Why are you threatened by this? Guess free speech isn't for everyone.

Wait, did you say juvenile prisons? Glad those are gone.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4339511.stm

Don't miss it. Salem Broadcasting confirms that J. Hinderaker, Esq. will be on location live to hurl spittle-laced obscenities at the peaceful demonstrators. Reports of Sen. Bachmann's "prayer circle around the terrorist-fellating faggots" counterdemonstration are unconfirmed.

Mike - I wasn't aware that the NARN could shut down any demonstrations. Or don't WE have the right to speak?

Dickie - you're comparing what to what?

Tim M - as usual, the only obscenities will be going left to right. That is ALWAYS the way of these demonstrations. And your Bachmann crack is the sort of cowardly tripe I'd hoped for better than.

Have you elbowed Molly off the facile stereotype beat, Mitch?

Your post is short on specifics but chock-a-block with your usual pedestrian satire of the nefarious other, "the local moonbat left."

What's happening? Who's organizing it? Is there a link?

By the way, Mike - I notice that "Dickie" has the same IP address that your comment came from.

Mr. Blofeld.

I've got the links here;

http://pinkmonkeybird.blogspot.com/2005/03/us-troops-out-now.html

"ernst" - what stereotypes? They're protesting against the war in Iraq. No war, no freedom.

You want specifics, sponsorships, etc? That's their job, not mine. Why would I publicize them? I'll publicize ProtestWarrior - count on it - but I won't assist the demonstrators.

You think I'm being inflammatory against the "nefarious other"? I guess I am. They are demonstrating in the service of what I regard as - I'll euphemize - deeply wrong.

I love the way the left is still whining about Hinderaker's unfortunate outburst.

In the meantime, a typical day on Eschaton or Kos or Willis is, always, vastly ruder and more scatological than that - and it's every day.

This thread shows what a bunch of equivocal moral cowards the left have always been on this issue - and I'm afraid what thugs they're going to be as they become more isolated, more desperate, and more distanced from the mainstream.

I expect violence Saturday.

I guess equating critics of the war as being proponents of genocide is more of a cliche than a stereotype, but it's still just as facile and tiresome.

I'm interested in specifics only to know more about what's enraged you. Better identifying what motivated you to write is good blogging style, not sponsorship.

Glad to hear you're curtailing your usage of "moonbat." Your writing can be sometimes exceptional, but your roster of epithets (gerbils, hamsters, giggly fratboys) do you no favors.

I like the term "moonbat" it has a nice ring to it, plus the imagery is unavoidable.

I don't like conservatives organizing to protest a protest, we are better served by laughing at their individual waste of time and resources. Honestly, they are protesting something that already happened, HA, how pointless can life be? I'd rather take it easy on the weekend than exercising a right to be mad, people who talk about what makes them angry all the time tend to be angry.

Give me a break, give me a beer while I take that break, and fill my sandwich with bacon. That's what weekends are for.

I dunno, I'm on the PW mailing list and haven't heard about this

This local event is sponsored locally by: the Iraq Peace Action
Coalition, the Anti-War Committee, Twin Cities Peace Campaign, Women Against Military Madness, Veterans for Peace as members of the far left "Moonbats Obsessives.org" minorities among other anti-republic groups. Forunately it will snow Friday so the yellow bikes and and vovlos wont make it to the "speakers corner" at Loring park

Josh, I'm curious about this comment because I see it a lot, "In the meantime, a typical day on Eschaton or Kos or Willis is, always, vastly ruder and more scatological than that - and it's every day." Today (Wednesday, March 16) Atrios called David Horowitz a wanker, Kos said "F--k you" once, and Oliver Willis called Hugh Hewitt a cheerleader. And that was the extent of the swearing & name calling. Three blogs for an entire day and Mitch outdid them in one post. Who needs to grow up?

I look forward to asking the protesters why so many of them are ready to march against the toppling of an evil, murderous Iraqi dictator -- but unwilling to come out in support the democratic movement in the Middle East.

I also look forward to laughing at their chants.

smartie,

"Three blogs for an entire day and Mitch outdid them in one post. Who needs to grow up?"

It's not about Mitch. It's about Hinderaker.

