« here's your ANSWER |
| pop quiz »
Headed out to gawk at protesters today? Planning on counter-marching at any upcoming ANSWER events?
You can print out my flyers over here, or order one of these beautiful bumper stickers from Bigwig:
(not actual size. much smaller, in fact.)
Posted by on February 15, 2003 02:59 PM | Permalink
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference sticking it to them:
» burt bacharach backs the war on iraq from gigglechick.com
and now for a post about the who war / anti-war protesting schtick: i am in support of our government. [Read More]
Tracked on February 17, 2003 11:36 AM
What about domestic oil for pacifists?
And France has already surrendered to that bumper sticker.
February 15, 2003 03:22 PM
today's rant on the French...
Hey, we're all good capitalists here at nikita demosthenes world headquarters. We have no problem with the French making a franc or two - or a few billion - off of Saddam Hussein's oil fields. But - sheez - don't expect us to leave our population vulnerable to a suitcase full of chemical and/or biological cocktails mixed up by Saddam, just because Saddam bought off the French!
Sorry, Jacques Chirac - you guys will have to earn an honest buck, I'm afraid. You might try working more than - say - 35 hours a week. Then you wouldn't have to sell your soul to a murderous dictator just to balance next year's socialist, make-work, budget. Just a thought.
We'll protect our people - and democracy and freedom for future generations - as we have repeatedly done over the past century. You French can go do whatever it is you do. What is that exactly? Oh yeah - sell out. Go sell out. We can handle it - shucks, we EXPECT it. First Vichy France and now, what - Saddamy France? Whatever. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
nikita demosthenes |
February 15, 2003 04:35 PM
The heck with the French. The last time they were good at anything, they had a Corsican in charge. And eventually, too much Parisian living turned him into just another cheese-eating surrender-monkey as well. We gave them a blueprint for a successful democratic revolution and what do they do? They instead pitch all that out the window and try the first progressive socialist regime. Within 5 years, they were handing over their nation to that aforementioned Corsican. We save their ass in the first World War. What lesson do they learn? They learn that it is OK to just ignore the arms build up of a mad dictator, and trust in the protection offered by containment through the Maginot line. Oh, they also learned that appeasement is just fine and dandy. You would think that after we saved their asses again in the SECOND World War that they would pay us just a smidge more respect. But NO! The valuable lessons learned from WWII included "piss off America by withdrawing from NATO and refusing to allow fly-overs." Maybe this time we need to "accidentally" bomb more than just their stupid embassy. The French will never learn. They must be assimilated. Resistance is futile. American foreign policy should be to make the world American. No, I don't mean "conquer them all and rule them as an imperialist." But I do mean "give them all the tools they need to instill an American-style democratic system--if they can't figure it out, carpet bomb them." But then what do I know?
David Gulliver |
February 15, 2003 04:46 PM
Driving through Sarasota today, we came upon three octagenarians carrying signs that said, among other things, "Peace, Not War." I was overcome...I leaned out the window and shrieked, "No oil for pussies!!"
Oh well, close enough.
February 15, 2003 09:16 PM
David - you obviously know a great deal, but I have a question about "an American-style democratic system". Do you think that system is working well right now? Consider this: in the span of a decade you've had a man and his son both serve as your president. To me, that isn't a symptom of a very robust democracy.
Here's the other thing: US politics is very polarized between right and left; we always hear about Liberals vs. Conservatives and your system reflect that by having the right-leaning Republicans and the ... er, "left"-leaning Democrats. But deomgraphically speaking, that's not really how political views manifest themselves in the population where there are small minorities with extreme right and left views while the vast majority of people float somewhere around the centre.
Wouldn't a system that more accurately reflected that reality be preferable to "American-style democracy"?
Excuse me now, I have to go smoke some PCP.
February 16, 2003 12:09 AM
sure - you can set up things much better. take control. it's called a totalitarian regime. great idea!
nikita demosthenes |
February 16, 2003 12:52 AM
PCP: that explains those Deep Political Thoughts.
Andrea Harris |
February 16, 2003 01:48 AM
"US politics is very polarized between right and left"
As opposed to various shades of socialism in Europe?
Ken Summers |
February 16, 2003 05:26 PM
If Patriot Act II or anything like it passes Congress, the French will be entitled to reclaim their Statue of Liberty.
At least the French knew to hand the Vietnam mess over to gullible Americans.
February 16, 2003 07:58 PM
nikita, Andrea, Ken - jabs are easy. I could just throw jabs back at you and we could have a nice little shouting match ... or, you could do some actual thinking and respond with a few ideas.
February 16, 2003 10:20 PM
As Jane Galt pointed out, the "center" is the line between Bush and Gore, that they're actually right next to each other, that there is no "unrepresented middle".
Instead, the middle is the battle ground - the fringes are basically ignored.
That's how two party systems work. If either party departs from that model, it gets crushed.
No, the media coverage doesn't express this, but that's a different problem. And, if you think that you can understand US politics by looking at foreign media plus national newspapers, you might as well believe that Baywatch is representative as well.
BTW - Bush II is not the first presidential son to make the grade. If you think that that such succession is a problem, you need to point out the consequences of this problem in the past.
> I could just throw jabs back at you and we could have a nice little shouting match ... or, you could do some actual thinking and respond with a few ideas.
Given the level of the initial comments, jabs were probably overkill.
Andy Freeman |
February 17, 2003 04:22 AM
That first one is classic.
James O' |
February 17, 2003 11:30 PM