and another thing on the subject sort of
Changes in this country by and large have not come from just voting. These are some stories of peace that you may not have heard of if you're not in a group or on a list of folks who are working for it. Thousands of Americans are, just because Maverick's not heard of them, doesn't mean they are not powerful and it doesn't mean they are pulling “hippie stuntsâ€. My parents, my mom really, who grew up in the sixties explained to me a long time ago, that the peace movement of her time was very small in comparison to what the modern media has made it out to be. Hollywood has glamorized / idealized a few incidents and they have become our cultural memory of that time. Talk to someone who was a young professional then, they don't have the same impression of the sixties that others living later on do. I think today's peace movement may actually be a great deal larger, it's just very, very different . . . because of technology. Here are a few ways that changes are being made and how citizens are making them:
Peace and Security: Building a safer America
• Amplifying the call for an exit plan in Iraq. In the spring of 2005, Republican Congressman Walter Jones—a staunch war supporter—and Democrats in Congress announced a plan for a responsible exit from Iraq that would conclude in 2006. MoveOn members endorsed it, and since then we've been pushing hard for a solution to the mess in Iraq that will bring our troops home and serve the Iraqis well.
o Hundreds of thousands of us gathered in vigils to support Cindy Sheehan and to mourn the passing of the 2000th soldier. When Cindy Sheehan went to Crawford to demand that President Bush meet with her about the death of her son, MoveOn members gathered in thousands of locations across the country to show our support. Two months later, we gathered again in candlelight vigils to honor and mourn those who died in Iraq. The vigils were picked up by local media across the nation and sent a clear and emotional message: the public supports the troops but not an endless occupation.
o We ran a series of ads to highlight growing public support for a change of course. Thanks to generous contributions from thousands of MoveOn members, we were able to run a number of ads at key moments in the debate over Iraq. After Nancy Pelosi came out in support of Rep. Murtha's plan for exit, we ran an ad in the districts of Murtha's attackers. Just after the elections in December, we highlighted the fact that most Iraqis want us out.
o We helped turn the tide in Congress toward an exit plan. At the beginning of 2005, few members of Congress supported an exit from Iraq. Now, people from Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi to Senator Russ Feingold have come out for a responsible exit, and Republicans are moving in that direction, too. MoveOn members made tens of thousands of phone calls, pushing Congress to stand up to President Bush and demand a plan for exit. We delivered petition signatures to hundreds of congressional offices nation-wide, getting local media across the country. Thirty members of Congress announced that they were more supportive of an exit plan that week alone.
~~
I mentioned Howard Zinn earlier, and that he'd written the play of Emma Goldman's life. She was a brilliant anarchist and labor leader. She did not get exceptionally excited about voting. She understood that it was sort of the second opiate of the masses and that women as humans weren't going to do any better than men at bringing about change through voting:
Excerpt from "Woman Suffrage" by Emma Goldman (1910)
Published in Anarchism and Other Essays
The poor, stupid, free American citizen! Free to starve, free to tramp the highways of this great country, he enjoys universal suffrage, and, by that right, he has forged chains about his limbs. The reward that he receives is stringent labor laws prohibiting the right of boycott, of picketing, in fact, of everything, except the right to be robbed of the fruits of his labor. Yet all these disastrous results of the twentieth¬ century fetich have taught woman nothing. But, then, woman will purify politics, we are assured.
Needless to say, I am not opposed to woman suffrage on the conventional ground that she is not equal to it. I see neither physical, psychological, nor mental reasons why woman should not have the equal right to vote with man. But that can not possibly blind me to the absurd notion that woman will accomplish that wherein man has failed. If she would not make things worse, she certainly could not make them better. To assume, therefore, that she would succeed in purifying something which is not susceptible of purification, is to credit her with supernatural powers. Since woman's greatest misfortune has been that she was looked upon as either angel or devil, her true salvation lies in being placed on earth; namely, in being considered human, and therefore subject to all human follies and mistakes. Are we, then, to believe that two errors will make a right? Are we to assume that the poison already inherent in politics will be decreased, if women were to enter the political arena?
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Goldman/Cur ... frage.html
PEACE
about soldiers who've learned a great lesson from war, there is a book it's called Soldiers in Revolt:
Haymarket Books has just published the long out of print Soldier's in Revolt by David Cortright, with a new introduction by Howard Zinn.
From the publisher:
"This book—on the historic resistance of GIs and veterans against the Vietnam War—is vital for understanding the overstretched U.S. military and opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq among soldiers and their families today."
And here is what Noam Chomsky has to say about the book:
"This fine study, combining scrupulous scholarship with the sharp insights of a highly informed participant-observer, was the first to explore in depth the processes of disaffection, organized opposition, and resistance that undermined U.S. military forces attacking Indochina, and their far-reaching consequences. It remains today the most penetrating and revealing investigation and analysis of these remarkable developments, with current implications that are all too evident."
about teaching, sonia sanchez one of those stunt pulling hippie people maverick was referring to, has spent a lifetime teaching not only her children but other children about many things and peace and pacifism have been among them. she is not only a poet, but also a professor and the author of children's books.
howard zinn is another one of these stunt pulling hippie folks, former military, and whoops also a teacher. who has protested many a war and been arrested for it. did you miss that story too, maverick? funny how these teachers end up caring about the lives of young people, i guess it's another occupational hazard. it's so weird how pissed we get when we see things like channel one and its daily dose of military recruitment pumped right into our classrooms on tax payers dollars . . . and we think, these are my students, the kids i'm staring at right now that they want to die for their oil or some other shit they send kids to die for and call it patriotism. (the television in my classroom miraculously no longer works while channel one is on, i have no idea why not, i just can't figure it out. damn.)
now i'm off to order my free teaching tolerance posters for my classroom. i just got some recycling posters and my greenpeace sticker is going to look fabulous under my organics bumper sticker, which is on my recycling can.
mark, i'll draw a peace symbol on it just for you, but i'm not blaming the republicans, the dems with kerry didn't provide a much better alternative -- war or war? which shall i vote for?
Haymarket Books has just published the long out of print Soldier's in Revolt by David Cortright, with a new introduction by Howard Zinn.
From the publisher:
"This book—on the historic resistance of GIs and veterans against the Vietnam War—is vital for understanding the overstretched U.S. military and opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq among soldiers and their families today."
And here is what Noam Chomsky has to say about the book:
"This fine study, combining scrupulous scholarship with the sharp insights of a highly informed participant-observer, was the first to explore in depth the processes of disaffection, organized opposition, and resistance that undermined U.S. military forces attacking Indochina, and their far-reaching consequences. It remains today the most penetrating and revealing investigation and analysis of these remarkable developments, with current implications that are all too evident."
about teaching, sonia sanchez one of those stunt pulling hippie people maverick was referring to, has spent a lifetime teaching not only her children but other children about many things and peace and pacifism have been among them. she is not only a poet, but also a professor and the author of children's books.
howard zinn is another one of these stunt pulling hippie folks, former military, and whoops also a teacher. who has protested many a war and been arrested for it. did you miss that story too, maverick? funny how these teachers end up caring about the lives of young people, i guess it's another occupational hazard. it's so weird how pissed we get when we see things like channel one and its daily dose of military recruitment pumped right into our classrooms on tax payers dollars . . . and we think, these are my students, the kids i'm staring at right now that they want to die for their oil or some other shit they send kids to die for and call it patriotism. (the television in my classroom miraculously no longer works while channel one is on, i have no idea why not, i just can't figure it out. damn.)
now i'm off to order my free teaching tolerance posters for my classroom. i just got some recycling posters and my greenpeace sticker is going to look fabulous under my organics bumper sticker, which is on my recycling can.
mark, i'll draw a peace symbol on it just for you, but i'm not blaming the republicans, the dems with kerry didn't provide a much better alternative -- war or war? which shall i vote for?
-
Tommy Martyn
- Mile High Club
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 8:01 am
- Location: a desk
I'm no fan of John Prescott but the board will get a kick out of this.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/s ... 93,00.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/s ... 93,00.html
Tommy you've caught me quite drunk and laughing EVEN MORE than I would if I was sober (which would still be quite a lot)
Jesus H. Christ of Santa Claus' Big Bird of Sesame Street, here we go, lads (and by that I don't mean anti-feminist):
Do you know a federal judge (who was FEMALE NO LESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GO WOMEN!!!) declared Bush's spying-on-Americans program as UNLAWFUL!?????? AND THE SUPREME COURT SAID THEY CAN'T FUCK OVER THE GUANTANEMO PEOPLE LIKE THEY ARE DOING BECAUSE IT IS ALL AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION AND
WE ARE GOING TO FUCK THEIR GODDAMN ASSES IN NOVEMBER AT THE ELECTIONS !!!
SHHSHHSHSHSHSSHS?AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
WOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOO!
It's time to play the STooges!!!!
I'm going to see Blondie at Bumbershoot after all even though I passed up on them at the price of $50 I will still get to see them for $25 because God appears to love me, for the time being.
Jesus H. Christ of Santa Claus' Big Bird of Sesame Street, here we go, lads (and by that I don't mean anti-feminist):
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!Labour backbenchers defended John Prescott yesterday as the deputy prime minister found himself at the centre of more political turmoil after it emerged he had described George Bush's handling of the Middle East peace process as "crap".
Do you know a federal judge (who was FEMALE NO LESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GO WOMEN!!!) declared Bush's spying-on-Americans program as UNLAWFUL!?????? AND THE SUPREME COURT SAID THEY CAN'T FUCK OVER THE GUANTANEMO PEOPLE LIKE THEY ARE DOING BECAUSE IT IS ALL AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION AND
WE ARE GOING TO FUCK THEIR GODDAMN ASSES IN NOVEMBER AT THE ELECTIONS !!!
SHHSHHSHSHSHSSHS?AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
WOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOO!
It's time to play the STooges!!!!
I'm going to see Blondie at Bumbershoot after all even though I passed up on them at the price of $50 I will still get to see them for $25 because God appears to love me, for the time being.
Last edited by marky on Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:24 am, edited 3 times in total.
Labour backbenchers defended John Prescott yesterday as the deputy prime minister found himself at the centre of more political turmoil after it emerged he had described George Bush's handling of the Middle East peace process as "crap".
I'm not lying this is the funniest thing I've read in years.
Not to mention the fact that both of the two planets most connected to humour are in play about now, moon in Cancer and Jupiter is also being talked about by astrologers, though I'm not sure of it's position right now exactly.
I'm not lying this is the funniest thing I've read in years.
Not to mention the fact that both of the two planets most connected to humour are in play about now, moon in Cancer and Jupiter is also being talked about by astrologers, though I'm not sure of it's position right now exactly.
Meanwhile in my truly grueling job search I see ads promising that if I join the Army I will be paid to learn Accounting. I'm so disgusted, but it really is the funniest part of my job search, these Army ads. It's a chance for me to laugh and think "yeah right, I'm going to give up all I acheived in 4 years of busting my arse in school so I can join the army and go to Iraq and be involved in horrific violence FOR NO REASON!
It's my HIGHER calling man! I have to go, don't you? HAHAHAHA
Truth is those fuckers can't do it without soldiers and soldier morale. Soldiers and Veterans themselves will stop this war. Everyone knows it's wrong. They're swamped with deserters.
It's my HIGHER calling man! I have to go, don't you? HAHAHAHA
Truth is those fuckers can't do it without soldiers and soldier morale. Soldiers and Veterans themselves will stop this war. Everyone knows it's wrong. They're swamped with deserters.
America The Bullshitter
Paid to learn accounting in the Army(up to $40,000 signing bonuses)
Date: 2006-08-18, 6:09PM PDT
Up to $40,000 signing bonuses. Seeking
dedicated individuals who are tired of applying for
jobs and a ready to start an exciting career.
We are currently offering guaranteed job training in
over 150 different career fields including
acounting. No degree or experience is required. The army will pay you to get trained.
-up to $40,000 signing bonuses
-up to $71,000 for college
-up to $64,000 college loan repayment
-housing paid
-full medical and dental
-accelerated promotions
-30 days a year paid vacation
-job placement all over the world.
It takes a highly motivated and highly dedicated
individual to serve their country in the United States
Army.
If you feel you would be a qualified individual
Please respond with:
Name
Phone number
Address
Fields of interest
Contact
BURN RUMSFELD IN HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
GIVE ALL YOUR MONEY TO THE ACLU ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC
WE'RE GONNA PLAY A GAME BABY! IT'S CALLED
GET THE BLEEDIN' FUCK OUT OF IRAQ, MATE, GET THE BLEEDIN' FUCK OUT OF IRAQ!
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
GIVE ALL YOUR MONEY TO THE ACLU ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC
WE'RE GONNA PLAY A GAME BABY! IT'S CALLED
GET THE BLEEDIN' FUCK OUT OF IRAQ, MATE, GET THE BLEEDIN' FUCK OUT OF IRAQ!
Sarah, your response to my post indicates your lack of understanding of my views, and the intended message of my post.
First of all, by "these people" I meant the protestors. I had no knowledge of, or interest in their racial background. My statement goes for people of all beliefs and races, from left wing to right wing, african american to native american: Our system CAN work if more people vote. The right wing has taken advantage of the fact that most people DON'T vote, and they use their influence on religious groups to get them to encourage their already brainwashed congregations to vote the way their church leaders tell them to. There is no equivalent system for liberals to get huge numbers of sympathizers out to the polls. And don't give me that crap about the electoral college either...they didn't steal the election for georege bush, general apathy did.
If all the people who protested the system actively participated in changing it FROM WITHIN, change would happen. Unforunately, the religious right rules the country now because liberals have allowed them to, by failing to work together to find strategies that can overcome the brainwashing and pandering that the right uses to get (and stay) in office.
My main issue with stunts like the one at the armed forces recruiting office is that it amounts to preaching to the choir: people like you hear about it, and think that those protesters were brilliant, to come up with a new way to call attention to the idiocy of this war....but they haven't. They did something that those who already agre with them will applaud, but those who don't will ridicule, or straight out ignore. Threfore, it has no effect.
As for my "being for the war from the beginning", that is untrue. If you will look back, I said clearly that I did not agree with the manner in which the american (Bush) government was ignoring the advice and opinions of our allies (and even many american military officers.) It was as evident then as now that there was no clear mandate from the world to topple sadaam at that time, it was clear that invading iraq would not stop or even slow terrorist acts around the world, and it was clear that if bush persisted with his agenda, we would end up going it essentially alone.
However, once troops were deployed, and an erstwhile coalition was made, I saw no reason to blame those troops for being there, and for following their orders. So I wished them success in their mission, and a speedy return home. Do I wish they had never been sent, yes. Do I wish that Bush had listened to other leaders, formed a stronger coalition, and pursued terrorists on other fronts, perhaps eventually including Iraq, yes. But I am not a policymaker, and had no control once his mind was made up. All I could do was to vote against him, which I did, twice.
I believe in a strong military, I believe that military power is necessary in a world where people like Sadaam Hussein and Kim Jong Il rule by fear, and threaten any others who stand in their way. I believe ther is a fine line between using our might to help other countries, and imperialism. It takes a truly enlightened group of politicians to understand the difference, and unfortunately, our current administration is not enlightened in that way.
I believe in America, and that though we make mistakes, most of us have the right intentions at heart-even those brainwashed religious right wingers. They're just brainwashed, and don't know that they are spreadeing hatred. It is our job as peoeple who disagree with them to present them with something they can understand, that may sway a few of them, little by little, to a more reasoned path. Infighting within the democratic party, political maneuvering and misguided "independent" candidates only serve to segment the already outnumbered liberals, and end up giving power to those we wish didn't have it.
So, I am not a racist, a republican, or ignorant. I just think that many liberals hurt their causes by the way they call attention to themselves. It only makes those right wingers think that they are even more correct in clinging to their closed minded ways.
First of all, by "these people" I meant the protestors. I had no knowledge of, or interest in their racial background. My statement goes for people of all beliefs and races, from left wing to right wing, african american to native american: Our system CAN work if more people vote. The right wing has taken advantage of the fact that most people DON'T vote, and they use their influence on religious groups to get them to encourage their already brainwashed congregations to vote the way their church leaders tell them to. There is no equivalent system for liberals to get huge numbers of sympathizers out to the polls. And don't give me that crap about the electoral college either...they didn't steal the election for georege bush, general apathy did.
If all the people who protested the system actively participated in changing it FROM WITHIN, change would happen. Unforunately, the religious right rules the country now because liberals have allowed them to, by failing to work together to find strategies that can overcome the brainwashing and pandering that the right uses to get (and stay) in office.
My main issue with stunts like the one at the armed forces recruiting office is that it amounts to preaching to the choir: people like you hear about it, and think that those protesters were brilliant, to come up with a new way to call attention to the idiocy of this war....but they haven't. They did something that those who already agre with them will applaud, but those who don't will ridicule, or straight out ignore. Threfore, it has no effect.
As for my "being for the war from the beginning", that is untrue. If you will look back, I said clearly that I did not agree with the manner in which the american (Bush) government was ignoring the advice and opinions of our allies (and even many american military officers.) It was as evident then as now that there was no clear mandate from the world to topple sadaam at that time, it was clear that invading iraq would not stop or even slow terrorist acts around the world, and it was clear that if bush persisted with his agenda, we would end up going it essentially alone.
However, once troops were deployed, and an erstwhile coalition was made, I saw no reason to blame those troops for being there, and for following their orders. So I wished them success in their mission, and a speedy return home. Do I wish they had never been sent, yes. Do I wish that Bush had listened to other leaders, formed a stronger coalition, and pursued terrorists on other fronts, perhaps eventually including Iraq, yes. But I am not a policymaker, and had no control once his mind was made up. All I could do was to vote against him, which I did, twice.
I believe in a strong military, I believe that military power is necessary in a world where people like Sadaam Hussein and Kim Jong Il rule by fear, and threaten any others who stand in their way. I believe ther is a fine line between using our might to help other countries, and imperialism. It takes a truly enlightened group of politicians to understand the difference, and unfortunately, our current administration is not enlightened in that way.
I believe in America, and that though we make mistakes, most of us have the right intentions at heart-even those brainwashed religious right wingers. They're just brainwashed, and don't know that they are spreadeing hatred. It is our job as peoeple who disagree with them to present them with something they can understand, that may sway a few of them, little by little, to a more reasoned path. Infighting within the democratic party, political maneuvering and misguided "independent" candidates only serve to segment the already outnumbered liberals, and end up giving power to those we wish didn't have it.
So, I am not a racist, a republican, or ignorant. I just think that many liberals hurt their causes by the way they call attention to themselves. It only makes those right wingers think that they are even more correct in clinging to their closed minded ways.
"As for my "being for the war from the beginning", that is untrue. If you will look back, I said clearly that I did not agree with the manner in which the american (Bush) government was ignoring the advice and opinions of our allies (and even many american military officers.)"
i'm sorry i thought i remembered you posting some pro-military stuff years ago, maybe that was just tommy. i thought you agreed though. i'll take your word for it, i really don't need to look back.
i didn't say you were racist or a republican -- i didn't imply it either -- and i don't care if you're either really i don't -- i was referring to your use of "these people" as being hippie stunt pullers which was incorrect, moronic and assumptive
the only person being mentioned specifically was a black woman, and so i listed multiple examples of black people who are absolutely from the south as is this aging black woman, who protested, and who absolutely were not hippies -- look up their pictures, they were called niggers at the time not hippies -- nigger was the disdainful remark spit out at the black folks who protested and hippie was the disdainful remark spit out at the white folks and that was my point. she's not a hippie -- she is a black woman from the south who has learned how to stand the fuck up and won't stop it
i would love to invite you to come with me to hear nikki g. another poet and professor who is going to be speaking at my former college in february -- she's going to be doing a lecture called racism 101. have you ever taken any courses on it or on multicultural ideas?
voting is not the issue when the issue is war and peace in a two party election when both parties who are presented are for the war. John Kerry was for it and so was George Bush. What you said in this context was moronic. I do not think you are a moron, or a republican, or a racist, I think you did not know the facts in this election.
i know about this particular person whose behavior you called a hippie stunt, when you have no idea if it was a hippie stunt, because i like her poetry and searched for news about her recently and that is what i found out, not because i'm a liberal. i thought it was a nice story. she has one poem that says "i'm going to stay on the battlefield for the rest of my life" and another that ends "this is not a small voice/ you hear" -- she is a person who is not full of shit -- as are a lot of folks, who do little to nothing to evoke change, yet talk about how much they want it.
you are actually incorrect about news media a lot of people know about these protests who are not part of liberal choir as you termed it. that is why i posted move on's list of activities. b/c many protests have been on local news meaning anyone who turns on their local news is going to see it and that is a lot of folks and also not preaching to the choir -- it's preaching to your locality. how local folks interpret the protests is up to them. i think you are actually pretty incorrect about conservatives and liberals in terms of war protests -- how much of your opinion on them is based on the ones you've attended (experience with this issue) and how much of your opinion is based on conjucture (what you've thought up on this issue)
the year before the summer of the cindy shehan protest i went to a protest in a baptist church in chapel hill that was attended by people who sat in a group of chairs and prayed. my mom went with me, and i don't know who she votes for, but she's pretty conservative. so was every adult there . . . very conservative.
i agree that more people should take an Active role in their political destinies. voting is the very first baby step. it's good if you've gotten that far, but it's not going to bring about a great deal of change.
what do you think about labor unions. do you think voting is how they got rights for workers? i mean think about what you are saying. that voting changes something in america when i've given you quite a few examples of things that were not changed at all by voting but by other channels, namely protesting.
the grannies went and demanded a change. take people into the military and that makes more sense than taking the young.
like ghandi said, you're going to have to be the change you want to see in the world (or shut the hell up!) -- that's not a direct quote
i'm sorry i thought i remembered you posting some pro-military stuff years ago, maybe that was just tommy. i thought you agreed though. i'll take your word for it, i really don't need to look back.
i didn't say you were racist or a republican -- i didn't imply it either -- and i don't care if you're either really i don't -- i was referring to your use of "these people" as being hippie stunt pullers which was incorrect, moronic and assumptive
the only person being mentioned specifically was a black woman, and so i listed multiple examples of black people who are absolutely from the south as is this aging black woman, who protested, and who absolutely were not hippies -- look up their pictures, they were called niggers at the time not hippies -- nigger was the disdainful remark spit out at the black folks who protested and hippie was the disdainful remark spit out at the white folks and that was my point. she's not a hippie -- she is a black woman from the south who has learned how to stand the fuck up and won't stop it
i would love to invite you to come with me to hear nikki g. another poet and professor who is going to be speaking at my former college in february -- she's going to be doing a lecture called racism 101. have you ever taken any courses on it or on multicultural ideas?
voting is not the issue when the issue is war and peace in a two party election when both parties who are presented are for the war. John Kerry was for it and so was George Bush. What you said in this context was moronic. I do not think you are a moron, or a republican, or a racist, I think you did not know the facts in this election.
i know about this particular person whose behavior you called a hippie stunt, when you have no idea if it was a hippie stunt, because i like her poetry and searched for news about her recently and that is what i found out, not because i'm a liberal. i thought it was a nice story. she has one poem that says "i'm going to stay on the battlefield for the rest of my life" and another that ends "this is not a small voice/ you hear" -- she is a person who is not full of shit -- as are a lot of folks, who do little to nothing to evoke change, yet talk about how much they want it.
you are actually incorrect about news media a lot of people know about these protests who are not part of liberal choir as you termed it. that is why i posted move on's list of activities. b/c many protests have been on local news meaning anyone who turns on their local news is going to see it and that is a lot of folks and also not preaching to the choir -- it's preaching to your locality. how local folks interpret the protests is up to them. i think you are actually pretty incorrect about conservatives and liberals in terms of war protests -- how much of your opinion on them is based on the ones you've attended (experience with this issue) and how much of your opinion is based on conjucture (what you've thought up on this issue)
the year before the summer of the cindy shehan protest i went to a protest in a baptist church in chapel hill that was attended by people who sat in a group of chairs and prayed. my mom went with me, and i don't know who she votes for, but she's pretty conservative. so was every adult there . . . very conservative.
i agree that more people should take an Active role in their political destinies. voting is the very first baby step. it's good if you've gotten that far, but it's not going to bring about a great deal of change.
what do you think about labor unions. do you think voting is how they got rights for workers? i mean think about what you are saying. that voting changes something in america when i've given you quite a few examples of things that were not changed at all by voting but by other channels, namely protesting.
the grannies went and demanded a change. take people into the military and that makes more sense than taking the young.
like ghandi said, you're going to have to be the change you want to see in the world (or shut the hell up!) -- that's not a direct quote
"Do I wish that Bush had listened to other leaders, formed a stronger coalition, and pursued terrorists on other fronts, perhaps eventually including Iraq, yes."
oh, wow, i've had time to fully read this post and respond and okay i see now how i misunderstood your views -- you are for war when we call it pursuing terrorists on other fronts, perhaps eventually including Iraq -- how completely stupid of me to think using our military to pursue terrorists and eventually ending up in iraq was warlike behavior akin to the very war we are in, the next time i read your posts i will pull out my copy of 1984 and make sure i've the newspeak down first. i'm making a note now: it is not war to pursue terrorists even though bush has declared a war on terror while pursuing terrorists and ending up in iraq - -
to be fair and honest to maverick if i want to describe his position, i will have to explain that he is a person who agrees with pursuing terrorists, but who does not agree with calling that pursuit of terrorists, the pursuit that perhaps will result eventually in our military occupying the same place that our military is occupying right now, war. (and i think after writing this explanation of maverick's position on war, which he was against, as opposed to military pursuit of terrorists, which he is for, i can send it to both political parties and i will be hired as the speech writer for either party's latest candidate, b/c i can spin it)
"If all the people who protested the system actively participated in changing it FROM WITHIN, change would happen. Unforunately, the religious right rules the country now because liberals have allowed them to, by failing to work together to find strategies that can overcome the brainwashing and pandering that the right uses to get (and stay) in office."
i really don't believe you are making a valid argument for peace through voting and our current political processes here, nor do i think you know what you are talking about . . . you are actually just repeating a lot of stereotyping that has gone on in the media, which is actually not the truth. for one thing, the left or liberals mobilized thousands of people teaching them how to register and vote through move on. they did not do it through religion. and you are saying the right does teach people how to vote through religion? i have never heard of a religious group that actually teaches people how to vote, although michael stipe, eddie vedder, and bruce etc. parodied religious fervor with some of their performances and on national television . . .those folks were supported by moveon.org . . .which was anti-bush. i won't, however, mistake what they did in rallying folks to vote against bush as working for peace because they offered no peace candidate to vote for . . . do you understand that? how can voting be the appropriate political mechanism to use to gain peace when there is no one who supports peace to vote for?
you are wrong if you think an independent candidate was part of the left's agenda in the most recent presidential election -- and you are wrong if you think that the left wasn't organized -- move on said, let's all join forces and vote for kerry collectively, no naders, no perots this time, so the left said, okay, we'll try it . . . and the election again was remarkably close and the democrat again lost. move on even went as far as to go to swing states specifically to register voters and open the dialogue between people about their government. i know because i was a part of it, and it was in many major music magazines -- it was not a secret liberal plot only revealed to the liberals singing to each other in their special liberal choir. those liberals in fact sang to audiences of thousands and thousands of people from many different political backgrounds.
also the left does work through religion -- sojourners is a left leaning religious publication that organizes many activities -- it is named after sojourner truth, a black woman, who preached and fought to end slavery in the united states
sojo.net is where you can find more information if you'd like to educate yourself on the religious, politically active folks who might lean to the left but probably don't call themselves liberals or democrats -- on that website they call themselves christians.
i don't really see where kerry would have saved life in iraq . . . the result of war is human death no matter who the president who dictates it is or which congress members go along with it
Let me ask you something, how is this strategy of kerry's:
He also said Arab countries have a stake in Iraq's future and could lessen the United States' burden.
"Obviously we have to see how events unfold," Kerry said. "The measurement has to be . . . the stability of Iraq, the ability to have the elections, and the training and transformation of the Iraqi security force itself."
any different from the strategery of bush? i think it is pretty much the same exact rhetoric. it's crap maverick. we had crap to vote for if we wanted peace.
"I believe in a strong military, I believe that military power is necessary in a world where people like Sadaam Hussein and Kim Jong Il rule by fear, and threaten any others who stand in their way. I believe ther is a fine line between using our might to help other countries, and imperialism. It takes a truly enlightened group of politicians to understand the difference, and unfortunately, our current administration is not enlightened in that way."
if you are for war you are for it and if you are not you are not and there is not a great deal of middle ground on this issue, imo, because its result is always the same . . .humans die. that has not changed throughout history. the last time i checked it was not the smartest thing for my species, humans, to be killing other humans off. for one thing it sort of begets more killing -- for another it's kind of stupid period to kill your own, and my own is people -- those kind of people, these kind of people, white people black people red people tan people protesting hippie people and the conservative right wing people terrorist people and innocent people -- killing people is stupid and contradictory to what i know for sure b/c it means ending the one thing i know for sure exists and is real, life -- i've traveled enough to know that we are one species, human, in one place, earth and that is who i believe in, humans on earth
oh, wow, i've had time to fully read this post and respond and okay i see now how i misunderstood your views -- you are for war when we call it pursuing terrorists on other fronts, perhaps eventually including Iraq -- how completely stupid of me to think using our military to pursue terrorists and eventually ending up in iraq was warlike behavior akin to the very war we are in, the next time i read your posts i will pull out my copy of 1984 and make sure i've the newspeak down first. i'm making a note now: it is not war to pursue terrorists even though bush has declared a war on terror while pursuing terrorists and ending up in iraq - -
to be fair and honest to maverick if i want to describe his position, i will have to explain that he is a person who agrees with pursuing terrorists, but who does not agree with calling that pursuit of terrorists, the pursuit that perhaps will result eventually in our military occupying the same place that our military is occupying right now, war. (and i think after writing this explanation of maverick's position on war, which he was against, as opposed to military pursuit of terrorists, which he is for, i can send it to both political parties and i will be hired as the speech writer for either party's latest candidate, b/c i can spin it)
"If all the people who protested the system actively participated in changing it FROM WITHIN, change would happen. Unforunately, the religious right rules the country now because liberals have allowed them to, by failing to work together to find strategies that can overcome the brainwashing and pandering that the right uses to get (and stay) in office."
i really don't believe you are making a valid argument for peace through voting and our current political processes here, nor do i think you know what you are talking about . . . you are actually just repeating a lot of stereotyping that has gone on in the media, which is actually not the truth. for one thing, the left or liberals mobilized thousands of people teaching them how to register and vote through move on. they did not do it through religion. and you are saying the right does teach people how to vote through religion? i have never heard of a religious group that actually teaches people how to vote, although michael stipe, eddie vedder, and bruce etc. parodied religious fervor with some of their performances and on national television . . .those folks were supported by moveon.org . . .which was anti-bush. i won't, however, mistake what they did in rallying folks to vote against bush as working for peace because they offered no peace candidate to vote for . . . do you understand that? how can voting be the appropriate political mechanism to use to gain peace when there is no one who supports peace to vote for?
you are wrong if you think an independent candidate was part of the left's agenda in the most recent presidential election -- and you are wrong if you think that the left wasn't organized -- move on said, let's all join forces and vote for kerry collectively, no naders, no perots this time, so the left said, okay, we'll try it . . . and the election again was remarkably close and the democrat again lost. move on even went as far as to go to swing states specifically to register voters and open the dialogue between people about their government. i know because i was a part of it, and it was in many major music magazines -- it was not a secret liberal plot only revealed to the liberals singing to each other in their special liberal choir. those liberals in fact sang to audiences of thousands and thousands of people from many different political backgrounds.
also the left does work through religion -- sojourners is a left leaning religious publication that organizes many activities -- it is named after sojourner truth, a black woman, who preached and fought to end slavery in the united states
sojo.net is where you can find more information if you'd like to educate yourself on the religious, politically active folks who might lean to the left but probably don't call themselves liberals or democrats -- on that website they call themselves christians.
i don't really see where kerry would have saved life in iraq . . . the result of war is human death no matter who the president who dictates it is or which congress members go along with it
Let me ask you something, how is this strategy of kerry's:
He also said Arab countries have a stake in Iraq's future and could lessen the United States' burden.
"Obviously we have to see how events unfold," Kerry said. "The measurement has to be . . . the stability of Iraq, the ability to have the elections, and the training and transformation of the Iraqi security force itself."
any different from the strategery of bush? i think it is pretty much the same exact rhetoric. it's crap maverick. we had crap to vote for if we wanted peace.
"I believe in a strong military, I believe that military power is necessary in a world where people like Sadaam Hussein and Kim Jong Il rule by fear, and threaten any others who stand in their way. I believe ther is a fine line between using our might to help other countries, and imperialism. It takes a truly enlightened group of politicians to understand the difference, and unfortunately, our current administration is not enlightened in that way."
if you are for war you are for it and if you are not you are not and there is not a great deal of middle ground on this issue, imo, because its result is always the same . . .humans die. that has not changed throughout history. the last time i checked it was not the smartest thing for my species, humans, to be killing other humans off. for one thing it sort of begets more killing -- for another it's kind of stupid period to kill your own, and my own is people -- those kind of people, these kind of people, white people black people red people tan people protesting hippie people and the conservative right wing people terrorist people and innocent people -- killing people is stupid and contradictory to what i know for sure b/c it means ending the one thing i know for sure exists and is real, life -- i've traveled enough to know that we are one species, human, in one place, earth and that is who i believe in, humans on earth
I'm sure you'll take exception to this concept, Str, but here it is: Peace 100% of the time is not a realistic concept.
I am not "for war", but as a rational human being who recognizes that many other human beings are NOT rational, I recognize that there are times when war becomes necessary. You are correct, killing other humans is never a smart thing to do, but unfortunately, there are times when war must be waged.
I have no problem calling pursuing terrorists "war". That it is, and I know that terrorists live and operate in many places including Afganistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and here in the US. I didn't meant to try to spin that. War against terrorism is the only answer to keep our families safe from it. Do you HONESTLY think that if we withdrew all of our troops from the middle east, anywhere in the middle east, and made a public apology to the various countries for occupying their lands and profiting from their oil, that all terrorism would stop? I wish we could do that, if only for the sake of argument, to show pacifists that despite all of your best intentions, there are those who will not allow peace to reign.
Pacifism to me is a noble thought, but not something that can be a reality in our world. Perhaps in the next, but not here. I am sorry to present it that way, but with the aforementioned cast of irrational humans living among us(Kim Jong Il, Saddaam, etc), there is never complete peace everywhere, and therefore, it is never fully peaceful anywhere. So anyone who blindly wishes for peace is equivalent in my mind to a child wishing he could sprout wings and fly.
I am not "for war", but as a rational human being who recognizes that many other human beings are NOT rational, I recognize that there are times when war becomes necessary. You are correct, killing other humans is never a smart thing to do, but unfortunately, there are times when war must be waged.
I have no problem calling pursuing terrorists "war". That it is, and I know that terrorists live and operate in many places including Afganistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and here in the US. I didn't meant to try to spin that. War against terrorism is the only answer to keep our families safe from it. Do you HONESTLY think that if we withdrew all of our troops from the middle east, anywhere in the middle east, and made a public apology to the various countries for occupying their lands and profiting from their oil, that all terrorism would stop? I wish we could do that, if only for the sake of argument, to show pacifists that despite all of your best intentions, there are those who will not allow peace to reign.
Pacifism to me is a noble thought, but not something that can be a reality in our world. Perhaps in the next, but not here. I am sorry to present it that way, but with the aforementioned cast of irrational humans living among us(Kim Jong Il, Saddaam, etc), there is never complete peace everywhere, and therefore, it is never fully peaceful anywhere. So anyone who blindly wishes for peace is equivalent in my mind to a child wishing he could sprout wings and fly.
"Pacifism to me is a noble thought, but not something that
can be a reality in our world."
i disagree . . . because of this line of thinking:
"So anyone who blindly wishes for peace is equivalent in my mind to a child wishing he could sprout wings and fly."
because war is completely man made / nature does not force war onto us . . . man controls war and therefore man controls peace or the lack there of. just because parts of the human species have not chosen peace does not mean that it is not well within our capacity to do so.
man has no control over whether he sprouts wings and flies or not -- he can not make fully functioning wings spontaneously come out his body, true. (stem cell research may one day change that it's evolution baby)
it is a sad commentary on man that you believe that his ability to live at peace with other men is as unrealistic as his ability to do that which by nature he really can not do. you are essentially saying it is man's uncontrollable nature to be at war. and there are plenty of civilizations that refute that thought. the american one, after colonization, is not one of them, and that is embarrassing and speaks of how far down we are on the "civilized" cultures list we are
can be a reality in our world."
i disagree . . . because of this line of thinking:
"So anyone who blindly wishes for peace is equivalent in my mind to a child wishing he could sprout wings and fly."
because war is completely man made / nature does not force war onto us . . . man controls war and therefore man controls peace or the lack there of. just because parts of the human species have not chosen peace does not mean that it is not well within our capacity to do so.
man has no control over whether he sprouts wings and flies or not -- he can not make fully functioning wings spontaneously come out his body, true. (stem cell research may one day change that
it's evolution baby)it is a sad commentary on man that you believe that his ability to live at peace with other men is as unrealistic as his ability to do that which by nature he really can not do. you are essentially saying it is man's uncontrollable nature to be at war. and there are plenty of civilizations that refute that thought. the american one, after colonization, is not one of them, and that is embarrassing and speaks of how far down we are on the "civilized" cultures list we are
