I have no interest in participating in pep rallies, etc., for "our boys" and this war bullshit. But I have no objection to you doing so.
Point is, how do I leave the stadium??
YES, Tray and Matt, HOW DO I LEAVE THE FUCKING STADIUM IF I DON'T WANT TO BE A WAR CUNT???
"D.G. Porter" wrote:
My thoughts exactly. It's nice that we're finally agreeing on something.
"D.G. Porter" wrote in message news:[email]...
Walk over to your closet, remove 1 suitcase, fill said suitcase with clothes, drive to nearest International Airport, book 1 way flight to foreign country of choice, get on plane. The rest will take care of itself. Bam! You're out of the stadium.
D.G. Porter wrote:
Here in Vancouver, whenever the Canucks play the Toronto Maple Leafs, something like half the stadium gets filled with those rooting for the Leafs.
"D.G. Porter" wrote in message news:[email]...
Most people who call other people "cunts," especially when they shout it (or type it in all caps), consider that to be a bad thing. It's comforting to know that you have "no objection" to the fact that 95% of your countrymen are cunts. [Yes, I know Bush's approval ratings are "only" 90%, but half of the other 10% disapproves because he isn't going far enough.]
For one who doesn't want to be a "war cunt," how does it feel to know that you're already halfway there?
America is the land of the moron.
I think you have your head firmly up your ass. Now rise for the flag salute.
"D.G. Porter" wrote in message news:[email]...
Then kindly leave the stadium, for your own benefit as well as everyone else's.
that
I don't care what - or if - you think.
OK, asswipe, get your ass over to Afghanistan and kill some towelieheads. Fuckwit. Sieg heil, y'all.
Yea, amen to that...
I thought that last comment was a subtle attempt at instilling patriotism and the idea that "dissent is unamerican" into our minds - as if you don't get enough of that bullshit from CNN.
Who knows - maybe they felt they needed to include that last line in order to stay in line, and on the air.
ck
In article , "Chris Kirkley" wrote:
That's not what they said. What they said was to not root -against- the home team. Being silent is okay.
"Howard S Shubs" wrote in message news:[email]...
patriotism
don't
the home
This is one of those dichotomies England avoids by having a figurehead monarch. You can bitch all you want about how crappy the gov't is, and still love the King. On this side of the pond, we're a little confused.
Anyhow, dissention isn't rooting against the home team. More like heckling when they fumble.
In article , "LooseChanj" wrote:
Some is, yes. I doubt they have a problem with that. I -think- they're just saying that if you really hate the "home team", ... well, why are you there? I figure it's a rough thing to say properly.
Howard S Shubs wrote:
To paraphrase Stan: "If you don't want to root for the home team, then you should get the hell out of the stadium."
To paraphrase GWB: "You are for us, or you are against us."
It doesn't look like either of them left any neutral ground.
Yes, it's our old friend from "the Sixties," "Love it or leave it." I say "FUCK YOU" to the "Sieg Heilers." They can take their AmeriNazi fascism and shove it up where Cartman shoved Disney World.
"D.G. Porter" wrote in message news:[email]...
You talk about "love it or leave it" as though that were a bad thing. Why on earth would anyone in his right mind choose to live in a country he hates? Or are we even allowed to ask such an insensitive question anymore? I guess the idea of expecting people to be consistent is just another one of those old-school concepts that went out in the Sixties.
"Sieg Heil," my ass. People like you cry "fascism" every time you don't get your way. Try living in a real fascist country for a while, and maybe you'll think twice before making such reckless comments.
Because it is a bad thing. Maybe you weren't around back in 1968-69. ANY form of criticism was seen as "sedition" or "treason." And I do mean ANY. If you even questioned, "Why are we in 'Nam?" you got called "commie" and a lot of other names and you might get some asshole in a hardhat punching your face. No, this is not an exaggeration. The "love" was supposd to be unquestioning and total. Jeezus, people called that WWII hero McGovern a commie for even running against Nixxon� in '72! (And McG saw more action that Trickey ever did.) You really have no idea what it was like...
Simple-mind, it isn't that way at all. We hate the assholes running things.
No, but your Reagan-era brainwashing has been working optimally. ;-)
I did, in a way. It was called "home." So did my wife until her mom got smart and divorced the fucking Admiral. I'm on intimate terms with fascism. "MY way or the highway!"
"D.G. Porter" wrote in message news:[email]...
No, it's not. If you don't like it here, you shouldn't be here. It's called hypocrisy, and that IS a bad thing. If you really hated America as much as you claim, you wouldn't want to stay anyway.
Cut the crap with the passive voice. WHO say it as sedition or treason? Treason is a crime punishable by death. Can you name a single 60s dissident who was charged criminally for "any form of criticism" of the government? Or were you another one of those 1960s radicals with a chip on your shoulders who thought it took more courage to smoke pot and protest at home than to fight and possibly die abroad?
And I do mean ANY. If you even
Name names.
anymore?
No, simple-mind, it IS that way, at least in your case. Your original objection was to patriotism as such, not to any specific policies of any specific politicians.
get
No, idiot, that's not fascism, nor even close. Fascism is "my way or the gas chamber," and that's if you are lucky enough to belong the right race. If you don't, it's just the gas chamber, period. No one who had ever experience fascism would make such reckless comments as yours.
Looks like our resident troll got some sand stuck in his vagina again.
What do you ever contribute except right-wing goofiness?
"Chris Kirkley" wrote in message news:pS6H7.10369$[email]...
Puh-leeze. No one ever said that dissent in general was unpatrotic or un-American. This particular brand of dissent, however, is. By using the word "patriotism" as though it were a bad thing, you effectively concede as much yourself.
Jeff Bishop wrote:
At a time like this, the definition of "this particular brand..." seems to have been broadened.
Personally, I'm not an American, and I am not about to drape myself in the American flag or make idols out of any political figures over the 9/11 attacks, but I do (hesitantly, for humanitarian reasons) support the mission against the terrorists.
"Bill K." wrote in message news:[email]...
have been broadened.
How so? Any American who opposes America fighting back after 5,000-odd American civilians were murdered in America needs to have his head examined. He certainly doesn't get a pass on the theory that "not all dissent is un-American, therefore, no dissent is un-American."
Then the analysis doesn't really apply to you. The idea that something is or isn't "un-American" does not make sense unless you presuppose that the person in question is in fact American. No one ever criticized an Iraqi, a Mexican, a German, or even a Canadian for being "un-American."
I wonder how "hesitant" your support would be if the WTC attack had happened in your own country. I can assure you, however, that if it had, I probably wouldn't drape myself in your flag, either, but my support for your country's right to fight back would be unqualified, and anything but hesitant.
I would agree with the "peace makers" that retaliation attacks would kill more innocent people. But the civilian casualty is minized (trust me i know it is) and weakening the terrorists will save more lives in the future. So i support the war, Americans who see one of the idealists on the street, go hit him, hell probably hit you back. If not, keep hitting him :) Just kidding, i just wanted to make a point.
"Jeff Bishop" wrote in message news:v4lH7.77212$[email]...
news:[email]...
to
examined.
a
happened
probably
Jeff Bishop wrote:
The fact that criticism and satire of the American political establishment in popular culture and media have effectively become forbidden. (As in the "That's My Bush" example alluded to earlier.)
Not defending the terrorists in any way, but reexamination of US history and foreign policy is always food for thought that it too may be responsible for a lot of the resentment and hatred felt toward the USA throughout the world. Unfortunately, T&M didn't delve into this topic much further than to dismiss it as just a matter of "occupying the holyland". They were probably pressured not to get too critical of the US government in the current social and political climate.
Anyways, the point I am trying to make is that you can support the anti-terrorist effort by itself, out of principle and with the long-term objective of overall security, without faithfully riding any cultural bandwagons and buying into any such abstract notions as nationhood and patriotism, American or otherwise, and losing critical sight of those in charge.
The prospect of civilian casualties is always cause for hesitation, regardless of location of attacks, don't you think?
Thanks for your personal support, but I can reassure you that this neighbour of yours to the north is a nonthreatening, nonmilitarist, nonimperialistic nation that does not send troops to meddle in the affairs of other nations to suit its own political and economic interests, except as a participatory member when called upon by the UN and NATO, and is not bound to attract this kind of trouble, on its own, anytime soon.
"Bill K." wrote in message news:[email]...
And unless someone can document that example, it's presumptively a crock. TMB was cancelled long before 9-11 due to its medicre ratings + high production costs, not because anyone thought it was overly critical of the Bush Administration. In my opinion, the show wasn't really all that critical of his administration anyway.
examined.
Separate issue. Whatever excuses some people have for loving to hate the US, it has no bearing on the terrorists, and less on the question of what we should do about them, once they've attacked us.
Or maybe they were just being objective. After all, the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia is, and always has been, the one thing that got Osama bin Laden so pissed off at the U.S. What other aspect of U.S. foreign policy (other than an overly liberal immigration policy, that is) do you think had anything to do with it? Was Osama bin Laden retaliating for the Viet Nam War or the CIA's covert operations that helped topple a few communist Latin American dictatorships? Of course not, Muslims hate the commies as much as we do. Or maybe for helping Afghanistan free itself from Soviet occupation? Don't be silly. The usual Arab/Muslim excuse for hating Americans is our support for Israel, but that issue never seemed to interest bin Laden very much until very recently. Even if 9-11 had been about Israel, it would have been called off almost as soon as the planning started. Consider that at the time they started plotting that attack, we were in the process of brokering a deal that would have given the Palestinians a lot more land that anyone had ever thought possible before, and more than probably ever will be possible in the future.
happened
Not in times of war. The prospects of civilian casualties are something to take into account when you have the luxury of deciding whether to go to war or not. I shudder to think what would have happened in World War II if the Allies had hesitated to fight because there might be some civilian casualties. Maybe we would have gotten even more sensitive and avoided bombing Germany during Oktoberfest.
Muslim fundamentalists are not threatened militarily by the U.S.; they are threatened culturally by all societies that have any semblance of freedom, including more moderate Muslim countries. You are kidding yourself if you think the Muslims have any less hatred for Canadians than for Americans. The only reason they are more likely to attack us than you is that we are the Great Satan, and you are a smaller, relatively insignificant Satan. So is Israel, for that matter, but Israel is a lot closer and easier to hit.
Jeff Bishop wrote:
Actually, the reruns were cancelled due to the 9/11 attacks, as I recall reading in this very newsgroup. Otherwise, it wouldn't make much sense to spend so much money making the episodes, and air them only once.
You are also aware of Washington's campaign to turn Hollywood into a pro-American propaganda machine by persuading those working in the movie industry to pump out movies with a patriotic, pro-establishment theme. It looks like the free hand of creativity is going to get hampered somewhat.
Actually, those issues give Bin Laden the rallying cry needed to gain a sympathetic following worldwide.
Also think about what it is that gets the USA to occupy this "holyland", and how it goes about achieving its aim. It's not the "holiness" of the land itself, except for the black stuff that lies underneath it, and its military occupation and support for its oppressive leaders who act in the US's best interests. This, and its role in other surrounding oil-rich countries is cause for many of them to join forces with the Bin Ladenites.
By arming, funding, and otherwise supporting the factions of the Mujahadeen that became the Taliban to oppose the Soviets, and creating the monsters that became Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network in the process? Not exactly cause for the Afghans' gratitude.
On the other hand, without caution, you could go back to the way of thinking of the time, leaving the leaders and military free reign to be reckless with the enemies and their civilians. Think Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden. The prevalent opinion of the time was "the more dead Japs/Krauts, the better", without anything so obstructive and "traitorous" as peace marches, concern for civilian casualties, or any other dissention nor hindrance brewing from within. There was also none of the pleas from political leaders for tolerance toward minorities belonging to the enemy's ethnic group within the country, unlike today.
If you don't smack them first, then they'll have one less reason to hate you.
Perhaps Bin Laden's real aim is to spread the strict Taliban way of life worldwide, and while violently terrorizing anybody who resists or offers any kind of an alternative, but there are many around the Muslim, and the rest of the Third World, for that matter, who do have more legitimate and understandable cause for resentment toward the USA. Unfortunately, many of them flock to guys like Bin Laden as some sort of pied piper and get brainwashed into his propaganda.
And not to nitpick about terminology or word usage, but do avoid making statements like "You are kidding yourself if you think the Muslims have any less hatred for Canadians than for Americans", unless you really are buying into the idea that all Muslims are bad.
(Come to think of it, I don't really think the four Afghan boys really hated the SP boys. By telling them that they did, I think they were just towing a line that was *required* of them in their society. Would they really send them back their only possession, and even risk their own lives to save them if they did?)
I would not exactly consider Israel to be all so innocent. Examination of its history and its formation by invading and occupying a land that was already inhabited tells plenty.
<<I would not exactly consider Israel to be all so innocent. Examination of its history and its formation by invading and occupying a land that was already inhabited tells plenty.>>
Yes, I think that it would be an excellent idea if you would undertake such an examination immediately, since you seem to need to need it desperately.
I suggest that you start with the Encyclopedia Brittanica, which is online and easily accessible. You would be able to read, quite clearly, that the Jews who later became Israelis neither invaded nor occupied the land that later became Israel. They went there, yes, and the circumstances under which they came and stayed are discussed in full. Also the circumstances under which those Arabs who fled did so.
(snip)
While we're on the topic, does anyone know the official reason why we have troops on Saudi Arabia 10 years after the Gulf War? We had none before the war.
Good thinking, NEVER bomb the beer:-)
LiamD
Oh. Please. "That's My Bush" failed on its own several months before 9-11.
Let's see who is called "Un-American" and by whom... Anyone who told HUAC to shove it. (Mostly Republicans but many Demo- wussies too.) Anyone who voted for George McGovern. (Nixxon� freaks.) Anyone who didn't vote for Reagan. (Republicans.) Anyone who said we shouldn't be in 'Nam. (Reichwing assholes with tiny penises and hardhats.) Anyone who said the Gulf War was a set-up and a crock of shit. (Ditto.) Anyone who didn't support removing Clinton in 1999. (Bob Barr.) Details available upon request. And this is just a short-list.
"D.G. Porter" wrote in message news:[email]...
Liar. There are two well-known individuals who told the HUAC to "shove it," Alger Hiss and Joseph Nye Welch. Hiss was a communist but lied through his teeth about it, so it's a bit disingenuous to complain about the fact that anyone might have called him un-American. As to Welch, I don't think anyone questioned his famous quote, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" Far from getting him branded un-American, that remark pretty well ended McCarthy's career, and with it, the HUAC.
IOW, there are one or two Nixon fans out there who are just as obnoxious as you are. And this comes as a surprise?
See above, ditto for the rest of the phony examples you posted.
Of course. Since you do not seem to have any problems exaggerating, whining just because a few individuals hurt your feelings, or lying outright, I'm sure you could compile a much longer list of perceived slights if you wanted to. Your time would probably be better spent, however, seeking the professional help you so desperately need.
<< There are two well-known individuals who told the HUAC to "shove it," Alger Hiss and Joseph Nye Welch. Hiss was a communist but lied through his teeth about it, so it's a bit disingenuous to complain about the fact that anyone might have called him un-American. As to Welch, I don't think anyone questioned his famous quote, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" Far from getting him branded un-American, that remark pretty well ended McCarthy's career, and with it, the HUAC.>>
Joseph McCarthy was a senator. The House Un-American Committee was, as the name implies, a committee of the House of Representatives. It functioned from 1937 to 1967, and was responsible for causing many Americans to go to jail, lose their jobs, commit suicide, and so on. It lost its power in 1967, when Abby Hoffman and Jerry Rubin and other anti-war protestors refused to take it seriously. It turned out that the emperor really didn't have any clothes.
If you are interested in reading the transcripts of some of the more interesting testimony before the committee, I suggest that you get hold of Eric Bentley's wonderful book, Thirty Years of Treason.
Ah, but after Reagan won the Cold War and the Soviet's records went public, it turned out that they were right after all...
Funny how you LOONIES will belive anything that comes out of KGB files NOW while you wouldn't believe anything in them before. You know those "pumpkin" microfilms? That remained classified for so long? Well, they were declassed during the Watergate time, and it turns out that what Hiss was alleged to have sent to the Soviets was useless crap. He might as well have been sending clippings from the NY Times. About as relevant as when I email a Bush joke to our Uzbek friends. If I was a washed-up KGB agent, I'd sure want to pad my part, and I don't mean when a woman puts a Kotex on...
I have no doubt you know all about lonnies. They tend to stick togther.
(Spelling flames are lame, I know, unless they make a pun.)
The only "Lonnie" I know of did a song "Does your chewing gum lose its flavor."
If tin whistles are made of tin, what do they make foghorns out of?
<<Ah, but after Reagan won the Cold War and the Soviet's records went public, it turned out that they were right after all...>>
Actually, that's not true. HUAC really didn't turn up anything remotely close to spying most of the time. It was run by an incredible bunch of ignorant goofballs. One of the chairs of the committee wound up serving time himself, in the same prison where the Hollywood Ten had been sent for refusing to answer questions about their possible Communist Party affiliations (on the ground that they were not required to do so, based on the Constitution).
I think that my favorite exchange took place in 1937, when the committee asked the woman who ran the WPA program for plays if Christopher Marlowe was a member of the Communist Party.
My second favorite was when they asked Zero Mostel if he had been a member of the Communist Party when he was in California in 1930-something. When he pointed out that he hadn't been in California at that time, the committee threatened to hold him in contempt. He was forced to testify that he hadn't been a member of the party when he hadn't been in California that year. (Joseph Heller had nothing on HUAC.)
You should really read up on this stuff- it's a fascinating, if surreal, slice of America.
Jeff Bishop has a tiny penis.
"D.G. Porter" wrote in message news:[email]...
There you have it. A leftist's idea of a good counterargument.
Well, if you weren't such an obtuse dork (AKA a Republican rightwing LOONIE, who names all his pets Erick) you'd get the joke, especially in *this* NG. Jeez, some people are so fukkin' dense...
"D.G. Porter" wrote in message news:[email]...
Wrong again. I got the "joke," for what it's worth. My point stands, however.
Well, I'll be sure to send Cartman around to deal with your idiocy too.
Uh-oh, 5:30, time to PREY! Flibbetty flabbetty floop!
Nothing odd about naming one's pets "Erick". Kemal Attaturk had an entire menagerie named "Abdul".
LiamD
(Mrs. retired)
He did not!
Did, did, did, and did & did. <plops book on counter>
"Kemal Attaturk: The Man", by EW Swinton with a foreword by Paul Anka, p. 62 please.
Oh all right...
A license... for a fish... You ARE a loonie!
It's people like you what cause unrest.
I've got a license for me pet dog, Eric, and for me pet cat, Eric, and I'm bloody well getting one for me pet fish, Eric.
You're off your crump. <sp?>
(snip)
Crump?
No 'e didn't.
PZB
Not dense enough to fall for your obvious attempts at back-peddling.
Flibbetty flabbetty floop.
A simple statement of fact.
<sarcasm> Wow, how utterly brilliant. </sarcasm>
Was it who recently was bitching and moaning about people who did this?
Ben Raines has farty pants.
Thank you for proving my point.
In article , [email] (Ben Raines) wrote:
Everyone here has tiny pants and a farty penis.
Easy. Pack up and move elsewhere.
I'll stay just to piss you off.