Mikey calls for student walkout on January 20th...

[Guest sek69]

Honestly I saw it as a throwaway comment that people jumped on like bloody meat in a shark tank. When people mentioned it might have been a bit hasty, folks were all OMG WHAT IF IT WAS CLINTON~!?

 

Ironically I found that the most amusing part of the thread, I love how conservatives think liberals worship Michael Moore and the Clintons. Maybe I'm a cold bastard but it really wouldn't affect me if any president was sniped, its not like I'm related to any of them. It would suck for their families but I'd still go to work the next day.

 

As far as the protests go, its a free country. If people want to protest, they have a right. If anti-choice people and their 6 year old kids and stand on the corner with posters of dead fetuses, then some wacky liberals should be able to stage an hour or so walkout.

 

(ps: Being anti-war doesn't equal pro-Saddam. )

[KingPK 0]

Eh, I just think it's really stupid to hate a guy so much that you won't have a problem with him getting capped, but that's just me. Things were settled, so the issue should be dropped.

[Styles 0]

(ps: Being anti-war doesn't equal pro-Saddam. )

True, but p.p.s. if not for the Iraq war Saddam would still be in power. So, on the contrary while others were saying they were anti-war, we were saying we are not pro war, but anti-Saddam. You can't both support Saddam's removal and be anti-war, that's the point.

[Highland 0]

But many people did fall into the trap of equating anti-war with pro-Saddam; there were those that made (and still make) excuses that Saddam was far preferable to the situation in Iraq today.

[Styles 0]

And that's a ridiculous statement to make.

 

Anyway it is semantics but either you're in favor of the war and therefore for Saddam's removal or against the war and therefore against Saddam's removal. Because without the war, Saddam would still be in power.

[Guest sek69]

I haven't seen anyone outside of right wing talk radio make the assertion that Saddam still in power is a good thing. The Saddam Supporting Liberal is one of the largest strawmen around. I hear it constantly on the usual suspects' radio shows.

 

I supported Saddam's removal but I don't support the way they did it. I don't support trying to win a war on the cheap and not sending enough troops to maintain order after you basically remove a country's entire government. I don't support the policy of stretching troops to the max and then stretching them some more because you want to go in the history books for winning a war with the smallest amount of troops.

[Styles 0]

I haven't seen anyone outside of right wing talk radio make the assertion that Saddam still in power is a good thing. The Saddam Supporting Liberal is one of the largest strawmen around. I hear it constantly on the usual suspects' radio shows.

 

I supported Saddam's removal but I don't support the way they did it. I don't support trying to win a war on the cheap and not sending enough troops to maintain order after you basically remove a country's entire government. I don't support the policy of stretching troops to the max and then stretching them some more because you want to go in the history books for winning a war with the smallest amount of troops.

Frank (EDIT: France, don't know who Frank is! ) and Germany weren't coming, stop that fantasy. So either it was us or nothing. Even a draft wouldn't work because you couldn't just throw everyone immediately into combat without a year or 2 of training. So how would you have done it differently?

HINT: There is a correct answer here that I want to see if you respond with, because there was one part of the President's plan that I disapproved with and think could have helped the situation.

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

The Republican contengiant sure blew this out of proportion. Christ, if you guys are this anal on the internet, the real world is going to be tough.

[Styles 0]

The Republican contengiant sure blew this out of proportion. Christ, if you guys are this anal on the internet, the real world is going to be tough.

If you announce you hope the President is shot in the real world, things won't be as forgiving as on a message board.

[Guest sek69]

I haven't seen anyone outside of right wing talk radio make the assertion that Saddam still in power is a good thing. The Saddam Supporting Liberal is one of the largest strawmen around. I hear it constantly on the usual suspects' radio shows.

 

I supported Saddam's removal but I don't support the way they did it. I don't support trying to win a war on the cheap and not sending enough troops to maintain order after you basically remove a country's entire government. I don't support the policy of stretching troops to the max and then stretching them some more because you want to go in the history books for winning a war with the smallest amount of troops.

Frank (EDIT: France, don't know who Frank is! ) and Germany weren't coming, stop that fantasy. So either it was us or nothing. Even a draft wouldn't work because you couldn't just throw everyone immediately into combat without a year or 2 of training. So how would you have done it differently?

HINT: There is a correct answer here that I want to see if you respond with, because there was one part of the President's plan that I disapproved with and think could have helped the situation.

First off, there wasn't a need to go in at all. Even if you believe Saddam had plans for WMD, there's no way he could have been the level of threat W claimed he was (sending nukes in 45 minutes) because Iraq's infrastructre was broken due to the UN sanctions. I know, food-for-oil and all that, but that money was going to Saddam's son's Caligula training and not into weapons. So right off the bat I discount the assertion that we even needed to do this in the first place.

 

Now, seeing as we did, how could we have done it better? Well considering we ended up calling a lot of guardsmen up after the fact, perhaps having a larger initial force at the start would have meant not needing as many troops now. It's also becoming more obvious that ALL of the pre-war planning went into removing Saddam and once they did that you could almost hear the White House going "OMG WTF DO WE DO NOW?" We should have known based on the geography and population distriubution of Iraq that the hot spots were going to be in the center of Iraq and placed troops accordingly. We don't need to have a large presence in the north, and a minimal presense in the south is all that is needed to protect Kuwait.

 

I also would have picked a successor to lead Iraq that didn't come off as such an obivous US toady, but then real democracy in Iraq would probably result in the election of a fundimentalist Islamic government.

[Styles 0]

Well you didn't hint on my point that we should have known better than to immediately break up the Iraqi army (Saddam's guard whatever they called it), since they pretty much had no choice but to serve for Saddam and I'm sure they would have taken orders from whoever was in charge at the moment and helped us secure things especially in the early going. Thanks for playing.

 

I'm going to ignore the rest since its been rehashed a billion times around here. The only point I made is you can not be against the war and in favor of Saddam's removal at the same time. Nothing about the being a threat to the US, etc. Just if you truly were for Saddam's removal, you would be for the war.

[Guest sek69]

Well you didn't hint on my point that we should have known better than to immediately break up the Iraqi army (Saddam's guard whatever they called it), since they pretty much had no choice but to serve for Saddam and I'm sure they would have taken orders from whoever was in charge at the moment and helped us secure things especially in the early going. Thanks for playing.

 

I'm going to ignore the rest since its been rehashed a billion times around here. The only point I made is you can not be against the war and in favor of Saddam's removal at the same time. Nothing about the being a threat to the US, etc. Just if you truly were for Saddam's removal, you would be for the war.

That is textbook circular conservative thinking that the war was A. necessary and B. the only way to remove Saddam.

 

The truth is conservatives simply no-sell the fact that Saddam in 2002/3 was not a threat to the US and that his reign was on the brink of collapsing under the weight of its own excesses. It happened in in all the communist countries of Europe, why not in Iraq?

 

on edit: What do you base your theory about Saddam's guard? I see no reason why they would suddenly turn around and help us when we've been the enemy for the last 15 or so years to them.

[Justice 0]

Well you didn't hint on my point that we should have known better than to immediately break up the Iraqi army (Saddam's guard whatever they called it), since they pretty much had no choice but to serve for Saddam and I'm sure they would have taken orders from whoever was in charge at the moment and helped us secure things especially in the early going. Thanks for playing.

 

I'm going to ignore the rest since its been rehashed a billion times around here. The only point I made is you can not be against the war and in favor of Saddam's removal at the same time. Nothing about the being a threat to the US, etc. Just if you truly were for Saddam's removal, you would be for the war.

That is textbook circular conservative thinking that the war was A. necessary and B. the only way to remove Saddam.

 

The truth is conservatives simply no-sell the fact that Saddam in 2002/3 was not a threat to the US and that his reign was on the brink of collapsing under the weight of its own excesses. It happened in in all the communist countries of Europe, why not in Iraq?

Uh, the proof that Saddam was going to collapse under his own excesses? He'd successfully made it so that the Embargo didn't actually harm him or his government in any way.

 

Other problem is equating this with Communist Europe when it's a very different situtation: Communist Europe wasn't making any money. Saddam WAS making money, and a ton of it. It's doubtful that they would collapse similarly.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

The only point I made is you can not be against the war and in favor of Saddam's removal at the same time. Nothing about the being a threat to the US, etc. Just if you truly were for Saddam's removal, you would be for the war.

You sound like Sean Hannity.

[Styles 0]

I don't see how Im the one being circular when you're avoiding my points and changing the arguments.

 

I recounted an anecdote about wearing an anti-Saddam band to counteract an anti-war protest.

 

You claimed that just because someone is anti-war does not mean they are pro-Saddam.

 

I agreed, but clarified that by being for the war you are for Saddam's removal, you can not be anti-war and support Saddam's removal since one needs the other.

 

You ignored this point and instead went off on the war's planning, not the logistic and semantic argument I was persuing.

 

I took you up on this and agreed we could have better utilised the Iraqi army from the start, but again reminded you the merits of the war have already been debated to death, my only argument is how one can not be anti-war and for Saddam's removal.

 

You ignored that again and started talking about the merits of the war again.

[Styles 0]

Here's a brief article I found. Gist of it is that not all of the Iraqi army were the bad guys. Many had no choice but to adhere to their positions. Many could have been helfpful since they already knew their positions, knew the infastructure and could have helped identify and weed out the "bad guys" instead of starting people from scratch with new training which delayed the process and allowed for more insurgent planning and attacks.

[Styles 0]

The only point I made is you can not be against the war and in favor of Saddam's removal at the same time. Nothing about the being a threat to the US, etc. Just if you truly were for Saddam's removal, you would be for the war.

You sound like Sean Hannity.

I actually can't stand Hannitty so that's funny. He offers very little insight most of the time. I do like Rush though.

 

Explain to me simply without going on a rant about the merits or execution of the war how else besides an invasion Saddam and his evil sons would have been removed from power? Unless you're saying you would support Saddam's removal but don't want to do anything about it. Go ahead. How can one be anti-Iraq war but pro removal of Saddam?

[Justice 0]

I haven't seen anyone outside of right wing talk radio make the assertion that Saddam still in power is a good thing. The Saddam Supporting Liberal is one of the largest strawmen around. I hear it constantly on the usual suspects' radio shows.

Huh. I find a common feature in my arguments with a lot of liberals on campus is that "Can you honestly say that Iraq is better off with us than under Saddam?" Weird. I don't listen to Right Wing Radio, either, so I can't attest to any of that. I don't think it's a common feature outside of the extremes, but I hear it far more on the left than anywhere else.

 

I supported Saddam's removal but I don't support the way they did it. I don't support trying to win a war on the cheap and not sending enough troops to maintain order after you basically remove a country's entire government. I don't support the policy of stretching troops to the max and then stretching them some more because you want to go in the history books for winning a war with the smallest amount of troops.

 

While I agree with the first statement (Planning on winning way too easily), I haven't heard anything of stretching our military forces thin. We have plenty of reservists and we can maintain a higher troop level pretty easily if Iraq is the only thing on our plate. We have easily enough troops to invade another country, though thankfully I doubt we'll stretch it that far.

 

On Saddam not being a threat: That's great to say in hindsight, but with all the information presented (There was a great deal of intelligence saying Saddam had these weapons), right or wrong he made his actions built off intelligence said to be reliable. He made what he thought was a well-informed decision. I'm sure if Clinton had known that terrorists would get ballsy-er after the Cole he would have done a lot more, but it's all hindsight knowledge, so I can't blame him for doing what he did. The whole "Saddam wasn't a threat/No WMDs" is becoming a nice strawman because of all the hindsight.

[Styles 0]

Ugg, I posted 3 (make that 4 times) in a row. You people are going to make me the new =Mike or something.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

The Republican contengiant sure blew this out of proportion. Christ, if you guys are this anal on the internet, the real world is going to be tough.

I'm not Republican. I'm not even American, although I was hoping for Kerry to win the election.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Failed Mascot was really stupid to say that.

 

That is all.

[NoCalMike 0]

Getting back onto the topic. What is the big deal about Moore's call for a walkout? This isn't some brand new idea or concept, walkouts have happened plenty of times for a plethora of reasons. Oh and all you guys ragging on missing a class, fucking puhleeze, you act azif missing one class is going to make or break something. Jeezus, it is an event that happens once every four years, and if people want to protest, well they have every right to. After the massive marching and protesting in 2000, PRIOR to Bush's four year reign of destruction upon this country, I can only imagine what the hostility will be like this time around.

 

Oh and to think that Moore is behing anything is pretty ludicrous anyway. Walkouts and protest marches etc....were all planned way ahead of Mikey making his special request.

 

But don't worry guys, the "liberal" media will almost surely completely ignore the entire protest in an effort to act like it doesn't exist and that everyone loves the President. Instead I am sure CNN & Fox will be busy "debating" over whether or not Kid Rock should be performing at the party. I love the corporate news~!

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I have to reach across the aisle and join Tyler in bipartisan support regarding the "banning" or whatever happened to Frigid. I've read worse at this place, most of it coming from my keyboard. Perhaps with this new alliance between me and Tyler this could be the start of a beautiful, thoughtful relationship where issues will be discussed and opinions will be respected.

 

Or maybe not.

 

And regarding ol' Mikey, there's really nothing more I can add that hasn't been said already -- you guys make me so proud *sheds tear.*

 

However, since it's my Mikey jokes that put butts in the seats, I'll do my best:

 

Mikey wants to "boycott" the Inaugration, or whatever it is he wants to do (I didn't bother clicking on the link), because Dole fruits, Dannon yogurt and Del Monte veggies were the event's primary sponsors...

[Guest Loss]

I'd agree that the banning was ludicrous. When the story broke about the guy committing suicide after Bush won the election, A MikeSC suggested that we all find out where he was buried so we could piss on his grave. When the story was later retracted and we learned that it had nothing to do with the election, Mike refused to take back his initial statement.

 

Should he have been banned for that? No. Is it any worse than what Frigid said? No.

 

I really don't think Teke was acting in partisan fashion here at all, but I do think this was a gross overreaction, and that's coming from someone who hasn't always gotten along with FS and thinks Teke is pretty swank.

[Slayer 0]

Add me to the side that thinks this is overblown and banning was unwarranted. It makes me wonder what people are thinking when "I don't care if the president dies" is equated with "I intend to kill the president"

 

Though, really, we should consider ourselves lucky to live in a country where threatening the leader only nets you five years in jail.

[Ripper 0]

This one time, I punched a dog right square in the stomach. He punched me back and we have become good friends and laugh about it to this day.

 

I say that to say this...

 

...

 

 

Actually I kinda forgot my point....it had something to do with banning or something. Take from it what you can.

[2GOLD 0]

I was fine with FM's little statement until his second post where he was dumb enough to list out weapons of choice and person to do the killing. It was stupid.

 

There are far more evils than Bush and if he dies, they get control. I'd rather be stuck with GW for four years than an even more pissed off Republican controlled over the top national secruity White House.

 

As for this story, whatever. People protest anything, it's lost it's charm. I've seen people protesting the removal of the McRib from a local McDonalds.

[Guest Thunderkiss65]

The only people who would ban him or support the ban are the little brainwashed Bush Administation supporting fucks who need to wake the hell up. God forbid we support free speech here when it doesnt go along with certain people's personal beliefs.

[2GOLD 0]

The only people who would ban him or support the ban are the little brainwashed Bush Administation supporting fucks who need to wake the hell up. God forbid we support free speech here when it doesnt go along with certain people's personal beliefs.

 

Ahhh, we needed one of these posts.

It's like my cup of coffee first thing in the morning.

Only Bush lovers wanted the ban. Makes perfect sense...in bizzaro world.

 

I found it all dismissable until he mentioned "sniper rifle" and "college person". There is a line you shouldn't cross with a public forum.

 

I found the short banning to be acceptable. It wasn't full time, it was a short "get your head on straight" banning as far as I'm concerned.

 

Oh and I didn't vote for Bush or Kerry. Found them both to be worthless jack-offs and I still do.

[sfaJack 0]

The only people who would ban him or support the ban are the little brainwashed Bush Administation supporting fucks who need to wake the hell up. God forbid we support free speech here when it doesnt go along with certain people's personal beliefs.

I'm a "brainwashed Bush Administration supporting fuck" who doesn't support FS's banning over this. He's a dipshit and I think the board will be better off without him, but I don't like that he was banned over this. Do I need to wake the hell up? Do you think the ban had anythinng to do with partisan politics? No. It had to do with a dumbass saying a dumbass thing.

 

Bannable offense? That's questionable...but I don't think it has anything to do with Bush supporting fucks.