Sheehan to Be Arrested Thursday National Security Threat

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

spanking the Normans

Postby AnnaLivia » Mon Aug 15, 2005 2:36 pm

robertdreed is of course saying "Sure, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but they're not entitled to their own set of FACTS". we all know there's a chasm between blind belief and informed opinion.<br><br>i'm willing to bet Norman would actually concur, but he has been beaten down so long (like all of us have) that he no longer seems to have the energy to go that extra mile. he seems to think people can never wake from the Matrix, so "what's the use?" i'm walking proof that he's got that wrong. so is that other Cindy in Texas. <br><br>the Normans don't yet realize it, but they are being well-loved to be corrected. i have no doubt that every poster in here wants not to make an enemy of Norman, but a better-informed citizen, an ally. so what if getting there is a messy process? the house is on fire, and we have to do what we have to do. or perish.<br><br>no one is trying to kill Norman, but if Norman must be slapped, so be it. we'd rather not, but it really, truly is for his own good....not to mention our own survival depends on numbers of others waking to the facts and joining together to respond intelligently to those facts.<br><br>no one in here is smacking Norman because they get pleasure from it. your mother doesn't make you take nasty-tasting medicine because she hates you. she does it because<br><br>oh, you know.<br><br>if any one of us, and Norman, found ourselves in a strange and forboding place amidst a crowd of people who only spoke Oom-papa-mow-mow (grin), think how fast we'd find our common ground. think how fast we'd make friends with him, and he with us. outside our comfort zone, things would be different. we'd get a whole new perspective. i try to remember this. (it's my Irish temper that forgets sometimes.)<br><br>wouldn't even fanatical Muslims and fanatical Jews and fanatical atheists all combine to fight off an attack by Martians??<br><br>there does comes a time when the right thing to do is to de-junk some people from our lives. i have done so myself (to a girl who tried to get me to collude with her to falsely, knowingly, name the wrong guy as father of her baby). but it really must be a last resort. i tried to slap her awake, first.<br><br>i want the Normans to decide they want to be on our team as we unflinchingly pursue justice. gad how i search every day for the way to make that happen.<br><br>Norman, we're truly trying to save your bacon here. i hope you find the strength to make yourself vulnerable to ideas you only imagine will hurt you.<br><br>(ps, i got called away in the middle of writing this and suspect i fell behind in the discussion.)<br> <p></p><i></i>
AnnaLivia
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 3:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

smile while you save the world

Postby AnnaLivia » Mon Aug 15, 2005 2:45 pm

chiggerbit, i must be right next door to you...in Archie Bunker county... <p></p><i></i>
AnnaLivia
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 3:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

The unspoken rationale...

Postby otherGeoff » Mon Aug 15, 2005 2:46 pm

Just a note on this thread. As interesting as it is to see SOME people doing something, the following rasies a very valid and awkward point.<br><br>Cheers,<br>Geoff<br><br><br><br>The Clusterfuck Nation Chronicle<br>Commentary on the Flux of Events<br><br>by Jim Kunstler <br><br>August 15, 2005,<br> Before I even get started, I will qualify my remarks this week by reminding you 1.) I'm a registered Democrat, and 2.) I'm not "pro-war."<br> So yesterday afternoon while working outside, I was listening to Harry Shearer's Le Show on National Public Radio. Le Show is a patchwork of skits and news commentary by the actor/comedian who played one of the rockers in This Is Spinal Tap, and who has since shown up in several Christopher Guest mockumentaries such as A Mighty Wind.<br> So Shearer was on the radio and I'm not crazy about his show because he puts across a self-congratulatory air of moral superiority that, after a while, gets on my nerves. Yesterday, he was twanging on the Iraq War again and especially on the notion that the public was swindled into entering it on the phony pretext of "weapons of mass destruction( WMDs)," with the implication that he was a superior person for having figured this out.<br> Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that I regard the standard WMD argument as fatuous (turned out there was nothing there, so we shouldn't have gone in and looked"). But this blog isn't about the WMD argument per se. It's about Harry Shearer's snotty assumption that our exertions in the Middle East -- however poorly or well we are managing them -- are only undertaken for the vanity and greed of George Bush & Co.<br> Because as Shearer was twanging on about WMDs and Iraq and how deplorable the whole thing is, I started wondering about Shearer's real life in Los Angeles, and imagining him driving from his house in one of the better sections of the city to the studio where he does the show, or Shearer motoring across town to Melrose Avenue for sushi, or Shearer tooling up into the canyons above Hollywood to have drinks with friends, or Shearer transporting a child, perhaps, twenty miles down the freeway to a soccer game. And I was wondering what kind of car Shearer drove, and I couldn't help imagining it was probably not a cheap car, and perhaps not a little tiny car, and if Shearer was married or lived with somebody, then his wife / partner undoubtedly had a car, too -- because that's how life is lived in Los Angeles, despite some of their strides in public transit. And as I imagined Harry Shearer driving around Los Angeles in an expensive car deploring this terrible war in Iraq, I couldn't shake the feeling that Shearer was getting, so to speak, a free ride.<br> Which gets back to the war per se. Because if anyone asked me to define what the war is about -- and people have asked -- I would say the war is a desperate attempt by the US to stabilize the region of the world where two-thirds of the remaining global oil supply exists in order for Americans like Harry Shearer to continue enjoying a lifestyle of extreme car dependency. Now, this war may be an exercise in futility and ineptitude by the people running it, while it includes acts of valor or brutality by the soldiers engaged in it, and certainly produces a lot of personal tragedy for the soldiers and the Iraqi people.<br> But I have trouble imagining what Harry Shearer thinks the Middle East would be like now if the US had not overthrown Saddam Hussein and was not struggling to maintain this police station there in the hot center of things. Does he imagine it would be a tranquil scene, like the picture on a pack of Camel cigarettes? If Shearer couldn't get as much gas as he wanted on a given day -- even if he could pay high prices -- to fill up his Infiniti, or Beemer, or Benzie, or Toyota Landcruiser, or whatever he drives, would he be feeling quite so superior about the war? Has Harry Shearer seen any of his children join the army and go to Iraq to preserve his entitlement to drive all over Los Angeles in a spiffy car? Has Harry Shearer made any sacrifices so that he is less oil-dependent than he was before there was a war in Iraq?<br> Harry Shearer with his attitude of moral superiority reminds me of my neighbor here in Saratoga Springs, the lady with the "War Is NOT the Answer" bumper sticker on her Ford Expedition. For people who want to keep on enjoying an easy motoring utopia, war is the answer.<br> This, of course, is the predicament of the Democrats, my own party. They have no interest in modifying the nation's suicidal suburban sprawl lifestyle either, only in the easy pretenses of political correctness. Instead of twanging on WMDs and the depravity of the war in Iraq, I'd like to hear someone like Harry Shearer (or John Kerry, or Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid) stand up and pitch for restoring the US passenger rail system. I'd like to hear some of these assholes propose some meaningful changes that Americans can make in behavior so we won't be so desperate to engage in military contests over the oil we need to drive for sushi in Los Angeles.[link=http://http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary14.html]http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary14.html[/link][link=http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary14.html]www.kunstler.com/mags_diary14.html[/link] <p></p><i></i>
otherGeoff
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

fanat"s

Postby dbeach » Mon Aug 15, 2005 2:51 pm

"wouldn't even fanatical Muslims and fanatical Jews and fanatical atheists all combine to fight off an attack by Martians??" [and fanatical christians like his nibs who is hardly Christain at all]<br><br>I thought they all worked for the CIA including the Mars crowd.<br><br>maybe so do certain disrupters..<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: heath...

Postby heath7 » Mon Aug 15, 2005 3:37 pm

robert,<br> <br>Fine, I don't think the helmet-head, sleazeball documentary is a good idea.<br><br>What the hell did I say that got your panties in such a bunch?<br>You should provide a link because I can't even remember what thread the discussion/debate on discussion/debate took place. I can assure you that my intentions were not self-serving or bullying; to read them as such is misconstruing. I do recall saying that debate is far more often entertainment than constructive, because the usually entrenched sides rarely have an impact on effecting actual change. I also said, which was my point, take it or leave it, that respectful discussion is the most reliable avenue toward changing people's attitudes. You <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>assumed</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> that I meant all opinions are equally valid. The actual direction that I was coming from, all opinions are valid, because they stem from some natural cause, irrational or not, and deserve consideration. Its always worth considering why people hold perspectives that <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>you</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>KNOW</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> to be wrong, rather than go off half-cocked and accuse a pacifist of being a bully<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :D --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>...I actually think you make an important contribution to RI Discussion. What the hell did I do to piss you off <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>and</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> force you to carry a grudge? <p></p><i></i>
heath7
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 9:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Your answer II

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Aug 15, 2005 4:06 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I have found that most people already make up thier minds about what political side they sit on early on. You can try to convince them into a different direction for the rest of your life and nothing will change.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I suspect that Norman is right here, at least for the majority of Americans. I think it has to do with cognitive dissonance. Most allow their political affiliations to do their thinking for them, without thinking through the issues themselves, without scrutinizing the "facts" that are poured into their beans. Wave a flag in front of their faces and they go into a trance. What's interesting is that Sheehan is not one of them. I've been hard on her, being frustrated that she was pro-war before her son was killed in Iraq, that it took the death of her son for her to start really thinking through the propaganda. I suspect that if her son had lived, and had been receiving a medal on some stage, she would have been still gushing about how moral the war has been. But at least she wasn't one of those grieving parents who cover their ears, start singing "La-la-la-la-la" , to drown out the instinct to wonder "Wait a minute, tell me again, WHY did my son die?"<br><br>When I first got to know my friend next-door back in 97, we got on the subject of the Gulf War, and about how she didn't believe that it was a necessary war. Her son had been in the National Guard back then. Being a Republican, and there being no chance now that her son will be called up this time, she is now for this Iraqi war. Hmmmm.<br><br>I think for me, the most amazing aspect of this whole period is that prior to the election of 2000, the right-eous gave Bush all sorts of points for being against nation building, did a lot of screaming about Clinton and Kosovo, but give Bush a few months in office, and the whole crew is beating the drums to ......nation build. What???? It's all relative. But I do believe that people on the left tend to be deeper thinkers, tend to acknowledge inconsistencies. Wonder if there is a way to measure that? It would make a good study. <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

wild ideas

Postby AnnaLivia » Mon Aug 15, 2005 4:11 pm

GDN01, i'm late in voicing your "props" to you, too. please to forgive me. it's been so good of you to give us your first-hand accounts. you've poured your own beautiful energies all over us, and we've refreshed ourselves in that precious fountain. namaste, grrrlfriend, namaste.<br><br>while you were at Camp Casey, i posted something in another thread that i want to touch on again, to avoid any misunderstanding. i said, and i stand by it 100%, that fighting the wealthpower giants for our rights sends the wrong message. That it sends the message that it is GOOD to fight the wealth-power giants for our rights, that it is RIGHT to fight the wealth-power giants for our rights, that it is NECESSARY to fight the wealth-power giants for our rights, that we MUST ALWAYS fight the wealth-power giants for our rights....and that that is wrong.<br><br>wrong because it does nothing to get people to see that wealthpower giants are totally unecessary in the first place, and that the solution to the root cause of our troubles is to murder the idea of having/allowing ANY wealthpower giants.<br><br>so it may seem contradictory for me to then support what CS is doing, i realize. but here's the thing. i just see it as steps in a process. before people can really grasp the idea of seriously not having wealthpower giants at all, they have to have cause to consider that notion. and i think actions like Cindy's actually do get them further along that road (no pun intended). it would be grand to hear every activist include what i see as the biggest-picture thinking, and i work relentlessly at prompting them to do so, but even if they're not quite there yet, i have tremendous respect for all who are helping us take a step forward.<br><br>you pull. i'll push.<br><br>and we'll get there together.<br><br>i'm really curious about CS's future plans once August is over. i hate to see her disappear into Move-on or Answer or the Democratic party or something like that. ya know...i'd like to see her announce she's running for President. pretend she's serious as all hell for awhile and cause an even bigger commotion. can you imagine the buzz? strike while the iron is hot?<br><br>and she could just stash away any contributions she received to be returned later, mail herself and some sympathetic journalists a letter....to be kept sealed until time to call off the "stunt"...explaining she intended from the start to do it, not to trick people, but to do what she saw as absolutely vital to our nation's health and well-being...to help keep the groundswell growing against bushco (and the wealthpower giants). she could just shrug and say "hey, all's fair in war". i'd dearly love to hear the Bushies say they don't agree with that. how could they after Abu Ghraib and Gitmo?<br><br>maybe we should just start calling her President Cindy every time we refer to her. gee, it'd be fun to make Rush and Hannity have to speak the words just to disparage the idea, wouldn't it?<br><br>let's see...who can she announce would be her cabinet members and advisors...Cynthia Mckinney, Dr. Helen Caldicott, Sibel Edmonds, the Grandmother of Chase Comley...is Granny D still with us, bless her savvy heart?<br><br>let's dream big!<br> <p></p><i></i>
AnnaLivia
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 3:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Geez thanks for the attention

Postby Norman Miller » Mon Aug 15, 2005 4:13 pm

It's amazing! Just talk about something that everybody disagrees with you about and you get a flood of love. This is quite typical. I am not surprised in the least. But once again, your entitled to your opinions and I to mine. I look at it this way. I am in good company, solid in my beliefs and really don't care what others think about my politics. After all, a majority of Americans don't lean in your direction. I guess that is why they keep winning. Feel free to preach the Liberal mantra .....if it makes you feel good.<br><br>Got to go...but I will be back.<br><br>Norm<br><br>See ya later!<br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :D --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>
Norman Miller
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:38 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Geez thanks for the attention

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Aug 15, 2005 4:17 pm

Another thing that always amazes me is how the wingers always like to call themselves "independents". <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Geez thanks for the attention

Postby heath7 » Mon Aug 15, 2005 4:25 pm

You are loved, Norm<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>Its too bad that your accepted and bonded opinions are being exploited by those who would love nothing more than to enslave you and your family. <p></p><i></i>
heath7
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 9:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Geez thanks for the attention

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Aug 15, 2005 4:29 pm

I'm thinking that these "independent" right wingers should be called "wringers". combining "winger" with "ringer". See definition of ringer below, take you pick, they both fit:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Quick definitions (Ringer)<br><br><br>noun: a contestant entered in a competition under false pretenses <br><br>noun: a person who rings church bells (as for summoning the congregation)<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 8/15/05 2:32 pm<br></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

re: Unspoken Rationale

Postby Starman » Mon Aug 15, 2005 4:52 pm

OtherGeoff:<br><br>Right-ON!<br><br>Re: Clusterfuck nation:<br>An interesting article, esp. because it shows how pervasive certain unspoken assumptions are, ie. that the US goal in Iraq and Afghanistan is to somehow 'stabilize' the Middle East, making petroleum supplies more reliable and thus cheap and abundant for the benefit first, of Americans, to continue their lavish car-dependant lifestyles. I think a LOT of people sub-consciously buy into this -- no doubt, esp. conditioned by the Bush Gang to do so, as by the tax write-off on gas-guzzling 6000 lb+ SUVs, instead of encouraging high MPG and hybrid cars. Just plain counterproductive & stupid.<br><br>I agreed with Jim Kustler's view of the fatuous 'WMD' rationale for war as given, and could even concur with his observations concerning Shearer's apparant moral superiority while indulging in his relatively-cheap oil-dependant afluent lifestyle, as well as criticism that 'the Democrats' aren't doing much to promote energy alternatives, but quickly took exception to Kunstler's conclusions about the role of the US in bringing-about security and stability. <br><br>America gets a very small percentage of its oil from the Middle East -- The assumption that invasion was necessary to secure Iraq's or the Middle East's oil is NEVER directly addressed in the US media, perhaps because it's flatly contradicted by history and an acurate review of foreign affairs, and so readily refuted. US political, military and economic interference in the Middle East is hardly ever acknowledged, even though the seeds for the current conflict and for terrorism in general clearly extend from the US's many disasterous actions since the end of the 2nd World War. The 12-year brutal blockade of Iraq has devastated both Iraq civil society and its oil industry. There was NO real National Security reason for the US to prevent Iraq from maintaining and developing its oil industry, and forging stronger market and trade-relations with other nations, esp. Russia, India, Germany, France and even China. NOTHING the US has done since its invasion has significantly helped restore Iraq's oil-production or refinement industry, and because the oil facilities and pipelines have become guerrilla targets because of the US's exploitive agenda (Bremer's 'laws' privatizing Iraq's state industries and resources, essentially making Iraq a corporate satrap under close US-adminstered control), Iraq's oil output has actually been reduced some 20-30 percent (if not more), with huge, unaccountable losses of Iraq's oil-revenue rebuilding funds indicating massive fraud and corruption.<br><br>It's a tremendous diversion from facts to suggest that the US's heavy oil dependency is somehow aided by the US's warmongering, which was the ONLY realistic solution to the world's increasing demand for abundant oil supplies. That's simply not true. The real beneficiaries will be western energy-corporations, as well as other US and select International firms including Banks, reconstruction and trade companies, security/mercenary/cheap-labour services, arms suppliers and (of COURSE!) crime-syndicates re: money-laundering and drugs/arms-smuggling and trafficers in persons.<br><br>AND: Iraq's 'bad-example' of trading oil for Euros, which threatened US Federal Reserve economic hegemony provided additional motivation for the globalist-cartels and US Pentagon/State Dept/Bush Regime to invade Iraq.<br><br>other Geof posted:<br><br>Which gets back to the war per se. Because if anyone asked me to define what the war is about -- and people have asked -- I would say the war is a desperate attempt by the US to stabilize the region of the world where two-thirds of the remaining global oil supply exists in order for Americans like Harry Shearer to continue enjoying a lifestyle of extreme car dependency. Now, this war may be an exercise in futility and ineptitude by the people running it, while it includes acts of valor or brutality by the soldiers engaged in it, and certainly produces a lot of personal tragedy for the soldiers and the Iraqi people.<br><br>But I have trouble imagining what Harry Shearer thinks the Middle East would be like now if the US had not overthrown Saddam Hussein and was not struggling to maintain this police station there in the hot center of things. <br><br>(NOTE: This is the part that gets me -- Without the US's support and planning, its EXTREMELY unlikely that Saddam or the Ba'athe Party would EVER have acheived major political power in Iraq. This criminal conspiracy which involved murder, illegal providing of arms and support and intelligence, interfering with a nations' domestic affairs, is the HEART of instability and tyranny in many parts of the world today -- Justice demands the top officials involved be indicted and severely punished, by the International Criminal Court if necessary, and the US's major Intelligence/espionage/covert ops agencies fundamentally reformed and squarely placed under close Congressional oversight, and the Pentagon/Military Defense Complex removed from overtly influencing or creating US Foreign Policy. As well, the Shadow Government/CIA's authority to manage and divert US funds for its Black Budget must be eliminated, to prevent the kind of 'secret' capability for covert groups to operate with its own authority and capaibility. But of course, power has been so subverted that such debate would NEVER be allowed by the PTB. Too bad, because THAT'S where the greatest problem lies. -S)<br><br>Does he imagine it would be a tranquil scene, like the picture on a pack of Camel cigarettes? If Shearer couldn't get as much gas as he wanted on a given day -- even if he could pay high prices -- to fill up his Infiniti, or Beemer, or Benzie, or Toyota Landcruiser, or whatever he drives, would he be feeling quite so superior about the war? Has Harry Shearer seen any of his children join the army and go to Iraq to preserve his entitlement to drive all over Los Angeles in a spiffy car? Has Harry Shearer made any sacrifices so that he is less oil-dependent than he was before there was a war in Iraq?<br>Harry Shearer with his attitude of moral superiority reminds me of my neighbor here in Saratoga Springs, the lady with the "War Is NOT the Answer" bumper sticker on her Ford Expedition. For people who want to keep on enjoying an easy motoring utopia, war is the answer.<br><br>This, of course, is the predicament of the Democrats, my own party. They have no interest in modifying the nation's suicidal suburban sprawl lifestyle either, only in the easy pretenses of political correctness. Instead of twanging on WMDs and the depravity of the war in Iraq, I'd like to hear someone like Harry Shearer (or John Kerry, or Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid) stand up and pitch for restoring the US passenger rail system. I'd like to hear some of these assholes propose some meaningful changes that Americans can make in behavior so we won't be so desperate to engage in military contests over the oil we need to drive for sushi in Los Angeles.<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary14.html">www.kunstler.com/mags_diary14.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary14.html">www.kunstler.com/mags_diary14.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <br><br>***<br>Good Grief -- More of this limited-hangout disinfo claptrap, as IF the Democrat party were truly the party of opposition and progressive ideas, instead of a hijacked silent-party to the American one-party ruling system of perverted justice and coopted election system. Of course there's no political will to modify the nation's suicidal urban-sprawl lifestyle, cuz it doesn't suit the agenda of the corporatocracy -- whose interests the ruling elites serve.<br>Like, D-uH.<br>Beyond pathetic, it makes me sick.<br>Starman <p></p><i></i>
Starman
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 3:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Pugnacious Alex Jones, not easily impressed says;

Postby Sweejak » Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:15 pm

... If you’re doubting me, travel to Crawford yourself. <br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://infowars.com/articles/iraq/alex_crawford.htm">infowars.com/articles/ira...awford.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br> <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Bedlam at Bush’s Ranch<br>Alex Jones Goes to Crawford<br><br>Infowars.com | August 15, 2005<br>by Alex Jones<br><br>I’d been to Crawford on the eve of the Iraq war and on its first anniversary, so I thought I knew what to expect when I traveled there yesterday. Upon my arrival Sunday morning, I found myself in beset on all sides by the massive media circus surrounding Cindy Sheehan, the mother of Casey Sheehan, a soldier who tragically died in Iraq while attempting to give medical aid to his wounded buddies.<br><br>I could easily write a volume on what I witnessed. To put it simply, it was a paradox. The hundreds of anti-war, peace demonstrators for the most part were kind, compassionate, informed and genuine. Clashing against them was a maximum of eight (sometimes only two held down the fort) crazed Bush worshippers. And, by “Bush worshippers,” I mean actual worshippers of the President.<br><br>Although labels are ulitmately meaningless, I consider myself to be a classical liberal, in the vein of Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. I believe in the Second Amendment and National Sovereignty. I’ve never been with “those people:” the liberals and the hippies who in many cases follow mindless dogma and believe in a powerful centralized government which students of history know is anathema to freedom.<br> <br>RELATED:<br><br>Bush defends refusal to meet Cindy Sheehan "I think it’s important for me to go on with my life"<br><br>Mom's Protest Riles Gun-Toting Neighbor<br><br>Cindy Sheehan's Non-Blood Related Neo-Con Relative Sides with Bush over Her and Her Dead Son<br><br>Bush: I sympathize, but we can't pull out<br><br>Cindy Sheehan "changed her story on Bush"? Tracking a lie through the conservative media<br><br>Military families to join Crawford protest<br><br>Authorities Getting Ready To Throw Anti-War Protestors From Bush Ranch For Trespassing<br><br>But in all of my years I have never seen more mindless frothing than what I saw by these kool-aid drinking neo-con sycophants. And I’ve got video of it all, which, in the next week, will be posted on infowars.com and prisonplanet.com. I would calmly approach the counterfeit conservatives and simply ask them with my crew why Bush is talking about invading Iran when the CIA admits it will be ten years until the Iranians can even hope for a nuke, and why they weren’t worried about the CIA protecting the mad nuclear scientist AQ Khan who has proliferated WMDs worldwide?<br><br>They would literally hiss at me, and talk about how they could “take a swing” at me. One father, with the eyes of Charlie Manson, repeatedly barked that he was a former marine. His son, who could have been no older than four was in combat fatigues from head to toe and was energetically carrying a plastic AK-47. The father was instructing this child that, in the future, he would need to attack me.<br><br>What’s so scary about this is that they were such a good-looking family. Rather than the toothless rabble you would expect they were normal, decent looking folks who had been brainwashed. No doubt in Kim Jong-Il’s North Korea you would find similar zealots.<br><br>Another man, who looked like a NFL linebacker sat in a lawn chair reading the Bible. I walked over to him and asked him why he was there. With a look of religious rapture, he said he hoped to simply see the President. The man had stars in his eyes. Bush was anointed of God: this was a religious pilgrimage for him. If the President drove by he just wanted to support him and let him know that he was there.<br><br>I asked him why, if Bush were so Christian, was he a member of Skull and Bones. The man just said, “no…no…no…you’re not one of them.” I responded that the Skull and Bones are a real group and that I was sure that he had heard of them. I asked him if he would go to a church if the pastor engaged in druidic rites. The man began to shrink up in his chair as if here were about to go into a catatonic state.<br><br>Sixty-year-old yuppie bikers with giant American flags (made in China) would scream profanities in our face if we calmly asked them questions about the war. It went on and on.<br><br>Of the hundreds of people in the anti-war crowd that we talked to, many people from around the nation were actually followers of our work, and had broken through the left-right paradigm. Many of them told me that they owed their breakthrough to listening to the radio show.<br><br>In a way, I’m rambling, but how do I, in the 20 minutes I have before I go on-air, describe what I witnessed in the 12 hours I spent in Crawford yesterday? Here are a few key points before I run out of time:<br><br>1. FOX News, CNN, and various newspapers have all been reporting that there are hundreds of protestors “on both sides.” This is a lie. At any one time, there were at least 150 people camped out on the road to Bush’s ranch protesting his illegal war, and eight or so counter protestors for Bush. There were a minimum of 70 people at the Crawford Peace House in town and five people protesting them.<br><br>2. Cindy Sheehan is a very kind and loving person. I watched her keep up a grueling pace as she was interviewed by over 50 reporters individually just when I was around. She really is an amazing person. Across the street, the Bush worshipers had signs of Casey Sheehan saying “he died for me” and they would say that he “belongs to us.” Meanwhile, they would growl that Cindy was scum and that she was just using her son for political gain. The Bush faithful would chant that “he signed on the dotted line” and the “he belonged to the Army.” Can you imagine a mother having to stand such degradation of her son’s name, such misuse of his image and such slighting of her love for him? Casey was Cindy’s son. Nonetheless, she has remained steadfast in the face of her loss and the attacks against her grief. The reason why she is protesting now is to save others from similar grief.<br><br>3. The neo-con minions’ creed or battle cry that they chanted like some Hari Krishna cult was, “ We got to fight them over there before they come over and get us here!” “Better over there than getting bombed over here!” I would point out to them that the Pentagon’s own internal reports state that invading Iraq has only expanded violence against the West worldwide and that the Pentagon actually wants that reaction so they can widen the war. I would state admitted fact: Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11. Our government helped put Saddam into power. The Iraqis have been under 14 years of sanctions. None of it meant anything to them. The attitude was: “kill them all and let God sort it all out.”<br><br>4. In closing, looking at that road leading to Bush’s ranch in Crawford with the crazies on one side and the well-meaning, but in many times misled liberals on the other, I was looking at a physical example of the false divisions in this country. I would mention to the pro-war crowd that Bush has been anti-Second Amendment, that he wants an open border that he signed on to the UNESCO UN treaty, that he’s pushing the FTAA which will destroy our sovereignty. Some would hiss and say, “You’re one of them right-wing conservatives,” or “I don’t care, let them take the guns, I love Bush!” These poor men and women didn’t have any view of their own. It was like it was just a big football game and they were simply cheering their team. The thinking process had been switched off.<br><br>Then, I remembered with horror, how Democrats couldn’t see the corruption of Bill Clinton as he invaded and bombed innocent countries.<br><br>What we need in America is a Bill of Rights culture, not this emotionally-based Roman coliseum form of politics. Ten years ago I wouldn’t have understood why the liberals would have been so horrified at the sight of that father who dressed up his son in the military uniform with the toy machine gun. But then I had a chance to talk to the father. He literally wants to offer his son up to the Empire to be cannon fodder for the New World Order.<br><br>My father frowned upon toy guns and would take them away if I aimed them at a person or at the family dog, but any time I wanted to go to the shooting range or the woods, he would enthusiastically take me. By the time I was twelve years old I could shoot through the same hole with a Remington 700 at 200 yards. I was given the same firearms training that fathers gave their sons in the 1750’s on the Virginia frontier. I was taught respect for the gun and its awesome power. I was instructed in history and on the horrors of war. I was taught the historical importance of an armed population to resist tyranny as an insurance policy for freedom.<br><br>Then, yesterday, I saw these disgusting neo-cons. They were boorish and as weak as rotten trees ready to be felled. To put it simply: we can deprogram liberals. My show has turned hundreds of thousands into proficient gun owners. We sell them on real liberty.<br><br>Imagine trying to sell peaceniks on truly conservative and libertarian ideals when the example that they’re given are these clown-like nut followers of Bush. Bottom line: congressional Democrats predominantly voted with Bush for the war, the National ID Card Real ID Act, open borders, Alberto Gonzales, who says that Bush is above the law, and a hundred other issues. We don’t have two parties in this country. We have one party: the corporate party. Here’s a analogy: our political system is like the same person owning two football teams that go to the Super Bowl. Either way they win. It’s time for us to realize that. It’s not what politicians say. It’s what they do.<br><br>If you’re doubting me, travel to Crawford yourself.<br><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Was this guy a "republican" or "democrat". <br><br><br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://img287.imageshack.us/img287/2107/logophpbb0em.gif"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sweejak@rigorousintuition>Sweejak</A> at: 8/15/05 3:30 pm<br></i>
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Pugnacious Alex Jones, not easily impressed says;

Postby GDN01 » Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:44 pm

Interesting account by Jones! I agree with most of what he has to say. I saw him there and have a photo of him. I don't think I posted it on flickr - I'll have to look. <br><br>Update: Yes, the photo of him is there. <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/92486338@N00/sets/759225">Here's the link to the photos!</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>And I just posted more about my experience there on the message board. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gdn01>GDN01</A> at: 8/15/05 3:47 pm<br></i>
GDN01
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 3:10 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Norm's mad that he's my tool

Postby AnnaLivia » Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:53 pm

Norm is in quotes...<br><br>“It's amazing! Just talk about something that everybody disagrees with you about and you get a flood of love. This is quite typical. I am not surprised in the least.”<br><br>Norm, please try to at least make a little sense. And get yourself a nice dictionary while you’re at it, Toots. A thing cannot be amazing and typical and unsurprising at the same time. <br><br>“But once again, your (sic) entitled to your opinions and I to mine.”<br><br>Facts apparently don’t have anything to do with it, as far as you’re concerned. Have you any recognition of the importance of “the facts”? Let me ask you, are you in favor of our system of "innocent until proven guilty"? Do you know what it is a jury does? <br><br>“I look at it this way….”<br><br>Through a barking mass of misconceptions and confusion.<br><br>“I am in good company…”<br><br>who would that be, Norm? all of the greatest minds in history, and all the wisdom of the ages firmly oppose what you're saying you believe, so consult that dictionary on the definition of “good”, too.<br><br>“…, solid in my beliefs”<br><br>you really are a rank amateur. So was Hitler solid in his beliefs. That’s no argument for anything. you truly think you can't be wrong? Norm, you're convincing me you're a clown, but you're failing to be funny. is your manhood threatened if you admit to making a mistake? are you afraid mommy will whup you for it?<br><br>“…and really don't care what others think about my politics.”<br><br>You’re so transparent. You made a conscious choice to post here, when you could have spent less energy picking your nose. You do care. It’s utterly obvious, my leetle rutabaga.<br><br>“After all, a majority of Americans don't lean in your direction.”<br><br>i thought you claimed to be experienced in the political arena. all you appear to do is swallow what's fed you. the truth is that a majority of americans don't lean in YOUR direction. half of america didn't vote at all, and only half who did voted for bush. he claims a mandate on 25% support. and it's certainly dwindled since then.<br><br>plus, if you believe being in the majority makes you right, then you’re entirely un-american and belong elsewhere. This nation was founded on principles that recognized that the minority had to be protected from the majority. Ever read any history? What do you think is the reason for having 3 branches of power?? why did the founders establish checks and balances??<br><br>“I guess that is why they keep winning.”<br><br>Dictionary time again. slumping toward extinction is not called winning.<br><br>“Feel free to preach the Liberal mantra .....if it makes you feel good.”<br><br>Are you posting to two different boards, and getting some other place confused with this one, perhaps? Again, you don’t appear to know the definition of the words you use. There is no Liberal mantra in this thread at all, and only you, you alone, are confused about this fact.<br><br>”Got to go...but I will be back.<br><br>Norm”<br><br>Now there’s some good thinking, finally. You can’t learn from us if you don’t return. And I just hate to see you keep on living under a rock as big as yours is. Good grief, one would think it would have crushed you by now, you poor thing.<br><br>btw, your homework is to read about "the rule of law". no more tv until you do.<br> <p></p><i></i>
AnnaLivia
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 3:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Iraq

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests