And Now a Word From Our Hollywood or Politician Idiots …


  • Tell that to my nephew in Kuwait.

    He has seen CNN’s coverage of the Anti-War, Anti-Bush, Anti-America Rallies(FOXNEWS is not so easy to get there yet.) This is the way they perceive the news because they know the organizations(and their background) which helped set them up. But, they take this as Anti-Soldier(or Anti-Fill in the Military of Your Choice.)
    The personnel in my nephew’s unit would like to see one American raising a flag, but all they see is protest!
    CNN has not covered the Support the Troops, Pro-America, Support the President Rallies, though I hear they will cover the one in Atlanta on Saturday since it will be on CNN’s doorstep(and they fear some other news scooping them there.)

    I attended a Support the Troops, Pro-America, Support the President Rally in Cincinnati today. All the local stations covered it, but I saw no mention on the networks(I channel surfed the network news and might have missed it, but I doubt it.) We had over 3,000 there with just a few days notice(and no world wide soviet communist network to plan it for months in advance.) My nepew’s unit already has digitized photos of the rally taken by my sister-in-law.

    As my nephew said in his last e-mail, “Most servicemen recognize that patriots come in different forms, just like taxpayers, voters, and citizens.”


  • Yanny, you don’t have to do JACK CRAP to prove you’re a patriot. All you have to do is believe it! I know that sounds phony, but take the definition of “patriotism” for example:

    patriotism: Love of and devotion to one’s country.

    Okay, so where does the requirement of community service come in with that? So…if you love your country, then BY DEFINITION…you are a patriot, whether you agree with it or not…


  • Why did the change from “the ideals a country stands for” to “patriotism” happen?
    Is it more important to love the ideals or to love the country? If you take the IMHO narrow definition of patriotism, then the ideals are not as important, then of course it becomes understandable that the flag plays a bigger role than the ideals.


  • Yanny, you don’t have to do JACK CRAP to prove you’re a patriot. All you have to do is believe it! I know that sounds phony, but take the definition of “patriotism” for example:

    Did I say you were unpatriotic to just sit back and pay your taxes? No. However, waving a flag is doing nothing for your country. Patriotism is sacrificing time and energy for the greater good of your country.

    Okay, so where does the requirement of community service come in with that? So…if you love your country, then BY DEFINITION…you are a patriot, whether you agree with it or not…

    Loving your country but sitting back and doing nothing? Then your a lazy patriot. I love this country, and I go above and beyond the normal requirements of my citizenship to help and aid the welfare of the entire country. Thats patriotism.


  • Emphasis added by Xi

    Co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream,
    Ben Cohen said,
    On September 4, 2001, seven days before the 9/11, the following “enemy wanted” online ad, sarcastically making the point that the U.S. has no enemies was posted by Ben Cohen:

    ENEMY WANTED. Serious enemy needed to justify Pentagon budget increase. Defense contractors desperate. Interested enemies send letter and photo or video (threatening, ok) to Enemy Search Committee, Priorities Campaign, 1350 Broadway, NY, NY, 10018.”

    He continued:
    “Here’s the deal: We know our politicians have their work cut out for them. They need to find an enemy to justify maintaining the Pentagon budget as if the Cold War never ended. But the pool of credible enemies is evaporating. North Korea is even going diplomatic. The Soviets took themselves out of the running years ago. And countries like Iraqor tough looking trading partners like China – don’t make the cut.”

    Hmmm…North Korea going diplomatic?
    Iraq doesn’t make the cut?
    Stick to Ice Cream, Ben.

    Source: www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11427

    Ben Cohen is no longer with Ben & Jerry’s. He is now founder of True Majority. You can contact him at his web site: www.truemajority.org


  • From newsmax.com

    ABC is receiving phone, mail and e-mail complaints about a show it is considering. The main character would be played by Janeane Garofalo. The premise of the show involves a “60 Minutes”-style TV news program, with Garofalo playing a producer.

    Meanwhile, Garofalo is so unpopular that Miss USA did not want to pose for pictures with her. The New York Post reports that as Miss USA Susie Castillo was being guided into a photo shoot with Garofalo, Castillo’s publicist cried: “Not with Janeane! Not with Janeane! [Miss USA] can’t get caught up in her politics.”(Smart Miss USA.)

    Apparently, even after witnessing the overwhelming reception the Iraqi people gave the coalition forces, Garofalo refuses to apologize for her actions. “I have nothing to apologize for,” the comedic actress told Malzberg.

    Back on March 6, Bill O’Reilly asked Garofalo, “If you are wrong… and if the United States - and they will, this is going to happen - goes in, liberates Iraq [with] people in the street, American flags, hugging our soldiers … you gonna apologize to George W. Bush?”

    Garofalo replied: “I would be so willing to say, ‘I’m sorry.’ I hope to God that I can be made a buffoon of, that people will say, ‘You were wrong. You were a fatalist.’ And I will go to the White House on my knees on cut glass and say, ‘Hey, you and Thomas Friedman were right … I shouldn’t have doubted you.’”

    The Left Coast Report believes when Garofalo wished to God that she would be “made a buffoon of,” it looks as if she got exactly what she wished for. Now about that apology …


    Anybody else want to donate some broken glass? 🙂


  • LOL. 😛

    It’s amazing to see how much credibility all these actors and actresses have lost as a result of being on the wrong side of this issue. 😉


  • I’m amazed that we even give them a voice. There have to be a million lawyers, doctors, teachers, nurses, accountants, etc. more qualified than these people with something to say more profound than these people, with more of a right to be heard.


  • So true, CC. The people who talk the loudest are the people who know the least. Why haven´t we heard as much from people who actually know what´s been going on in Iraq.

    Every time I saw someone protesting the war (when it was still going on), I couldn´t help but think: “There is someone who is pro-torture.” Where were these protesters during all the decades when Saddam was raping his people?


  • @morten200:

    So true, CC. The people who talk the loudest are the people who know the least. Why haven´t we heard as much from people who actually know what´s been going on in Iraq.

    Every time I saw someone protesting the war (when it was still going on), I couldn´t help but think: “There is someone who is pro-torture.” Where were these protesters during all the decades when Saddam was raping his people?

    Yea, it’s interesting to count how many Iraqi exiles are in that crowd of anti-war protesters. 😛


  • @morten200:

    So true, CC. The people who talk the loudest are the people who know the least. Why haven´t we heard as much from people who actually know what´s been going on in Iraq.

    Every time I saw someone protesting the war (when it was still going on), I couldn´t help but think: “There is someone who is pro-torture.” Where were these protesters during all the decades when Saddam was raping his people?

    UGGGGG!!!
    i felt like i just got punched in the stomach. Except it was a stupid punch to the brain.
    Calling me “pro-torture” is . . . well, ignorant at best, rude hateful and mean at worst. This line of reasoning is akin to me saying "anyone who is in favor of some kind of action in Iraq is a racist pro-baby killing sociopath. Is it true? No, of course not. But i could draw a very thin (nearly invisible thread) between actions in Iraq resulting in civilian deaths and a racist policy of killing babies - just as you have drawn the thread between people who wish to see a change by a mechanism other than war, and people wishing torture upon others.
    I know that you are not stupid, so i will go with the possibility that you have had as much (or less) sleep than i. That will make me feel better about statements like this.


  • LOL.

    The point I´m trying to make is that after decades of diplomatic run-arounds, nothing in Iraq changed. Don´t make war? Ok, but what´s your alternative? How are you going to stop the torture, famine, disease etc.?
    I´m not pro-war per se, but I didn´t see an alternative. A lot of people argued that embargos and what not didn´t have a chnce to make an impact. But they did. They hurt the civilians. Saddam wasn´t hurt by them. And the civilians didn´t get their forces together to overthrow him.

    Sure, civilians died in the war. It was unavoidable. But how many died as a result of the war and how many would have died anyway due to hunger, treatable diseases, torture etc.? I realize this is coldhearted numbers-crunching, but that´s where it ends for me.

    As far as name-calling … You may be insulted by being called “pro-torture”, but how do you feel about calling someone “ignorant, rude, hateful”? Don´t assume I´ve had too little sleep, I´ll just assume that you´re drunk. 😉


  • @morten200:

    LOL.

    The point I´m trying to make is that after decades of diplomatic run-arounds, nothing in Iraq changed. Don´t make war? Ok, but what´s your alternative? How are you going to stop the torture, famine, disease etc.?

    the problem with politicians is that they are good at politics, but not much else. There is very little imagination in the world today as far as dealing with complex problems. The simplest solutions are the ones we jump to - bomb, sanctions, etc. There is next to no elegance in what blairbush did, and although it “worked” i think that the whole thing has been muddled for the last 12 years, and better solutions have not been applied that may have worked better.

    I´m not pro-war per se, but I didn´t see an alternative. A lot of people argued that embargos and what not didn´t have a chnce to make an impact. But they did. They hurt the civilians. Saddam wasn´t hurt by them. And the civilians didn´t get their forces together to overthrow him.
    Sure, civilians died in the war. It was unavoidable. But how many died as a result of the war and how many would have died anyway due to hunger, treatable diseases, torture etc.? I realize this is coldhearted numbers-crunching, but that´s where it ends for me.

    and how many died as a result of Saddam’s reprisals against western funded organizations blah blah blah.
    And we caused the hunger, we set up a despot to torture these people, and we forbade this country simple medicines because of our hubris or because they contained life-saving nitrates.

    As far as name-calling … You may be insulted by being called “pro-torture”, but how do you feel about calling someone “ignorant, rude, hateful”? Don´t assume I´ve had too little sleep, I´ll just assume that you´re drunk. 😉

    ug again. I didn’t call you that. I said that your statement might be read as that if interpreted in a bad light.


  • Embargo!
    Are you including the brilliant UN ‘Oil for Food’ program? Or as Gen. Franks referred to it, “Oil for Palaces…”
    And the UN allowed such shenanigans to continue for 12 years and 17 resolutions, which they didn’t enforce.
    When the US was willing to wait for the UK to work out an eighteenth resolution, France said it would veto any resolution pertaining to military action against Iraq(though that is exactly what UN Rersolution 1441 refers to - without specifics - which are not required as far as I have read in the UN resolutions.)
    OK, so who needs a resolution?


  • @Xi:

    Embargo!
    Are you including the brilliant UN ‘Oil for Food’ program? Or as Gen. Franks referred to it, “Oil for Palaces…”
    And the UN allowed such shenanigans to continue for 12 years and 17 resolutions, which they didn’t enforce.
    When the US was willing to wait for the UK to work out an eighteenth resolution, France said it would veto any resolution pertaining to military action against Iraq(though that is exactly what UN Rersolution 1441 refers to - without specifics - which are not required as far as I have read in the UN resolutions.)
    OK, so who needs a resolution?

    its all pretty stupid (shrugs), but not much more than war.


  • @cystic:

    @Xi:

    Embargo!
    Are you including the brilliant UN ‘Oil for Food’ program? Or as Gen. Franks referred to it, “Oil for Palaces…”
    And the UN allowed such shenanigans to continue for 12 years and 17 resolutions, which they didn’t enforce.
    When the US was willing to wait for the UK to work out an eighteenth resolution, France said it would veto any resolution pertaining to military action against Iraq(though that is exactly what UN Rersolution 1441 refers to - without specifics - which are not required as far as I have read in the UN resolutions.)
    OK, so who needs a resolution?

    its all pretty stupid (shrugs), but not much more than war.

    Yes, but war will solve the problem. UN resolutions only prolonged the inevitable conflict…


  • I don’t understand how anyone can take such an absolutist standpoint. To so blatantly say that it’s black and white, and there is only your one, absolute Truth seems ignorant, in my opinion. The idea of absolutism seems completely absurd and is rather dangerous.
    To be an absolutist is to lower yourself to the level of a terrorist. Those who planned an exicuted the destruction of the WTC beleived that they were fighting for the one real Truth, and that they were doing a good thing by destroying the enemy of their Truth. Our government is doing the same thing now. If you’re not with us you’re against us? Sounds more like, if you don’t believe in our Truth then we’ll make you believe by bombing the shit out of you. Why not have one Truth in all respects? Why not have one party and one religion and one language and one skin colour? (after all only one can be the true party or religion ect.) Where does the absolutism end? When do we realize that there is not a Truth, but there are truths? You can say all you want about the evils of relativism, I will always prefer it over absolutist bull.


  • applauds wholeheartedly to bossk


  • Ted Turner Sour Grapes (Vinegar)
    In a speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, Ted Turner referred to Rupert Murdoch( whose News Corp. Ltd. owns Fox News Channel.) Turner said, “He’s a warmonger; he promoted it [the war in Iraq].”

    Turner started CNN more than two decades ago and was practically the only game in town when it came to covering the 1991 Gulf War. But this time around, Fox News trounced CNN in the war coverage’s ratings.

    Turner’s response: “Just because your ratings are bigger doesn’t mean you’re better.”


  • @Xi:

    But this time around, Fox News trounced CNN in the war coverage’s ratings.

    Turner’s response: “Just because your ratings are bigger doesn’t mean you’re better.”

    Ahm….
    so the one with the bigger ratings made a comment that bigger ratings do not mean better quality?
    … Aussies logic, probably ;)…


  • Joe Millionaire got good ratings.


  • Oops, i misread the names… my bad, sorry…
    feel free to delete this and the last posting

Suggested Topics

  • 74
  • 12
  • 5
  • 6
  • 1
  • 2
  • 24
  • 130
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

31
Online

16.3k
Users

38.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts