Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditST. PAUL -- The numbers are in for Sarah Palin's Republican National Convention speech, and they're pretty remarkable.
Some 37.2 million viewers watched Palin deliver a sharp, frequently sarcastic address in which she identified herself as a a pit-bull wearing lipstick. And she was biting at Barack Obama's heels.
While Palin's speech was shown on just six television networks -- as opposed to the ten that featured Obama's speech last Thursday night to the Democratic National Convention -- the Republican candidate for vice president attracted almost as many viewers as did the Democratic candidate for president.
Palin's 37.2 million draw was just 1.2 million below the 38.4 million that tuned in to see Obama.
Women viewers tuned in in dramatic numbers to the first-ever address to the nation by a Republican nominee for vice president. Nielson ratings indicate that Palin drew 19.5 million women viewers. That's almost five million more women than tuned in to see New York Senator Hillary Clinton address the Democratic convention in Denver.
That's got to make Republicans feel good.
But...
Palin is not just in competition with the Democrats.
Tonight, Republican presidential nominee John McCain will appear before the convention to deliver the parallel speech to Obama's of last Thursday night. Unlike Obama -- whose decision to deliver his acceptance speech at an outdoor stadium was ridiculed by Palin -- McCain made the more traditional choice to address the convention inside the hall. He's not going to try to rival Obama's live crowd of 85,000.
But will he rival Obama's television audience?
More significantly, will McCain's viewership rival Palin's?
Stay tuned.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Unfortunately, McCain doesn't have to match Palin's numbers.
He just has to tell American what his plan is for improving the economy other than giving tax breaks to the rich that we have already tried for the past 8 years.
Posted by Metteyya at 09/04/2008 @ 5:01pm
This actually isn't good for the Republicans. This means people are paying attention to who she is. If they start getting wind of investigations and abuses of power that isn't a good thing.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/04/2008 @ 5:23pm
how can anybody vote for BOMBAMAN AND THE GRIZZLYQUEEN?
what the fork is wrong with you people.
if you need so much war, watch a frikkin' john wayne movie.
please don't put the world through 4 more years of this nonsense.
if you think bush one's economy was bad after reagan's folly...............
well,
i guess fear makes people extra dumb.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 6:49pm
FrankGrits-Considering the vile and sexist things that many republican males have been saying about Sarah Palin you will be correct.They will tune in to see what many republicans,like two on here, call a MILF.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/04/2008 @ 6:55pm
FrankGrits-If Hillary had won you would be saying that Palin is member of the fascist party.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/04/2008 @ 6:57pm
FrankGrits-Considering the vile and sexist things that many republican males have been saying about Sarah Palin you will be correct.They will tune in to see what many republicans,like two on here, call a MILF. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/04/2008 @ 6:55pm
I wouldn't bother with Frank anymore. He is a moron.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/04/2008 @ 6:58pm
Ccc-I know.I just wanted to point out that many republican males are saying those types of nasty and sexist things and used frank to do it.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/04/2008 @ 7:00pm
Wow. Since Palin's speech last night Obama has raised 8 million dollars. 8 million dollars in one night.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/04/2008 @ 7:00pm
Looks like Palin has successfully galvanized support against herself too.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/04/2008 @ 7:00pm
Poor ol' Maverick...
what does it say if he comes in behind BIDEN for ratings (after Palin and Obama)?
FG gave it away...people will want to see more Sarah, not John.
Kinda feel sorry for the guy....kinda.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/04/2008 @ 7:03pm
http://tinyurl.com/6dz8yg
This is the Palin America is going to soon see. As much as Happy and Jom and LVL are ecstatic about this Palin, this scares the hell out of moderate Republicans and independents. Good job driving away 40% of the electorate.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/04/2008 @ 7:05pm
Hey, I wonder if Lynne Cheney's (with it's lesbian sex scenes) or Scooter Libby's (wherein a character suggests intercourse with a dead deer) books were among those that Sarah Palin wanted banned from the Wasilla library.
Was that what led SP to sack the librarian - who fires a librarian, anyway? - when the librarian refused?
Posted by skeletonman at 09/04/2008 @ 7:06pm
I think there will be a few million people tuning in tonight hoping to get another glimpse of Sarah Palin.
Posted by frankgrits at 09/04/2008 @ 6:52pm
What for?
I mean really, who wants to see a pitbull with lipstick?
Posted by skeletonman at 09/04/2008 @ 7:08pm
Actually, when I think of Sarah Palin, all I can see is the Tasmanian She Devil from the old Bugs Bunny cartoons.
Anyone else have that experience?
Posted by skeletonman at 09/04/2008 @ 7:11pm
I still don't understand why they put poor Sarah in after the two losers, 9/11 Rudy and I'm really a Christian Romney.
Posted by lachatte at 09/04/2008 @ 7:13pm
You'd have to ask the 37 million who watched her last night.
Posted by frankgrits at 09/04/2008 @ 7:14pm
Which is what, 3 million shy of those that watched Obama?
Isn't that almost 5x the population of the whole freakin' state from which She-Tas hails?
Posted by skeletonman at 09/04/2008 @ 7:16pm
I figured that Palin would get even more viewers because she is an unknown.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/04/2008 @ 7:17pm
Hey, you people want someone to shake up Washington and put an end to the pork and the lobbyists. Well you've got those candidates in McCain and Palin. barry and joe won't be able to. Hell, I don't even think that Biden wants to.
Posted by frankgrits at 09/04/2008 @ 7:16pm
What is it with you and ignoring facts?
Posted by skeletonman at 09/04/2008 @ 7:17pm
FrankGrits-Palin is the queen of pork.She loves it.Get informed instead of having a tantrum.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/04/2008 @ 7:18pm
No, I believe the figure was a little more than a million who tuned into the Obama extravaganza. Also, Barry was on ten stations and Sarah was only on six.
Posted by frankgrits at 09/04/2008 @ 7:22pm
Check your numbers. The accepted figure is 40 million for Obama.
Now I suppose that the fact that BHO can command 10 stations but poor little Sarah only 6 is part of the left wing media's campaign against your chica.
Posted by skeletonman at 09/04/2008 @ 7:24pm
FrankGrits-Why would someone watch the same show on more than one channel?It's difficult enough to watch a politician speak on one channel without having them come in on multiple screens,too.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/04/2008 @ 7:27pm
Realistically though, I'm not expecting to see McCain beat those numbers. John isn't known for his oratory skills. He's a doer not a talker. Now he's got a running mate who's a doer and an exciting orator. Also, McCain will have to compete with the NFL tonight. He will get a respectable audience but everyone knows McCain and that he's a maverick reformer.
Posted by frankgrits at 09/04/2008 @ 7:27
Atta boy, Frankie. Diminish expectations for old fossil face.
I wonder how many times he will mention that he was a POW?
Posted by skeletonman at 09/04/2008 @ 7:29pm
FrankGrits-You mean the "maverick reformer" who just pandered to evangelicals and who you said bad things about because of his time as a POW?It's funny that you refer to them as John and Sarah,like you know them.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/04/2008 @ 7:29pm
FrankGrits-According to you republicans are fascists who don't give specifics.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/04/2008 @ 7:33pm
Posted by frankgrits at 09/04/2008 @ 7:36pm
Sweet Jesus, Frank, you're getting to the point where you really are embarrassing yourself.
If Hillary were the Dem nominee, you'd be all over the guy for what a sack of shit he is to keep bringing the POW thing up.
Here's the thing about experience, Frank. Unless you learn from it - which translates into a deeper understanding of the world and therefore better judgment - 'experience' doesn't mean jack.
Posted by skeletonman at 09/04/2008 @ 7:40pm
You hit the nail right on the head and that's exactly why I'm voting for McCain. Obama has no experience that qualifys him for the Presidency. All he's learned is how to scam the system.
Posted by frankgrits at 09/04/2008 @ 7:51pm
You missed my point entirely.
McCain's service in uniform and out is noteworthy. The problem is that the guy lacks judgment. For shit's sake, the guy has never seen a war that he didn't want to start.
Mark my words, that guy gets in and we are in Iran in six months, a year at most.
Posted by skeletonman at 09/04/2008 @ 7:55pm
skeleton,
ask FRANK, if Palin is Veep and GOP nominee in 2012...
who'll be better qualified to be Prez...her or Hillary?
(head explosion would be imminent)
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/04/2008 @ 8:12pm
What is it with you and ignoring facts?
Posted by skeletonman at 09/04/2008 @ 7:17pm
that's why he's voting republican't.
more deficits.
more debt.
bigger government.
fewer jobs.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 8:12pm
Posted by frankgrits at 09/04/2008 @ 8:06pm
He is OVERPLAYING this POW thing.
Let's not forget that Vietnam, like Iraq, was an ill-advised war that was ended WITHOUT VICTORY since most Americans figured out that it was just WELFARE FOR THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY.
McCain's POW experience was insulting to every soldier who fought and died because this was an unnecessary war that squandered American lives.
The same recklessness that got him shot down there he wants to bring to the Commander-in Chief role as president.
Thanks, but NO THANKS!
Posted by Metteyya at 09/04/2008 @ 8:13pm
That is more than unfair. McCain has seen war and death. He understands the price of freedom. It's obvious that some of his detractors don't.
He sounds military because he comes from an impressive military that dates back to our Revolutionary War.
Posted by frankgrits at 09/04/2008 @ 8:06pm
Well, Frank, the truth hurts.
The guy makes jokes about using military force, for crying out loud - bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran comes to mind.
I see some shit in my line of work - emergency medicine - I can handle trauma when it rolls through the door, but that doesn't mean that I look forward to it.
I will give you one thing, though:
McCain did his damn duty, unlike the Current Occupant.
I respect the fact that he did, especially in a cause that was as poorly conceived as it was.
That does not mean that I want to give him the chance to do it again to some other poor slob's son or daughter.
We still haven't answered the question 'how do you ask a person to be the last one to die for a mistake?'
Posted by skeletonman at 09/04/2008 @ 8:14pm
skeleton,
ask FRANK, if Palin is Veep and GOP nominee in 2012...
who'll be better qualified to be Prez...her or Hillary?
(head explosion would be imminent)
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/04/2008 @ 8:12pm
Posted by skeletonman at 09/04/2008 @ 8:15pm
He is a moron.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/04/2008 @ 6:58pm
worse.
a capitulating coward.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 8:15pm
Posted by skeletonman at 09/04/2008 @ 8:15pm
Doubt he'll answer with my nick on it.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/04/2008 @ 8:23pm
I would never desparage someone's authentic military heroism.
Posted by frankgrits at 09/04/2008 @ 7:51pm
shall i pull up some old posts?
you are a lying coward.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 8:33pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1lCMH8rlHE
The Daily Show. Brilliantly point out the degree of hypocrisy evident in this Republican campaign. I love him. It's just almost too easy.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/04/2008 @ 8:34pm
a capitulating coward. Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 8:15pm
You were more elegant than me.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/04/2008 @ 8:35pm
I watched Palin's speech and it sure wasn't because I was enthralled with what I had read about her before that speech. Now I've gone from not enthralled to outright appalled. I doubt I am the only one of those 37.2 million to tune in to see if she could possibly be as annoying as she was on Glen Beck. Verdict: Sarcastic, obnoxious, rude, dismissive, arrogant and completely full of herself. On the other hand....nope,nada. She is a pit bull for lack of a nicer term.
I did laugh out loud watching the men in the crowd though. Ooh they do like their ladies violent. Heavens to Annie Coulter they were rapturous every time she went for the throat. That pit bull line! I know it's disgusting but I swear a couple of them were adjusting themselves right in the middle of their belly laughs.
Winger women tend to be thin, fashonable and well put together. Pity so many of them aren't so nice on the inside.
Posted by Pogge at 09/04/2008 @ 8:47pm
FrankGrits-Anyone can go online and pull up your posts putting down McCain and referring to McCain as a fascist.Peddle your fish on Rush's site.They won't know that you're lying.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/04/2008 @ 9:11pm
ignore the palin/cheney/mccain/bush corporate military pawn machine.
focus on issues. its very easy.
Posted by tskinner at 09/04/2008 @ 9:16pm
Winger women tend to be thin, fashonable and well put together. Pity so many of them aren't so nice on the inside.
Posted by Pogge at 09/04/2008 @ 8:47pm
at the HUFF'N'PUFF POST they say that madame mccain's banana outfit (with bling)
totals in at $300,000.
(a poster who deals jewellery (maasch?) says the earrings are way overvalued and would cost $60,000, tops. poor girl)
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 9:22pm
focus on issues. its very easy.
Posted by tskinner at 09/04/2008 @ 9:16pm
thank you for your repeated efforts at getting people to see the obvious.
unfortunately,
issues are either boring, taxing (heheh), confusing or passé to the majority.
if only it were that <i>simple</i>.....
"hey. did you hear that palin had sex with a muslim moose?"
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 9:24pm
>>>Without going back to McCain's POW days too much, you need to reminded of the his gutsy judgment to stay w/his fellow prisoners rather than accept an early release.
Posted by 2HAPPY at 09/04/2008 @ 9:28pm<<<
He stayed because he was ashamed to face his Admiral father who thought he was weak for cracking under pressure.
That's the truth, HAP, so face it.
Posted by Metteyya at 09/04/2008 @ 9:32pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 09/04/2008 @ 9:28pm
Karl Rove and George Bush raped John McCain in 2000-politically speaking-and did the same to Max Cleland and John Kerry. For Senator POW to throw in with that lot now.....I couldn't do it. I don't care how much I wanted to be president. I could never make nice with those vicious bastards after what they did. I don't have a spine wobbly enough to genuflect as required.
My only hope for McCain is that he picked Palin knowing that she will ultimately be the undoing of the GOP this election year and that he can say "Nanner, nanner you lose" to the party that hung him out to dry when he should have been the nominee.
That scenario only works if he loses, however. Otherwise he has just put an appalling person a heartbeat away from screwing us all.
Posted by Pogge at 09/04/2008 @ 9:38pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 09/04/2008 @ 9:28pm
What's interesting is ...TWO of the things HAPP mentioned as "signs of McCain's gutsy judgment"...
McCain FLIP-FLOPPED on to win people like HAPP over during the primaries....both now wanting to make the tax cuts permanent that he once said where "dangerous" and "went to the wealthy"...
and pushing "securing the border first" and downplaying a path to citizenship (aka "amnesty")....now saying he would vote against....HIS OWN BILL!
Plus, HAPP will want McCain to IGNORE those "gutsy judgements" and govern as the "non-Maverick", following a straight-line BUSH-like neo-conservatism.
So ultimately, HAPP is praising McCain....for things he hopes McCain will contradict as he is promising in his pander to his base!
And he calls US "desperate".....ROFL!!!!
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/04/2008 @ 9:41pm
Happy-Your magic negro nonsense goes well with your view that being of mixed race and heritage makes one a freak.I read your explanation for that and it was very poor.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/04/2008 @ 10:04pm
Miscellaneous comments,
Skeletonman said " Mark my words, that guy gets in and we are in Iran in six months, a year at most. "
The context of your posting implies you think this is bad.
Since Iran is the source of Islamofascism, which seeks to turn the world into an Islamic caliphate, and since Iran seeks to and will develop nuclear weapons if not stopped, why would that (stopping Iran) be bad?
Maskdelta posted in and said " skeleton, ask FRANK, if Palin is Veep and GOP nominee in 2012... who'll be better qualified to be Prez...her or Hillary? (head explosion would be imminent) "
I don't know what FRANKGRITS would say, but my answer to the question is Sarah Palin. She is not only better qualified, she is way better qualified.
Besides, Sarah Palin will be something Hillary Clinton will never be - President of the United States of America.
Pogge chimes in and says " Winger women tend to be thin, fashonable and well put together. Pity so many of them aren't so nice on the inside. "
A Vice President and President of the United States aren't paid to be nice. They are paid to get the job done. Vice President-elect Palin will get the job done as VP, and then someday as President herself.
Relax, libs. The election is over, but you haven't reconciled yourselves to it yet.
The only person who can't relax right now is Joe Biden. If he watched the President-elect's speech last night, he is probably trying to figure out ways to duck out of his debate with Sarah Palin! She will mop the floor with him in the debate. It will be fun to watch!
Posted by sjchermak at 09/04/2008 @ 10:13pm
There is nothing to prevent intelligent, educated women to oppose Gov. Palin and the GOP, without slamming her as "Sarcastic, obnoxious, rude, dismissive, arrogant and completely full of herself".
Posted by 2HAPPY at 09/04/2008 @ 9:39pm
but it's the truth.
she kills animals from helicopters.
what a piece of garbage!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 10:18pm
sjchermak-How much booze have you today?What president elect spoke last night?Will you be risking your life in all the wars you want to start or will you be hiding?
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/04/2008 @ 10:21pm
Since Iran is the source of Islamofascism, which seeks to turn the world into an Islamic caliphate, and since Iran seeks to and will develop nuclear weapons if not stopped, why would that (stopping Iran) be bad?
Posted by sjchermak at 09/04/2008 @ 10:13pm
o.k.
i've held off long enough.
you have no idea what you are talking about.
plus, you are advocating the deaths of MILLIONS.
scum.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 10:21pm
Maskdelta posted in and said " skeleton, ask FRANK, if Palin is Veep and GOP nominee in 2012... who'll be better qualified to be Prez...her or Hillary? (head explosion would be imminent) "
I don't know what FRANKGRITS would say, but my answer to the question is Sarah Palin. She is not only better qualified, she is way better qualified.
Besides, Sarah Palin will be something Hillary Clinton will never be - President of the United States of America.-----Posted by sjchermak at 09/04/2008 @ 10:13pm
Okay, gotta give some props to SJCHER...
he sticks with his views, even though it means calling out a fellow McCain "supporter" like FRANKGRITS. He's more honest than some of the Righties here!
BTW, his over-confidence, like MAASCH's, gives me great hope for November!
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/04/2008 @ 10:21pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 09/04/2008 @ 9:39pm
Give it a rest Happy. The GOPPERS ran all three branches for six years and accomplished zip. I don't care if McCain, Ginsberg, Souter and Stevens drop dead at McCain's inaugral and Roe v Wade is overturned the next day abortion will never be illegal in all fifty states so I guess poor women who can't afford to travel will be the ones most affected.
Palin is mean Hap and since we encourage our kids to do things like oh, community organizing, the Peace Corps, Americorps, the Red Cross, mission work-you know, all those jobs where you don't need to show up or actually work-it's unlikely MY daughter OR son would ever be sarcastic, obnoxious, rude, dismissive, arrogant and completely full of themselves while disparaging someone else's service.
Since we also raise them to lead people to God by example rather than making a public display of their piety it is even less likely that they would be patting themselves on the back as if Jesus owed them a free lunch and a raise.
If you like her, good for you. I think she's a joke and a jerk.
Posted by Pogge at 09/04/2008 @ 10:21pm
plus, you are advocating the deaths of MILLIONS.----Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 10:21pm
Geez, FROSTY, relax....they're just A-rabs!
It's not like those heathens weren't going to Hell anyway!?!?!?
Gosh!
(sarcasm/off)
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/04/2008 @ 10:23pm
Posted by sjchermak at 09/04/2008 @ 10:13pm
I could wile away the hours Conferrin' with the flowers Consultin' with the rain And my head I'd be scratchin' While my thoughts were busy hatchin' If I only had a brain
I'd unravel any riddle For any individ'le In trouble or in pain
(Dorothy) With the thoughts you'd be thinkin' You could be another Lincoln If you only had a brain
(Scarecrow) Oh, I would tell you why The ocean's near the shore I could think of things I never thunk before And then I'd sit and think some more
I would not be just a nuffin' My head all full of stuffin' My heart all full of pain I would dance and be merry Life would be a ding-a-derry If I only had a brain
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 10:25pm
Posted by sjchermak at 09/04/2008 @ 10:13pm
When a man's an empty kettle He should be on his mettle And yet I'm torn apart Just because I'm presumin' That I could be kind of human If I only had a heart
I'd be tender, I'd be gentle And awful sentimental Regarding love and art I'd be friends with the sparrows And the boy that shoots the arrows If I only had a heart
Picture me a balcony Above a voice sings low
(Snow White) Wherefore art thou, Romeo?
(Tin Man) I hear a beat, how sweet!
Just to register emotion, jealousy, devotion And really feel the part I could stay young and chipper And I'd lock it with a zipper If I only had a heart
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 10:26pm
Posted by sjchermak at 09/04/2008 @ 10:13pm
(Cowardly Lion) Yeah, it's sad, believe me Missy When you're born to be a sissy Without the vim and verve But I could show my prowess Be a lion, not a mowess If I only had the nerve
I'm afraid there's no denyin' I'm just a dandylion A fate I don't deserve I'd be brave as a blizzard
(Tin Man) I'd be gentle as a lizard
(Scarecrow) I'd be clever as a gizzard
(Dorothy) If the Wizard is a wizard who will serve
(Scarecrow) Then I'm sure to get a brain
(Tin Man) A heart
(Dorothy) A home
(Cowardly Lion) The nerve
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 10:26pm
"Since Iran is the source of Islamofascism, which seeks to turn the world into an Islamic caliphate, and since Iran seeks to and will develop nuclear weapons if not stopped, why would that (stopping Iran) be bad?"
You messed up again. What has been called Islamofascism is a Sunni movement, not a Shi'ite one. Although Iran has forged links with other Shi'ite movements (the Iraq government for one), it is hardly the same as aspiring to world conquest.
"Relax, libs. The election is over, but you haven't reconciled yourselves to it yet."
Right, and when is that movement in the polls going to start?
Posted by brunowe at 09/04/2008 @ 10:31pm
Hello Frosty Zoom,
You said ----- "o.k. i've held off long enough. you have no idea what you are talking about. plus, you are advocating the deaths of MILLIONS. "-----
Actually, Frosty Zoom, rather than talk about what is going on in Oz, read the following book instead:
The Final Move Beyond Iraq, by Mike Evans ISBN 978-1-59979-188-3
Then you will find out about Iran. Millions will probably die if we DON'T do something.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/04/2008 @ 10:38pm
I don't know about anyone else, but I am going to bed with a promise to myself that tomorrow I am going to take up the the old custom of shunning people who haven't enough sense to be ashamed of themselves.
I'm starting with Sarah Palin.
If I don't check in before my vacation starts, happy debating 2Happy to you all!
Posted by Pogge at 09/04/2008 @ 10:39pm
There is nothing to prevent intelligent, educated women to oppose Gov. Palin and the GOP, without slamming her as "Sarcastic, obnoxious, rude, dismissive, arrogant and completely full of herself". I'd wager if she is your daughter or niece, even if you're Liberal, you would be damned proud of her.
The only thing that Palin demonstrated is her good reading of McCain' script. Else, I think she tries hard enough but does not addresses the issues. Does anybody seriously think that she (with all her "will to change Washington") will be able to stop and refrain neo-con and imperialistic policies? Do you think she will stop McCain (YES Mc Abel sounds like Obama) in his defiance and bout with the Russians? Or his Cainest desires towards Iran?
Her will will mean nothing within the Republican establishment and interests. Take an example, she said that in Alaska she had put the oil companies in line. Even if this is true, do you think she will do it nationallY? Without absolutely belittleing her, I honestly think she will be McCain's personal secretary. I don't belittle her because I think she is a nice woman and full of good intentions...but, as in Dante's Inferno, the hell is full of good intentions, and obviously she can't make it in the boys' club in the White House (specially when McCain won't be on her side).
But don't worry, she will be in first line at Obama's inaugural ceremony.
Posted by Frank42 at 09/04/2008 @ 10:42pm
Then you will find out about Iran. Millions will probably die if we DON'T do something.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/04/2008 @ 10:38pm
o.k.
it doesn't say "please refrain from making personal attacks" anymore,
so,
here goes (sorry karma, it's for his own good):
YOU ARE AN IDIOT.
ah, cathartic.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 10:48pm
Frank42 says:
---- "But don't worry, she will be in first line at Obama's inaugural ceremony. "------
Yeah, I suppose she (Sarah Palin) will be.
Barack Obama will probably be running for re-election to the Senate in 2010, with his new term beginning in January 2011. (assuming he is re-elected).
And it is possible that the Vice President of the United States (Sarah Palin) will attend the ceremony swearing in the new and re-elected Senators.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/04/2008 @ 10:49pm
I'm watching the old senator give his acceptance speech. Yup, kiss Roe v. Wade bye, bye, and any industry job left. Hello more Republican billionaires. Want health care? Tough, no dice. You are on your own. Want a job, hey Wal Mart has a greeter job for you. School choice sure send them to Russia Er China. Schools are failing lets hire a few idiots off the street like we are doing with the police. T. Boone Pickens said we can't drill our way out of this problem and he is a great republican oil man. Let's incinerate the middle east. Hey I'm tougher than Putin. I'm good and the rest of the world is evil.
Posted by lachatte at 09/04/2008 @ 10:53pm
Hello Frosty Zoom,
You said:
------" YOU ARE AN IDIOT " ---------
However, that is irrelevant, even if it were true, and doesn't change the fact that Iran is the hotbed and source and instigator of Islamofascism and needs to be stopped.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/04/2008 @ 10:54pm
Hello lachatte,
You say (about President-elect McCain's speech, going on right now):
---------- " Yup, kiss Roe v. Wade bye, bye " -----
Bye bye, Roe v. Wade. And good riddance! We won't miss you!
Posted by sjchermak at 09/04/2008 @ 10:56pm
sjchermak-The last thing that the GOP wants is for Roe v Wade to go away which is why they have done nothing to end it when they had power.They need those anti abortion voters.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/04/2008 @ 11:00pm
The Final Move Beyond Iraq, by Mike Evans
Posted by sjchermak at 09/04/2008 @ 10:38pm
if j.j. knew he was writing such inflammatory claptrap,
he'd box his ears!
i suggest you look at your own government first.
after all, iran has invaded NO ONE.
your fear has turned your brain to mush.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 11:00pm
Bye bye, Roe v. Wade. And good riddance! We won't miss you!
Posted by sjchermak at 09/04/2008 @ 10:56pm
you truly don't get it, do you?
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 11:01pm
Posted by sjchermak at 09/04/2008 @ 10:56pm
pawn.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 11:01pm
I am going to take up the the old custom of shunning people who haven't enough sense to be ashamed of themselves.
If I don't check in before my vacation starts, happy debating 2Happy to you all!
Posted by Pogge at 09/04/2008 @ 10:39pm
by your definition, happy, too, should be shunned.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 11:10pm
As mediocre as Obama or Biden or even Big Mc, Palin can still show that GOP is better than Dems, deeds is beter than words.
----------
How Palin changed the race By JOHN F. HARRIS & JIM VANDEHEI | 9/4/08 4:13 PM EST Text Size:
ST. PAUL, Minn. -- Until Wednesday night, many political professionals were whispering that there was a good chance that in picking Sarah Palin as his running mate John McCain had lost the election.
And some of them thought that with his last-minute, seemingly impulsive selection of a little-known and little-experienced governor he had lost his mind.
Posted by HelenDAO at 09/04/2008 @ 11:17pm
Hello Frosty Zoom,
You said:
------- " after all, iran has invaded NO ONE. " ------
You need to read that book. Iran has their hand in a lot of the other trouble in the Middle East. Iran has involved themselves in the insurgency and terrorism in Iraq.
Iran has caused trouble in the past, is causing trouble now, and will kill millions if not stopped.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Iran president) quotes (with a couple of my comments on 2 of the items):
===============
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". (apologists who say this is what he really meant in the above quote, speaking in Farsi, translated to English - as an attempt to "prove" he never said the above quote. Since it is blatanly obvious the Farsi translation means the same thing, the point is moot).
On resettling the Jews from Israel to Canada or Alaska: "...you cannot tolerate the presence of Zionists in Europe but want to inflict them on the people of our region? You have so much land in your possession. This vast land of Canada and Alaska can be used to resettle the Jews. Save yourselves." (Canada is a beautiful country, but the homeland of the Jewish people is ISRAEL. If a Jew wants to live in Toronto, he or she will live in Toronto. If a Jew wants to live in Tel Aviv, he or she will live in Tel Aviv. The Iranian president has no business telling people where they can live)
"The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world."
"Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need."
===============
The president of Iran says he wants Israel to be destroyed. What part of that do you not understand? We are not supposed to stop this idiot?
Posted by sjchermak at 09/04/2008 @ 11:20pm
THEY PLAYED THE 9/11 TAPE?!?!?!?
can't be.
really?
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 11:24pm
sjchermak,
you have too poor an understanding to be worthy of debate.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 11:25pm
"Bye bye, Roe v. Wade. And good riddance! We won't miss you!"
Yes, Reps want to criminalize everything (including abortion) except their war crimes and economic crimes....
"Then you will find out about Iran. Millions will probably die if we DON'T do something."
Why don't you honor your said patriotism and stand first on line. We won't miss you!
Posted by Frank42 at 09/04/2008 @ 11:37pm
"I think McCain dispelled your fears of that tonight unless you weren't listening."
Hmmm...I think Senator Liebermann is posting in this blog...in Jesus' time his name was Judas.
"After McCain's really outstanding speech, in his very unique (and only he can get away with) maverick way"
He may talk whatever he wants. Another thing will be a McKiller administration, exactly -or worse- than Bush's because of his anger and his being surrounded by neos. At least this one does not call himself: "Compassionate".
Posted by Frank42 at 09/04/2008 @ 11:49pm
Ah please John don't tell the POW story again. Please, please, ah sh@# no no n........ What about Max Cleland. You have trouble with your arms, one of my buddies doesn't have any. You walk with a limp, the kids from Iraq don't have legs. The surge is working, but only in the fantasy press of the united states. none of the foreign press thinks it's such a wonderful moment for us in history.
Posted by lachatte at 09/04/2008 @ 11:52pm
Posted by sjchermak at 09/04/2008 @ 11:20pm
"The president of Iran says he wants Israel to be destroyed"
You'd do well to speak to someone that understands the Middle East and Persian.
For one, the President of Iran has different powers than the U.S. and is very secondary to the Supreme Leader.
For two, a basic Wikipedia search on "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel" and you get an explanation like this one:
"According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."
Notice that this understanding removes the idea of agency on the part of Iran and is more or less passive - which is actually consistent with how languages in the Middle East and South Asia work.
For three, Iran is Shia - which you will recall is the sect of the government supported by the U.S. government. As a reminder, al-Qaeda is Sunni. Shia and Sunni, generally, don't get along in Iraq and many other places.
In short, your post is so full of factual errors it is difficult for anyone to know where to start rebutting them. I would suggest that you spend more time critically thinking about your views and your commonly used sources of information - because they are leaving you seriously misinformed.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/04/2008 @ 11:56pm
Posted by frankgrits at 09/04/2008 @ 11:55pm
Got any comments for me, Frank? I served. My father - a lifelong Republican - served. Neither of us likes the idea of McCain as president. And just because McCain served and was a POW doesn't mean he gets a free pass.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/04/2008 @ 11:59pm
Any American who doesn't respect and honor John McCain for what he went through and recalled tonight would never be welcomed in my home.
Posted by frankgrits at 09/04/2008 @ 11:50pm
MICHAEL C. Well said. It was the college movement afterall who brought the Viet Nam war to an end with their protest movement. Peple like John Maasch will sell them short because they voice their opinions. Why should a 'politician' be treated with respect when he demonstrates a wanton disregard for his own values. Young people still have innocent values before they are corrupted by money. John McCain used to be a hero, a maverick and a Senator who took a stand. All of a sudden he's catering to the likes of Jerry Falwell who once accused Bill Clinton of murder to save his ministry. Republican benefactor Richard Mellon Schaif, payed Falwell to make the charge in his newsletter. Falwell's ministry was going under so he agreed. He took the money and to his credit later acknowledged that he was wrong to accuse Clinton. Of course it was an outrageous charge to begin with but loony Limbaugh picked it up an ran with it as did all the other wingnuts. These are the kind of people that John McCain is sucking up tp now. Next President? I predict he doesn't even get past the primaries.
Posted by frankgrits at 05/19/2006 @ 9:28pm
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
frank you are pathetic. guess you'll be living on the street.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2008 @ 12:03am
In short, your post is so full of factual errors it is difficult for anyone to know where to start rebutting them. I would suggest that you spend more time critically thinking about your views and your commonly used sources of information - because they are leaving you seriously misinformed.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/04/2008 @ 11:56pm
that was very nice.
i've become so frustrated with his nonsense i posted mean things.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2008 @ 12:05am
especially heroes like Mccain.
Posted by frankgrits at 09/04/2008 @ 11:55pm
vietnam was barbaric.
NO ONE who participated in such events could ever be considered a hero.
heroes help people. they don't blow there limbs off.
you have lost your mind.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2008 @ 12:10am
did they really play the 9/11 tape?
say it ain't so......
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2008 @ 12:17am
did they really play the 9/11 tape?
say it ain't so......
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2008 @ 12:17am
Here are my thoughts on McCain's speech. Read them or not I don't care. McCain like Kerry is not an attractive candidate. I don't mean just physically he is not a good speaker. He might be better off the cuff but he sounded too much like he was reading. Some of you will say that, that is because he IS reading. However that is what makes a great speech. Someone who can read a speech but sound like they are speaking with passion. Palin did it the night before. Obama did it at his convention. Hillary does it. Bill does it. McCain speaks a lot like G.W. His speeches become one note and uninteresting because he sounds like he is reading even when talking about his family. What he is saying is exactly what I expected him to say and he is saying it like he is reading it which makes for a rather one note speech. I want to hear McCain speak off the cuff because he didn't sound strong when he delivered.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/05/2008 @ 12:19am
frank,
enjoy your nonsense.
feel safe.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2008 @ 12:20am
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/05/2008 @ 12:19am
did they really play the 9/11 tape?
say it ain't so.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2008 @ 12:21am
"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God,"
"That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
sarah palin on the iraq war.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2008 @ 12:54am
There's something wrong with you. marines, soldiers, sailors, airmen and guardsmen who answer their country's help YOU. They help keep your sorry ass free so that you can come here and make a fool of yourself.
Posted by frankgrits at 09/05/2008 @ 12:44am
frank,
fuck off.
the vietnam war was an exercise in colonialism.
first the french,
then the americans.
same with iraq.
and afghanistan.
total b.s.
my great uncle was at vimy ridge.
my uncle at normandy.
if someone messes with me, i'll certainly fight back.
but neither the vietnamese nor the iraqis nor the afghani people have ever bothered me.
fuck you.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2008 @ 12:58am
That tape is something that people like you should be forced to watch every single day. It is a reminder that the world is a very small place indeed.
Posted by frankgrits at 09/05/2008 @ 12:46am
have you ever asked yourself why that happened?
i didn't think so.
nobody's attacking ghana or iceland, ¿are they?
jingoistic moron.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2008 @ 12:59am
frank,
you are ignored forever.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2008 @ 01:00am
and
unlike you,
i mean it.
you are blathering fool.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2008 @ 01:00am
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2008 @ 01:00am
You'll live longer.
And feel better.
Peace, and prosperity to you FZ.
Posted by Benchrest at 09/05/2008 @ 01:05am
McCain-MaLady '08
Posted by Sorelish at 09/05/2008 @ 01:10am
thanks, bench.
same to you, brother.
peace and prosperity to all.
FACTS - TRUTH '08
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2008 @ 01:29am
Frosty Zoom and Srjenkins:
You said:
==============
you have too poor an understanding to be worthy of debate. - Posted by frosty zoom
In short, your post is so full of factual errors it is difficult for anyone to know where to start rebutting them. I would suggest that you spend more time critically thinking about your views and your commonly used sources of information - because they are leaving you seriously misinformed. - Posted by srjenkins
===============
What I am hearing you say is that I don't believe what you believe, so therefore I don't understand - and I because I don't believe what you believe, my sources are wrong and I am misinformed. Your sources of information, whatever they are, are, of course, correct (according to you)
No real discussion from you about considerable Iranian involvement in the Middle East, including Iraq right now, involvement whose purpose is to cause trouble for us, trouble for Israel, and expand Iranian influence.
Nor is there discussion from you about Iranian involvement in Islamofascism in general and expanse of influence of Islam world-wide.
I know, I know, we are supposed to do nothing because there is no threat anyway, and if there are problems they have been caused by the United States of America and Israel, anyway. I know, I know, that is what people including me are supposed to think and believe, and if one does not, they are at best ignorant, according to you and others on the left.
Or, YOU could do things like seek out, read that book, and re-examine your beliefs. You could do that, rather than declaring my opinions invalid and ignorant and my information invalid.
You could do that.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/05/2008 @ 04:48am
Tell us that you NEVER EVER crack a joke in your line of emergency medicine work that you knew somebody really stuffy could take it out of context and construe it as downright mean or heartless?
Posted by 2HAPPY at 09/04/2008 @ 9:32pm
All day, every day.
There is no comparison between griping about the nitwit who comes in at 3am for a 2 week old rash and incinerating an entire nation.
If you cannot see that, then I cannot help you.
Posted by skeletonman at 09/05/2008 @ 06:00am
Posted by sjchermak at 09/05/2008 @ 04:48am
moo.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2008 @ 09:33am
If you cannot see that, then I cannot help you.
Posted by skeletonman at 09/05/2008 @ 06:00am
if he cannot see that, he cannot help himself.
remember doc, you do not cure the patient.
you help the patient cure himself.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2008 @ 09:35am
Actually, I provided three points of illustration as to why you are misinformed. The fact that you don't address the issues I raised and try to reduce these facts to "beliefs" illustrates another point - that your posts and dialogue with people here don't seem to be particularly interested in facts.
The fact that you use emotionally laden words from biased sources like Islamofascism also illustrates the level of misinformation that plays not only in your framing of your "facts" but how you present your arguments. Further, your logic is sloppy.
For one, if any nation has their neighbor occupied by a foreign power, they are going to start looking for ways to not suffer the same fate. If I were Iran, that would mean taking a look around and noticing things like - hey, people that have nuclear weapons don't seem to have problems with bring invaded. See North Korea and Pakistan (where Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda are right now) as examples.
I'd also see if I could find ways to help the occupying power, a power that was threatening my country, find encouragement to go home - so I could feel a little safer.
And since we are talking about "Islamofascism", let's take a moment to talk about "Christofascism", commonly referred to as the religious right in this country, who believe that U.S. military might, treasure and lives of it's citizens should be used to further their interests - which apparently include protecting Israel (not least of which by giving them nuclear weapons that further encourage countries like Iran develop them), reducing Islam's influence in the world because it threatens their "one true religion", because they wish to hasten the rapture, or some combination of these and other notions that would have made Jesus doubt this belief system going by the name of Christianity.
And you'll notice that unlike you, I actually present arguments and facts. You don't get to sit here and pretend you're are informed, that your set of beliefs have any basis in reality without doing the hard work of actually making the case - like I've done here.
And since you suggest reading books, which books? Let's see exactly where you are getting your information from. I'll even help you find reviews on those books - providing a more critical eye.
Up for the Pepsi challenge or is it going to be more posturing because facts and logic are too hard and it's just easier to pretend that everyone's beliefs are equally "valid"? They aren't. And if you want to believe in false things, why not join the Flat Earth Society or some other cause where you'll do less damage.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/05/2008 @ 09:51am
did they really play the 9/11 tape? say it ain't so. Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2008 @ 12:21am
Of course they did. When have the Republicans NOT capitalized on that tragedy.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/05/2008 @ 09:53am
what assholes.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2008 @ 10:04am
Posted by srjenkins at 09/05/2008 @ 09:51am
nicely written.
nonetheless, my 9:33 response says the same thing, only much more concisely.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2008 @ 10:13am
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2008 @ 10:13am
Thanks.
True, but then again, it's not much of a dialogue either. Not that sjchermak is into having a dialogue. He just seems to follow the common pattern of talking about "liberals" and not recognizing that people holds to beliefs for reasons.
LVL, to his credit, will tell you his reasons. He thinks a culture war with Islam is inevitable. He thinks Islam wants to take over the world and that Islamic law doesn't give equal status to people that adhere to other belief systems. And, there is some truth to these claims. He also has very legitimate moral concerns about abortion - but unfortunately, that conversation typically reduces to name calling and claims of infantcide and what not. He has other arguments that are also interesting.
What I'm trying to do with sjchermak is see if he will engage in any kind of dialogue. My first post made a really simple case - and he chose to avoid the points I made all together, make a rather round about hint at what his arguments might be, and then went for trying to lay the charge against him - i.e., he isn't well informed, against the person who made it (me).
All standard and not terribly surprising. It's about what the level of dialogue rates here day in, and day out. Still, I've had a bit of a break from it all, so I find things more curious than say, annoying. Perhaps you could do with that kind of break yourself.
On a side note, MaskDelta is a nice surprise. His commentary has improved a lot. I'm guessing it is because he is spending less time going to the archives and saying what he thinks - rather than arguing with people about what they think and looking for their inconsistencies.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/05/2008 @ 10:42am
Perhaps you could do with that kind of break yourself.
you're right.
good-bye.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2008 @ 10:59am
srjenkins,
I know it is tough. You and Frosty Zoom are trying to have a reasoned, educated dialogue with me.
I am not well informed and you are. Anybody can see that.
Like you say, I haven't mentioned any books, even though I suggest reading them.
But if you look earlier, I did mention a book, I will repeat it again - The Final Move Beyond Iraq, by Mike Evans ISBN 978-1-59979-188-3
I suppose I am not suppose to engage in sarcasm, but I am sorry I did not provide a book now.
I know your dialogue is based on fact, because you say so. But in reality it is just your theory and opinion also.
One of your themes seems to be, Islam is no more of a threat than some elements/efforts by Christianity.
Christians have not in modern times flown hijacked aircraft into 1 and 2 World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field east of Pittsburgh. Christians have not in modern times gone beserk, rioted and killed people because of cartoons of Jesus they don't like in a Danish newspaper.
You are engaging in what is known as moral equivalence - that Iran and the U.S. are no different and whose governements are equally legitimate. You construct that Iran is just being defensive about threats to it by Christian expansion and Jewish expansion, and needs nuclear weapons to defend itself from Israel. (this is my take, in my words, about what you have said).
That is a complete different view than I have - if you see the Iranian government and radical Islam as morally equivalent then we will argue all day and get nowhere.
You pointed out how weak my comment about Ahmadinejad wanting to wipe Israel off the map was, and you pointed out why. But I had addressed that also, in an earlier post.
I provided the "version" translated from Farsi. It means the same thing.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/05/2008 @ 1:23pm
srjenkins,
I ran into the word limit again. (Thanks a lot, Rese for causing that to have to be implemented).
If you think that Ahmadinejad just wants a different governemnt in Jerusalem, I think you have blinders on. He says the Holocaust didn't happen, he wants Jews to go live in Canada (implying they do not have a right to be in Israel) - I can not fathom what makes you think he does not want Israel wiped off of the map.
Much of what you say I don't do I did do earlier. Have you really read what I have said?
Posted by sjchermak at 09/05/2008 @ 1:27pm
he wants Jews to go live in Canada (implying they do not have a right to be in Israel)
so,
you plan on giving georgia and florida back to the seminole?
(sorry, srj.
loose ends.)
sjchermak: enjoy your life of fear.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2008 @ 2:27pm
He says the Holocaust didn't happen, he wants Jews to go live in Canada Posted by sjchermak at 09/05/2008 @ 1:27pm
I thought your side said that the Holocaust was an act of God.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/05/2008 @ 3:03pm
Posted by sjchermak at 09/05/2008 @ 1:27pm
It is possible to circumvent the character limit by using a popular browser and a security plug-in that gives you greater control over what scripts are allowed to run in your browser. I'll show it is possible with this post. Feel free to try to cut and paste this post into your comment box for proof of concept.
-------------------------------
The Final Move Beyond Iraq? Look, you don't need to be a genius to figure out that this book isn't a reliable source of information. Out of the many criticisms I can bring to bear:
1. It "interviews" people like Alan Dershowitz, Mortimer Zuckerman, former Israeli military and others without trying to find people that disagree with his thesis.
2. It includes section headings like "Carter Tries to Make Friends With a Viper". It screams agenda.
3. It quotes biblical verse out of context to advance his thesis.
4. Includes silly commentary like: "George W. Bush has the opportunity to do to Islamofascism what Reagan did to Communism, but he needs out prayerful support."
And if you think this is a good book that provides "facts" for your position, it simply illustrates how much work you have to do.
Now, let's move on to another comment of yours:
"Since it is blatanly obvious the Farsi translation means the same thing, the point is moot."
Actually, I stated that the different translation raises the question of agency - whether Israel will simply fade away or whether he thinks Iran will have a role in that fading away. So, it doesn't mean the same thing and the point is not moot.
Care to address the argument or would you like to ignore it yet again and try to bring something else into the mix or pretend you have addressed it?
I'll add in another point. Governments are not people. Governments do not have morality. People have morality. So, I do in fact claim that the U.S. government has equal moral footing with Iran - because neither of them have any moral footing.
And another point, talking about the President of Iran thinks is much like talking about what the Vice President of the United States thinks. For the most part, it doesn't matter because the V.P. - in most administrations at any rate - doesn't run the show.
On a personal note, I frankly couldn't care what Ahmadinejad thinks. I don't care what your so-called Islamofascists think. Just like I don't much care what the guy in my local sanitarium who thinks he's Napoleon thinks. I don't care because they don't have the capability to make their ideas actual. And those that do have some modicum of capability such as a bin Laden, I figure that living with crazy people that think killing others is a good idea - you yourself may fit in this category - is the price I pay for actual freedom. Freedom ultimately means tolerating people that would use their freedom in ways you would rather they didn't.
Anyway, I'll leave off here. I don't find this discussion particularly interesting. Rehashing basic ideas, over and over again, is a waste of my time.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/05/2008 @ 3:22pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/05/2008 @ 2:27pm
Hey Frosty. Hope you see this. I made the comment because I've always liked your commentary. It just seems to me that you might be a little worn out and need a break. The cursing and frustration are just signs, and I'd rather read the better, gentler Frosty.
Go make some music, play with your kid or do something with this missus Frosty. You'll be happier for it.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/05/2008 @ 3:25pm
Hello Cccomfo1,
You said:
--- " I thought your side said that the Holocaust was an act of God. " ----
I have no idea what you are talking about.
The Holocaust is when the Nazis tried to exterminate the Jewish race in Europe, in the late 1930's and first half of the 1940's.
That is all I have ever known it to be.
If "my side" says it is different, then I don't know what "my side" has said about it.
I am not sure who is on "my side", apparently. I always thought my side included people like George W. Bush, , Ronald Reagan, Tony Blair, Benjamin Netanyahu, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Cal Ripken Jr., Derek Jeter, Mike Ditka, Wayne Gretzky, Tony Dungy, Jim Vance, Doreen Gentzler, George Michael, Bob Ryan and now Sarah Palin.
I know Bush, Reagan, Blair, Netanyahu, Limbaugh, Hannity, Dungy and Palin believe as I said above and as I do.
I can not claim to know for sure but I would almost guarantee that Ripken Jr., Jeter, Ditka, Gretzky, Vance, Gentzler, Michael, and Ryan also believe the same. I would be surprised if any were otherwise.
P.S. Vance, Gentzler, Michael, and Ryan were the news, sports and weather anchors for NBC-4 in the District. (WRC television)
Posted by sjchermak at 09/05/2008 @ 3:58pm
Hello srjenkins,
Excellent post. You have proven all of your points.
My information is invalid. You say so.
OK, point made, point proven. (according to you)
On this site, this is what always happens.
A lib will demand sources, facts, information, etc. - but when a conservative supplies a reference or logic (and I have provided logic for my arguments, too) it is deemed no good basically because of who wrote it.
You say it screams agenda. Of course, books by leftists do not do that. You say the book is no good because it did not find people that disagreed with the thesis.
How many books do you suppose go and promote the opposite viewpoint, if the author is trying to make a case? I don't suppose too many.
I have read books by liberals, such as John F. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, by the way), Mr. Peanut - Jimmy Carter, Mario Cuomo, etc. They do not go and promote Conservatism.
Whatever I put before you is no good. I know ahead of time this is how it goes on The Nation.
We are arguing opinions back and forth. I think there is nothing wrong with that, except that with you and a few other libs you start engaging in a "requirements demand" (Maskdelta engages in this too) saying what I must provide to meet your requirements, and also proclaiming that your opinion or analysis or logic is full of all kinds of supportable facts.
Frosty Zoom sits by in exasperation, because it is obvious Frosty is a big time pacifist, but does not seem to realize that sometimes pacifism is not the way to go and lives get lost pursuing it.
What's irritating is that rather than just arguing points back and forth you and a few others seem to have a propensity to engage in obnoxious lectures telling people how they should speak, and patting yourself on the back.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/05/2008 @ 4:15pm
Posted by sjchermak at 09/05/2008 @ 3:58pm
Didn't you see that priest that LVL defended who said the Hitler was a hunter sent by God.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/05/2008 @ 4:17pm
Hello Cccomfo1,
No.
I have not seen every posting in every blog on here.
I don't know if it is because of the political conventions the past two weeks, but these threads (the creation of an original article by whoever, and then the blogs) are popping up so fast all of a sudden you can't possibly keep up with them. There are not enough hours in the day.
And besides, if some priest said that the priest is immediately kicked off of my team.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/05/2008 @ 4:40pm
Hello again CCComfo1,
What I said above about the priest is mild - believe me - compared to what Coach Mike Ditka would do to the priest.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/05/2008 @ 4:51pm
Posted by sjchermak at 09/05/2008 @ 4:40pm
No it wasn't in the last few weeks, it was a while ago.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/05/2008 @ 6:53pm
"Christians have not in modern times flown hijacked aircraft into 1 and 2 World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field east of Pittsburgh.Christians have not in modern times gone beserk, rioted and killed people because of cartoons of Jesus they don't like in a Danish newspaper."
Posted by sjchermak at 09/05/2008
Duh.
Xtians have aircraft carrier groups and nukular weapons.
They only go berserk and kill brown people, based on lies, distributed by our "lirool" MSM, so it's ok.
By the way, Denmark is 86% xtian and even has an official state church, so it is unlikely that another predominately xtian nation would be offended by it's satire. This is an example of a fact.
WTF makes you think having facts to back up your opinions, is too much to ask, in a debate?
You truly are lost. (And I am not necessarily referring to your political views. Merely your extremely low standards of evidence, upon which, you apparently base your beliefs).
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 09/05/2008 @ 7:19pm
Hi Eric (Malcontent),
I guess I don't have facts (according to you).
This is getting absurd. You have this idea that Christians are on a mission to do what you view is wrong in the world. Apparently efforts by the U.S. (which you obviously view as wrong), are instigated by Christians.
But we live in a country where separation of church and state is maintained, and has been enforced more so by you libs in recent years, so where are your FACTS that whatever actions the United States has taken are not secular American actions, but actions by Christians?
I was not aware that aircraft carriers operated by the U.S. Navy are Christian aircraft carriers. Is the U.S. Navy aware of this? You had better get busy and let them know, they do not have control of their own ships!
Who is the main driving force behind this Christian conspiricay. There are many elements of Christianity. Who is leading this? Is it the Pope? Is it Billy Graham? Where are your FACTS?
You are a wingnut who has cospiricay theories rattling around in your brain.
I talked about the Danish cartoons and Muslims going beserk. You declared that my argument is no good because Christians wouldn't be offended by christian Denmark satire.
But what about when a crucifix went into a jar of urine in a museum in 1989?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
We were told this was art. To be sure, some people were offended by it, but Christians didn't riot and kill people, like Muslims did in response to the Danish cartoons.
That actually happened, and that is a valid comparison and comment on the situation we face regarding radical Islam, but you will declare that I have no eveidence, etc.
Frosty Zoom was taling about Oz in one of the other threads, go there and ask the Wizard for a brain
Posted by sjchermak at 09/05/2008 @ 9:04pm
Posted by sjchermak at 09/05/2008 @ 4:15pm |
There is a difference between sound polemic and tripe. The Federalist Papers by Madison, et al, On Liberty by Mill, the Managerial Revolution by Burnham, Manufacturing Consent by Herman, many of Buckley's speeches, etc. are good examples of the former.
The problem is that most political commentary these days is designed to support the prejudices of the reader rather than lay out any new ideas, present facts, make any arguments for a position or seriously contend with alternative viewpoints. Everyone just shots from the hip - "Pacifism doesn't work" and the like.
I personally can't stand this kind of writing - left, right, center or outer space. If you aren't willing to use reason and just want to talk about your feelings (or worse ascribe feelings to others, "Why do liberals hate X so much?"), go hire a therapist.
I insist that we have a dialogue based on ideas rather than your feelings or beliefs. If you find that obnoxious, there is an easy way to solve that problem. I'm not interested in your feelings or your beliefs. If you can't be bothered to make an effort to write something worth reading, then I can safely ignore you and move on - which is exactly what I will do.
If you don't bring anything to the table, you won't have a seat at it.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/05/2008 @ 9:42pm
To everybody,
srjenkins say I will be ignored, and thus probably will not see this.
Some lofty concepts presented above. What srjenkins doesn't mention is that I have presented ideas and logic to support my points from time to time, and when this happens usually they are declared invalid.
For example, when I said pacifism doesn't work - we have concrete proof of that. Before World War II, in the 1930's, Winston Churchill warned the world of the German threat.
The world ignored it, or presented the same kind of stuff we see today regarding Iraq - the world said there was no threat, etc.
We know know that was a huge mistake. Millions died as a result. "Peace in our time" trumpeted by Neville Chamberlain did not work.
So there is substance to my remark. But when such logic is presented, usually someone like srjenkins will then say there was no logic, it was just tripe, hyperbole, or empty rhetoric and not logical cogent thought, or whatever.
It is just one continual circular loop-de-loop with people like srjenkins. They demand some kind of deep, intellectual argument but I see it as just some kind of mind game they are playing, because no matter what you say in rebuttal it won't meet their shifting standards for what your post is supposed to contain.
They, the srjenkins of the world, would have you believe their posts do contain logical reasoning. Even someone like Malcontent, above - who thinks Christians have control of the aircraft carriers of the U.S. Navy!
This is logical thought, reasoning, and argumentation?
srjenkins needs to get off the pompous pedestal and stop lecturing people on how they are supposed to behave in the public domain.
Just argue the points, and stop the B.S, srjenkins.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/05/2008 @ 11:41pm
Posted by sjchermak at 09/05/2008 @ 11:41pm
Hilarious. Perhaps you've heard of Gandhi? Or the Civil Rights movement in the U.S.?
Or perhaps you can envision an alternative reality where the German people non-violently resisted Hitler? What would Hitler be if there were even ten thousand Christians with the faith of Maximilian Kolbe?
And apparently, I have to respond to every absurd argument that might have been floated by someone else. Here's an idea, why don't you stick to what I'm saying if you want to talk with me rather than setting up absurd straw man arguments that a child can see through?
As for your so called arguments, I'd argue your "points", if you bothered to present any - like I just did with your weak attacks on pacifism.
So, again. Stop being an asshat. Try, to the best of your ability, to engage in reasonable dialogue, and if you are incapable of doing so don't whine when someone like me takes the time to explain to you how not to be rude in a public forum. In my case, you need not worry, it's not a courtesy I will extend to you again.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/06/2008 @ 12:24am
SJCHERMAK Falling back on the overused Munich analogy is generally a good sign of the intellectual bankruptcy of the argument. Hitler had an actual armaments buildup; Churchill didn't have to misrepresent the available information to establish that.
That is rather different from an Iraq that had nothing like the capacity to build WMD and an Iran where the evidence is ambiguous and where economic sanctions can bring about any desired change in Iranian policy.
As has been pointed out, Ahmadinejad doesn't have the capability of making war or peace decisions and his demagoguery is largely an attempt to offset his failing economic stewardship of the country.
SRJENKINS "Hilarious. Perhaps you've heard of Gandhi? Or the Civil Rights movement in the U.S.?
Or perhaps you can envision an alternative reality where the German people non-violently resisted Hitler? What would Hitler be if there were even ten thousand Christians with the faith of Maximilian Kolbe? "
In the same spot, with 10,000 more people in Auschwitz. Gandhi and MLK were facing governments that, despite acts of brutality, still had enough of a collective conscience to have limits on what they did.
Posted by brunowe at 09/06/2008 @ 04:52am
Posted by brunowe at 09/06/2008 @ 04:52am
"In the same spot, with 10,000 more people in Auschwitz."
Unlikely. The principle of network effects would come into play. It's one thing to be hiding people alone in a friary. It's quite another to be part of a group of people doing it. Imagine the French Resistance without the violence or the Underground Railroad.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/06/2008 @ 10:39am
Brunowe,
1. Iraq had WMD and had used it and because of Saddam's jerking the world around we had no way of knowing where things really stood with the WMD. And he was going to rebuild WMD again. And you don't need an Army, Navy or Air Force to disburse WMD, and only a little bit of it can do great harm.
2. You say sanctions can bring about desired change in Iranian behavior. That is wishful thinking on your part. You shouldn't be willing to gamble on the possible cooperation of Iranians.
3. Even if Ahmadinejad is or was just a demagogue it doesn't mean that the rest of the Iranian government is any more reliable.
You say the "Munich" analogy is overused. What you need to do is look at what the world and history may have been saying HAD we gone in and stopped Germany in perhaps, 1937.
I think it is possible people would have said it was an unnecessary war, that there was no real "proof" of the upcoming Nazi atrocities, that they were just made up to give Churchill and Roosevelt and excuse to go to war, etc. Since 1937 was, I think, before the Nazis began the full implementation of the death camps, the degree to which the world would have know what was coming would have been dependent on the amount of hard documentation/evidence the Nazis had as to their plans.
And if that had been lacking, or destroyed by the Nazis once they realized they were going to be stopped, then people would have been screaming the war was necessary, same as with Iraq today.
I don't think the "Munich analogy" is overused, I think some people don't pay attention to it enough.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/06/2008 @ 11:13am
"1. Iraq had WMD and had used it and because of Saddam's jerking the world around we had no way of knowing where things really stood with the WMD."
Wrong again. In 2003, he had nothing of the kind. No bacteriological weapons, no nuclear weapons, virtually no chemical weapons. Further, we were finding exactly how things stood because Hussein had been forced to readmit Blix & Co. and they were running down every lead we gave them, and coming up empty.
"2. You say sanctions can bring about desired change in Iranian behavior. That is wishful thinking on your part. You shouldn't be willing to gamble on the possible cooperation of Iranians."
It isn't just wishful thinking. The Iranian economy isn't in good shape, they have to import gasoline products, they need foreign investment for their oil industry, inflation is 25%, Ahmadinejad might not even get reelected next year.
Further, a military attack is also a gamble. The nuclear facilities are dispersed and well-protected. Admiral Mullen, the JCS Chair said that ""extremely stressful, very challenging, with consequences that would be difficult to predict". http://tinyurl.com/4yq7m6
"3. Even if Ahmadinejad is or was just a demagogue it doesn't mean that the rest of the Iranian government is any more reliable."
And which other members have echoed his rhetoric?
"I think it is possible people would have said it was an unnecessary war, that there was no real "proof" of the upcoming Nazi atrocities,"
There was real proof of Nazi re-armament, largely because Nazi re-armament was a reality. Likewise, the Nuremberg laws were a matter of public record. That is the difference between there being actual proof of something and someone hiding under his covers babbling about monsters in the closet.
Posted by brunowe at 09/06/2008 @ 1:46pm
"The principle of network effects would come into play. It's one thing to be hiding people alone in a friary. It's quite another to be part of a group of people doing it. Imagine the French Resistance without the violence or the Underground Railroad.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/06/2008 @ 10:39am | ignore this person | warn this person "
Neither of which were sufficient to end the systems of oppression that they were opposing. The end of slavery was an effect of the military suppression of the Confederacy and the German occupation of France was ended by the Allied military invasions.
Posted by brunowe at 09/06/2008 @ 1:47pm
Brunowe,
You say he had no WMD, and we were finding none during Hans Blixs' inspections.
But we had no confidence this was really the case. All Saddam did was let inspectors in, and let them go where they wanted.
That is not what Saddam was required to do. Saddam was required to totally explain the status of his programs - if he indeed had no WMD he was required to demonstrate what happened to WMD he was known to have in the past.
He was required to do more than just passively sit by and let the world conclude he was no longer a threat. He was required to demonstrate that himself. Otherwise, where is the confidence level that the real situation has been fully described.
Saddam had no intention of doing that. And in retrospect, it would have been a big mistake to conclude Saddam was no longer a threat, and focus on problems elsewhere because we know now Saddam was going to start his WMD programs again.
On Iran, you mention the Iranian economy. Lousy conditions do not have an impact on some people in that part of the world - they do not care if life is lousy or even if they die, in fact, death and martyrdom are seen as good things to them. You assume too much to assume Iranian leadership will put the condition of their people first - after all Saddam did not - he personally did quite well while letting his people suffer with the sanctions on Iraq.
As far as the Nazis, you are looking at what happened with the knowledge of what ultimately happened, the Holocaust. It then puts all what happened before in perspective. We know now what the warning signals meant. What I was saying is for you to look at it like someone in the 1930's would have looked at it, without the knowledge of the effects of doing nothing about the gathering threat.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/06/2008 @ 3:02pm
Posted by brunowe at 09/06/2008 @ 1:47pm
Neither of which had 10,000 people with the strength of their convictions that approached Kolbe. Gandhi, King and other provide examples where a few dedicated individuals can move millions. The fact that my two examples - which were to illustrate network effects - didn't have strong leadership on that level actually supports my point.
Also, it looks like you are still talking with sjchermak, a book recommendation for him: The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization by Hodgson. Possibly the only series of books that gives a holistic treatment of Islam.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/06/2008 @ 5:21pm
"That is not what Saddam was required to do. Saddam was required to totally explain the status of his programs - if he indeed had no WMD he was required to demonstrate what happened to WMD he was known to have in the past."
Except that's not what you neo-cons gave as the rationale for the war. You said he was a "grave and gathering threat." You insisted that he did have WMDs and that you knew where they were.
"And in retrospect, it would have been a big mistake to conclude Saddam was no longer a threat, and focus on problems elsewhere because we know now Saddam was going to start his WMD programs again."
In retrospect, he had neither WMDs nor a foreseeable acquisition of WMDs nor did he have an army worthy of the name.
As long as Hussein failed to fully account for the WMD programs, the sanctions would remain in place.
". Lousy conditions do not have an impact on some people in that part of the world - they do not care if life is lousy or even if they die, in fact, death and martyrdom are seen as good things to them."
Ah, so you are a racist to boot. Arabs/Persians don't value life like other people do, what bigoted nonsense! The point is that when there was a cutback in the petrol ration, there were near riots. It would appear that bad economic conditions do matter to them. Further, the government clearly cares enough about popular opinion to demagogue it.
"What I was saying is for you to look at it like someone in the 1930's would have looked at it, without the knowledge of the effects of doing nothing about the gathering threat."
Except that in the 1930s there was knowledge of the gathering threat. Both the Nuremberg laws and rearmament were matters of public record. In short, there was actual proof.
Posted by brunowe at 09/06/2008 @ 8:07pm
"The fact that my two examples - which were to illustrate network effects - didn't have strong leadership on that level actually supports my point."
Except that you can't point to any examples of these methods being applied successfully in a Nazi-like regime.
Posted by brunowe at 09/06/2008 @ 8:08pm
Brunowe,
You said "Ah, so you are a racist to boot."
Brunowe, knock it off.
The circumstance of the death wish or martyrdom desire of some has been documented in the public domain more times than I can even begin to account for.
Everybody knows how Palestinian homicide bombers think they will get the 72 virgins as reward for killing Israelis.
It gets ridiculous when some of you on the left are at the ready, and immediately throw the penalty flags for racism or Islamophobia the minute anybody dare mention some of these aspects or talks about Islamofacism in general.
Even news agencies have complied with the leftist "requirements" in this area, such as when Reuters would not use the word "terrorist" when talking about terrorists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters
You on the left have a bad habit of assuming too much, drawing the wrong conclusions about people, and acting as though you are police officers charged with maintaining / refereeing people's behavior and speech.
These terrorists who do not value life and have a martyrdom complex want to kill us. It is not racist to mention this.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/07/2008 @ 06:36am
"These terrorists who do not value life and have a martyrdom complex want to kill us. It is not racist to mention this.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/07/2008 @ 06:36am | ignore this person | warn this person "
Except you weren't talking about terrorists, you were talking about the Iranian people.
"Lousy conditions do not have an impact on some people in that part of the world - they do not care if life is lousy or even if they die, in fact, death and martyrdom are seen as good things to them."
You were using this as an argument about the Iranian people being agitated by bad economic conditions. You essentially said that it wouldn't matter because they don't value life--all 70 million of them?
Posted by brunowe at 09/07/2008 @ 09:41am
Posted by brunowe at 09/06/2008 @ 8:08pm
Basically, it seems like your assertion is that pacifism doesn't work against state-sponsored genocide. The problem there, of course, is that the historical record makes it difficult to determine which regimes were "Nazi-like", much less which methods were effective against them.
Further, it is unique in human history not only for genocide to be done on the scale of Nazi Germany but that there was a group that could bring sufficient force to bear to stop it.
One could also argue that armed resistance, in most instances of genocide, is frequently the cause of genocide (Rwanda for example) and when it is not the cause makes the genocide worse.
In other words, your whole argument is based on Nazi Germany - a unique instance - and doesn't help you in the larger argument you are making.
Even in the Nazi Germany example, one could argue, and some do, that Nazi Germany was a direct consequence of the U.S.'s "helpful" intervention in World War I. Without which, all parties involved would have had to seek out a reasonable peace.
I don't think you have particularly strong ground here. Prima facie, it makes sense to oppose violence with violence. But, I think when you start getting into specific circumstances, the pacifist argument that violent resistance brings more violence and doesn't end it, actually has more truth to it.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/07/2008 @ 11:09am
"In other words, your whole argument is based on Nazi Germany - a unique instance - and doesn't help you in the larger argument you are making."
By Nazi-like, I meant dictatorial. I could very easily have applied the example of China and Tiananmen Square or the failure of the recent protests in Burma.
"One could also argue that armed resistance, in most instances of genocide, is frequently the cause of genocide (Rwanda for example) and when it is not the cause makes the genocide worse."
Rubbish, how exactly did armed resistance make Rwanda worse? It was the armed overthrow of the Interahamwe that ended the genocide.
"Without which, all parties involved would have had to seek out a reasonable peace."
That simply isn't the case. Certainly Germany didn't impose a reasonable peace on Russia at Brest-Litovsk. Had the German spring offensives not knocked the Allies out of the war, they simply would've stayed in it until Germany was starved into submission.
Posted by brunowe at 09/07/2008 @ 11:29am
Posted by brunowe at 09/07/2008 @ 11:29am
Are you making the argument that all dictatorships need to be resisted violently, even one that were viewed as beneficial - such as the caretaker government in Bangladesh, which is a dictatorship? You seem to be making larger claims here that make your position weaker.
Interesting that you mention Tiananmen Square, particularly when most people in the West connect that event with the non-violent acts of "Tank Man" and that the protests themselves were started under the aegis of demanding government reforms. Care to outline your ideas about or criteria for moving from this kind of petitioning of government to armed rebellion? I'd be particularly interested in how that applies within the U.S.
Apparently, you also wish to argue that the invasion of rebel Tutsis from Uganda, didn't lead to the formation of the Hutu militias and the genocide they conducted. Care to elaborate?
And your last argument on World War I is simply false. To assume that the Allies could just wait it out is wrong, and the spring offensive was designed because of American involvement.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/07/2008 @ 3:56pm
"And your last argument on World War I is simply false. To assume that the Allies could just wait it out is wrong, and the spring offensive was designed because of American involvement.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/07/2008 @ 3:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person "
Except that Germany had perfected the Hutier tactics and had all those divisions coming from the Eastern front. The lack of American intervention may have affected the timing but the idea that the Germans would've stood pat at a time when they were rationing food doesn't hold up, especially given strain on her allies. At most, they might have waited until divisions from the east had finished redeploying.
"Interesting that you mention Tiananmen Square, particularly when most people in the West connect that event with the non-violent acts of "Tank Man" and that the protests themselves were started under the aegis of demanding government reforms. Care to outline your ideas about or criteria for moving from this kind of petitioning of government to armed rebellion?"
I don't have to. My point is that those non-violent acts were of limited utility against a government that is prepared have its military use deadly force. MLK didn't have to face that and Ghandi only had to deal with one incident at Amritsar.
"Apparently, you also wish to argue that the invasion of rebel Tutsis from Uganda, didn't lead to the formation of the Hutu militias and the genocide they conducted. Care to elaborate?"
No, I point out first, that no one pointed a gun at the Interahamwe and made them adopt a policy of genocide. Second, it took their military overthrow to stop it.
Posted by brunowe at 09/07/2008 @ 4:40pm