Antiwar protests.

And that is my kinda Peace PD - :wink:

"That said, it is a shame that those who are doing the lion's share of the speaking these days have so very little that is remotely intelligent or rational to say..."

I see it quite differently, Tres, having marched and been shouted at by someone (proBush, per bumper sticker) could only come up with a string of expletives and four letter words. The people I've marched with are, many of them, academics. Religious people (I was with a bunch of nuns). Students. Vietnam vets. All quiet, none shouting. A good cross-section of the civil and educated of our country. Certainly not irrational but certainly, I think, prepared for civil disobedience if necessary.

I haven't the slightest idea how your comments go to anything I wrote. If your goal is to tell me that you know lots of nice people who are anti-war and that you know of one pro-Bush person who was rude to you, well, message received.

Tartarin, your comments say a lot to me. I was out in the countryside all last week and I found a lot of ignorant support for the war and a lot of intelligent desire for peace. <sigh> it just goes on...........

And how does he know who was ignorant and who was intelligent? Easy! He can tell based on whether or not they agree with him!



Of course, this is a typical fabrication of those with a weak argument; if the opposition is devalued (stupid, bigoted, whatever name you can call them) then you don't have to actually address their points.

Well, in my county, the guys who drive buy throwing hand crushed beer cans out the window of a pickup with "LET'S ROLL" stickers on the window behind the gun-rack are...uh... let's just say, I don't share their point of view!

Bill -- let's face it, Tres may be right in that only he can identify "those who... have so very little that is remotely intelligent or rational to say." !!

Tartarin, I've always realized that, but thanks for putting it in print. I do believe he is trying to cause another one of his famous name calling, disjointed fights - yet again!

Bill - I tend to have a sore spot for this "you are ignorant if you disagree with me" crap, but I'll keep it to myself from here on out. You are entitled to your opinion.

I do think it is just a shortcut past thinking about the issues, but I'll leave it to you to consider the possibility that I'm not trying to insult you by writing so.

Regards,
TW

I am against this war.

I concede that most people who support it give unthoughtful or uninsightful reasons, and -as an average- tend to be less politically educated. (You can peek Abuzz and find quite a few examples)

But I also must say that some people who support it give thoughtful and insightful reasons, that cannot be rebuked by throwing adjectives. You can find several examples here in A2K.

I heard some interesting statistics that prove to me that based on this discussion the people in the East are by far more intelligent than those in
the West Don't remember the exact numbers but the support for the war in the East is approximately 35% while in the West it is in the high 70's.
Take that you dummies.

What about the Southwest au, oh well, I am who I am and that's all that I am!

BillW
Bill sorry can't help you. However since you live there I am sure you know the general sentiment. Take it from there.

au, purely rhetorical - saw a bunch of the family last week, my God but they are rednecks; still have to love them though!

Tres, you are a mystery to me. Many of us here - especially on a thread like this - have demonstrated, and here, we are doing a lot of speaking out, too. If you consider so very little of what we have to say remotely intelligent or rational, why do you waste so much of your time whiling here? If you consider your counterparts in this debate to be so far from intelligent, what is your motivation for posting to them all the time? Is it proselytising? Or some kind of indulging in showing off your superior intelligence - evidence of which of course is tragically wasted on us? I really do wonder. Especially since when someone really does seem to have a good counterquestion or counterargument in response to your last post, you tend to just kinda dissapear - only to reappear on another thread when somebody else says something stupid enough to allow you the chance to tell him off. That is, well - rude, so again, I'm calling you on it.

I can well imagine it isnt even meant to be rude, though, at all. After all, you also write: "I tend to have a sore spot for this 'you are ignorant if you disagree with me' crap". I have seen often, both on political and personal levels, that when people are most afraid of the other doing something, they are most likely to do it themselves. I don't know if there's an official term for this. I call it "the mirror response". Among the people I meet in my job, for example, those caught up most intensely in their anger about journalists' bias and prejudice, those making the most heartfelt case for the need for reporters to be balanced, careful and unprejudiced, will be the first to lambast "all journalists" for being all this or all that, and won't hesitate at using one or the other dubious source or freely interpreted quote to make their case, either. It's kinda tragic, really. And thus here you are, it seems, so afraid we'll call you ignorant when you disagree that you'll just call us ignorant, in a - pre-emptive strike, say. No need, really.

One of the greatest values of these discussion areas is that we are made up of all kinds of people and -- more importantly -- an international mix. We are part of the world and we need to think in those terms. I don't like it when people impose themselves on others. I don't like it in George Bush, in our government's current attack on another country, in our belief that we know best and I don't like those herein who echo that -- who seem to believe that if they insult, twist words, attack, and demean, they will win. Of course they don't, any more than America is "winning" right now. But they -- and America -- are making life unpleasant for great numbers of people and doing it arrogantly and self-righteously.

Protests Turn Off Viewers

Excerpt:
Covering war protesters may be bad for business. That's among the findings of new research from Frank N. Magid Associates, the influential news consulting firm.

broadcastingcable.com

So the bloodthirsty cretins who own CNN, FOX News and the networks would rather see Iraqis killed than tell the truth about protests because it's better for business?

(Sidebar: Wal-Mart has blamed "CNN-itis" for slumping sales.)

I'm so shocked.

I always thought the news media were honest.

How many thousands must die so that media company shareholders can get that extra nickel?

PDiddle, they have concluded that it turns off viewers because it may just happen to change their views. Which of course is the purpose of the Freedom of the Press.

PDiddie
Did it ever occur to you that anti war protesters turn off and disgust a majority of the people? Who have absolutely no use for them. There is that possibility, don't you think?

More so than war and killing and bombs, au?

I mean really, which is worse?

I'm only requesting information...

PDiddie
Yes once the hostilities have begun and our boys are in harms way there is the possibility that animosity is being built up against people who still protest. I am only suggesting the possibility.

?

Not quite sure I understand what you are driving at. Do we have a choice? One or the other? That choice disappeared when Bush started the shooting war. .