I believe everyone has the right to dissent if that is their desire.I do not believe that protesters have the right to purposely stop traffic and try to shut down entire cities has has been the case in San Francisco.
Peaceful nonconfrontational protest is ok.
It is when the protests turn to violence and the
anarchists take over that the line is crossed.
Any anti-war demonstrator that violates another's right to support the war effort and damages public or private property in the name of "Peace"
or "Anti-war" movement should and ought to be
arrested and held without bail.
I am not saying that all anti-war and peace protesters are like that;it is the small group of
anarchists who show up every now and then and attempt to derail the protests that ruin it for those who truelly believe in their movement.
As far as the anti-war celebs go,I am a bit tired of having them hug the spotlight all the time and would like to see for a change some of the celebs who actually SUPPORT our troops and the war effort be given some air time as well.

I think the idea of an entire political movement founded on conspiracy theories is amusing.

My favorite is when they disrupt traffic. Hey even if I agree with you ticking me off will not greatly increase my support.

Protestor in middle of street: No More Jury Duty!

Me in car: Oh, you are protesting jury duty. I'll just patiently wait here instead of going home from work.

On the other side of the coin, there was a news item on this guy who set up a big sign near his property that said "Protestors, Keep Your Mouths Shut!"

I'm for the war, but I don't agree with that sentiment.

No...because if nobody's permitted to debate the rightness or wrongness of it all, then what kind of 'freedom' are the soldiers over there defending in the first place?

I agree there's no place for violence or other gratutiously disruptive acts. But the price of living in 'this great country' as the patriots put it, has by definition to be dissent and debate.

I actually saw a small anti-war protest in the town of the little hospital I've been working in here in New Zealand for the last two months. Not that there was much to disrupt, of course... nor anywhere particular to go to. It was actually kind-of cute.

Scott, I agree with you about the anarchists and their means to disrupt everything in order to bring down the government. It is people like them who give the rest of the peace movement, who oppose the military action for rational reasons (not just about the Oil) and who just want the men and women to come back home, a bad name. These anarchists, sadly, become the focus of attention for the whole world - not to mention being brought to the attention of the sabre-rattler brigade who accuse the hippie peaceniks as a whole of being unpatriotic to the point of treason, and supporters of the Democratic World's enemies.

Here in New Zealand there were protests against Aussie PM John Howard coming to meet Kiwi PM Helen Clark in their annual meeting - incidentally dominated by the Iraq conflict - and opne protester, a Kiwi schoolteacher, was seen burning the NZ flag (seen by him as a "symbol of imperialism" or something). Personally this goes too far, although you can understand the lengths one will go to make a statement. Later, as military action drew nearer, some mug with a roller brush and red paint painted the words "NO WAR" on the Sydney Opera House before being caught.

Scott, your last point about celebrities not coming out in support of the war is interesting. After the terrorist attacks in America 18 months ago, some TV personality in the USA made a sly joke on TV about the whole affair, and days later he was told to find work elsewhere. (Call it a restraint on liberty if you will - I would call it both that AND insensitive.) Given the current general concensus in the US population, that the anti-war message seems to be the more attractive proposal on the basis of this being an "unjust" and "unnecessary" conflict, I think for someone to suggest they were all for war and for turning Iraq into a US protectorate, it would be commercial suicide for him, and then stories would fly everywhere about the celeb and his active support for the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, his huge Stars and Stripes flag on the wall and copy of "Soldier of Fortune" magazine under his desk [That's enough - everyone] Oh OK then.

Luigi,

You do if you are trying to sleep.

Well, some jerk went all (anti-war) political in his Oscar acceptance speech.

Interestingly, he was booed until his time was up and he was escorted off the stage.

It's fine to be anti-war. But there is a time and place for everything. And this wasn't it.

Who was it?

Don't know. He won the award just before Valenti (the lord of all evil) came on to present Best Documentary.

Luigi says it was Michael Moore. Makes sense.

Brian, it was Michael Moore winning Best Documentary for Bowling for Columbine. You can read my post on the board for that movie, which I made right after he won.

William, I'll reply to your comment as soon as I figure out what it means.

This is a letter I just sent to Michael Moore at mike@michaelmoore.com:

Dear Michael,

Congratulations on winning the Oscar.

In November of 2001, I was standing outside the Loews Theater at 84th and Broadway one evening, giving out invitations to a free movie screening, as part of my jog in the movie market research industry. There had been a private screening that evening for the cast and crew of “Vanilla Sky,” and when I saw you walk in, I assumed you were part of it. When I walked in to greet you, I realized you were just there to see a movie, and I introduced myself as a big fan of yours. I’ve followed your work since “Roger and Me,” and asked you if you were still doing your TV show on Bravo, “The Awful Truth.” You told me that you weren’t, but that you were working on a new movie about the gun culture that would be out the next year called “Bowling for Columbine.” It isn’t often that a regular schmoe on the street hears about a movie that will eventually become one of his favorites from the very director of the movie, and from that evening, I couldn’t wait for it to come out. When it did, it blew me away. Although it has been criticized for stretching the truth, I tried to be objective, and could not say it didn’t have an affect on me. I can’t wait for it to come out on video.

