Antiwar protests.

Quick question: if you had a choice of using a Chevy Tahoe, or a Ford F-150 to run over protesters...which would you drive?

I'd go with the Tahoe. Front end is more square.

Actually slappy, Bush seems to be using somewhat larger vehicles on the Iraqis, are you and he related perhaps?

And NH it must be nice to be a rich spoiled "tax payer" in the US!

You know, maybe we are?

I'm a better salesperson though.

And the income taxes here suck.

Glad to hear it, cause it sure seemed otherwise. I don't think I've really become angry on this board ever before this time with your post here - yeh, except for that one time when some bozo tried to blame Clinton for tolerating Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in his zealous plea for the war (in fact, of course, the gassing had occurred in 1988 when George Bush Sr. was president, who afterwards vetoed proposed sanctions and rewarded Iraq instead with a new billion-dollar loan). I think it made me react for the first time with the kind of rolling-eyes-how-can-you-all-be-so-stupid reaction that Maxsdadeo and you seem so well versed in here.



You were very clear - about not being able to muster any respect for any of my prior posts. Those, apparently, were "overly simplistic" in highlighting only one side of the story. That indeed is a positively surprising analysis - considering that I only actually took a definitive position against the war this very week.

Before this week, I was continually turned off by the many half-truths and fallacious rhetorics of the Bush party in the campaign for war, which I tried to note on here, too - but on the other hand always had to remind myself (here on A2K, too) that, in principle, I am not actually against a military intervention to topple a brutal dictator per se.

I have expressed this dilemma several times here, explaining why I didnt go to the previous anti-war demo, for example, and had to re-evaluate every week what the balance was between the costs the Bush administration was incurring, in terms of undermining international law and co-operation, forstering resentment and ultimately terrorism, and causing humanitarian grief, and the obvious benefits of having Saddam removed from power.

I would love to see signs of a similar soulsearching from you, because since you write that you have come to your conclusion through careful weighing of all available information, I assume that there is more to your position than the mere repeats of pro-war arguments you profer here.

In any case, for you to simply sweep all your opponent has ever written away with a simple generalising judgement that's so obviously misinformed - all the while claiming intellectual superiority in the matter - is simply offensive. All the more so since in your blanket rejection of the "simplistic" posts of the other, you don't actually seem to respond to any of the points he has made. You didnt react to the general points I made here, in particular concerning the supposed immediate risks of inaction for security in the West - but then, they were general, and there are many threads; but you also didnt respond to the very specific questions I raised about your interpretation of 1441 in the other thread, that both Sozobe and I have reminded you about.

I'm sorry to say that, in fact, your normative judgement on the intelligence of those you oppose often seems to replace any argued response. You pose an argument, they counter it point by point, you call them dumb. Doesn't really work.

All of the above to summarise what "problem I have with this and for what reason exactly".

just a nasty little though (something I'm known for);

Has anyone considered that all these any war/impeach Bush petitions are artifices of the administration, with the express purpose of creating work for the "dangerous Americans" purges that will follow the war.

McCarthy; you ain't seen nothing yet!

Nah, I may be crazy but I'm not that crazy; oops, the question is "is he"?

nimh, have really appreciated your responses. Good work.

To backtrack a bit (hope that's OK -- saw this yesterday and wanted to respond but didn't have time then):



I feel very very strongly about this, and am really worried about this effect on the next election. From an email I got recently that freaked me out:



So who will be the next government? Who will he be voting for?

I hope this way of thinking is not widespread. I also hope the Democrats will handle the situation authoritatively.

"I also hope the Democrats will handle the situation authoritatively."

Sozobe, I think it's because so many of us believe our party has not handled the situation authoritatively (nor does that appear likely), that we are looking for a coalition. My sense is that the Democratic party has split and that neither side of the split has much power or authority. Somewhere I said (can't remember which thread!!) that if the Republicans were -- now -- able to come up with a centrist, fiscally conservative candidate for 2004, they'd prevail. In spite of my left-of-Lib politics, I'd probably vote for that candidate over almost all of the Democratic candidates. At the moment, my (enthusiastic) support goes to Dean.

Dean does look promising. He's a Dem, though, right?

Absolutely! By the way, he has sent those of us who have sent him contributions a pledge form -- tear off a ticket a month and send a pledged (small) amount each month. I think it's clever -- it gives him a barometer reading of the support he can expect. He seems determined to steer clear of Big Bucks.

I've given this a lot of thought, Slappy. Since I have both a Tahoe and a Ford Pickup (though it is an F-350), it is a question of academic interest. After careful consideration, I believe the Ford would be the better choice. It weighs a lot more, particularly with its wintertime bedload of around 1750 pounds of sand, and it has an 8' Snow Plow hung on its front end. The Tahoe does have a brush guard on its front end (defense against deer and unnoticed saplings), but the Ford is definitely better suited for the job. Yeah, I'd go with the Ford.

That's what we all need;

"defense against deer and unnoticed saplings"

BoGoWo, by way of explanation of my facetious remarks above, I live way out in the boonies, on a farm surrounded by forest and the area is laced liberaly with unpaved roads and trails. The local Autobody Repair Shops are dependent on the deer herd for the bulk of their income. Saplings aren't much of a factor, unless you're going pretty fast. Trees are usually noticed in time to be avoided.

While not sure about your playing along with slappy's "conceit", I understood fine;
I just loved the phrase; seems to fit many of the worlds problems somehow!

See, I'd go with a Tahoe, because it has a squarer front end. The F-150 is too aerodynamic, and a couple of pesky protesters may just get flipped over the grill instead of squarely smacked.

Of course, a Ford Excursion would be ideal.

Yeah, but the snowplow ... an 8' wide, 3' high curved steel plate, around 700 pounds alltogether, should make aiming a lot less fussy, and protects the grillwork. The blade can be carried in a slightly raised position, a few inches off the pavement, and angled down to direct debris under the truck. There are substantial skidplates protecting all the mechanicals underneath. It woul be a purely practical thing, from a sort of industrial standpoint.

Perhaps the problem here is that you assume I have studied all of your comments on the issue, when in fact I was responding at the time to a single post of yours. (Read back in the discussion, and I think that fact is pretty obvious.)

So again, hopefully you've got your back down and everything is hunky-dorey.

Well, in your case, I'd definitely take the Ford, especially with a 700lb plow. It would also be useful to push the "debris" out of the way so you could continue taking care of the problem.