Counterprotest
By Mitch Berg
We talked with Janet from SCSU Scholars about the drive get conservatives, veterans and other pro-Americans to go out to Washington next week to counterprotest the big lefty demonstrations scheduled for that weekend – to shield the Vietnam Memorial from their depredations.
Call 651.983.1431, or go to this site for more information.
If you’re interested, they’re organizing a bus ride to get interested Minnesotans out there.
Wish I could make it…
March 10th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Conservatives, veterans and OTHER pro-Americans?
I can’t even begin to explain just how moronic that statement is.
March 10th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
I can’t even begin to explain just how moronic that statement is.
That’s obvious.
March 10th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
It’s statements like this that remove all credibility in the conservative movement.
God how I wish Mitch would go.
I know a group of vets who are going and I would love to see them bitchslap Mitch for calling them anti-American.
March 10th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
For those who cannot go to DC, there’s always our “homies” here planning a march from Uptown…
(From WAMM) Sunday, March 18
U.S. Out of Iraq Now! Anti-War Protest and March
1 pm
Hennepin and Lagoon Avenues, Minneapolis
Global day of protest to mark the fourth anniversary of the U.S. war on Iraq.
Stop the War! Stop U.S. threats against Iran! Stop funding the war! Funds for housing, schools, health care, veterans benefits and other human needs, not war!
Initiated by: Iraq Peace Action Coalition.”
Earlier that day, “anarchists” plan to mess up the Lake/Lyndale recruiting station:
(Youth, Against War and Racism) Youth/student groups: gather with “Books, Not Bombs” contingent outside the Lyndale and Lake recruiting station, Minneapolis at noon.”
March 10th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
I can’t even begin to explain just how moronic that statement is.
Your dubious descriptive powers aside, the phrase you’re looking for is actually “gleefully hyperbolic”.
March 10th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
It’s statements like this that remove all credibility in the conservative movement
I’m that powerful?
Who knew?
God how I wish Mitch would go.
I know a group of vets who are going and I would love to see them bitchslap Mitch for calling them anti-American.
I tend to doubt you do.
In any case, try fiber. And maybe something for your (badly) repressed rage.
Stat.
March 11th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Tell you what Mitch. When I see you writing your Representatives and Senators demanding that they increase YOUR taxes to actually pay for the disaster that is Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than deferring the costs to my kids, then I’ll know you’re serious about sacrifice, supporting the troops and winning the memetic “war on terror”.
And Mitch, when I wake up to find that Bush is sending another 8200 troops on top of the 4000 support troops added to the “surge” of 21000 troops and demanding another 3.2 billion in emergengy funds to pay for it, trust me, my rage is far from repressed.
March 11th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Tell you what Mitch. When I see you writing your Representatives and Senators demanding that they increase YOUR taxes to actually pay for the disaster that is Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than deferring the costs to my kids, then I’ll know you’re serious about sacrifice, supporting the troops and winning the memetic “war on terror”.
Ah! I see how it works! Can I play?
“Tell you what, Doug. When I see you picketing your county commission against light rail and demanding real school choice, then I’ll know you’re serious about freedom!”
This is much more fun than actually engaging what people actually say or believe!
And Mitch, when I wake up to find that Bush is sending another 8200 troops on top of the 4000 support troops added to the “surge” of 21000 troops and demanding another 3.2 billion in emergengy funds to pay for it, trust me, my rage is far from repressed.
Wow. You might get a stroke. Be careful.
March 11th, 2007 at 9:55 am
I know a bunch of veterans too, Doug. From WWII, Korea, Vietnam and both Gulf War.
And not to speak for them, but I doubt many of them’d pimp-slap you for much of any reason, since if I’ve noticed anything about guys I know who’ve actually been in combat, they tend (broadly) to be pretty averse to pointless violence.
But heck, Doug, maybe your guys are very very different somehow or other. You never know!
March 11th, 2007 at 10:13 am
I support light rail and I’m willing to pay for it with higher taxes. I also happen to believe in paying for public education and have voted for levy increases.
I’m also willing and able to pay higher taxes to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Are you?
March 11th, 2007 at 10:30 am
And me, what?
Light rail – especially the central corridor – is a boondoggle. Commuter rail has potential, but the legislature isn’t that interested, since it can be done very much on the cheap, and thus will not serve as much of a monument to their forward thinking. Cut ’em.
I have gone from being a public ed supporter to an implacable enemy in the past few years. Cut ’em.
Higher taxes to fund the wars? If someone states a case that we need to, sure.
And when I say “someone”, I don’t mean “Doug” or any of the usual “taxes are good for you” suspects.
March 11th, 2007 at 10:55 am
“If someone states a case that we need to, sure.”
And when you say “someone” I’m sure you mean anyone from the “I got mine so taxes for any reason are bad” crowd.
Apparently no one bothered to mention to you what the interest is on the money we are borrowing to pay for Bush’s war. No worries though right Mitch? Chances are, you won’t actually have to pay for it. Someone else will.
Tell us again how that kind of irresponsibility, greed and shortsightedness is a conservative value?
I hope you don’t manage your own finances the way you allow the President to manage the country’s.
March 11th, 2007 at 11:08 am
And when you say “someone” I’m sure you mean anyone from the “I got mine so taxes for any reason are bad” crowd.
Doug, check your house. Someone left the cliche mill on.
Apparently no one bothered to mention to you what the interest is on the money we are borrowing to pay for Bush’s war…
Right, Doug. You’re the first person ever to bring that up. I’ve never heard it before.
Unlike you, Doug, I was a spending hawk BEFORE 2000. I was barbering about the interest we were paying on all those failed but un-killable Great Society holdovers two decades ago. I’ll be in your face about the interest we’ll be paying (to say nothiung of operating expenses) for these moronic light rail boondoggles when my kids are grandparents. Truth be told, I supported Forbes in 2000, until the convention, because I knew Bush to be soft on domestic spending, and I wanted (and want) domestic spending slashed. As in, whole executive departments abolished, programs euthanized (or shot in the head), spending hacked.
Tell us again how that kind of irresponsibility, greed and shortsightedness is a conservative value?
Easy. Real conservatives value no irresponsibilityh, greed and shortsightedness.
I hope you don’t manage your own finances the way you allow the President to manage the country’s.
No, but then, I don’t have anyone trying to kill me, either.
Unless you start sending those imaginary “veterans” over to my house.
March 11th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
What’s the significance of the war on the tax burden? Whether it’s paid for now or later (in the form of interest) the costs will be born by the wealthiest Americans. See http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/
The chart only goes out to 1999, but the Bush tax cuts did not dramatically effect the distribution of income taxes among quintiles.
March 11th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Oops – Bill, I accidentally deleted your comment (it was in my moderation queue alolng with a ton of spam, and I accidentally zorched it).
I’m not sure about any local counterprotests. I’ll post about it tomorrow.
March 11th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Can I protest Doug? Hey Doug, pay for friggin light rail on your own. It’s moronic, and non utilitarian, kind of like…oh, never mind.
Your kids and mine will be paying for your socialist stupidity long after we both assume room temperature.
March 11th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Terry said,
‘Whether it’s paid for now or later (in the form of interest) the costs will be born by the wealthiest Americans.”
First of all, it’s principal and interest.
Second, everybody will pay in the form of higher interest rates and higher prices on goods and services. Even the poor people in Bangladesh making inferior crap for Walmart are going to start saying enough is enough.
No politician, Republican or Democrat has the balls to suggest increasing taxes to pay down the debt one year out from an election. It’s political suicide. So instead, we’ll pretend that the economy along with the magic of compounding interest will get us out of the massive deficits that Republicans created and our CEO President continues to add to.
You’ve had years to fix the problems but instead, you picked up the phone and increased your borrowing limit. That’s not conservative guys. That’s just stupid.
Republicans have been a disaster to the economy and as usual, we’re gonna stuck with the bill.
March 11th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5408519,00.html
Tell us again Mitch how much the President cares about veterans?
March 11th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Doug, who do you mean when you say ‘you picked up the phone . . .’? People who have politics you don’t like? The many democrats who voted for this war? Who the heck is ‘we’, as in ‘we’re gonna stuck with the bill’? You channeling Sean Hannity?
This tendency you have to divide your fellow citizens into ‘them’ and ‘us’ camps is not helpful.
If you’ve suddenly become a budget hawk, why don’t you go after social security? Trillions in unfunded debt and the taxes come disproportionately from low wage earners.
March 11th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Ohyeah, and as for “That’s not conservative guys”, stick it in your ear. You are not empowered to define ‘conservative’ anymore than I am empowered to define ‘liberal’.
March 11th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Tell me again, Doug, how much you care about logic?
Because unless you can show me where the President has immediate responsibility for the day to day running of vets programs, centers and hospitals, this would seem to be just another of the wild squirms you do when you’re caught direly wanting on the first several subjects you wiggle through in a given thread.
March 11th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Tell us again Mitch, how much Hillary Clinton cares about veterans? (I even remembered the comma!)
Pathetic, as usual.
March 11th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Now, Terry – let’s be honest, here. He has every right to try to define conservative.
He’d do it as wrongly as everything else, but whatever.
March 11th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Mitch said,
“Because unless you can show me where the President has immediate responsibility for the day to day running of vets programs, centers and hospitals…
You’re right. Nothing is ever Bush’s fault is it Mitch…
Once upon a time we had, “The buck stops here…”
Now we have Billy from the Family Circus running the country with his claim that he didn’t do it.
And Mitch. Here’s the latest.
The Washington Post reports that the Army was pressured by the White House to hire a Halliburton subsidiary to take over patient care at Walter Reed.
http://prairieweather.typepad.com/big_blue_stem/2007/03/walter_reed_hal.html
Terry said,
“Trillions in unfunded debt and the taxes come disproportionately from low wage earners.”
It also comes from the elderly and the disabled which we have the responsibility to take care of. Be honest Terry. You don’t like having to pay for the dregs of society, do you?
And speaking of Social Security, ask yourself why a 90 year old woman has to show a birth certificate to prove their legal status as a citizen of the United States or their Social Security and Medical Assistance can get turned off while an illegal immigrant can show a stolen or fake SS card and get a job. Who profits from illegals working Terry?
If you think Bush is ever going to do anything about illegal immigration, you’re a fool.
March 11th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
And Mitch, I don’t define conservative. You do. I just point out how your definitions and your actions are far from harmonious.
March 11th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
you’re right. Nothing is ever Bush’s fault is it Mitch…
Strawman.
Once upon a time we had, “The buck stops here…”
We had trite, facile cliches?
The Washington Post reports that the Army was pressured by the White House to hire a Halliburton subsidiary to take over patient care at Walter Reed.
Yep. Trite, facile cliches.
It also comes from the elderly and the disabled which we have the responsibility to take care of. Be honest Terry. You don’t like having to pay for the dregs of society, do you?
Dumb strawman.
If you think Bush is ever going to do anything about illegal immigration, you’re a fool.
Sadly, probably true. But again, you’re off topic.
March 11th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Mitch said,
Strawman
Wrong. It is sarchasm and it is offered because you seem incapable of holding the President accountable for anything.
Mitch said,
We had trite, facile cliches?
No. We had Presidents who accepted responsibility for their actions instead of passing the blame onto someone else.
Mitch said,
Yep. Trite, facile cliches
Nope. It’s more evidence of an incompetent and irresponsible administration, war profiteering and short-sheeting the veterans so logically, you discount it. Your brain must be permanently hard-wired to actually believe that if you have an (R) after your name, you MUST be good for veterans – even when all of the available evidence says otherwise.
Mitch said,
Dumb strawman
Take it up with Terry. I didn’t bring up Social Security. He did.
March 11th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Hey Mitch,
Here’s another one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/01/AR2007030100687.html
Yeah, you guys have been really great for our military.
March 11th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
What the heck happened? I heard Mitch on the NARN yesterday saying he would post details about a Counterprotest. All of a sudden there are a bunch of off topic comments that have….
…..Oh, it’s Doug.
Never mind.
March 11th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Yeah, you guys have been really great for our military.
Well, I dunno, Doug. Most of my friends in the service would tend to disagree with you.
March 11th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Wrong. It is sarchasm and it is offered because you seem incapable of holding the President accountable for anything.
No, I merely choose to hold him accountable for things he’s actually done, or failed, that would be legitimately his responsibility.
No. We had Presidents who accepted responsibility for their actions instead of passing the blame onto someone else.
Or at least created trite little sayings indicating they would, while fostering a culture of deniability that became legendary.
It’s more evidence of an incompetent and irresponsible administration, war profiteering and short-sheeting the veterans so logically, you discount it. Your brain must be permanently hard-wired to actually believe that if you have an (R) after your name, you MUST be good for veterans – even when all of the available evidence says otherwise.
Yeah, Doug. That must be it.
March 11th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Brad C said:
What the heck happened? I heard Mitch on the NARN yesterday saying he would post details about a Counterprotest. All of a sudden there are a bunch of off topic comments that have….
…..Oh, it’s Doug.
Never mind.
Yep, Doug has a habit of polluting a thread with commentary that is off-topic, devoid of logic, and patently untrue.
At least he’s toned down the condescension.
I thought he turned a corner in the Drunk Driving thread; I haertly agreed with his thoughtful, well-stated comment.
I guess I should have known better.
March 11th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Oops, should have been “heartily.”
March 12th, 2007 at 7:03 am
“Yeah, you guys have been really great for our military.
Well, I dunno, Doug. Most of my friends in the service would tend to disagree with you.”
Exactly.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:20 am
Funny Paul how when you agree with me it’s thoughtful and well stated but when you disagree I’m poluting a thread that is off topic.
Careful. Your bias is showing.
This thread is about counter protesting against people who sincerely want this disaster called the Iraq war resolved. One of the reasons people are protesting the war is the way the military is being utilized.
I’ve posted three or four links that demonstrate how the troops, the regular military and the Guard are getting shafted.
If you want to go counter protest, go. That’s your right just like it is the right of my side to go and protest the way the administration has mismanaged and messed up the war.
We’re going there because we want the war ended. You’re going because you don’t like our position. That’s gutless and cowardly.
Seriously, if you want to goi state your position on why the war should be extended unconditionally and indefinately, please, PLEASE go. I love debate but if your going simply to mock, taunt and harass the protesters, don’t waste your time. You’re position is in the minority now and you will come across as angry and bitter bully’s when standing toe to toe with some grandma from rural Ohio.
March 12th, 2007 at 8:57 am
You’re going because you don’t like our position. That’s gutless and cowardly…if your going simply to mock, taunt and harass the protesters, don’t waste your time.
Statement based on supposition of facts not in evidence.
March 12th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
“We’re going there because we want the war ended.”
Check out the polling places while you’re there.
March 12th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
You’re going because you don’t like our position. That’s gutless and cowardly.
Huh?
It looked for a moment there like you think disagreeing with Doug is “gutless and cowardly”. My eyes must have been playing tricks on me, though, because nobody could possibly say anything quite that dumb.
Could they?
March 12th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Like I said Mitch, go. Please. And argue your position while you’re there.
If you and your buddies got together to hold a pro-war rally and a group of lefty’s planned on meeting your rally with the intention of attacking you personally rather than arguing the issue, I would call them gutless and cowardly too.
These counter protests are never about the issues. They are always about attacking the individuals and next week when the rights reviews of the events in Washington come out, I can guarantee the majority of the comments will be about the appearance or the behavior of the protesters – not about what they had to say.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:39 am
intention of attacking you personally
Again – supposition based on facts not in evidence.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Mitch said,
“Again – supposition based on facts not in evidence.”
We’ll see what happens won’t we.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Yeah, I know. Everything conservatives say is one form of hate or another, isn’t it?