When the Best Documentary nominations were announced tonight, I stood in front of the TV to see if you’d win. Although I'm biased, in that I didn't see the other nominees, "Bowling for Columbine" had an immense affect on me, and I was very hopeful that it would win. I WANTED more people to see it. I WANTED your movie to get increased viewing and circulation, so that your next movie would be ensured.

That said, I must admit that I was very disappointed with your acceptance "speech." While all the other references to the war made by other recipients were tasteful (Adrian Brody's was by far the classiest, and he actually made his comments seem pertinent to the movie for which he won his award), your ranting about the fiction of Bush's presidency was executed in very poor taste, and not at all relevent to your award. You should let your work speak for itself, and not turn someone else's private party (during which you yourself were honored) into a podium for everything that embitters you. Instead of accepting the award with conviction and grace, you turned the moment into shameful farce. So ugly was your abandonment of all dignity and credibility at winning for your documentary that even the supposedly liberal Hollywood audience drowned out your final words with boos.

There's a difference between being righteous, and being self-righteous. Your work may mark you as the former, but your behavior tonight marked you as the latter. I am deeply disappointed at your behavior tonight, and hope you show greater maturity with respect to your work and your beliefs in the future.

I do not mean to insult you or condescend to you, but merely tell you how your behavior looked to one huge fan tonight.

Luigi Novi

If you go to http://www.oscar.com/oscarnight/winners.html, you can not only see the complete list of winners, but you can read each winner's acceptance speech as they read it by clicking on that person's name. If you missed Moore's screed, you can read it there. I also recommend reading Adrian Brody's. His was by far the most poignant.

"Given the current general concensus in the US population, that the anti-war message seems to be the more attractive proposal on the basis of this being an "unjust" and "unnecessary" conflict,"

The most recent Gallup poll shows that 76% of Americans support the President, actually.

Amen, Luigi. Moore turned what could have been an excellent chance for a poignant, moving moment into shrieking partisanship. I'm a fan of Moore's work, but that just bugged me (boy, where's Paddy Chayevsky when you NEED him!).

Also, quite correct, on Adrien Brody. Didn't rant or rave, but just seemed very real and human. I also enjoyed Chris Cooper's speech.

I really liked the irony, by the way, of having Moore being followed by Jack Valenti.

This is, you know, it fills me with great joy, but I am also filled with a lot of sadness tonight because I am accepting an award at such a strange time. And you know my experiences of making this film made me very aware of the sadness and the dehumanization of people at times of war. And the repercussions of war. And whatever you believe in, if it's God or Allah, may he watch over you and let's pray for a peaceful and swift resolution. Thank you. And I have a friend from Queens who's a soldier in Kuwait right now, Tommy Zarabinski, and I hope you and your boys make it back real soon. God bless you guys. I love you. Thank you very much.

Oh, well done, Mr. Brody, well done indeed.

For shame, Michael Moore...as Mike said, he had a platform there of unequalled power - that whole massive audience, both in-theatre and televised, was most likely anticipating his comments. And he just plain blew it.

Can you believe that when Adrian asked the band to stop for a sec, they ACTUALLY DID? I was shocked. They usually don't stop for ANYONE!

Especially since the guy's up there receiving an award for the war movie in the first place - I'm surprised the producers didn't cut straight to commercial.

I can only assume that they heard Brody plead 'I only get one chance to do this...' and experienced a rare moment of non-financial-oriented empathy. Which paid off rather handsomely, after all.

Luigi,

You said something about a guy putting up a sign on his property telling the protestors to shut up and you claimed to not understand his motivations.

I gave you one. He wanted quiet on his property. He might have not cared less if they protested loudly out of earshot because their right to shake their fist (or chant their chant) ended at his nose (or sleep deprived ears).

Scene from an anti-war protest.

Here's a better link.

Absolutely disgusting. I'm revulsed.

So? Are there a lot of idiotic protesters with completely tasteless attitudes? Yes. Does that delegitimize the dissenting view, somehow tarnishing me because I'm against this war?

Can you believe that when Adrian asked the band to stop for a sec, they ACTUALLY DID? I was shocked. They usually don't stop for ANYONE!

They did for James Cameron in 98.

No. It just shows that idiocy and brazen stupidity doesn't call one political philosophy a home.

Exactly. Both sides have extreamists, when I was in Savannah for St Patrick's day all I went for was to drink some beer and see some girls flash and Saturday night on Riverstreet a group of rednecks were standing around chanting about how they were "pro-war Republicans." They told us that they weren't racist or anything but the fact that no democrat could be elected into office without the support of blacks and other minoritys shows how wrong the democrats are and why all whites should vote Republican.

Blue Berry: Luigi, you said something about a guy putting up a sign on his property telling the protestors to shut up and you claimed to not understand his motivations.
Luigi Novi: I did not.

That is not what I said.

Blue Berry: I gave you one. He wanted quiet on his property.
Luigi Novi: No, he didn’t. It was clear in the story that he was telling protestors in general to keep quiet, not to do so merely “on his property,” which is an utterly stupid argument. The guy doesn’t live in an area with a high amount of protestor traffic. The idea that protestors actually cause a noise problem because of where he lives is retarded.

The story went on to report that the town where he lived was a very patriotic one with a lot of veterans and others who were very passionately for the war. It had nothing to do with protests disturbing the peace in a residential neighborhood. I doubt there even were any in his neighborhood, given where he lived. It’s not like he lived in New York City.

Mike C: You mean Ideology, not Philosophy. The "Love of Wisdom" and idiocy are not compatable.

Luigi, Luigi, Luigi,

Your post:

On the other side of the coin, there was a news item on this guy who set up a big sign near his property that said "Protestors, Keep Your Mouths Shut!"

I'm for the war, but I don't agree with that sentiment. -- Luigi Novi

My post
Luigi,

You do if you are trying to sleep. --Blue Berry

First off I apologize. I assumed since the sign was "near his property" that is where he wanted quiet. Forgive my not reading {your} mind. You mention no sources in that post that say the protestors were not across the street from his house. If you mentioned he was talking world wide the smart-alek remark would've been, "How do you know?"

If you can not take a joke (note the "") please at least be thorough. I know you think I can read your typos anyway even if I ask you to repost. I didn't know you thought I could get information you did not post.

Berry: I assumed since the sign was "near his property" that is where he wanted quiet.
Luigi Novi: He didn’t want “quiet,” he objected to people speaking out against the war.

Berry: Forgive my not reading your mind.
Luigi Novi: The problem is not that you can’t read my mind, it’s that you were trying to tell me what the man’s intentions were, despite the fact that you didn’t even see the story.

Berry: You mention no sources in that post that say the protestors were not across the street from his house. If you mentioned he was talking world wide the smart-alek remark would've been, "How do you know?"
Luigi Novi: This board, and the thread isn’t about people who disturb the peace with loud noise, it’s about war protestors, and who people on both sides of the issue feel about them. Why you’d assume that the story I mentioned pertained to the issue of loud noise near residential areas, I don’t know. Any lobotomized idiot with half a brain should know at this point in the thread that when we talk about some who object to war protestors, they’re talking about ideology, not noise disturbing the peace.

Berry: If you can not take a joke (note the please at least be thorough.
Luigi Novi: When I see one from you that clearly is a joke—and is actually funny and makes sense as one—I’ll let you know. As it is, filling your posts with smileys as you do makes their impact as a harbinger of humor somewhat lessened.

Berry: I know you think I can read your typos anyway even if I ask you to repost. I didn't know you thought I could get information you did not post.
Luigi Novi: I have no idea what you’re talking about.

I have a message for all the anti-war protestors whose hearts are in the right place, but whose minds are clearly on vacation;

1. Islam is a religion, not a race. Remmeber that before you make your signs, all right?

2. Don't throw things at the cops! Most cops are basically good, and only the dirty ones will hit you over the head with a baton 67 times for doing nothing but having a difering view point, but if you throw ••••, then the good ones'll kick your arse too.

3. Don't pyss on the soldiers OK? It's the morons who are sadly giving those poor men and women their orders that we take umbridge with. Our problem is soldiers being taken away from a REAL threat (Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda survivors, Norht Korea, the Fox TV executive who green-lighted Married By America, etc.) to take on a perceived one (a guy who's done nothing but stare at his own ugly mug in a mirror like a modern day Narcises(sp?) for the past 12 years).

4. Don't boo people who you perceive to be 'not as anti-war' as you, OK?

5. Don't get too upset when some yutz accuses you of being a Saddam Husein apologist. I'm sure that if most Conservative pundits took their heads out of their rectums for a minute they'd see there is a HUGE difference between not wnating to bomb someone and liking them. I hate Birtney Spears, but I wouldn;'t wnat to drop a bomb on- well, okay, bad example ;-)

6. I have to re-emphasize this for people who stupidly consider themselves anarchists. DON'T ••••••• THROW THINGS AT THE COPS!

Thank you, that is all. Any of my anti-war bretheren who feel theya re exempt from these basic points, should nip off and shoot themselves. Make sure you get your whole head in front of the shotugn, and thank you for calling!

Luigi,

Luigi Novi: The problem is not that you can’t read my mind, it’s that you were trying to tell me what the man’s intentions were, despite the fact that you didn’t even see the story. -Luigi

And thank you for never linking to it and assuming we all know /sarcasm{exactly} what you mean. (In case you forgot use /newurl{gttp:vvv.website.con, your text} and maybe we will know what you are talking about without reading your mind. [No emoticon there because they just confuse poor Luigi.])

Luigi Novi: When I see one from you that clearly is a joke—and is actually funny and makes sense as one—I’ll let you know. As it is, filling your posts with smileys as you do makes their impact as a harbinger of humor somewhat lessened.

I take no responsibility for you lack of a sense of humor. However, I'll help you out a bit. If you see "" it means sarcasm. Do us a favor, please. If you do not understand the humor just do not comment on it. (BTW, I don't care if you thought it was funny; I thought it was funny. [If I want you to edit my posts I'll write you.] I can't control your lack of a sense of humor.)

I am disgusted with an Anti-War rallier today. Normally, I don't care if people don't like the war and protest it. That is their right. However, on the news I saw a poster at a California rally (I think, I'm positive it was U.S.) that read: "I support the troops...when they shoot officers". This is a person who believes in PEACE? The vast majority of protestors are not like this, I know (to forstall any backlash). I am still disgusted.

Oh, and Bitter & Sarcastic, I once got in trouble in High School because I thought protestors shouldn't throw rocks. We were discussing the American Revolution and the Boston Massacre. The soldiers' response was out of proportion, but still, the Bostonians shouldn't have thrown rocks at them. I got detention because of this....

Do the leaders of these protests have jobs, or are they like the leaders of earlier protests,

->people from the: Earth Liberation Front

a group thats #1 on the FBI list of domestic terrorists

Merat, see my links above.

Glad I'm not the only one who saw and was disgusted by that, then.

Luigi Novi: The problem is not that you can’t read my mind, it’s that you were trying to tell me what the man’s intentions were, despite the fact that you didn’t even see the story. -Luigi

Berry: And thank you for never linking to it and assuming we all know exactly what you mean. In case you forgot use /newurl{gttp:vvv.website.con, your text…}
Luigi Novi: The story was on TV.

If I had found it on the net, I would’ve linked to it, as I always do. You were asserting on the Frivolous Lawsuits board that the others should’ve understood how you intended one of your post because how you wrote the beginning of it, as if it were somehow a given that everyone has your personal writing signature/pattern committed to memory, and can spot it instantly. If we follow this thinking, then you should’ve noticed that I always link stories that I find on the net. The net isn’t the only news medium out there, you know.

Berry: and maybe we will know what you are talking about without reading your mind.
Luigi Novi: Again, you don’t NEED to read my mind. This board, and the thread on it, isn’t ABOUT how some people object to war protests because they cause too much noise in residential neighborhoods when people are trying to sleep. (I’ve never even heard of a protest being held at an hour when people are trying to sleep.)

This board has consistently been about how some feel about war protests on IDEOLOGICAL or PHILOSOPHICAL grounds, not quality of life grounds. This has nothing to do with mind-reading, but with simply paying attention to the thread. If the entire thread thus far had been about people’s ideological or philosophical view of protests, why, when I chimed in with a story of one guy giving his view of them, would you think it had anything to do with a quality of life issue?

Because it was on his property? Where ELSE is he going to put a sign? On someone else’s property? On public property? Pay attention to the friggin’ thread, William.

Your problem isn’t that you can’t read my mind. Your problem is that you don’t seem to apply a little bit of common sense, and seem to resort to non-sequitirs and unfounded assumptions, and tend to cover up the lack of substance in your writing with an overabundance of smileys, stream of consciousness and unsuccessful attempts at inscrutable humor.

Berry: No emoticon there because they just confuse poor Luigi.
Luigi Novi: Your condescending remark aside, they do not confuse me. I simply think you use them gratuitously to the point where they lose their impact.

Berry: BTW, I don't care if you thought it was funny; I thought it was funny.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, you’re a comic legend in your own mind, I’m sure.

And now:

Battle of Semantic Warriors.

And now:

The Larch.

#7: Knock it off with the death threats! You know who likes to pass out death threats like TicTacs? Pro-War people! Oh yeah! I hear it all the time; continuiously. Please, follow the six previous rules I posted, and keep your friggin' temper in check while you're at it!

#8: Just because a guy thinks that Israel has a right to exist, you don't have to ban him from your rallies. He might just be as much of a peacenik as you. To do otherwise shows that you're just antisemitic.

#9: Don't get angry when people accuse us of bieng pro-Saddam. Most of us aren't, we're just pro-Logic, but if you get angry, you'll only hur the cause. Although you should get angry if the pro_War guy resoprts to naem calling and false accusations. Then verbally kick his ass like the wonderful Janeane Garrofolo(sp?) did that putz Bill O'Reilly.

Merat,

The British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre were acquitted for that reason. Their lawyer was John Adams.

Luigi,

You were asserting on the Frivolous Lawsuits board...- Luigi Novi

Since you think carrying a discussion toy another board is OK let me ask you to read Strunk and White: Elements of Style. It's been a long time but I think it mentions salutations. I'm sorry you are unfamiliar with the term.

Since we are bringing up thing from other boards, do you still assume I can understand the meanings when you misspell something?

Sorry, Luigi, there is a difference in assuming people know how to write and read and assuming they know the information you didn't give them. Try again.

No application of common sense (or any sense) can make you read:

On the other side of the coin, there was a news item on this guy who set up a big sign near his property that said "Protestors, Keep Your Mouths Shut!"

I'm for the war, but I don't agree with that sentiment.

as

On the other side of the coin, there was a news item on this guy who set up a big sign near his property that said "Protestors, Keep Your Mouths Shut!" He meant protestors around the world nit just ones that can see the sign.

I'm for the war, but I don't agree with that sentiment.

If someone does they are putting words in your mouth. Don't blame the reader for not understanding when you are not clear.

As for my sense of humor. I am funny in my mind. Should I use your mind as a guide? How about MarkN's mind? Maybe he isn't busy. (Sorry, Did I over use the ""? Maybe I should explain sarcasm to MarkN.)

Oh, since we are dredging up things from other boards. My earliest post here (as William Berry) involved you not understanding a "" on some Voyager board. (Moderator, is there a time limit on references to other boards?) I guess I overused them before I ever posted. It may have started as a condescending remark, but your lack of humor is an observation.

Merat,

I hope you read the part that is not deletable.

MarkN,

Since Luigi and I both bring up stuff from other boards I assume things will be deleted. It case you can't save the part for Merat, let me repost it.

Merat,

The British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre were acquitted for that reason. Their lawyer was John Adams.

This site has an entertaining photo gallary

Our neighborhood has several Liberate Iraq Support Our Troops signs displayed on lawns. Yesterday someone took black spray paint and placed big black X's and peace signs on those, leaving the "Say NO to war with Iraq" signs untouched. Sure protesters have their rights, but not when it comes to vandalism. I'm especially angry to think they are insulting the troops that are over to protect their very rights (even if indirectly). I would like to take these mooks and shove them in the face of a war veteran.

I heard of someone in uniform that got spit on. His response? "You're welcome." Cool customer.

Sure protesters have their rights, but not when it comes to vandalism.

In a slightly similar vein ... my mother's No War Against Iraq sign was stolen from her yard. Of course there's no direct evidence to say it was a pro-war person who stole it, but in any case it is another example of "protesters" going too far.

Berry: Since you think carrying a discussion toy another board is OK…
Luigi Novi: We’re not carrying a discussion to another board. I merely pointed out what I perceived as a double standard. You opined on one board that others should’ve known what you meant by recognizing your writing style. If that were the case, then you should’ve recognized my writing style and known that I always link to stories on the net that I find. Since I didn’t, you might have asked me, “Luigi, did you find that piece on the net, or on TV,” before simply assuming it was a net item, and chastising me for not linking to it.

Berry: Since we are bringing up thing from other boards, do you still assume I can understand the meanings when you misspell something?
Luigi Novi: I don’t know what misspellings have anything to do with it, Berry, but since you ask, you wrote “toy” in the quote right above when it appears you meant to write “to.” In the one below it, you wrote “nit” when you apparently meant to write “not.”

I understood what you meant in both instances.

Does that answer your question?

Berry: Sorry, Luigi, there is a difference in assuming people know how to write and read and assuming they know the information you didn't give them.
Luigi Novi: Why should I have to “give them” the info that everyone on this board already has?

One more time: This board deals with the subject of how various people feel about war protestors on IDEOLOGICAL, MORAL, or PHILOSOPHICAL grounds. Anyone who reads this board can see this. If all the other posts discuss war protests as their pertain to these grounds, only a retard could be so obtuse as to suddenly think I’m talking about quality of life issues. The only who made this ridiculous non sequitur of an assumption is you.

Berry: No application of common sense (or any sense) can make you read:

On the other side of the coin, there was a news item on this guy who set up a big sign near his property that said "Protestors, Keep Your Mouths Shut!"

I'm for the war, but I don't agree with that sentiment.

as

On the other side of the coin, there was a news item on this guy who set up a big sign near his property that said "Protestors, Keep Your Mouths Shut!" He meant protestors around the world nit just ones that can see the sign.

I'm for the war, but I don't agree with that sentiment.
Luigi Novi: Good.

Because I never said he wanted “people around the world who couldn’t see the sign” to keep their mouths shut. You did. It’s obvious that the sign is only intended for those who could see it, and common sense is more than enough to understand that. The only one having trouble with it is you. What, did he write it in Braille, or something?

But let’s just say that maybe I was obscure. Instead of ASSUMING this was a quality of life issue (which no one else is talking about on this board), why didn’t you simply respond preliminarily by asking, “Luigi, was this guy’s sign about his opposition to protests on moral grounds, or was it just about noise near his house?” Would that have been so hard?

Berry: If someone does they are putting words in your mouth. Don't blame the reader for not understanding when you are not clear.
Luigi Novi: I won’t, when you can establish that I wasn’t clear to more than just one obtuse individual who habitually suffers from paralogia. No one else seems to have had a problem understanding what I said, or what the story pertained to, and I do not compose my posts to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the inscrutable. When other posters—ones who don’t frequently employ the reasoning of schizophrenics—chime in and tell me they didn’t understand the point of the guy’s sign, I’ll reevaluate the manner in which I wrote the post. The only one who can’t seem to wrap his mind around the very simple post I made….is you.

Berry: As for my sense of humor. I am funny in my mind.
Luigi Novi: Yes, I’m sure. I’m sure there’s an entire audience of splintered personalities in there giving you a standing ovation. Hey, look! One of ‘em’s throwing you a rose! Catch it, William, Catch it!

Check these out.

The first is Michael Moore's letter to president Bush

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php


The next is a speech given by Tim Robbins

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15673

By Scott McClenny on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 04:55 pm:

This actually happened.
It seems awhile back Shannen Doherty was at some occasion in New York City and when she got up the audience started to boo her.
The reason why they booed her was that she was saying that we ought to be backing President Bush and supporting the troops overseas in Iraq.

Now imagine if this had been someone like Martin Sheen instead and they had spoken in favor of
protesting Bush policies.They would have been given a thunderous round of applause.

But no,instead of even giving Shannen Doherty the
decency of having her say the audience booed her like they were a bunch of spoiled snot nosed brats.

I don't care a fig about anyone else's politics here,but Shannen Doherty was correct and I agree with her 100% regardless of political affiliation all
Americans ought to get behind President Bush and our troops that are overseas,especially the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We also ought to be supporting the actors and other celebrities that are showing their support for our troops.


By Blue Berry on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 05:07 pm:

Scott McClenny,

I have found people who talk the most about open-mindedness and tolerance of other viewpoints are the most intolerant, close-minded people you'd meet. I can "agree to disagree" with a conservative spewing hatred, but a liberal talking peace would spit on me for having the gall to disagree with him or her.


By Brian Fitzgerald on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 10:23 pm:

Blue, clearly you live in the north. Down here in the south it's the reverse. The pro-war right feels that you should be arrested for supporting terror if you even suggest that this war could be a cheap grab for oil or that you support the troops but not the war. The anti-war left has been argued into submission to the point where they just shut up most of the time here in GA. I assume that the reverse is true in more liberal areas like Mass.


By kerriem, who even posted to it she thinks on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 11:19 pm:

Guys, I'm pretty sure there's a PM thread on just this topic.


By Benn on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 11:43 pm:

Hey Kerrie. You ever get the feeling that your Kitchen Sink has become a subsitute for the Political Musings boards?


By Dude on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 11:59 pm:

Scott McClenny: You complain about Doherty (who never should've left Charmed BTW, but I digress), but where's your idngination over idiots who boo the Dixie Chicks, or Michael Morre for their anti-war views? And why for ••••'s sake should I back a man I hate and support a war I'm against? Ever hear of principles? If I just caved and agreed with you on everything I'd be no better than those Nazi war criminals who "just followed orders."


By Dude on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 12:01 am:

Oh, for what it's worth I don't think PRO-War peopel should be booed either. I just think booing is wrong, regardless of who the putz on stage is or what they're syaing.


By Blue Berry on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 12:16 pm:

Kerriem's right. If there is not a PM board for this there should be.

(Of course pity Scott McClenny if he upsets the uberposter, but I digress.)

Before this is left to "Can't people with 13 items read the twelve items or less sign,"

Dude,

Can you see the difference between Bush Jr. and a teenager in the Army?


By The Phantom Stranger on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 12:21 pm:

One is actually fighting for his country and the other avoided it?


By The Phantom Stranger on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 12:23 pm:

Or does being selected President of the United State count as serving your country?


By CR on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 01:21 pm:

Well, any US President is also Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces during his/her term.


By Brian Fitzgerald on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 03:16 pm:

Can you see the difference between Bush Jr. and a teenager in the Army?

A teenager in the Army is risking his life and doesn't have much of a choice in where he gets to go since he has to follow orders.

The president is not risking his own life and is the one who gets to make the decision that determines if that teenager will be put in harms way or not.

Well, any US President is also Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces during his/her term.

A distinction that no right-wingers gave a •••• about during the Clinton years. As Tim Robbins pointed out in the 90s no one cared that he was speaking against Clinton’s involving the US in a UN sanctioned peacekeeping that stopped genocide in the Balkans. Now he's unpatriotic for speaking against a Non-sanctioned war where the American people may have lied about the reasons for going, and where 1 american a day has died since Bush went over there and said "mission accomplished."


By kerriem on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 03:38 pm:

Hey Kerrie. You ever get the feeling that your Kitchen Sink has become a subsitute for the Political Musings boards?

"How hard could it be?" I told myself cheerily, whilst considering whether or not to take over as Sink moderator. "After all, it's not like it's Political Musings or something..."
Not, I hasten to add, that I'm not thrilled to moderate a board full of free and lively discussion. It's just that I was hoping the discussions wouldn't involve politics, religion or (lately) legal stuff.

Anyhow...I've located the PM thread I was thinking of. As soon as I get a chance - or if anyone wants to repost their own thoughts in the interim - these posts will be going there.

And please, guys, all kidding aside: The boards for political, religious and legal angst are but a few doors down. This is the one for everything else.


By CR, voicing no objection to the moderator on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 08:23 am:

Move 'em out, kerriem!

By constanze on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 08:25 am:

EVERYTHING ELSE!

Happy now, Kerriem?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thrilled. Absolutely. (Throw in a bicycle and I might even do the Dance of Joy.)

On a bicycle? That I've gotta see! Get that woman a bike!

Throw in a bicycle and I might even do the Dance of Joy.

[BAD DIETER (from Sprockets SNL Sketch) IMPERSONATION]

And now, ve dance!

[/BAD DIETER IMPERSONATION]

I don't care a fig about anyone else's politics here,but Shannen Doherty was correct and I agree with her 100% regardless of political affiliation all
Americans ought to get behind President Bush and our troops that are overseas,especially the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well, the point is that many do NOT agree and are FULLY in their rights to disagree with Bush. He is not some sort of enlightened philosopher king who deserves the unquestioned loyalty of the simple-minded peasants. I'm not even American, but I am disturbed by such blind deference to authority in a country supposedly founded in the notion that concentrated power must be opposed and that citizens must be free to criticize their leaders.

I dislike people who start off comments like this,

"Well, everyone has to agree that:

a. the war is a failure
b. the war is a success"

So I get upset when Sean Hannity suggests that you can't be anti-war and still be patriotic and I get upset when my history professor suggests that you don't have a brain if you support the war. I would just like to see some intelligent thought from both sides.

Listen to Ted Kennedy for some intelligent comments on Iraq.

Ted Kennedy and intelligent do not belong in the same sentence. He's a blathering old fossil, whose main place in history will wind up being that he's the brother who didn't get murdered.

Only because by the time they got around to him, The Ones in Charge learned how to be subtle and realized another assassination would draw undue attention, and so orchestrated a nice scandal.

Hey, I can be ridiculous too.

Just biding my time...

One word for Ted Kennedy: CHAPPAQUIDDICK!

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction... There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

Wow, I guess he did have a brief fling with intelligence once.

Cindy Sheehan's anti-war protest has been politicised by both sides. Losing a child is every mother's worst nightmare. It's really hard to watch the Right make Cindy into a villain because she is anti-war. It really is the height of hypocrisy to watch FOX pundits O'Reilly and Hannity bash her because Michael Moore and MoveOn.Org support her. In their eyes, her message is invalid because of "left-wing Democrat" support. Politically motivated support of Bush on a 'news' network founded by a Republican operative is acceptable though.

Cindy has inspired vigils of support in cities throught out the US. It really is disingenuous for the Right to claim that only left-wing extremists oppose the war.

Though Cindy's protest has been interrupted by her mother's stroke, other mothers are staying to protest. It really is inexcusable that Bush can't take even a few minutes of his time to talk with the protestors. He really is unaccountable to no one; even the press doesn't have regular access to him (considering he has few press conferences).

Of the many words written about her, I think the following are a good summation: "Cindy Sheehan's vigil is a testament to the power of the individual- and to the political insensitivity of individuals in power". Naturally, there are men of conscience who support her; a good example being Senator Ted Kennedy.

I'm sorry, Rona. But having recently read Leo Damore's Senatorial Privilege, I find I have very little in the way of respect for Ted Kennedy.

"...but as for me, give me liberty or give me death."

Bush talked with Cindy Sheehan a few years ago when her son actually died. I don't mean to sound callous, but that fact tends to be ignored whenever this story is mentioned.

As Jerry Springer (who is from Ohio) said on his Air America talk show,it really is inexcusable that Bush couldn't meet with the Ohio community that lost 21 marines in one day...considering that he could make over 20 fund-raising trips to Ohio during the campaign. It's not even a political issue. It's common human decency.

During a war, it's also inexcusable that Bush would take a 5 week vacation. It just shows how little he is personally affected by the war.

I respect Kennedy and Howard Dean because they both had the moral strength to oppose the Iraq Invasion from the beginning.

Mike Yes he did talk to her, in a group setting with other families and I am sure said allthe right and proper pleasantries and platitudes. That is not what it seems she is wanting. It is to have Bush look her in the eyes and tell what is so important about iraq that Bush is sending sons and husbands and brothers over there to fight and die for a group of people who neither appreciate us nor what we are trying to bring them.

It seems to me that this war is more about the Iraqi oil and Bush's ego than anything else. It has seemed that way from day one, that way from when my cousin got backdoor drafted into staying in the army and running cargo from saudi arabia into iraq and it will feel that way to me until the last soldier departs iraq. There was little justification for the invasion of Iraq. Certainly not the reasons Bush gave.

And yes as an Ohioan I am disgusted by Bush's uncaring and unconcerned attitude towards the families of the soldiers. Ohio was good enough to line his campaign pockets but not good enough to stop by and say even with his mock sincerity "sorry".

Yeah, it was a group setting, but a lot of times when the story is told, that part gets omitted. Again, not trying to be callous, but I am sure there are lot of parents like Cindy Sheehan--why should the President meet with her in this individual setting and not others?

I think the war was about several factors--oil, good intentions, overzealousness, messed up information, fear of terrorism. I am not entirely convinced it was the right thing to do, but I do believe that pulling out too soon would be the worst thing possible.

...so many lives lost so Halliburton could make billions.

True I will agree with you that there are quite a few other parents. And I would like to See Bush give them all a full accounting of why their sons and had to die in such a misguided and unjust war. Not that there is such as a thing as a truely just war but there are wars where the reasons are more valid than the invasion of Iraq.

As for pulling out. There isnt any really good way to pull out of this situation. I hate to make comparisons with vietnam but there are some parralells. The country is filled with people who range from loving the US to wanting and willing to die to take out one US supporter. There is little way to tell the difference without them doing something offensive. And the way the situation looks now it doesnt seem to be getting really any better and Iraq will continue to be a drain on american resources, personnel and morale for the time to come.

I was very touched by something I saw on the news. Outside Bush's ranch, Cindy's return was greeted by a hug from one of her fellow supporters. He made a very heartfelt remark to her; "We're the Jedi knights, over there [Bush's supporters] is the Evil Empire".

True, so very true.

I saw a video on CNN.com that talked about how Cindy Sheehan's protest was being handled by a PR firm. But then again, the people who protesting against Sheehan in support of President Dubya were also being handled by a PR firm. So much for authentic grass roots movements...

Look for Protesting the Protesters

"...but as for me, give me liberty or give me death."

She lost me when she said she was channeling her dead son (who incidentally, she didn't raise).

Cindy's Quotable Quotes

Interesting that the spin comes to us. Bush has also said quite a few things of an interesting and inflamatory nature.

And sorry but posting to a prorepublican /probush /prorightwing
appearing website does not sway me.

I also have to say that regardless of who the spokesperson is this war is immoral, indecent and should be ended. It was an illegal invasion into a country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks and was mainly about the oil and herr dubya's ego.

I'm not an expert in thet economics of the international oil industry, but I'd like to ask those who believe that Bush went to war over oil:
In what way does oil have to do with it? I mean, oil prices are still going up, aren't they? If Bush was trying to manipulate the oil market, then wouldn't they be going down? (Mind you, I'm just asking for your viewpoint on this.)

...In what way does oil have to do with it? I mean, oil prices are still going up, aren't they? If Bush was trying to manipulate the oil market, then wouldn't they be going down?...

Your're confusing two parts of the issue. That part of the strategic reason (long decided before 9/11, which isn't and wasn't connected to Iraq, anyway) is about oil doesn't mean that the prices should, or would, go down.

But in the long term (a stupid term to use for oil anyway, since in the real long term of 30 or 50 years, oil can be replaced in many areas - people usaully shy away from the iniatilly high cost of the investement of switching over), the neocons don't want the US that dependent on oil-rich countries out of their direct control. (Look at how both the US and British controlled the Middle Eastern countries from the 20s to the 70s.)

For similar reason, Bush is pushing the drill in the Arctic - there isn't a lot of oil there (more oil could be gotten if SUVs were outlawed, so people had to switch to more economic cars) he wants as much oil as possible to come from sources the US can control.

Being in control also doesn't mean the US will never pull out - a puppet government listening to Washington's wishes will serve the same purpose.

None of this means the prices will go down now or soon - prices are related to demand. If many people use a lot of oil, oil will be expensive.

Exactly. having a pet government or direct control of the iraqi oil fields will be a boon to dubya's oil company buddies and may eventually the hope is cause a slight reduction in gas prices. Which I am not betting on because a company generally raises prices as high as they can get away with and very rarely lowers prices without there haivng been some reason for it.

And there are already various technologies to reduce oil consumption, biodeisal,hydrogen fuel cell, and hybrids. Hybrids are already here and are an excellent choice. Unfortunately too many people are not willing to give up their useless gas guzzling suvs and make the switch to more appropriate vehicles. I mean I drive past the local soccer fields and see as many suv's there as i do on our combined lots. Including a few h2 and h1 hummers. The SuV as a status symbol must end. Minivans, would work just as well for most thigns, and hybrids and small economical cars would do well for most trips to work or store.

Also ride shareing, vehicles like the smart car (smart brand mainly found in europe though daimlerchrysler is considering bringing it stateside) and more public transport such as light rail and buses would certianly help things.

Biodeisal would be an excellent next step as it is able to be produced from crops and/or the leftover grease from fast food joints. So a BD refinery would be able to kill two birds with one vat. Not to mention that it would be cleaner for the environment as well.

But in the long term oil will have to be replaced because it is a finite resource and will run out. It is already estimated that within the next 10 years most oil fields will be at full capacity and will not be able to increase produciton. That is also one of the reasons why dubya wants to open the arctic north to drilling. But that is not a good plan because while in a short term and at high cost it might feed the oil addiciton it would just be a temporary fix.

People have to fight the oil addiction any way they can. If this means driving less, being more energy conservative and using alternatives to oil based products then so much the better.

The fact that the web site is pro-anything is irrelevant. Cindy made those statements, and they reveal her true nature.

And there are sites that show Bush's true nature by showing the comments he has made against freedom, tolerance and civil rights.

And what exactly is her true nature? Sounds like another kill the messenger so we can ignore the message smear attempt to me.

Luigi currect rise in gas prices are barely related to the price of oil. Notice that seemingly every quarter since this war started the oil and gas industry sets record high profits (each time higher than the last.) If the problem was really just the high price of oil causing them to have to pass it on to the consumer shouldn't they be posting similer profits to what they were posting before the war? They know that people will pay this much for gas because it's an inelastic good (something that you use the same amount of no matter what the price is) and people already have their cars and it still takes X amount of gas to drive Y number of miles.

Check this link out.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1029991

This is interesting.

Today, I expect everyone to watch C-Span and its coverage of the anti-war rally in Washington.

And if I don't? Sorry, I have other plans.

And if I don't get C-Span?

I didn't see a lot of TV this past weekend, but it only rated a Page Three story in the Sunday paper. I would like to have seen more attention given to it.

Today at the McHenry (Ill.) Post Office, a group is protesting and calling for the impeachment of Dick Chaney. Their sign says, "Impeach Cheney First"

We lost part of Arizona to Mexico...thanks to Obama

Fox News, John? C'mon.

According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, the area in the refuge bordering Mexico was closed in during the construction of a vehicle barrier in 2006, which was more than two years before Obama took office.

Anti-war protestors in Maine in 2003 apparently used the statue of Samantha Reed Smith in Augusta as a stop-off point.

The Australian Greens seem to think the Hitlerites would have been stopped by pacifists wagging their fingers and going "Don't do that, don't do that, it's naughty!" - https://greensmps.org.au/articles/speech-no-war

Yeah, because that kind of thinking worked so well for Neville "Peace in our time" Chamberlain.

"Yeah, because that kind of thinking worked so well for Neville "Peace in our time" Chamberlain.

"I have in my hands, this piece of paper that Herr Hitler has signed"...

Yeah, Neville, just dreaming of peace and love...

And Hitler played him like a violin.

Appeasing the bully will not make him stop beating you up. Rather, it will convince said bully that you're an easy target.