But, again, no one is offering up alternatives.
And, btw, thanks for the blanket generalization you made of me earlier. Closed-minded? Turn that mirror upon thyself.
But, again, no one is offering up alternatives.
And, btw, thanks for the blanket generalization you made of me earlier. Closed-minded? Turn that mirror upon thyself.
flavio- In an attempt to be civil with you for once, could you please scan those alternatives? Thanks.
Evan
What?? I never turned down an offer of yours to scan them. Go ahead...do it and post a link. I'd like to see what some people are passing out. When I said I'm not wasting my time I meant there are no protests here where I live and I'm not driving/flying to Chicago, NYC, etc. just to check on some protests.
Uhhh....
guess I had you pegged pretty accurately. You don't really have any interest in what they have to say. You just want to discount all of them without even knowing what they have to say.
You prefer if someone would just show you a single example of something you don't agree with so then can justify writing them ALL off. It really puts you on the same level as human2k a couple posts up.
So right there I have two examples of completely close minded pro-war AT'ers. Should I now assume that EVERY pro-war AT'er is close minded and entirely shut off from any viewpoint than the one spoon-fed from Bush?
Then what the heck was that??
I am discounting them as I've not heard nor seen anything productive come of these protests. Unless you call shutting down businesses and blocking traffic productive.
Today's polls show the 79% of Americans support the war effort. IIRC over 50% supported going to war before it started. I try not to support any politician but I will hand it to Bush for seeing the plan through rather than being a puppet to opinion polls like Clinton.
200,000 New Yorkers protesting is a pretty meager turnout in a city of 10 million. I am five stops from Washington Square Park in NYC and I am not going. I am not pro-war per say, but seeing Saddam dead or in exile is not necessarily a bad thing in my book.
I will support war-protesters who are truely in their heart for peace. Not blind Bush haters and angry liberals.
flavio
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 6,823
- 1
- 76
That came directly from what you said about hearing one protester nad your subsequent assumptions. Also from the fact that you said you didn't want to waste your time hearing them out even if I got the literature for you.
That was a tongue-in-cheek generalization to try and show you the flipside of your generaliztions.
I can't believe you didn't catch that.
I was replying to your statement that I should go out to a protest. I covered my reasons why not in my last post.
I did catch that...and don't know why you assume I was making generalizations when I quoted actual interviews with protesters...not just one but four separate quotes. I could have written more but I thought my point got across. 'Thought' being the operative word.
OK, here's the thing............I have nothing against the "Anti-War" or "Peace" protesters...........they have every right to gather and protest against something they oppose.
Where in my opinion, they cross the line, is when the "peace" or "anti-war" protesters turn violent or break the law. Kind of ruins your credibility when you call yourself a peace protester and break laws and turn violent toward citizens whom do not agree with you or are nuetral.
As far as support or non-support, figures show (courtesy of gallup) that 90% of reps., 72% of all others and 50% of Dems. now support this action to give roughly 77+% overall whom support this action.
Where in my opinion, they cross the line, is when the "peace" or "anti-war" protesters turn violent or break the law. Kind of ruins your credibility when you call yourself a peace protester and break laws and turn violent toward citizens whom do not agree with you or are nuetral.
As far as support or non-support, figures show (courtesy of gallup) that 90% of reps., 72% of all others and 50% of Dems. now support this action to give roughly 77+% overall whom support this action.
From a pop-up window at washingtonpost.com:
Author Salman Rushdie, seen in this 1999 file photo, wonders if antiwar protesters will be "so eager to oppose Bush that they end up seeming to back Saddam Hussein."
Author Salman Rushdie, seen in this 1999 file photo, wonders if antiwar protesters will be "so eager to oppose Bush that they end up seeming to back Saddam Hussein."
No Blood For Oil - common chant at some protests around the world
Gee...and people up here wonder why many are discounting the usefulness of the 'anti-war' protests.
More from the article:
The Australian cities of Brisbane and Hobart were brought to a halt.
Yeah...let's cause harm to the economies of those cities because we're against Bush.
"We feel sympathy with the people of Iraq, and the families of Iraq. That's why we're here supporting the families," said one demonstrator.
Oh, really? Where was your 'sympathy' when they were being gassed? Where was that sympathy when dissidents were being tortured and executed? Where has that sympathy been when Saddam keeps his people in hunger yet builds huge, extravagant palaces?
Gee...and people up here wonder why many are discounting the usefulness of the 'anti-war' protests.
More from the article:
The Australian cities of Brisbane and Hobart were brought to a halt.
Yeah...let's cause harm to the economies of those cities because we're against Bush.
"We feel sympathy with the people of Iraq, and the families of Iraq. That's why we're here supporting the families," said one demonstrator.
Oh, really? Where was your 'sympathy' when they were being gassed? Where was that sympathy when dissidents were being tortured and executed? Where has that sympathy been when Saddam keeps his people in hunger yet builds huge, extravagant palaces?
Right on. I love that lie, that the war is about oil. My favorite part of the "Protesting the Protestors" video was when he was interviewing an obvious Bush hater:
Interviewer: Do you think we are going to keep the oil fields in Iraq after the war?
Protestor: Yes, definitely.
Interviewer: Then why didn't we keep them after the first Gulf War?
Protestor: (becomes irate realizing she's caught out there) MAYBE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE SUCH AS BASTARD FOR A PRESIDENT!
As for Saddam. He and his sons have gassed their own people. Tortured them. Has women raped in front of their husbands as punishment to the man. Hangs woman upside down for a week during their period to disgrace them among other things. Even if the whole WMD thing was BS, the SOB needs to be taken out. I am not one for meddling in other people's affairs but in this case, good riddance.
When Clinton went after Slobodan Milosevic I didn't see people crowded in San Francisco protesting.
flavio
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 6,823
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: conjur
I did catch that...and don't know why you assume I was making generalizations when I quoted actual interviews with protesters...not just one but four separate quotes. I could have written more but I thought my point got across. 'Thought' being the operative word.
Exactly like I said. You got a few examples of protestors you don't agree with and now feel free to generalize ALL of them. That's not really showing much thought at all.
Yeah...but GHWB wasn't all that well like by non-Republicans then, either. Guess her memory doesn't go back that far. Then again, maybe her hypocrisy has blinded her to facts (as if Clinton wasn't a 'bastard' by her apparent standards.)
Right, but I am concerned as to what will happen in the future with other leaders of Saddam's ilk (Cuba, North Korea). Is the U.S. going to push to get them out of power, too? If not, why not? Esp. with Castro's recent crackdown of dissidents. Granted, Castro wasn't subjected to 12 years of continual UN resolutions to disarm and not accused of alledgedly supporting causes of terrorism (paying family's of suicide bombers, creating terrorist training sites, etc.)
Yeah...and it goes to support, somewhat, an argument against the fact that this is maybe not the first time we've some pre-emptive regime changing where a leader was not directly affecting the U.S. But, Clinton did have NATO backing.
Protestors I don't agree with?!?!? WTF? Did you even READ the quotes?? The first three were from people who had no idea what the heck they were doing and their responses were completely irrelevant to the ongoing conflict! The fourth one was for continued inspections, which have been proven to be ineffective as even Blix has reported a history of Saddam pulling the wool over inspectors' eyes.Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: conjur
I did catch that...and don't know why you assume I was making generalizations when I quoted actual interviews with protesters...not just one but four separate quotes. I could have written more but I thought my point got across. 'Thought' being the operative word.
Exactly like I said. You got a few examples of protestors you don't agree with and now feel free to generalize ALL of them. That's not really showing much thought at all.
Oh man, it was horrible. I couldn't get down Vaness Ave today in my Cad because of all the thousands of protestors. People were everywhere in front of city hall and the Opera house. I had to go out to the ocean to drive south. Well I didn't have to, but I did. So nice to live in a place where people care. We are so lucky we aren't being bombed.
No one really wants war, but....
Many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us on September 11, 2001, and those who support terror. These activists may be alone or in a gathering... most of us don't know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:
1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary, ask questions, and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.
2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.
3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful.
4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.
5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.
6. As soon as they do that, knock the fvck out of them.
Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.
There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a very high cost.
We owe our military a huge debt for what they are about to do for us, our children, and the world. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose.
And that's the bottom line, because the U.S.A. said so.
Lesson over, class dismissed...
Many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us on September 11, 2001, and those who support terror. These activists may be alone or in a gathering... most of us don't know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:
1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary, ask questions, and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.
2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.
3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful.
4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.
5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.
6. As soon as they do that, knock the fvck out of them.
Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.
There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a very high cost.
We owe our military a huge debt for what they are about to do for us, our children, and the world. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose.
And that's the bottom line, because the U.S.A. said so.
Lesson over, class dismissed...
I wholeheartedly agree with my new best friend LedZeppelin.
Personally I hate anti-war protestors and often fantasize about plowing through a crowd of them with my tahoe : 0.....just so all you liberals know...i'm just joking....i guess.
Personally I hate anti-war protestors and often fantasize about plowing through a crowd of them with my tahoe : 0.....just so all you liberals know...i'm just joking....i guess.
flavio
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 6,823
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: conjur
Protestors I don't agree with?!?!? WTF? Did you even READ the quotes?? The first three were from people who had no idea what the heck they were doing and their responses were completely irrelevant to the ongoing conflict! The fourth one was for continued inspections, which have been proven to be ineffective as even Blix has reported a history of Saddam pulling the wool over inspectors' eyes.Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: conjur
I did catch that...and don't know why you assume I was making generalizations when I quoted actual interviews with protesters...not just one but four separate quotes. I could have written more but I thought my point got across. 'Thought' being the operative word.
Exactly like I said. You got a few examples of protestors you don't agree with and now feel free to generalize ALL of them. That's not really showing much thought at all.
So I'm assuming you don't agree with those particular four protestors right? Then you think that you can generalize ALL protestors from those hand-picked four. Same as I was saying before.
So, then polls are useless, eh?
If you look back through this thread you'll find other instances of what I posted. And it will continued in the future. I have yet to see one shred of any kind of credible evidence that one protest is doing any kind of constructive good.
And, passing leaflets out to people involved in the protest don't really matter. Those leaflets should be going to the media, congresspeople, senators, etc. Otherwise, it's merely preaching to the choir.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter