Screeds like this illustrate why The Seattle Left is on life support. There is a glimmer of salience (regarding better armor for U.S. ground vehicles in Iraq) overwhelmed by bile.
NOTE: If you are easily offended, don't read this. And please leave profanity OUT of any comments. Also please note that "I, Anonymous," is a long-standing feature in The Stranger. Some people believe it is actually written by the staff. If so, that makes this all the worse.
UPDATE: More here on "The Last Days Of The Kool-Aid Quaffers" in Seattle.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at January 16, 2005 11:32 AM | Email ThisIf you think the article is bad, trying thumbing through the edition near the end and see the advertisements and other "features." Let's just say its not for family viewing.
I suspect most normal people from out of town are a bit shocked at reading the Stranger.
Posted by: Erik on January 16, 2005 11:40 AMThanks Matt
ps. Sorry I misunderstood your humor yesterday. I was having a flashback liberal moment.
Victor
Pretty nasty fruit in that column.
Posted by: Greg M on January 16, 2005 11:45 AMThat still doesn't excuse this drivel. The author of this screed sounds like the kind of person that would key a car just because it has bumper stickers that present a view he doesn't agree with. I know several people that won't put pro-bush or pro-conservative stickers on their cars because they are afraid of vandalism in oh-so-tolerant Seattle.
Posted by: Perri on January 16, 2005 11:47 AMThe Stranger is to Journalism as King County is to well-run elections.
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on January 16, 2005 12:20 PMI've been doing an unofficial study of the number of mean drivers with Kerry or Fraudoire stickers vs the number of mean drivers supporting the GOP. I've come to find that the blue drivers believe the road and every parking space at costco is "mine mine mine."
Posted by: Andy on January 16, 2005 12:30 PMThe question of whether or not the manufactures of magnetic decals send profits to support American servicefolks, should be addressed in the light of whether or not the manufacturers *claim* they send profits. The decals are purchased to proclaim public support of a cause or feeling, not because they (the purchasers) see it as the best way to support military personell. I have no objection to folks making a buck by supplying citizens a way to express themselves, citizens who wish to send a portion of profits to that cause should be savvy about who they purchase from.
Posted by: Whidbey Teacher on January 16, 2005 12:35 PMYou know, if the Left would actually DO something about what they're so angry about instead of continually flapping their gums to their 'enlightended' choir, I might have some respect for them.
But no. Wail, whine and moan. Moan, whine and wail. Every. Day.
I thought they were going to "rumble m-effers" if Bush won.
But no. A couple rocks through the windows, some stolen computers and more whining.
You want the ribbons off my vehicles and "stuck somewhere?" Go for it. Please.
Posted by: jimg on January 16, 2005 12:39 PMYes, its the left equivelant to Ellen Craswell or Phyllis Schlafly.
Posted by: Erik on January 16, 2005 12:54 PMWe have entered a quagmire which we will not be able to exit for a decade, thrown hundreds of billions of dollars down a sinkhole, destabilized a region that contains historically some of our most ardent allies like Turkey, created a vacuum where the most likely country to fill it - Iran - is even more nefarious (a true threat to world stability), helped quicken the pace of terrorist recruitment, alienated some of our most needed allies, and gravely damaged our ability to project our power throughout the world (anyone who has read anything on national security policy can tell you that national power derives from more than just military might). Not to mention the hundreds of American lives lost - for what?
The only reason this Reaganite conservative did not vote for John Kerry was that Kerry actually supported the war. So, I have to disagree with you all on this, the Stranger does have a point.
Posted by: LoneWolf on January 16, 2005 01:06 PMWatched it again the other day, with all the serious looks, drivel, and platitudes that came along with the 'precipice of War!' Funny how none of these 'we always knew' statements you hear now were never expressed before, even by the most liberal of MSM. Christiane Amanpour herself was quite subdued, talking about the WMDs as if they existed. (Oh, and a few other things like the massacres, torture, genocide, and other things that made Saddam a 'bad' man.)
I suppose that this is yet another example of the evolution of groupthink. And, of the reality that is created, rather than naturally occurs.
The Stranger piece was entertaining, and typical. Am sure that the author is a substantial contributor to the GDP, and is respected in the community through the good works done.
In the observation category, has anyone EVER seen a Subaru with a Bush sticker on it? I can't recall one, and wondered if there's a pattern amongst owners.
Steve :)
Posted by: Steve on January 16, 2005 01:20 PMDo you want some cheese with that WHINE?
Steve
Delran, NJ
Welcome to the reign of Seattle Rule.
Hope you enjoy it.
Posted by: Steve on January 16, 2005 01:34 PMBRING THEM HOME! NOW!
Posted by: Steve on January 16, 2005 01:37 PMI caught them keying a neighbors car. When they explained why I let them go. Hope they keep up the good work.
Posted by: BILLY on January 16, 2005 01:45 PMManiacs like those who posted that screed still blindy believe every word that Michael Moore utters.
It never occurs to these people that maybe, just maybe there are some dangerous regimes in the Middle East that preach hatred on a daily basis and oppress their peoples to the point that the only thing that sounds promising to them is to strap a bomb belt on and blow themselves up in a crowd.
Thank goodness for all of the rational Americans that have the sensibility to keep Bush in office so that we can address the irrational regimes of the Middle East with something more than the appeasment of 30 years of cowardice that lead to 9/11.
Oh, and keep up the profanity, it helps render your screeds illegitimate in the eyes of the rational.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 16, 2005 01:48 PMThanks. One good intentioned Subaru driver is enough for me. :) Expect a smile and a wave if I see you out there.
Was just getting a bit concerned that I might have found a commonality.
Leaves the VW microbus as the only vehicle I'll be wary of as a rule then.
Steve
Posted by: Steve on January 16, 2005 01:52 PMSo, it is OK with you if some kids vandalize your car? In your eyes, we are not all human beings deserving of respect and personal rights..if they disagree with your views, they deserve to have their personal property vandalized. That is so sad and so warped. Shows why the left is so poorly viewed. I disagree with the people who have Kerry stickers, but I would never dream of vandalizing their personal property or allow someone else to do so without calling the police. Just shows the difference between the right and left. That just shows the lack of principles in the left..one reason we have such problems during this past election.
Posted by: Miriam on January 16, 2005 01:59 PMThe democratic convention showed how much sense they have when they had Michael Moore seated next to Jimmy Carter for the whole nation to see. And they wonder why they keep losing elections.
The KC democrats are using as much sense the those the planned the Dem national convention. The pendulum will swing - even in KC.
Posted by: Melinda on January 16, 2005 02:03 PMNext: More schadenfreude when Christine Gregoire loses her temp job.
Posted by: FedUpWithThis on January 16, 2005 02:08 PMBilly,
"I caught them keying a neighbors car. When they explained why I let them go. Hope they keep up the good work."
I suppose you could care less when people perform illegal acts, so long as the 'greater good' is served. Nazi Germany comes to mind.
Our redundant troll moralizes:
"I,m shocked that you allow a commentator named "Smegma" on your site! Come, now, people!"
Please, I lowercase smegma for a reason...
Steve sez:
"Support our troops,
BRING THEM HOME! NOW!"
At least he refrained from using profanity, but I agree, to some extent. I would love my step-son to be home right now with his wife and daughter. He's a bit busy defending your right to post gibberish...
Posted by: smegma on January 16, 2005 02:15 PMK.A.L.
"Just doing my part to annoy the children!"
The dems are in the process of taking away our property rights, our voting rights and our initiative rights, thought more orange was necessary. RE-VOTE!
Posted by: Melinda on January 16, 2005 02:21 PMJust remember people... Billy's vote counts the same as yours or mine... well, except in King County, perhaps... where it might be counted twice.
(**sigh**)
Posted by: Kris on January 16, 2005 02:28 PMThe argument has some merit -- how many people who buy support-the-troops gear have ever sent a care package to those stationed in Iraq? And as far as Humvee armoring goes, see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4825948/
"A breakdown of the casualty figures suggests that many U.S. deaths and wounds in Iraq simply did not need to occur. According to an unofficial study by a defense consultant that is now circulating through the Army, of a total of 789 Coalition deaths as of April 15 (686 of them Americans), 142 were killed by land mines or improvised explosive devices, while 48 others died in rocket-propelled-grenade attacks. Almost all those soldiers were killed while in unprotected vehicles, which means that perhaps one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them, the study suggested. Thousands more who were unprotected have suffered grievous wounds, such as the loss of limbs."
and also http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?040809fa_fact1, which notes "Of the company’s seven Humvees, two were 'up armored'—plated heavily enough to deflect rifle fire"
Posted by: jeremy on January 16, 2005 02:30 PMK.A.L.
"Just doing my part to annoy the children!"
http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/washington_gov.htm
Posted by: niceville on January 16, 2005 02:35 PMThe argument has some merit -- how many people who buy support-the-troops gear have ever sent a care package to those stationed in Iraq?
Several times, in fact. Also have made anonymous payments for meals at the Old Country Buffet in Lakewood, and told the employee to apply those funds to the bill of the next servicemember who comes in for a meal.
Posted by: Kris on January 16, 2005 02:37 PMStill, I care not what someone tries to put out posing as me. People know where I stand, and it becomes quite apparent when a troll, capable of nothing more original, hijacks a name.
Having played in the sandbox prior, and a couple of other sandboxes not much different, I know all too well how nice it would be to have our folks home. Especially our friends and neighbors of the 81st Brigade, WAANG. It pains me to hear of the suffering, the stress, and the sheer horrors that our people are going through, but it gladdens me to hear them tell of the difference they see themselves making over there. Yes, folks, it's true. The same people that take the 5 ton trucks through rain swollen rivers locally are over there. The same ones that fought the fires in Leavenworth in '94 are over there, trying to make things safer for the local Iraqi. And they took with them the same giving hearts that they have served with on the home front. Some haven't come back. Some will regret the experience. Some will have been glad to have served a need greater than their own. Some will be traumatized. It's service in our national interests, and that can be a burden, to be sure.
And, not just the 81st. The Strykers from Ft Lewis are there. Aircrews from McChord. Transportation companies. Civil Affairs units. Engineering Units. Port Security units. Our friends, neighbors, and countrymen and women. People we've seen in the malls, people we smile at in line at a movie theater, people we've seen marching in a local parade. Raised their right hand and did their duty to the best of their ability in the hopes of making the world slightly better.
Smeg, seriously, I'll add a special hope that your stepson comes home timely and safely, along with his unit and colleagues.
I have some level of support for our troops visible, and it's well known amongst people with whom I am in contact that I support our people. I have never had a single problem with someone attempting to 'express their view' or perform an innocuous sounding 'civil disobedience' on any property of mine. There are days, however, that I wish someone like author would make an attempt.
Folks, let me put a plug in, while I am thinking of it. I am sure that as the 81st comes home, there's going to be some parade or something. KVI, I think, has done something like that a few times. Please consider being part of the crowd that celebrates the return, when it happens. I was at the parade for the Lincoln when it returned, and it was something to behold. Though as a member of the military, I detested having to march in some stupid parade when I was freshly home and irritated that the civilians couldn't even begin to understand what I had just been through, this was different. The sailors were overwhelmed by the reception they received, and truly didn't know what to do with themselves. Some had tears in their eyes, more than a few thanked veterans they identified in the crowd, and ALL were certainly moved. (Ok, sailors - there were more than a few that were checking out all the hot women. But what can you expect from sailors anyway?)
Ummm.... I should stop rambling. Thanks for the indulgence.
Posted by: Steve on January 16, 2005 02:44 PMInstead of armored humvees, what he'd REALLY rather see is NO humvees. He just can't bring himself to admit it.
Posted by: Michele S on January 16, 2005 02:52 PMI knew it wasn't you - you actually write structured sentences...and thank you for the sentiment.
Posted by: smegma on January 16, 2005 02:54 PMAnd Jeremy, thanks for your comments and please keep them coming. However, just so you know, the post here titled "Kiev By The Pacific," the title of which you thought was rhetorical overkill, was taken from the headline on an article in The Economist.
Posted by: Matt Rosenberg on January 16, 2005 02:55 PMSteve seems to have ignored what I wrote. I made a couple points -- that childish insults aren't unique to "The Seattle Left", that it's a valid question to ask how many people are tangibly supporting our troops (as Kris and Stacy laudably are), and that there's evidence that in fact our government didn't take the time or effort to make sure our troops had an adequate level of protection.
I am keen to learn from Steve how my post demonstrates ignorance of what's at stake. I believe so much is at stake, that I can't comprehend why our leaders would take respond in a manner that led Thomas E. White, former Sec Army, to say “You got the impression in this exercise that we didn’t harness the best and brightest minds in a concerted effort”
Steve, you should worry less about "the left getting more and more shrill" when your own contribution to the debate is to write "Go back to the 60s."
Posted by: jeremy on January 16, 2005 03:04 PMAnd Dolly...I don't mind them keying my car. If that's what I have to sacrifice for being RIGHT, then let them play their little games.
You might remind them that as right wingers we believe EVERY part of the Constitution is part of our law. If I catch them keying my car, I might explain the Second Amendment to them...
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on January 16, 2005 03:04 PMMy son is in Iraq, hopefully coming soon from Mosul, right after the Iraqi election. I didn't dare to put my Bush/Chenney sticker on my car, for the very reason of vandalizm, BUT I proudly present the yellow ribbon AND a 'Home of the free, because of the brave' sticker.
As far as the profits from ribbons/stickers sales I know that my went to a good use. Read the below from the www.osot.org site (operation support our troops):
Yellow Ribbon “Support Our Troops” Magnets – The magnets measure 4” x 8”. Please contact Sheryl Sheaffer if you are interested in purchasing one. The cost for each magnet is $5.00 plus $1.00 mailing. Proceeds of sales go to sending packages to our Troops. Our supply is getting low and we do not plan to order any more – so get them while they last!
Bumper stickers – Please contact Sheryl Sheaffer if you are interested in purchasing one. The cost for each bumper sticker is $2.00 plus $.50 mailing. Proceeds of sales go to sending packages to our Troops.
P.S. Besides sending a lot of packages to my son, I also donated in masses to packages to other soldiers. I was also able to contribute to our local Stryker soldier who lost his arm in Iraq (read on osot.org). From a rented trailer that he could not effort to make a mortgage on, now the family, thanks to the good people of WA, collected $20,000 for a downpayment on a house. Does the writer of the Stranger article can submit any example of HIS commitment to our troops? I think NOT.
Posted by: E.W. on January 16, 2005 03:10 PM
I only wish the children were here to read that! (obscure "Blazing Saddles" reference)
Posted by: Kris on January 16, 2005 03:23 PMYou are so offended by "smegma"... could it be that it hits a little close to home? Perhaps you should give a little more attention to personal hygiene.
Then you wouldn't be stinking up our forum with your mindless comments.
Posted by: Clint on January 16, 2005 03:50 PMAll,
Sorry to bottle up bandwidth here, I will try to desist from my obsessive-compulsive drive to knock sense into idiots. It only gets my knuckles bloody...but it does feel good...
They are superheated because America, now more than ever actually supports our troops. We can credit Reagan for that, he was able to seperate the soldiers from the conflict!
It's laughable to see the peacnik professors giving lectures on PEACE and INTERNATIONAL CONFLCIT. Are they even qualified on these topics? What do Professors with Ph.d's in French, Spanish, Women's Studies, Physical Ed., etc. know that we don't? Don't they get the same news we do?
It's even funnier to see the lefty's rally. Half of them have "support our troops" signs, while others grumble about the "moral implications and free-will of the soldiers" (READ: washed up 60's protestors)
That's what makes the Left so funny. They all think they are "experts" when it comes to Iraq and Bush's foreign policy. Truthfully, they just take the nudge from whatever the "Fat White Guy With the Beard" says. Sporadically drop the "f-bomb" and the kids nod their head in understanding...even professors have turned to this "attention getting-technique" of swearing to emphasize their anti-American rhetoric!
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 16, 2005 03:51 PM"It is truly easy to understand, after reading the I, Anonymous column entitled "What the Fuck?", why the writer of the column chooses to be anonymous. If I was that ignorant I don't believe I would have the balls to put my name to a column like that either."
Posted by: Jay on January 16, 2005 03:55 PMYou do the same when, on your own blog, you write "Worse, a fair share of their idiot, pierced, green-haired vegan readers lap it right up. (The rest of their idiot readers don't, but only because they're too drunk or drugged)" If you accept that as reasonable debate, then you open the door for someone to similarly tar and dismiss your entire readership, and now rather than a discussion we have two groups of people who just say "those other guys are idiots, ignore everything they say."
I'm going to try my own attempt at ongoing discourse at http://spaces.msn.com/members/droshke, we'll see how it goes.
Posted by: jeremy on January 16, 2005 03:56 PMThank God for the 2nd amendment, if we still have it by then, as well as the 1st amendment.
BTW: The first amendment does NOT apply to every piece of garbage someone wants to publish.
People that write that kind of drivel are trying to get people mad at them by trying to shock them.
They want the civil war that is on the horizon.
Snicker.....
This was good!
I hope you don't have weap over his grave with tears of, "you died for freedom."
Posted by: Dolley on January 16, 2005 04:49 PMFor clarification, and pardon my forwardness, are you saying that your son died in Iraq, or that your son is in Iraq and you hope he doesn't die?
Either being the case, you have my deepest empathy and heartfelt sympathy, as does every family member of a serving airman, soldier, marine, or guardsman. Else being the case, there is no depth to the contempt I shall hold.
Posted by: Steve on January 16, 2005 05:12 PMI considered that possibility, but chose to address this person on the basis of merits. Surely, there's a boundary of shame that even Dolly would not cross, and as such, I cannot but honor the situation, if true.
If not, another story.
Steve
Posted by: Steve on January 16, 2005 06:00 PMYou have a higher reserve of empathy than I. You are better qualified to moralize than so many of these posters, especially myself.
I have a handle which is as offensive as what these trolls post for a reason...they bring nothing to a debate which deserves insight and soul searching. I apologize if I have cheapened the debate, but I see nothing right now to indicate I must change this method...
Posted by: smegma on January 16, 2005 06:16 PMTELL THEM TO FINISH THE JOB! NOW!
Posted by: Mike H. on January 16, 2005 06:22 PMI certainly do not think that you've detracted from the surrounding debate in any fashion whatsoever. Cheapened? Bah! Think nothing of it.
It does bring to mind something I've considered over the past day though. Given the level of discourse, rhetoric, and apparent endorseable methods of political expression in the Stranger, in public, and our surroundings, what would be the reaction of the purveyors of such means if the same means were applied to them?
I mean, assuming civilized people who weren't of a leftist bent, went off their collective rockers and decided to 'take it to the streets' and 'brought visibility' through civil disobedience, how would the 3.14, activists, and assorted headless people from here take it?
Would it therefore be acceptable to:
- have a concerted effort by motorists to block the Sounder trains every morning, to show displeasure at the Sound Transit shennanigans?
- Mass civil disobedience days where single occupant vehicles drove the speed limit and took over the carpool lanes?
- Blocking the entrances to the Pike Place Market to prevent innocent tourists from being polluted by mindless leftisms?
- Burning yard waste in protest over burn bans?
- Scarfing up all copies in the box of every Seattle Weekly, Stranger, PI paper to prevent the distribution of their message?
- Standing on overpasses with signs denigrating sacred cows of the left?
- Organizing a yearly Milkfest, where people of a free spirit can congregate and celebrate the many uses of milk? (Warning, could be nudity involved)
- Hunters and fishermen who practice civil disobdience by ignoring game laws?
Ok, pretty lame, and pretty tame compared to the nonsense that goes on in the name of 'progressive' these days. Still, I can only imagine the outrage if those of us who had jobs actually became active, 'in your face,' and lobbied for OUR agenda.
The answer for most of us is that it would NOT be acceptable to do any of the above, and therefore we choose not to reply in kind. Even if we had the time, the energy, and the desire to get bullish about our views, we probably wouldn't, out of respect. Yet, there those among us who seem to think it's ok when THEY do it.
How weird. Smeg, if the greatest 'in your face' offensive sin you commit in the name of politics is this name, it's pretty innocuous.
Go with your bad self, Sir.
Posted by: Steve on January 16, 2005 07:15 PMWell, I apologize for my insensitivity to you on your offense taken at the other person's choice of name. I take no umbrage at yours in it's current form, despite having experienced more than a couple people whose torso and cranium became either separated, or nearly so in some fashion. Worst, I believe, came after one of my colleagues ran into a turning propeller on a flight deck one night. Senseless. Horrific. Stuff nightmares are made of. (shudder)
So, despite the visions your name conjures up, I choose not to upbraid you for it, out of respect. Much in the same vein as I do with others. I'm kind of fair that way. :)
Imagine that, HL. You have had a civil, respectful post about you as a human being worthy of being treated as such. It's a wonderful day to be objective and fair.
Enjoy the evening, folks. Been a fun weekend, but I must be off to add to the GDP for a few days. Will watch from afar.
Steve
Posted by: Steve on January 16, 2005 07:50 PMNot 'puppy' but Dachshund...oh, same difference I guess...Good night.
Posted by: smegma on January 16, 2005 08:14 PMI have read through the Stranger once, and actually managed to subdue the urge to vomit (barely). I suppose that the best that can be said of the- ahem- publication is that it reflects the, ah, mentality and intellect of the typical tapioca-brained Seattle liberal.
I will forego referring to the contributors to this bird dropping receptacle as writers. I think that the word "perpetrators" serves better in this case. After all, to call a person a writer infers that he or she (or 'other', in this case) is actually capable of presenting a coherent thought and uses a tool more sophisticated than a jumbo-size crayon. With regard to the Stranger, such is clearly NOT the case. I am simply amazed that these people are allowed to go out alone. Clearly someone fell asleep at the gate and needs to be sacked.
What is even more sad is the fact that these hacks actually take themselves seriously. The truth is that the Stranger is not at the 'cutting edge' of journalism, as its perpetrators would wish us to think. Mature, serious, pragmatic and truth-seeking people abandoned the Stranger's trademark verbal defecation in our second-grade bathrooms- in other words, we grew up. The Stranger would have us believe that we are required to accept their perverse and irrelevant product as legitimate journalism. Thank God that we are not.
The staff at the Stranger should be mindful of the fact that Seattle's citizens would have burned their business out and thrown those unwashed, patulae-reeking, slack-jawed, mouth-breathing, mushroom-chewing hemp-smokers into the bay years ago and good riddance to the beastly lot of them, were it not for the Constitution and for strict laws against pollution.
In that great and diverse family of journalism, the Stranger is the insane old cousin who is kept locked in the basement and whose dinner is slid under the door. Not any real threat to others out in public, mind you; just hideously embarrassing to the rest of the family.
Posted by: AjalonVox on January 16, 2005 11:36 PMWhich means that somewhere out there is a M.smegmata sniveling about how offensive the name "headless lucy" is...
So really, there is more sound logic in calling oneself "smegma" than to call oneself "headless". One can only guess at the logic in that sad liberal brain...
Anyway, get over it. If you're trolling for some reason to get your thong in a twist, go somewhere else.
Posted by: ERNurse on January 16, 2005 11:52 PM"The Iraq War is probably the most stupid foreign policy decision in our nation's history and the most harmful to our national security since the Truman administration..."
To which I vehemently differ. Here's a little history lesson, Einstein.
The most stupid foreign policy decision in our nation's history were perpetrated by Democrats, and I will prove it.
One of the cappers was when Bill "hide the cigar" Clinton appointed arguably one of the dumbest and most shallow women on the planet (Madeline Albright) to be Secretary of State. She spent more time obsessing about her broche collection than she did studying foreign policy about which she clearly knew nothing.
You stupid liberals love to harp about the dangers of "unilateralism" and "going it alone" only when the president happens to be Republican. Where were you whining pukes when Bill "easy with the teeth, honey" Clinton was sending our troops to slaughter in Somalia, or blowing up pharmaceutical factories in Afghanistan, or firing missiles into Iraq, or invading Bosnia?
Roosevelt was a murdering, communist-sympathizing, conniving SOB. He loved Stalin. Called him "Uncle Joe." Sold tens of millions of Eastern Europeans into slavery and death at the hands of Stalin. Great man, eh? (He was also a Democrat.)
Then there was Truman, that paragon of patriotism... and suprise, surprise- another Democrat. He knowingly harbored more Soviet spies (Alger Hiss, to name but one) in his cabinet than Liz Taylor has ex-husbands.
How about JFK? Let's see...The Bay of Pigs... He threw away the defense of Southern Europe to keep the Soviets from putting ICBMs on Cuba. He got us involved in Vietnam. Oh, Yeah. He was Democrat. (Do you see a pattern emerging?)
But wait! There's more:
Johnson? Threw us full-tilt into Vietnam... then he castrated our military's ability to defend our allies against Communist brutality by prosecuting operations from his desk. He subjugated minorities with his neat little welfare policies... also a Democrat.
Democrats, led by Ted "my brothers are dead, I'm just dead drunk" Kennedy led the drive to abandon South Vietnam to her aggressors from the North, which led to the deaths of millions of innocents in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia and ruined America's honor. Democrats, LW. NOT Republicans. Liberals. NOT Conservatives.
Carter turned the late 1970's into one big America bash-fest, led by himself. You want to talk about stupid foreign policy decisions? Do the words "hostages in Iran" mean anything to you? How about blaming his failures on the American people? I still remember that speech. You obviously do not.
Wake up, you poor uneducated slob. Every foreign policy disaster has happened on the watch of a sitting Democrat president. Republicans came in and cleaned up after the Democrats. Pull your head out.
Posted by: ERNurse on January 17, 2005 12:42 AMI am glad to hear that we have a reasonable and well armed community ready to exercise their second amendment right to start a Civil War against those who would key their car or defend Iraq's role in 9/11! (OK, they weren't involved in 9/11 and only had the chemical weapons Rumsfeld sold them. - But they would have if they had thunk of it.)
Posted by: Jackass Hippy on January 17, 2005 06:15 AMLast I checked, no victim/potential victim of a 'direct action' has indicated a desire to start a civil war against car keyers. We do, however, pay attention.
As I understand the rules, property is devalued and fair game for direct action. Any property, anything goes. It's only 'property,' right? "You have insurance to cover that," right? As long as no person bleeds, it's all fair game? Are you as willing to suffer direct actions, as you are to perpetrate them?
There are some who walk among us, my friend, that understand that even the most 'free spirited' in this world is materialistic and sentimental about things they own. As such, proportional response based on such rules seems like a potential result for those who commit the original action. And, I probably would not find myself too sympathetic to the second 'victim.'
Perhaps limiting direct action to King County metro areas is about the safest thing to do, rather than export it to Snohomish County, from the sounds of it.
I would comment on your timeline/connection, but really am unfamiliar with those assertions. Did that come from Moore's movie, or is there a site I can check into the veracity of your allegations? Sounds eerily similar to some statements I once heard from one of your kindred spirits about April 15, 1988 that indicated the US's participation in attacking Iran to help Hussein launch an attack on the Al Faw peninsula. (By the way, one of the two participants in THAT conversation had been within 500 miles of the scene, and it wasn't him. He was astounded, confounded, and confused when confronted with someone who actually had a first hand account that conflicted with his internet "knowledge."
Posted by: Steve on January 17, 2005 06:58 AM"With people like that we will probably have a civil war in the U.S. within the next 25 years. Hope you are ready. It's not what I would want, but that's the reality when the wackos without morals out number the normal working people.
Thank God for the 2nd amendment, if we still have it by then, as well as the 1st amendment.
BTW: The first amendment does NOT apply to every piece of garbage someone wants to publish.
People that write that kind of drivel are trying to get people mad at them by trying to shock them.
They want the civil war that is on the horizon.
Posted by don'twastemytime at January 16, 2005 04:05 PM "
"You might remind them that as right wingers we believe EVERY part of the Constitution is part of our law. If I catch them keying my car, I might explain the Second Amendment to them...
Posted by SnoCo Voter at January 16, 2005 03:04 PM"
Posted by: Jackass Hippy on January 17, 2005 07:30 AMPut a Kerry/Ewards* sticker on your car and drive slowly through Clyde Hill. Park the car at Starbucks. Enter wearing your K/E shirt. What is the reaction?
Put a Bush/Cheney sticker on your car, and drive slowly through Fremont. Park the car, go to Starbucks with your B/C shirt. What is the reaction?
Posted by: steve miller on January 17, 2005 08:14 AMNice try, my friend, but I made no such statement, nor exhibited any indication that your conclusion would be grounded in reality. But, that wasn't your point really, was it?
I suspect that you are capable and practice conclusions that fit your thinking, irrespective of fact. Go with your bad self, for I am not going to change your mind. You are certainly entertaining enough that changing your mind would only deny me the entertainment that you bring.
It was interesting to note your assessment of what is proper for others to own. Interesting in the aspect that you seem quite sure it's appropriate for you to make the determination for others, which legal tools are allowed them, and which aren't. Being a fair guy, myself, I tend to wonder whether you are willing to subordinate yourself to the opinions of others as to what YOU should own and do, or whether you would react negatively to interference from others. I suspect, I'll share, that the latter would apply.
You see, this is where I end up in a fundamental difference with folks from the left. I just want to live my life, free and without interference from others. I can respect that others make choices differently than I, and leave them alone. Others, however, seem to feel it their job/right/mandate to inflict their views upon me, and have set up a system by which they are far more successful than unsuccessful. Moreover, as is illustrated by the current situation, this structure is sacrosanct, and extremism in defense of their power structure is no vice, apparently. This question of Gregoire's legitimacy and the process has less to do with arbitrary numbers of votes cast, at least for one side, than it does in protecting their ability to enact agendas upon the populace. Strictly my opinion, of course. Take, for example, the 3.14's forceful advice to Gregoire to raise taxes immediately, and slam her agenda as hard as possible. They have consolidated all three branches of State government, and seek to ramrod every bit of the agenda they possibly can, while they can. Their biggest fear? Being found out and seeing their hat trick reduced to only controlling 2/3 of the branches of government in the state. Would that suffice to explain the reaction?
I cannot end this until I make one more point, and it's heartfelt. Going right back to this agenda forcing, and people who feel it their right to decide for me, I am still outraged that people like JAH took JP Patches away from us. You see, to support the show, JP would endorse products. But, fellow travelers thought that unduly influenced children and would lead them to health problems such as obesity. It was clear to them that JP was a threat to kids, and created a means by which he was removed from the airwaves. Now, 22 years later, let's take a look back and see whether they were right, or not.
JP removed? Check
Child Obesity a problem? Sure is, the Herald is all over that one. 3.14 right behind.
Hmmmm... Perhaps they weren't right about what is/was best for us. But hey, they chalked up a win by denying local children an icon!
Enjoy,
Steve
Posted by: Steve on January 17, 2005 09:06 AMNice try, my friend, but I made no such statement, nor exhibited any indication that your conclusion would be grounded in reality. But, that wasn't your point really, was it?
I suspect that you are capable and practice conclusions that fit your thinking, irrespective of fact. Go with your bad self, for I am not going to change your mind. You are certainly entertaining enough that changing your mind would only deny me the entertainment that you bring.
It was interesting to note your assessment of what is proper for others to own. Interesting in the aspect that you seem quite sure it's appropriate for you to make the determination for others, which legal tools are allowed them, and which aren't. Being a fair guy, myself, I tend to wonder whether you are willing to subordinate yourself to the opinions of others as to what YOU should own and do, or whether you would react negatively to interference from others. I suspect, I'll share, that the latter would apply.
You see, this is where I end up in a fundamental difference with folks from the left. I just want to live my life, free and without interference from others. I can respect that others make choices differently than I, and leave them alone. Others, however, seem to feel it their job/right/mandate to inflict their views upon me, and have set up a system by which they are far more successful than unsuccessful. Moreover, as is illustrated by the current situation, this structure is sacrosanct, and extremism in defense of their power structure is no vice, apparently. This question of Gregoire's legitimacy and the process has less to do with arbitrary numbers of votes cast, at least for one side, than it does in protecting their ability to enact agendas upon the populace. Strictly my opinion, of course. Take, for example, the 3.14's forceful advice to Gregoire to raise taxes immediately, and slam her agenda as hard as possible. They have consolidated all three branches of State government, and seek to ramrod every bit of the agenda they possibly can, while they can. Their biggest fear? Being found out and seeing their hat trick reduced to only controlling 2/3 of the branches of government in the state. Would that suffice to explain the reaction?
I cannot end this until I make one more point, and it's heartfelt. Going right back to this agenda forcing, and people who feel it their right to decide for me, I am still outraged that people like JAH took JP Patches away from us. You see, to support the show, JP would endorse products. But, fellow travelers thought that unduly influenced children and would lead them to health problems such as obesity. It was clear to them that JP was a threat to kids, and created a means by which he was removed from the airwaves. Now, 22 years later, let's take a look back and see whether they were right, or not.
JP removed? Check
Child Obesity a problem? Sure is, the Herald is all over that one. 3.14 right behind.
Hmmmm... Perhaps they weren't right about what is/was best for us. But hey, they chalked up a win by denying local children an icon!
Enjoy,
Steve
Posted by: Steve on January 17, 2005 09:06 AMFirst off "you stupid liberals"? Huh? If you would actually calm down and read what I wrote, you would get a clue, but I suppose invective is the last refuge of the ignorant.
I am a Reaganite conservative who supports a strong US foreign policy and an Amerioa able to project its power throughout the world. If you know anything about the history of the neoconservative movement (or are you to busy spending your time spewing hot air to actually read anything?) you would know that each of the neocons have their philisophical roots in liberal Democratic politics. They are more appropriately labelled "Neo-Wilsonianists". Their sophomoric ideas about the US spreading joy and peace throughout the world are more akin to Jimmy Carter's or Michael Dukakis's philosophy than any self-respecting conservative. They have nothing to do with the conservative movement, they just joined it as a more expedient way to pursue their anti-Iraq policies. I studied under the great Paul Wolfowitz, who has been wanting to invade Iraq for the last 20 years, so I know wherefrom I speak. So let's cut the baby name calling and study up on history, my friend.
First off "you stupid liberals"? Huh? If you would actually calm down and read what I wrote, you would get a clue, but I suppose invective is the last refuge of the ignorant.
I am a Reaganite conservative who supports a strong US foreign policy and an Amerioa able to project its power throughout the world. If you know anything about the history of the neoconservative movement (or are you to busy spending your time spewing hot air to actually read anything?) you would know that each of the neocons have their philisophical roots in liberal Democratic politics. They are more appropriately labelled "Neo-Wilsonianists". Their sophomoric ideas about the US spreading joy and peace throughout the world are more akin to Jimmy Carter's or Michael Dukakis's philosophy than any self-respecting conservative. They have nothing to do with the conservative movement, they just joined it as a more expedient way to pursue their anti-Iraq policies. I studied under the great Paul Wolfowitz, who has been wanting to invade Iraq for the last 20 years, so I know wherefrom I speak. So let's cut the baby name calling and study up on history, my friend.
I would suggest you check some textbooks on US history and US national security policy out of the library and do your homework before spouting off.
Posted by: LoneWolf on January 17, 2005 09:28 AMTherein is your problem. As much as you hat the constitution, I do have the right to knock your hippy head off this planet if I catch you keying my car. And you seem to think that you are entitled to key my car because I support my government's decision to topple a murderous dictator who supported the slimeballs who murdered three thousand of our citizens on 9/11.
Start a civil war? No. Defend my country against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC? You better believe it.
Posted by: ERNurse on January 17, 2005 10:24 AMYour problem is that your story does not wash with what you say.
With all due respect, do not presume to tell me to read my history. I know my history. The problem is that you were reading the textbooks that the schools tell you to read, and are listening to the crap that your elitist professors tell you.
They will tell you that McCarthy was an evil, psychotic bully. They will tell you that Hiss was McCarthy's innocent whipping boy and not a Soviet spy. They will tell you about how the US screwed up the war in Vietnam & Korea. They will tell you that Iran was all our fault. They wil tell you that we went to war in Iraq for oil. They will tell you that it is all about oil.
They will not tell you that Hiss was convicted of perjory for telling the HUAC (House Unamerican Affairs Committee) that he was not a Soviet spy when the evidence overwhelming refuted his testimony.
They will not tell you that McCarthy was nowhere near Alger Hiss during his career because he was not a member of the House, but was a was a SENATOR.
Ever hear of the Venona papers? Look them up. I am sure you will find them highly informative.
The Soviets developed a monstrous subversion agent in America during the Vietnam war. They spent millions of dollars supporting the US antiwar movement in order to turn popular opinion away from the war and abandon South Vietnam because the war was 'morally wrong."
Let me insert this statement: I apologize that I have been overtly blunt with my opinions. I have watched liberal Democrats trash our constitution, strip us of our rights, and apologize to world for the existence of the United States long enough. Please forgive me for not treading lightly.
On that note, Wolf, please take this for what it is worth. If you are truly a conservative, then leave the liberal language behind. Abandon the liberal mindset. Put both feet into the new world and learn what was wrong with the old.
Posted by: ERNurse on January 17, 2005 10:51 AMAnyone who believes that we (US) 'don't have the right' to be facing down terrorism, (wherever, however), is in the wrong country, but FREE to SAFELY voice their criticism of US.
Just know a Soldier you don't know, that LOVED this country, willingly DIED so you could.
I am sure you do wonderful work in the ER, but leave foreign policy to those of us who know something about it. And please do not lecture me about what a true conservative believes. There is a reason "neo" has been added as a prefix to those interlopers.
Posted by: LoneWolf on January 17, 2005 12:46 PMOn this topic I must agree to some extent with ERNurse. I disagree with the tone, perhaps.
On the part of foreign policy, the US has done some pooch-screwing under Bush, and I certainly hope fences can be mended with our purported allies in Europe. But which crystal ball are you looking through to declare a disaster for decades? With all the things that happen daily in the world, I have trouble seeing into tomorrow, much less what we are going to have in the next decade.
Anyway, I hope you are wrong, but I can't see at this point what tomorrow brings.
BTW - I agree with most of your other posts...c'ya around
Posted by: smegma on January 17, 2005 01:51 PMI confess that I have committed the cardinal offense of mature dialogue: I let my idealogy cloud my critical thinking- which makes my position no more defensible than that of the liberals who oppose open debate.
Please understand: I fervently love my country. I am sure that you do as well. I also harbor an equally fervent loathing of liberalism and all that it stands for. Particularly since 9/11, I have observed how the liberal Democrats have attempted to undercut our nation's constitution, assaulted the foundations of our society, and subverted every effort to advance the cause of freedom and domestic security. It makes my blood boil.
I am reminded by our exchange that anger in itself is destructive, and lends nothing to the issue unless it is used to achieve a positive outcome. Considering my line of work, I really should know better.
I do disagree with a lot of our President's policies- most notably his effort to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. On the other hand, I also maintain that if we continue to follow the Democrats' plan, we will be flying the UN flag at the White house within a decade and will have forfeited our innate right to defend ourselves from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Again, this is just me.
I acknowledge that I am a neophyte when it comes to foreign policy- something that my remarks have probably made glaringly obvious. Like the apostle Peter, I appear to have a remarkable tendency to let my heart rule my head and speak when it would be better to remain silent.
I have just had it with the anti-American junk that is fed to students in America- including myself when I was in school. I am fed up with the baloney that our MSM feeds us on a daily basis about how the ills of the world are all America's fault. Of course our government has made mistakes- many grievous mistakes- over the past two centuries. But the essential principles that our nation was founded upon are still as valid today as they were then: that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights: among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In my heart and mind, those ideals are worth defending. Do you agree?
The bottom line is this, LoneWolf: I obviously need to learn more, and I appeal to you and others on this list for help. If you or any others following this thread can help me find objective information about our foreign policy so that I can be more of a help than a hindrance on this issue, by all means give me the references.
From now on, I will do my best to confine my posts to asking questions and offering only constructive, non-confrontational thoughts to the discussions. After all that has been said, I hope that my sincerity comes through to you. I genuinely want to learn and understand. So where do I begin?
Posted by: ERNurse on January 17, 2005 02:05 PMI don't know about LoneWolf, but I was happy to read your response...I, too, am guilty at times of failing to see the wisdom of people who honestly believe in something I don't. I reserve my most stinging responses to the trolls we find wandering this site. LoneWolf has this opinion, which I disagree with. But LoneWolf remains insightful, and for that I read his posts in the light of past performance, which has always been first rate.
And you should not be afraid to post your opinions. I find them motivating and (usually) well thought out...Gotta run, Stefan will be on Fox shortly...
Posted by: smegma on January 17, 2005 03:01 PMFrom what I know so far, the 1991 Iraq/UN cease-fire agreement stipulated that Saddam would not rearm, that Saddam would not support other entities that engaged in hostile activites, and would cease the development of and efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction. According to the cease-fire agreement, if Saddam Hussein was found to be in violation, the UN reserved the right to use force as a means of enforcing the agreement. Am I on the right track so far?
I also know that since then, Saddam ignored the original UN resolution and began a new, albeit more low-profile, effort to rearm. In the past 14 years, the UN has issued over a dozen more 'resolutions' to Saddam telling him to knock it off, and each resolution was ignored.
Even Clinton saw that Saddam needed a little reminder in the form of renewed airstrikes, and followed through accordingly. Clinton even went so far as to state that Saddam was a serious threat and his regime needed to disappear (I paraphrase). Nobody took to the streets then.
The United States has historically been used as the enforcement arm of the UN. Saddam was again flagrantly violating the UN resolution for the umpteenth time. He openly supported terrorists and bankrolled organizations that engaged in subversive and openly violent assaults against free nations, most notably Israel and the United States.
The 'friends' that we are told to mend fences with are primarily France, Germany, and Russia. Interestingly, these three 'friendly nations' were all implicated in the oil-for-food scandal; new evidence of corruption and backstabbing from our 'friends' is still emerging.
Our 'friends' violated the UN resolutions by supplying Saddam with weapons and funding, both directly and indirectly. France was one of those 'friends' who came to our aid after 9/11 by telling us that we had it coming.
The United Nations has effectively relinquished its authority to enforce the very resolutions that it has adopted, and has clearly adopted an anti-United States attitude, regardless of where America stands on any given situation. UN criticism of our efforts to help the tsunami victims is an example.
What it looks like to me is this: the UN is not letting America play in its sandbox because they detest the things we stand for. If we accede to their demands, they will continue to detest us, and will continue to place more demands on us until we become just like them to the point where our identity and strength vanishes.
Should the United States stand for freedom, justice, and a willingness to assist other nations in gaining freedom, or should we just pack it in and go along with the multilateralism proponents who believe that tyrants and terrorists can be swayed with mere words? Okay, that was a purely rhetorical question.
Here is my real question: how would America's security and cause be advanced if we were to reconcile our differences with 'friends' like that?
Speaking only for myself, I believe that it is far more noble and safe in the long run to stand for what is morally right, even if I stand alone. For the US to yield to the UN, especially to france, Germany, and Russia, would be disastrous.
Posted by: ERNurse on January 17, 2005 03:02 PM"Here is my real question: how would America's security and cause be advanced if we were to reconcile our differences with 'friends' like that?"
Reconciliation with France will not happen. In fact, I find it amusing to the point of absurdity that some people are actually deluded enough to think France will allow Airbus manufacturing operations here. Not gonna happen. Their current President would face riots in the streets from the resulting general strike by the socilists (spelling intentionally altered because the site filter will not allow due to questionable content) in their unions.
France has been our greatest stumbling block in efforts to achieve UN consensus on Iraq (and many other issues as well). They will continue to do so, if for no other reason than they hate us...
As for Germany and Russia, they may be easier to placate, but I don't hold my breath that they will play ball.
The UN is the worlds largest post-collegiate Debating Society. Whatever they do to help usually has an unintended consequence which hurts worse than the cure.
Bottom line, I can't answer your question in the present format. Too many unknowns...
In reading my question again, I realize that it requires a subjective and thus non-scientific response.
I suppose that I should have framed the question as follows: "Will accession to the UN (especially to France) make the United States stronger in terms of our national security?"
I think the answer to that one is a resounding NO. Any enhanced association with the UN can only further weaken our security, because relations with the UN must be advanced only on the UN's terms, which clearly are not in the best interest of the United States.
Does that make sense?
Posted by: ERNurse on January 17, 2005 06:11 PMMore than enough, my friend.
The UN is a Debating Society, not a forum which allows/enables action on any realistic terms...just look at the oil-for-food fiasco...not to mention genocide in Rwanda...
Posted by: smegma on January 17, 2005 06:44 PMAnd let us not forget the Sudan...
How did Shark do in Hume? Any word?
Posted by: ERNurse on January 17, 2005 08:37 PM