Nadz's guide to the Anti-War protestors
Nadz has an awesome post on the different types of Anti-War protesters and how to deal with them. Take the "Bush Hater" type for example: Latin name: Bushus Loathus e Lunaticus Characteristics: A t-shirt saying one of the following: Fuck Bush, Buck Fush, Bush = Hitler, Hail to the Thief, He's Not My President, War Criminal, blablabla Description: An irrational hatred of anything to do with President Bush - the very mention of his name will cause smoke to steam from their noses. They blame Bush for everything, from 9/11 to Hurricane Katrina to "Riverdance". Counteroffensive: Approach the Bush-Hater wearing a t-shirt with Dubya's face all over it. Casually mention that you just LOVE our president and watch their nostrils flare. As they keep seething, talk about your infatuation with Karl Rove, and mention that you think that Dick Cheney is "cute". Laugh at reaction. And it just keeps getting better from there. Read the whole thing.
posted by The Sandmonkey @ 10/03/2005 06:39:00 AM
11 Comments:
Yes they sure got that right! I just love how they think they win because thousands of people showed up....we are a country of over 280 million, thousands isn't even 1%! LOL They are good for free entertainment. I think the bes thting peopel could do would be to show up,point,and laugh at them because deep down I think they were the kids no one liked on the playground and it is a "look at me,look at me" thing! Gee, I wonder why?LOLOLOLOL
Bush is still a douchebag.
That is so mature Jeff,no wonder nobody takes you guys seriously. BTW, you guys are wasting your hate,Bush isn't running again so I think alot of you will have nervous breakdowns when you still have all of that silly biased hate left in you and no one to direct it to. I think I can guess which catagory you fit into.
I absolutely detest many of the policies Bush has implemented during his presidency and I don't think the US is in a better place because of him. Admittedly I am no fan. However it seems these days any criticism of his actions makes one a "looney liberal" or a "moonbat." Yes, I know the street runs both ways and liberals attack conservatives as well but not everyone who disagrees with the policies of Bush and the US government is rabid, ignorant, immature, a traitor, or a terrorist supporter. I do have an open mind and am capable of seeing both sides. I invite anyone to intelligently and respectfully explain to me how the US is better off than it was five years ago and why Bush should be worthy of my support. How is the US better due to his politics?
Before I start a rant, check out THIS protestor guide.
Now, to answer your question:
"I invite anyone to intelligently and respectfully explain to me how the US is better off than it was five years ago and why Bush should be worthy of my support. How is the US better due to his politics?"
Well, just looking at the US, there's the little matter of 4-5% a year economic growth, a massive stream of new investment from his tax cuts, a lessening of what would have (yes!) been a greater energy shock because of his oil energy policies, unemployment reaching its lowest levels in decades, greater-than-average productivity gains in US industry, um...
Voilent crime per-capita is at an all-time low and declining; ditto for youth crime and so-forth.
If you want to search for non-empirical things, there're little matters like Powell and Rice being the first black secretaries of state, plus Rice being the first black woman. It shouldn't matter, but it does.
Globally, you always have to consider things like a massive decline in terrorist attacks since 2001 (this stat brought to me by a Deaniac professor), and democratic movements starting and/or flourishing in ...
Egypt (I know, Sandmonkey, but rigged elections are historically a step to real ones), Lybia, Syria, Lebanon, Uzbekistan, the Ukraine, and a little country called Iraq. In Kuwait, the perennial demands for women's suffrage was finally accepted.
Free trade was signed with Latin American countries.
Because of Bush calling the UN's bluff, the rampant corrpution and criminality therein was exposed; it appears to me that Bush's opinion of the UN was never really that high, but the point is that it really was necessary for someone important enough, no matter their agenda, to call the UN for what it has shown itself to be.
Because of Bush, there are at least some global power players who aren't appeasing North Korea.
US Department of Revenue (or whatever the hell it's called) is setting daily records for "most revenue collected in a single day". The United States and India have signed long-term alliances, so to speak.
Coming from the educational background that I do, I can safely declare that the world needs a GWB. Not only for calling the bluffs of wannabe-fascists, not only for creating the most effective fostering of democracy we've seen since either 1945 or 1989-91 (take your pick, depending on your opinion), but he's also someone who won't abandon Iraq when it needs the US by its side the most. Nationbuilding doesn't take a long weekend. It takes years. The US still has bases in Germany. We just need to be patient with Iraq.
Now, that being said, there are lots of things I think Bush does poorly. When it comes to fiscal responsibility on the government spending side of things, he's clearly retarded. I don't agree with his position on a lot of things... stem cell research, the Schaivo thing, economic protectionism (which, as a Canadian, I hate).
It's not that "Bush is the greatest president ever." And it's not that "Bush is Hitler". But, if I may be so bold, I think Pat Buchannan got it right when he said, "Bush is wrong on a lot of things, like government spending, protectionism, &c &c. But John Kerry is right on nothing."
There are a lot of things I don't like about Bush, and the needless spending of money is the biggest. It all comes down to how you value it. In the end, though, I'd rather finance democracy over the world and waste money than finance misconcieved (IE Canadian-style) social programs at home. I can tell you as a Canadian, one will have long-term payoff and could justify the expense. The other won't.
I don't agree with his position on a lot of things... stem cell research, the Schaivo thing
HMMM, since Bush is the first US President to ever offer federal tax dollars for stem cell research, it is safe to assume that you are against all stem cell research or that he has limited the federal dollars to it? BTW, just so people know, stem cell research isn't in anyway interfered with in the USA when it is privately funded. The thing is that most of it is junk science so far and that is why the drug companies don't want to waste their dollars on the research. Only adult and placenta cells have shown any results, the ones from aborted babies causes cancer in 100% of cases to date. They don't tell you that stuff do they?
I also think it is wrong that someone anyone could be killed by dehydration based on what someone else said they wanted. If you have a DNR signed then fine that is your choice but no way should you be able to be killed especially by a husband who has a live in girlfriend, 2 kids by her and a huge settlement he sued to get to care for you for the rest of your life and the day after he wins it starts the proceedings to have you killed. The press didn't exactly tell you the whole truth on the Schaivo case.
Jane, just by your words it is obivious that your mind is already set. What was said by Jarrett is the truth that has been reported over and over but liberals consistantly cling to the lie that their way is better. Refuse to see the failing social systems across the world and still hold them up as what they want the US to be. Until you (Democraps) all change your thought process the other side will view you as looney. What else could anyone be called who faced with facts puts their fingers in their ears and refuse to hear the truth?
To clarify what I meant on the Shaivo and Stem Cell thing:
1) The government should've never gotten involved. A judge to decide, maybe, but the way both political parties jumped on the "right to life" or "sanctity of life" bandwagons was rather sickening.
2) There's more to the stem cell debate than just funding. While I would rather see federal government research grants therefore, there's also the little matter of vacillation and compromise on a series of issues, like the limiting the research to a small number of already-available cells.
Whether or not "they" won't tell me that seems irrelevant, as strictly limiting your supply of cells to be used doesn't make for business-friendly conditions.
To the other Anon,
Of course Jane's not going to respond. She's not going to come back because she's more interested in looking open-minded than being open-minded. You go to her blog and it's "Bush is evil, blah blah I'm bipolar..." (seriously!).
She's not the worst I've seen. I had one 20-something female from Vancouver respond to my citing of facts with,
"Citing facts and statistics is just something conservatives do to intimidate people, and frankly, it doesn't work on me."
A friend had a prof who told her, "You have to get away from the 'false construct of fact' and just be blindly left, without thinking about it. Trust me, leftism=good! Just go with it!"
Jarrett,
I'm not hiding, I was simply giving your comment consideration. While I agree it was a good thing that under Bush there were two black secretaries of state, I am interested in hearing more about these two points you make:
"1.Because of Bush calling the UN's bluff, the rampant corrpution and criminality therein was exposed;
2.Because of Bush, there are at least some global power players who aren't appeasing North Korea."
I am trying to have an open mind here but the fact of the matter is domestically poverty levels have risen. According to the US Census bureau some 45 million Americans do not have health insurance. There is the appearance of croynism in Bush's nominations for high positions. There are a lot of problems here. It's possible that GW might have been good for the world community. I don't want to distrust my president. I don't want to be totally disillusioned with the government. But I've yet to hear a convincing argument of how GW is good for low and middle class Americans. I've posted on many blogs looking for an answer and it seems I am either insulted, ignored, or harassed. It often seems that Bush's supporters don't really want to convince anyone else to change their minds. Is it possible that there is anyone out there who can give me some straight facts without getting personal about it?
Sandmonkey, I apologize for turning your blog into this circus of a discussion forum...
Jane:
Congrats on acting completely different than everyone else who's ever told me they wanted an open discussion ;)
More info on the following:
"1.Because of Bush calling the UN's bluff, the rampant corrpution and criminality therein was exposed"
Okay, well, for starters, the US exposed an ineffectiveness in the UN that seems to hark back at least to about 1992-1993 - I'd say '93 - by asking the UN to enforce its own resolutions. One of the key things is that the resolution which signed the "cease fire" with Saddam Hussein in February 1991 stipulated that if Hussein violated any of the terms or conditions of the agreement, they had a full right to go in and start the Gulf War all over again. Among all kinds of conditions left unfulfilled, probably the biggest was Iraq kicking weapons inspectors out in December 1998. Clinton and Blair's Operation Desert Fox were a step in the right direction, but Hussein knew that the US wouldn't tolerate a war at Christmas. Bottom line was, since 1998, Iraq's been a legitimate target.
Beyond that, there's a growing ineffectiveness stemming from, as I said, about 1993. Romeo Dallaire's book "J'ai serré la main du Diable" ("Shake hands with the Devil") is a damning indictment about how UN inefficiency and corruption contributed to the lack of international help in the 1994 Rwanda massacres.