Powerline goes three years without so much as a "crap". Then, Hinderaker responds to a moronic question in the middle of a Kosalanche, with Kos' moron readers calling him at work and calling his house, with an outburst.

The big leftyblogs have a constant ambient level of vulgarity; what you cite is EVERY FECKING DAY on Atrios, Willis, Kos, etc. THe likes of Powerline, Ed, Mitch, Instapundit and so on are polite almost to a fault - but on the rare cases they're not, the left swoons like victorians with the vapors.

Again. Grow up.

I heard from the VRWC, and the code phrase is
"The puffin flies at dawn"

check your 030105 decoder sheet!

Also:
"blitz donuts arouse"

All praise Halliburton!

Quite right Josh, among righty blogs, profanity and incivility are the exception. Among lefty blogs, it’s pretty much the norm.

Bill,

Message received and decoded.

Mmmmmmm... donuts.

Perhaps it's primarily a matter of frame of reference? You naturally feel that someone taking an opposing view point is more hostile than someone you perceive as agreeing with you. We could sit here all day pointing out examples of how your side or my side or the other side or whatever is less civil. That's not very constructive. I keep hearing that conservatives want to have an honest debate but the liberals won't engage them. Well, here I am. Let's debate. You want to know why I might not like the war in Iraq? Why don't you ask that instead of calling me a rape supporting genocide lover or a "moron" or profane or uncivil or whatever the insult du jour is.

I know why you might not like the war in Iraq.

Remember the South Carolina State Flag controversy? ANY display of, say, the Stars and Bars, or overt show of sympathy with or admiration for the Confederacy, gets one instantly labelled a pro-slavery racist. Symbols have meanings!

So, too, the symbol of the beginning of the liberation of Iraq. Without the war, Iraq would still be under the power of those who ran the murder machine, the men who grabbed women off the street, raped them, and disappeared them; the people who gassed villages, who flooded the marshes and machine-gunned towns, who fed people into plastic shredders; men who would still be in power but for the war.

How can you protest against the war and ignore the war's results - free elections, a people learning to stand on its democratic feet? Without the war, Saddam, Uday and Qusay would still be at play among their victims. One can NOT disconnect the war and Iraqi freedom.

No war? Tyranny, eternal.

Protest against the war? Protest against liberty.

You don't have to like it, but it's true.

"Protest against the war? Protest against liberty."

Being told not to protest something you think is unjust simply because small minded people think that to protest is to be unpatriotic? Lose all the true liberties and freedoms that makes democracy superior.

ps - glad that women raping is over...

http://www.acttogether.org/occupation.htm#what

Isn't it a little unfair to assume you know my argument before I make it? I could make the claim that the Republican Party supported Serbian ethnic cleansing in the 90's because they were vociferously opposed to intervention in Yugoslavia. I won't claim that because I don't know what they were thinking. I would ask the same courtesy from you and your readers. I can’t believe I have to say this, but: it's possible to have a principled and consistent stand against the war and not like dictators. We all want what's best for this country even if we disagree about how to obtain that.

Rew: "Being told not to protest something you think is unjust simply because small minded people think that to protest is to be unpatriotic? Lose all the true liberties and freedoms that makes democracy superior."

Strawman. Nobody's telling you not to protest anything you want to. Hell, I'm URGING everyone to get out on the street and protest; if I agree with you, fine; if not, it's good material for me.

And please show me where I called it unpatriotic. That's easy - I haven't. I'm not saying what is or is not patriotic; like faith in God, it's between you and your nation.

I'm merely showing the logical consequence of this particular protest.

Smartie:

"Isn't it a little unfair to assume you know my argument before I make it?"

Possibly, but is it fair to say your argument is not completely unique? Because I HAVE heard all the anti-war arguments.

" I could make the claim that the Republican Party supported Serbian ethnic cleansing in the 90's because they were vociferously opposed to intervention in Yugoslavia."

Untrue. We favored EUROPEAN intervention. It's an area where THEIR interests, not ours, were directly impinged. And after 35 years of building their militaries for them, it was hardly an unfair suggestion, that they police their own backyard.

" I won't claim that because I don't know what they were thinking. I would ask the same courtesy from you and your readers. I can’t believe I have to say this, but: it's possible to have a principled and consistent stand against the war and not like dictators. We all want what's best for this country even if we disagree about how to obtain that."

I'm not saying that anyone "likes" dictators - merely that your stances and actions, if enacted, are of direct benefit to them.

If someone had gone out in 1947 and protested against World War II, saying the world would have been better off had it never happened, and a Jew begged to differ, the Jew would have had a point. While the world WOULD have been more "peaceful", for all too many people it would have been the peace of the morgue.

Just as Iraq was before the war.

Mitch, thank you for your response. I believe, however, that you have made my argument for me. Republicans opposed American intervention in Yugoslavia because our direct interests were not at stake. But had we not intervened the killing would have gone on. So, and correct me if I'm wrong here, you are saying that directly opposing dictators is only really possible when we have direct interests at stake. Fair enough. We can't police the entire world, nor should we try. But, that is the same argument I had regarding Iraq. Is it a good thing that Saddam is gone? Yes. Is it a good thing that the Iraqi people have more freedom? Absolutely. But why Iraq? And why now? Iraq posed no dire or direct threat to this country. Saddam did not collude with Al-Qaeda. Iraq didn't have WMDs. If the sole reason we went to Iraq was to topple a dictator and stop him from harming his own people than how can we not agree to immediately do the same in Sudan? Or North Korea? Or China, for that matter? My argument, in the broadest possible strokes, would be that while good has undoubtedly come of this war it has made this country less safe and it seems likely that greater good could have been achieved by the application of this force in other ways or at other times. It's not that war is wrong or that dictators do not deserve to be overthrown, but that this was the wrong war at the wrong time.

"Republicans opposed American intervention in Yugoslavia because our direct interests were not at stake. But had we not intervened the killing would have gone on."

Not analogous. The Republicans DID favor intervention - they just felt that it was the Europeans' business. We were right, by the way; there is no foreseeable end to the war there, and since the mess was European in making, it's to them the solution belonged.

The CIA didn't have the faintest indication of Serbian threats to the larger west.

" So, and correct me if I'm wrong here, you are saying that directly opposing dictators is only really possible when we have direct interests at stake. Fair enough."

Well, to be fair, defending our own territory from attack is an interest, yes.

"But why Iraq?"

Take one look at what's beginning to take root in the Middle East: Libya, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq and to some extent Saudi Arabia and Iran, and you know exactly why this administration chose Iraq. Plant a democracy smack dab in their midst and let 8 million purple fingers show the entire region that there is something more than despotic regimes to lord over them.

"And why now?"

9/11, duh. And don't come yelling to me that "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!" because that's wrong. The entire cancerous death culture and anti-West culture that permeated the entire Middle East, ultimately building up to 9/11, was to blame for 9/11, and you'd be hard-pressed to name a ME country that didn't feed that disease. In a outstanding gamble taken by the Bush administration, we went into Iraq intent on changing the stagnation of the region and, lo and behold, that may be exactly what we're starting to see. The beginnings of change we're seeing in the region are unprecented in history. And you're all set to basically protest all that. Go ahead. I guess that's your right, and I support that right. But it doesn't make you any less wrong.

Wrong war at the wrong time? Jeez, man, using your criteria, what WOULD be the right war at the right time? Oh, right, NO war at NO time.

You know it's funny. I used to be a Democrat, not less than a couple of years ago, because I truly thought they were the party of change. Four years into a Bush presidency, it's been the Republicans who have ushered in more change and proposed change than I've seen from Democrats in ages. From foreign policy to social security, it's been the Republicans that have been intent on change, while the Democrats seemingly continue to promote a status quo on virtually EVERYTHING. For crying out loud, the Dems nominated a presidential candidate who couldn't get his head out of freakin' Vietnam. And now they've gone and elected Howard Dean as DNC chair, a man who stated he hates Republicans and everything they stand for. For God's sake, man, take a look at the Democratic party and tell me they're NOT in self-destruct mode.

I mean, I'm practically a Republican now, and THAT'S saying something.

But here I am, rambling on, when I have so much work to do.

