very indirect way. Again, matters of practicality enter the picture. What are the poor people, and the people on fixed incomes and the such supposed to do? Boycott Walmart? And then go without because they can't afford to pay higher prices elsewhere?

You're trying to draw a hard n' fast paralell between consumer purchasing that has largely been dictated by government policy, and protestors, apart from any outside influcences or forces, choosing to march in a rally organized by commies. In the latter case, I have to think an "enormous majority" (if you don't mind me borrowing your phrase) knew with whom they were rubbing elbows with and, therefore, could have chosen other options. But in the former case, our elected representatives, our elected president have made choices on our behalf -- made choices that can and have had profound effects upon the social and economics aspects to our socieity. Whenever I'm personally in disagreement with a choice my elected representatives made on my behalf, I do make a conscious effort to try to mitigate the effects and consquences to the extent that it's practical, prudent and wise to do so. (When I need to finish a paint job, for example, I'm not going to spend 3 days and $45. in gas riding around looking for a $5.79 paint roller that's not made in China. If I spent all my time engaging in such foolish practices, I'd get very little constructive work accomplished in my lifetime; for at least 50% of my time and a good chunk of my financial resources would be squandered away looking for non-Chinese made products!)

But not everyone can be like me because not everyone is finacially situated like me, for one thing. Most people think first and foremost with their wallets or pocketbooks. Where goods are made is of little or no concern. Most think in one dimensional terms: "bottom line". But I'm not going to judge such people -- basically because this is one of those gray ethical areas.
This is the type of issue that would require some some careful thought and reflection. It's best to let everyone's own conscience be their guide -- just as I have with repsect to my own purchasing habits.

In closing, this isn't a Repub or Dem issue -- not merely because I don't belong to either party -- but because everyone is a consumer, regardelss of party affiliation. However, not everyone has the same needs. Not everyone's finances are the same. Not everyone is as well educated and informed as the next guy, etc., etc. In short, there are numerous dynamics in operation that drive consumers' choices. These dynamics are, yet, other reasons why this isn't a black and white issue, as you're attempting to make it out to be.

Meanwhile, though...since you are of the opinion that the Bush Admin. is mistaken for getting us into the Iraqi war, then you should choose wisely how your tax dollars are being spent. The most effective way to protest the war is to protest the taxation that is funding the war. And the only way to do this effectively is to stop paying your taxes. If you and all like-minded folks did this, the war would end very quickly.

Besides all this...this strategy is just as practical as your China boycott idea.

Boxcar