Okay, but what does this have to do with Bush? Well, with no real reason to justify its existence, nothing to test its efficacity beyond the general "we love diversity" projects of the late-1990s optimism, it became more corrupt than it had been. Iraq was the first real test. Bush was calling on the UN to do something about the lingering problems, and the UN proved unwilling.
Why?
Well, for starters, when you take a look at those nations on the UNSC opposed to the war, almost if not all opponents of the war turned out to be either a) being bribed by Saddam Hussein or b) had vested interests in opposing the US.
Canada (not on the UNSC at this time), my country, falls into this category. Every major Canadian Prime Minister since Trudeau, inclusive, has had incredibly strong connections with PowerCorp head Paul Desarmais. Jean Chretien's daughter was married to Desarmais' son, or somesuch. PowerCorp (now the Total Group, I think) owned of a French oil company which had the greatest single claim to Iraqi oil rights under the Hussein government. Guess what happens when the US invades? Rights go bye-bye.
People started asking questions when the UN seemed unable to do its work.
Now, just for starters, if you're really interested in how Bush exposed corruption in the UN, consider the Prussian-like documentation of Saddam Hussein. Consider what the US uncovered in its invasion of Iraq. More documents detailing bribes to inspectors and Eurocrat diplomats than you can shake a stick at.
Is that enough, or should I keep going?
"2.Because of Bush, there are at least some global power players who aren't appeasing North Korea."
This is very simple. North Korea was trying to leverage itself by building a nuclear program. Clinton chose to appease North Korea, promising to help it build reactors in exchange for North Korea promising that it would stop building nukes. Guess what? North Korea didn't exactly adhere to the treaty. So, by stopping the bullshit appeasement that was the negotiations, Bush put the US back into a faceoff with North Korea. In doing so, he essentially forced the reast of the international community to take some role... in this case, China, Japan, and I believe South Korea and Russia. New negotiations, but this time we've cut the bullshit and there's a genuine interest, at least from the US, in trying to disarm North Korea.
"According to the US Census bureau some 45 million Americans do not have health insurance."
Watch your stats. First of all, 45 million is a) smaller than the number I heard before, and b) only about 15% of the population, which means that 85% is covered. Second, of this 45 million my sources inform me that 25-30 million of these, easily, are people who make at least $60,000 US a year and choose to not have insurance. Beyond that, another large chunk of these people are non-citizens and therefore not qualified for insurance, even so. Now, even taking that small portion of people without health insurance, it must be remembered that these people also have access to clinics, medicaid (or is it medicare? I think it's medicaid), and charitable services. There are waitlists for these, but they're still shorter than the universal waitlists for care in Canada. And in Canada, the care is a) not as good and b) more expensive once you factor the ultimate cost in taxes, cost of living adjustments and so-forth.
But even if we were to accept these numbers, we must remember that this isn't a definition of poverty, according to the US census bureau. I don't remember what the definition IS, but I know it doesn't include health care. The Canadian definition of poverty, for example, is when you spend 55%+ of your income on food, shelter, and (I think) clothing. Me, sitting on a leather chair writing this on a laptop and sipping a sparkling Italian wine, am defined as in poverty.
Of course there's cronyism in the Bush administration. And that's something I dislike about it. But at the same time, I've seen nothing to suggest that there's anything different between either a) the Democrats, b) any other president, c) any other government. I would much rater have American cronysim rather than what we have up in Canada. I'm not defending the cronysim of Bush's government, but it's nothing unique.
"I don't want to distrust my president. I don't want to be totally disillusioned with the government."
Welcome to modern democracy. Ever wonder why voter turnout is declining in every modern country with a democracy? To blame voter apathy on Bush is erroneous. I know you didn't say it in so many words, nor was it your intention, but certainly, inabiltity to trust a government is normal. We don't feel any different in Canada, even though we're supposedly more "progressive".
"But I've yet to hear a convincing argument of how GW is good for low and middle class Americans."
Um, what about things like the reduction in unemployment?
I think one of the problems is that we all have different opinions on what's best for the poor. The immediate solution always appears to be massive unemployment programs (IE welfare and so-on), but in the end, these things are always worse. One can proclaim the superiority of, say, Canada for every province having minimum wage laws, but that also ignores the fact that higher minimum wage laws mean a higher cost of living, a higher unemployment rate, and in the end, lower average earning.
There's no shortage of opportunity to elevate one's self out of poverty. I've seen no indication that just one more government program will help these people. A prime example might be the glorious welfare system of Canada. Socialist Prime Ministers increased the amount of time people could stay on welfare and increased welfare benefits. And nothing happened. Bottom line, in every study they've done (at least, everything I've seen) shows conclusively that no matter the time people are on welfare, they find a job the week their benefits run out.
Is that straight enough and impersonal enough?
Jarrett,
I appreciate your well-thought out and straightforward comments and will give serious thought to your answers. Thank you for taking the time to respond without insult or ridicule.
Post a Comment
<< Home