"there is no foreseeable end to the war there" There is no “foreseeable end” to the Iraqi insurgency, either. I’m not sure what that has to do with anything. What would be the right war, you ask? How about Afghanistan? I supported that war and continue to. Part of my problem with Iraq is the way that it has shifted focus away from Afghanistan, allowing it to slide back towards becoming either a rouge state or a Colombia style narco-state. Why didn't we finish what we started there before moving on? They were much more directly responsible for 9/11 than Iraq. And it's not going to look good to the rest of the world if Afghanistan is allowed to slip back into Taliban/Al-Qaeda hands. North Korea is a much more direct and immediate threat to the US in that they actually posses nukes and are making more and NK also murders its own citizens. Iran is very openly building nuclear capabilities and is a part of this “culture of death”. So I ask again, why Iraq? Why the one country which had weapons inspectors in place to make sure they did not develop precisely these weapons?

Alright, I'm done with this for the day. I enjoyed our little chat and I hope you did too. I didn't really expect to convince anybody, I just wanted to let you know that we're not all raving lunatics here on the Left. Some of us truly are thoughtful and principled people. Now, I'm off to have some green beer. Good bye, Mitch and everyone else, have a great St. Patrick's day!

"I can’t believe I have to say this, but: it's possible to have a principled and consistent stand against the war and not like dictators."

"I just wanted to let you know that we're not all raving lunatics here on the Left. Some of us truly are thoughtful and principled people."
______________________________

Thus is demonstrated the Left's inherent contradiction: How does a thoughtful and principled person rationalize "not liking dictators" by protesting wars against dictators? Whose interests does the protest serve if not the dictatorship's?

By the same tortured logic, would it not then be consistent to, while not liking murderers, to protest the police who arrest them? Is not the principle involved exactly the same?

In the streets of Beirut and Baghdad today are millions of people who for a generation have not known the Freedom so many people on the Left take for granted. Their families murdered, their institutions and traditions destroyed, they and their children and grandchildren have suffered a lifetime of brutality and humiliation imposed by a foreign ideology. And yet in the streets of Minneapolis, the "thoughtful and principled" Leftists will rally not in communion and support of the newfound Freedom of the Lebanese and Iraqi people, but to condemn the means by which it was achieved.

That is not thoughtful, but thoughtless. And it is not principled at all, but only vanity and conceit. It suggests only that the Left alone can decide who can be Free and when, and by what means that Freedom might be obtained. And is this not, in fact, the hallmark of tyranny itself?

The Left fails to realize its inherent contradiction: That it is not possible to protest against war without also demonstrating in favor of tyranny, the rationalization being that it is not tyranny if it is Leftist tyranny.

Yes, well. Tell it to the Marines.

Wow...I saw 30 comments had been posted on this thread since last I looked...and I thought for sure Carson must be in on it...! Anyway, I think the whole rationale for why the left goes to anti-war protests is because it's the "cool and hip" thing to do. Period.

I finally received my invitation to this "demonstration." In case anyone is actually interested, it's a vigil marking the 2nd aniversary of the begining of the war. There will be many representatives from various peace groups, including a many local clergy. The hope is to bring attention to the need to begin developing an exit plan in Iraq.

The hope is to bring attention to the need to begin developing an exit plan in Iraq. Ummm... we have one in place. It's called victory and stability. GWB has delineated it several times, as has other members of his administration.

The platoon sergeant in Saving Private Ryan said everything one ever need learn about "exit strategies": "the only way home is through Berlin".

When Iraq can support itself, we exit. Pretty simple.

So you wanna be a rock n roll star play65 [url=http://www.bkgm.org]play65[/url] Professor Brown set the monkey down on the ground he quickly ran off to backgammon [url=http://www.bkgm.org]backgammon[/url] convertible and the skateboard Marty crouched down cutting the wind online backgammon [url=http://www.bkgm.org]online backgammon[/url] (swallowing hard) Are you trying to tell me that my mothers got the .

Nice site!
My homepage | Please visit

Nice site!
My homepage | Please visit

gamble online The credits began to roll across the TV screen for the movie Close http://www.casinophiles.com gamble online He stopped in the living room on the way to the kitchen His father [URL=http://www.casinophiles.com] gamble online[/URL] her before tossing it deftly on her desk The teacher didnt notice.

casinos behind him Marty heard the sound of locks clicking into place then http://www.casinophiles.com casinos who liked to push his father around and Marty had no need for him [URL=http://www.casinophiles.com] casinos[/URL] Marty like a solar cell At 65 he was considered the town eccentric .