ARS on Twitter
RSS
Empty Suit
Posted by Duncan on July 27th, 2008
President Obama
I really, really, really want the left to come out and just tell the truth. That they are voting for Obama because (besides being the Democratic nominee and McCain is still to ‘conservative’ for their tastes) he is “fresh and articulate” and promises “change and hope”. They are voting for him because he is a ‘blank slate’. They love how he flowers everyone with platitudes aplenty, nay it is more like a tickertape parade of platitudes. He makes them FEEEEEEEL good about themselves, he makes them FEEEEEEEL like something good can and will happen because he is in the executive office.
They can’t be voting for him because of his experience. He has little to offer in the realm of accomplishments and deeds. One term as a Illinois State Senator and hasn’t even completed his first term as a junior U.S. Senator. Before that he was a “community organizer”. Oh, and he wrote a book … about himself. He’s not known for taken a stand when it counts, voting present on the tough issues.
His only real foreign policy experience came last week when he toured the war zones and then fell upon the cheering and fawning crowds of Europe.
Once again it is the blank slate that makes Obama so attractive to many. Unlike Hillary, he can become anything to anyone, because he isn’t defined by a political history like many of the other candidates.
Unfortunately, he is still a politician. And I dare say he makes Slick Willy pale in comparison to his abilities to sidestep the tough issues/questions with misdirection only a magician could appreciate.
Listening to his speech in Germany really just made my stomach turn. It was flowery. It was full of promises and wishes. It was full of hand-holding and hand-wringing. And it made me realize that we can’t let this man into the White House. And it pains me to say that because that means the only realistic hope is John McCain, and not a third party. Its never a good time to vote third party.. during a Presidential election year. Perhaps in the off years, voting for state and the U.S. congresses the change can come from.
July 27th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
DunkTank,
Good post, but you are leaving a door WIDE open for me here. W was elected largely because he was “fresh” and “offered change and hope”, though he was and still is hopelessly inarticulate. He made people FEEEEEEEEEL like he was one of them, they could FEEEEEEEEEL like he was just a regular guy. One who they’d even like to “have a beer” with. The fact that Dubbs was an elitist born into a powerful political family yet posed as a cowboy everyman didn’t stop him from being elected. Twice! (Well, technically only once).
Sadly, things like this are what decide most elections these days. While you and I disagree on many things, we both think it’d be best to stick to issues. If only more of the uninformed electorate would do the same.
July 27th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Have to disagree, Bunny. Bush had concrete ideas and plans, and he laid them out. We knew what his positions were. There was not triangulating. There was no hiding of those plans. As he said “you may not always like where I stand, but you know what I stand for.” Even if it pissed conservatives and republicans off.
What does Barry stand for?
July 27th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
One who they’d even like to “have a beer” with.
Except for the fact that George W. Bush hasn’t had a beer since about age 40, when he gave up drinking.
yet posed as a cowboy everyman
Posed? I don’t think so. While his father grew up in New England, and the family is indeed powerful politically, Dubya was born and raised in Texas, and still lives there on his ranch.
July 27th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Teach is right.
When Bush first ran, I knew what he stood for. I knew what he wanted to do, and how he wanted to do it. Before then, I voted Democrat all my life. I was a (GASP!!) liberal. Clinton ruined that for me.
Bush didn’t have a lot of standard political experience. He was a Governor and nothing more- but he ran businesses and had the know how of leadership.
Obama is a Senator. Who has produced nothing. He wrote a book. That lacked any leadership explanation. He speaks well (with the help of little teleprompters and read-cards); he has a deep voice that sounds experienced and he is charming. But his substance ends there. Obama would make a GREAT voice for commercial products; he could make a HUGE living working in the marketing industry. He isn’t Presidential material and it scares people, because right now we need someone who will stand up for America, not shit on her. As much as I do not trust McCain in many areas, I absolutely prefer him over the Empty Suit. Suits are nice to look at. But we need substance inside it.
July 27th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Duncan I just listened to the SPEECH and there are so many things wrong with it. Obama is dumber than dumb. He cannot make the connections of freedom and the ways and means of it for Berlin, the Cold War and the fact the world did nothing to end it…he is trying to change people’s correct perceptions of those times and, sadly, people will forget what they have learned and fall for the Suit factor.
We do live in dangerous times indeed. Obama is a very dangerous and dumb man.
July 27th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Raven,
Here is a link that over at the Anti-Idiotarian Rott where Misha takes Obama to task over his Germany speech…. pretty good actually…
And here is the Gospel of Baker, talking ’bout the One:
July 27th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Substitute Teach- What does Bush “stand for”? “Limited government”, right? (Evidence proves-NO). Wait- “No more nation building”? (Evidence proves-NO). Let me try again- “And end to the scandalous culture of the previous administration”? (Evidence proves-NO) Hmmm- “The ability to reach across the aisle and work with members of that other party to serve the interest of American citizens”? (Evidence proves-NO) Wait, wait- “Secure the border and reform our broken immigration system”? (Evidence proves- NOT EVEN CLOSE). I hope you’re not “teaching” my kids someday.
BigFool- the “beer” example was one used by the MSM to convey the image of Bush as an everyday guy having a beer, even if in reality he had stopped drinking. Given his disastrous presidency, you can count me among those grateful that he quit. We’d probably all be dead by now if he was still a drunk. And he’s no cowboy, cowgirl. He’s afraid of horses, for God’s sake.
Raven- referring to someone as “dumber than dumb” doesn’t necessarily cement your status as someone “smarter than smart”. You can do better, sister.
PoDunk- I am a collector of repuke propaganda. Thank you for the latest addition to my vast treasure chest of such filth. I knew we could be buddies!
July 27th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Bunny, Bush never ran on those platforms. Duh don’t you know anything? He ran as a Compassionate Conservative- which is exactly what he is in many ways. Bush’s ideas got lost on Sept 11 2001…
other things needed to take priority. I am and was SOOO happy Bush was our President when that day unfolded; had AlBore been in office I hate to think of where we would be right now. The world isn’t perfect and it’s not America’s fault…nor is it Bush’s fault. Alas you people like to place blame on him though. Whatcha gonna do when he’s not in office anymore? Who yah gonna yell at??
I don’t believe Bush ever presented himself as a cowboy. Nope. THAT was our media labeling him. And they used that term to represent the time of cowboy and indian…in reference to his style.
I do believe Bush has cleaned up the White House and all the trash that Clinton brought to it. Trash as in unethical behavior, taking advantage of interns and trashing the actual building. The firm policy of proper dress codes for visitors and the respect of the office.
Bush did reach across the aisle…Teddy Kennedy and education reform ring a bell? Immigration reform?? As liberal as it comes, Bush was and is. The aisle grew wide right after Sept 11 2001.
Something about that day and how the US reacted to those events split the parties even more than ever before. America was attacked and the Democrats wanted to serve cookies and milk and hope and pray for mercy; Bush chose to fight back. I am glad he did.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Bush isn’t perfect but he is still a much better choice than Albore would have ever been. They say there is a reason for everything. I think Bush was President on 9-11 for a reason none of us can know right now.
July 27th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
What am I gonna do when he’s not it office anymore? Well, myself and the other reasonable members of our society are gonna party like it’s 1999. That’s what. Who am I gonna yell at? Don Rumsfeld…next time I see his punk ass in St. Michaels. Ah yeah.
Your other points are ridiculous, undeserving of a retort by anyone knowing what the hell they are talking about.
A reason for everything? Yeah, the reason was incompetence. Same “reason” Katrina was handled in the manner it was. Another reason is that people like you vote for idiots like Bush based on loony “end of days” theology.
PEACE Raven, it’s gonna be allllllrighhhhht….OBAMA08
July 28th, 2008 at 12:45 am
Your other points are ridiculous, undeserving of a retort by anyone knowing what the hell they are talking about.
Typical liberal comeback when they have no counter point to argue. Bunny I know you can do better than this. Come on.
And as I’ve said here before, it wasn’t the governments’ fault that Katrina happened. If the government hadn’t gotten into the levy building business we wouldn’t be blaming it now would we? No levy can ever fully protect any city or town from every threat…the people of NO knew their city was at high risk and they chose to stay there. For decades. It’s not Bush’s fault no more than Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, Carter, et al.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:17 am
Ok, I’ll do better. Anything for you, Ravenous. Ask and ye shall receive. :grin:
1. Yes, Bush did run on those platforms. If you can’t remember what happened in the 2000/2004 campaigns, there is nothing I can do. I’ve been in the game for awhile, so if you want to party with me you’d better know your stuff.
2. Yes, Bush played into the cowboy image. This is factual and I have neither the time nor the inclination to look it up for you. Proper dress codes? You are kidding me, right?
3. Unethical behavior? You don’t want to go there. You’ll lose. I promise you this.
4. “America was attacked and the Democrats wanted to serve cookies and milk and hope and pray for mercy; Bush chose to fight back”. Karl the turdsucker Rove would be proud. Repuke propaganda at its worst. If you seriously think that we all wanted to “serve cookies and milk and pray for mercy”, then you are sadly mistaken (yet again). If you’d like to discuss strategy or foreign policy differences, I’m game. If all you gots is this tired “dems are girls, repubbers are men” mindset, then I gots no time to debate wit chu, honey.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Oh, my fault. Forgot one…
5. “And as I’ve said here before, it wasn’t the governments’ fault that Katrina happened.” Any short bus fifth grader could tell us it ain’t the gubments fault that a hurricane hit. As I clearly stated in my comment (apparently, somehow not clearly enough), it was the federal response that is troubling. That is what I meant by the “handling” of the situation. :???: I suspect that there are very few (but likely a couple of) readers whom need you to explain why the patch of hurricanes is beyond the control of the gubment. Please provide scientific evidence in addition to the usual (r)epuke propaganda.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:48 am
“path of hurricanes”…in the very likely event that what I meant to say is not obvious
PEACE
July 28th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Bunny, to most liberals Sept 11 is propaganda. It’s becoming painfully clear.
I think people depend TOO much upon the government to save them. I am pissed off that things in NO still haven’t come together- and it’s not due to the fed’s approach. It is due to corrupt local government. All the money in the world won’t change things. It’s a waste and the fed should not ever be involved with these things. Levy building should be under local control.
When help was offered it was rejected. When assistance was offered it was laughed at. As with most natural disasters, a lot less damage was done than the media portrays. Far fewer people lost their lives during Katrina than the media led us to believe. What, specifically, could the feds have done to make this right? I want details, not name calling and other immature antics.
How could the feds have prevented what you call a poor response? And, what good would have come from your idea of a good response?
July 28th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Bunny.
1. Bush has a 30-35 average approval rating. And it is not because 65-70 of Americans are Democrats that hate Bush. Call it 50 percent Democrats and independents who hate Bush and want a “progressive” agenda. There a 15-20 percent margin of independents and Republicans who can’t stand his big government policies and how the man has handled the immigration issues. He ran on many conservative platforms, just like the rest of the Republicans, and they didn’t live up to way to many of them, which is why I believe that the Republican party is at a crossroads where they might end up going the way of the Whigs. But why are we talking ’bout Bush and his failures to live up to campaign promises as if this someone invalidates any arguments that Barack Hussein Obama is an empty suit and typical politician, just one with little to no experience.
2. Bush played up to the cowboy image? You mean the fact that he lived in Texas, was a part owner inthe Texas Rangers, and was the Governor of Texas? And I guess you believe that the “rich and crusted upperclass” of Texas don’t have a cowboy image? They don’t have ranches, or wear cowboy hats or wear boots? Interesting. Its obvious you don’t live in Texas.
3. Unethical behavior? Please don’t go into the Valerie Plame much-ado-about-nothing scandal. That was an attempt to throw a handful of crap against the wall and see what sticks. Lying ’bout Iraq and WMDs. Guess Clinton and his administration, as well as a majority of intelligence agencies were lying as well. I am of the opinion that for the most part, every politician, including the lily-white Almighty One, aren’t exactly the most ethical people in the world. Everybody in Washington D.C, every stinking person, has an ethical blemish on them. However, the Bush Administration sure appears more ethical than previous ones…
The Democrats are all game when the going is good. Had Afghanistan turned into the BLOODBATH some were predicting, especially after what happened to the British and the Russians there, we’d be hearing the same calls for retreat and surrender. Hell, people like Michael Moore were against attacking Afghanistan back in Oct. 01. Wasn’t he sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the ‘04 DNC Convention if I remember correctly? Are all Dems big wussie men who are afraid to fight? No, Joe Lieberman wasn’t, atleast while he was a member of the Democrat Party. I think there are others who wouldn’t have a problem fighting our enemires. However, they’re driven my polls, and when their constituency are anti-war “progressives” (anti-war in that it was a war that began in a Republican Admin, I think very few are true pacificsts.), then they tend to vote in compliance with what keeps them at their jobs.
The federal response that was troubling eh? Like Raven said, what is more troubling is the local and state responses. Failures abounded on those levels, and the crazy tabloid media, FoxNews included on this one (yeah, I am looking at you Sheperd Smith and Geraldo), only exacerbated the recovery as they spread stories of the apocalypse, which turned out to be only rumors and crazy stories. And this is where the breakdown of the federal system of government has become so very apparent. The federal government has morphed into a national government, especially in the eyes of progressives. They believe that the feds have to be everywhere and helping immediately, fixing everything with their magic wand. That is not how it is supposed to be. The local government and the state government are the ones tasked with the immediate reaction to a crisis, with the feds bringing the back up as necessary, not the other way around. And because that is what the Democratic-ran institutions were counting on, everything went to crap. Mayor Ray “Chocolate City” Nagin was completely inept and corrupt, like his police department, and Governor Kathleen “I’m so scared, I don’t know what to do so instead of being a leader, I’ll just cry” Blanco, froze in the face of adversity and defaulted to the feds. Instead of taking care of their problems, they just stared at Big Daddy Government to come and save them, another “progressive” ideal. And when he didn’t, guess what, it was time for everyone to cry out the “GEORGE BUSH HATES BLACK PEOPLE”. Oh wait.. that was just Kanye West
that had the balls to say what he was thinking, however irrational and hate-filled it was.
And lets just analyze the complete charlie-foxtrot that the federal response was. The FEMA trailer parks are NOTORIOUSLY horrible. And many sit, never used and rotting. Nice use of our tax-dollars. And giving everyone VISA check cards with 1,000 dollars on them for immediate use. Yeah. That was never abused I am sure. All knee-jerk reactions to say that the feds were helping and doing ewverything they could to make things better.
What would people be saying in today’s media and “progressive” society about the
The city built the sea wall for protection. Where was Big Daddy Government to come in and fix all of their woes? Oh wait… we hadn’t gone through the New Deal and Great Society yet. Things were closer to the way the Constitution had them.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
1. Because Bush is the leader of the (r)epuke party. Like it of not, he is the face of republicanism at this point in time. I suspect you’re not happy about this, but that is just the way it is.
2. Yes, he did play up the cowboy image. And it was a fraudulent image. The man is scared of horses. What kind of cowboy is scared of his horse? Is George W. Bush afraid of guns too? How bout Indians?
3. There you go. Justify the Bush scandals because “Clinton had scandals too”. That logic just might be a little too advanced for me.
I was in favor of the invasion of Afghanistan. You see, when a dummie like me sees my country attacked by terrorists harbored and groomed in Afghanistan, I favor attacking Afghanistan. Smart guys like Rummy and Cheney, they see us attacked by a terrorist organization based in Afghanistan and they immediately want to invade Iraq. I’m learning though. If al-Qaeda attacks us again, I’ll be in favor of invading Venezuela, Iran and/or whatever other country unrelated to the attack that the Pres’dent chooses. It would be “unpatriotic” to question any of his decisions. You people have taught me a lot. If Bush announces that Ireland and Germany are our new enemies because al-Qaeda attacks us, I will curse my ancestors and change my name. All in the name of “patriotism”.
As I said DunceCap, I’m learning. I now understand that when a dem is president (Clinton), everything is the fault of the federal government. But when a (r)epuke is in office (Bush), nothing is the fault of the federal government. I used to feel safe thinking that if a disaster as devastating as Katrina hit my town, the federal government would have my back. I now know not to expect such things. It is solely the responsibility of my state. And my state has one of them damn lib-rals running it. I’m toast. But I’ll take responsibility for it. It will be my fault and my states fault. Just like all of those people in New Orleans. They had it coming.
Teach me more, I am seeing the light.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
“1. Because Bush is the leader of the (r)epuke party. Like it of not, he is the face of republicanism at this point in time. I suspect you’re not happy about this, but that is just the way it is.”
True. He is the face of the Republican party, but not of conservatism. Which is why the Republican party is in big trouble. And it is the way it is. And if it stays that way… the Republicans won’t enjoy much support from their traditional conservative base.
“2. Yes, he did play up the cowboy image. And it was a fraudulent image. The man is scared of horses. What kind of cowboy is scared of his horse? Is George W. Bush afraid of guns too? How bout Indians?”
Scared of horses? I am sure that is some leftwing smear perpetrated on places like DKos and stuff… but I haven’t heard such anywhere else. Okay. I know you are trying to portray Bush as an overall fraud by trying to make him look like some kinda urban cowboy. That might be your perception of the man, but, being a Texan myself, I don’t see him as some poser. Not going to get much more traction on that one other than just an ad hominem on Bush that really doesn’t mean anything.
“3. There you go. Justify the Bush scandals because “Clinton had scandals too”. That logic just might be a little too advanced for me.”
Who said anything ’bout justifying scandals of one side or the other. Merely pointing out that there are much worse ones out there but when it is your political ally, it tends to be “not that big of a deal”. Clinton’s biggest problem wasn’t that he was sleeping with other women outside of marriage. Black mark, but not the end of a presidency or impeachable by any means. His problem was when he LIED TO A FRICKIN’ GRAND JURY! I wasn’t a fan of Clinton, but he wasn’t the worst president, nor the best for that matter, but he certainly stepped on a political and legal landmine. Yet the Bush administration hasn’t had that moment yet. Sure, you’ll yell ’bout Scooter Libby and Karl Rove and little blue space aliens and other conspiracies, but in reality have little to hang your hat on when you play the “corruption” card. And you missed the part when I said that I believe everyone in D.C. is dirty to some extent.
And good on ya for supporting our ventures into Afghanistan. Atleast you aren’t some bed-wetting pacifist who’ll beg the bad guy not to hurt ‘em when he comes for you. And I remember when Bush came immediately out in October 01 and said we were invading Iraq. I know he said that. Ofcourse, I can’t find any such statement anywhere on the internet. But I know he made it. Putz. And I am going to use the good ol’ Germany never attacked us either, statement. They didn’t. Should have just left ‘em alone and focused on the organization that killed so many at Pearl Harbor, Japan.
And as far as longing for the big, strong arms of Big Daddy Government to come and coddle you whenever you stub your toe, that’s your wish, not mine. But that’s a strawman you set up yourself and then you have the audacity (of hope) to even set him on fire. I never claimed that if a Dem is in office somehow the federal government is at fault anymore than I have blamed a Republican. You and I both know they’re not meant to be the first or second responders. They’re supposed to help out the local and state governments. So if an event like Katrina hits my town… I sure hope as hell that my city, as well as the Great State of Texas, have their proverbial shi’ite together, because I know better than to want, or wish, for the federal guys to come in and save me first.
I think I am going to start calling you Bunny the One-Person (gender neutral for you, don’t want to upset your liberal senses by being gender specific.. it might be sexist :wink: ) Strawman Factory… you sure can set ‘em up and knock ‘em down…
July 29th, 2008 at 9:50 am
I used to feel safe thinking that if a disaster as devastating as Katrina hit my town, the federal government would have my back.
It’s not the feds role to DO THESE things Buns. This is exactly where we differ so much. Read the Constitution. READ IT.
If the fed had our back on every single problem and issue and concern, like liberals want, there would be no money to do what the Constitution charges the fed government to do. Fercryinoutloud.
THAT is why, when liberals run the show, our national defense budget is cut and chopped. National defense isn’t a priority. But keeping the backs of people dry, and pampered, and covered with subsidized welfare programs IS the priority.
It is up to each state to decide whether to take care of these issues…the states, and the people who reside in them. And, who are willing to PAY for it all.
July 29th, 2008 at 10:03 am
And here is the kicker… Why do I, in Texas, have to pay for someone else in Massachusetts, or in Wyoming, or anywhere else? The feds come in, take a large portion of my paycheck, and then redistribute it to programs that don’t even benefit me and my family. From those according to their ability to those according to their needs. And the progressive income tax, which we currently have in the U.S., is part of the Communist Manifesto, but wasn’t allowed by our Constitution until 1913 by amendment.
July 29th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Exactly. In NH last week we had some tornados. A lot of damage was done and hundreds of homes were damaged. A woman died. Already, people up here have stood up and began to put it all back together, before any government aid has even been asked for. Of course people will ask for help and they will get it…but why should Duncan’s cash be given to NH folk? NH people should cough up the cash for NH problems.
When Texas has weather we NH people don’t like the thought of paying for the damages. If Texas people ASKED for help, many of us would gladly DONATE to the cause. I believe most donation drives have far exceeded everyone’s expectations in regards to money taken in…look at the tsunami as an example.
July 30th, 2008 at 1:29 am
Dunk- Vicente Fox said that Bush is afraid of horses. It was on 60 mins or 20/20. Not that this means it is definitely true.
Now, you made a mistake on your point about Bush “coming out” (that sure sounds weird) about intentions to invade Iraq in Oct01. Of course he wouldn’t come out and say it but there are several aides that were with him have stated it is true. These people said that immediately after 9/11 (we’re talking days here), Rumsfeld wanted to “hit Saddam and bin Laden”. He said that on 9/11/2001…
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html
The fact that you “couldn’t find” this info on the internet(S) boggles the mind. I don’t agree with your politics but you’re no dummy.
The Germany example doesn’t hold, either. Saddam wasn’t marching through Europe murdering millions. (And don’t gimme the Kurds. Shit on that level goes down all over the world everyday, sadly). Our forces crushed their “army” and “elite republican guard”
It didn’t take long, a very impressive and decisive victory. Those “professional soldiers” couldn’t hold a candle to our U.S. Armed Forces. What goes on there now (in my humble opinion) is more terrorism than warfare. Our soldiers are chasing down murderous terrorists. But there are murderous terrorists throughout the world. We can’t take them all out, actually perhaps we could- the American military has proven it’s dominance time and time again), but should we? As I stated before, I truly value your opinion on matters of war, for you have actual real life experience in the military, I do not. I am tuly looking forward to your response, should you deem one appropriate.
PEACE
July 30th, 2008 at 8:15 am
I remember Rummy’s words and I totally agreed with him. He did say Saddam. So what? My first thought on that morning was Iraq. Not Bin Laden.
SHOULD WE GO AFTER terrorists?
What a dumb question.
NO. Let them live free and cause death and destruction everywhere they go- where free people live and prosper. That is the liberal view. Let’s try to get along with them. Let’s serve them cookies and milk and hold hands and sing together. As they stab us in our backs, chop our heads off, blow up buildings and cafes and wedding halls where young couples just exchanged vows; as they trick their own disabled citizens into wearing cool vests laden with bombs and use them as bombs.
The free world must be willing to sacrifice millions of people in order to appease these zealots. A fair exchange. If only all people would except this mindset, there would be peace.
THAT is the liberal way.
No thanks.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Here is the problem with Iraq and the argument that George Bush was somehow making a departure from previous government policy concerning the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Remember the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. The difference was Bush wasn’t going to wait for him to get old and die like our neighbors to the south, Fidel and Cuba. And in a post 9/11 world, the option to finish off the regime, in accordance with the Iraq Liberation Act, and with our stunning success in Afghanistan, the theory is somewhat sound as you can hopefully isolate Iran. A democracy in Afghanistan AND Iraq !!! Nowonder Iran is fighting so hard to destabilize both regions.
So in my humble opinion, George Bush doesn’t fit the anti-war left’s caricature of this little Hitler with fangs dripping blood, just wanting to go after Saddam irrationally and get revenge for the attempt on his daddy’s life just doesn’t hold water. As they say in Indonesia… that dog just don’t hold water…
July 30th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Have you seen those Ones and Fives bearing the stamp “Where’s George” and the web address “www.wheresgeorge.com”? If you go to the website, you can see where your money has come from. Last time I checked, there was more than $700 million entered into their database.
This to say, money changes a lot of hands and gets seen by a lot of people. If you want to send a message, you could do worse than stamping it or writing it on money you’re going to spend anyway.
Here’s a little protest that won’t cost you a thing. Take out your Ones and write the word “OFAMA” on each one. That’s right; it’s not misspelled. Then, if asked what it is, you can smile and say, “That’s a Buck Ofama.”
“Where’s George” has nearly a billion dollars in marked bills in circulation. Imagine what just a few thousand Buck Ofama bills could achieve. Sooner or later, the media would get wind of it, and it would explode.
Grass roots guerrilla warfare. It doesn’t get any better. :)
July 30th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Raven- You called my first question “dumb”. Clearly the first shot in any potential war of descriptors. But I’m a reformed Bunny. I’ll ignore your taunt.
“I remember Rummy’s words and I totally agreed with him. He did say Saddam. So what? My first thought on that morning was Iraq. Not Bin Laden.” This statement represents clear differences in the viewpoints of someone like me and someone like you. In the minutes after the planes hit the towers, I knew without a doubt what entity had attacked us, as did many folks on both sides of the aisle. I was well versed on the propaganda and hateful preachings of bin- Laden and his history of attacks on American interests. I also knew that he had fought Soviet forces in bloody battles in Afghanistan. My knowledge of al- Qaeda was advanced on 9/10/01, yours was probably limited or nonexistent. This would explain your initial feeling that Saddam must have been involved with the attacks on our soil. It showcased your lack of understanding, much like some of your writings on this blog showcase your current lack of understanding.
“SHOULD WE GO AFTER terrorists?
What a dumb question.”
My point (obviously lost on you) is that we can’t “go after” (militarily) every terr’st in every country in the world. We need to concentrate on the ones whom pose a threat to us. Let me try to give you a more simple analogy, as one is obviously needed….
Should the U.S. chase down and prosecute every pedophile, drug dealer, and bank robber in the world? These criminals present a threat to America in that they potentially could move here and commit their crimes. So, our strategy must be focused on stopping THESE people from directly committing crimes against OUR people. I’d say the strategies should include concentration on immigration, border security, and international child pornography rings. THEY represent the threat to US. Just as the morning of 9/11/01, OSAMA BIN LADEN AND AL-QAEDA had represented and proven their threat to US.
Cookies, milk, hand-holding, and song? That is pure (r)epuke propaganda. Just when you were beginning to make some sense in your other posts, you bring the same ol’ sorry song and dance to this one. Good grief.
July 30th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Tommy Boy,
Please spend as much of your time as humanly possible putting your plan in action. Sounds like a really effective srtatergy to me, buddy. Good work!