vomit

[per1sh]

when the "war" starts, i'm going to have a vomit party at my apartment. we will start on a friday night gorging ourselves on the most nauseous food and drink imaginable...any fast food chain should do. and then we will spend the weekend puking, shatting, etc, into a single trashbag. said trashbag will be put inside 2 other trashbags, sealed in a box, and then mailed to the whitehouse.

volunteers?

Sounds like a typical liberal response... make sure you eat plenty of pretzels, too...

i wish all the judges in the world were liberals

that away we could get away with anything

[Westbound]

in my perfect government, there would be conservative lawmakers and leaders, but have liberal judges to interpret these laws

[per1sh]

Originally posted by scobib
Sounds like a typical liberal response... make sure you eat plenty of pretzels, too...

typical liberal response eh? you assmonger, do you think any "typical liberal" would be un-PC enough to talk about an ocean of abortions? no.

and i guess it would "typical conservative" to condone the use of our military for one group's self interest and/or reelection campaign.

Originally posted by per1sh
typical liberal response eh? you assmonger, do you think any "typical liberal" would be un-PC enough to talk about an ocean of abortions? no.

and i guess it would "typical conservative" to condone the use of our military for one group's self interest and/or reelection campaign.

Ouch. I felt that one from my end.

I just dont get it though. Ive been reading Information and Awareness for over a month sense the prospect of war has been looming closer and NOT YET, have I seen anything that would be considered a respectable response from anyone supporting the war asides from whats regurgitated from the 5 oclock news.

Also let me tell you just how convincing the "Hes a family man" or "Hes a religious man" arguement that certain people have been using to explain how hes been doing a good job. When I see that one I have to hit my moniter to make sure Im reading this stuff right.

Then I look at the "Horrid Liberals" arguements and posts, see how well thought out and researched they are (For the most part) and I just have to wonder how people can still support any of this sham we call a presidency.

Or lets be like phil and say other peoples sources are wrong if they dont agree with his.

[Mr. Sam]

Originally posted by Shakes 999
Or lets be like phil and say other peoples sources are wrong if they dont agree with his.

HAHAHHAHAHAH

Funny, but True.

[per1sh]

Originally posted by Shakes 999
Ouch. I felt that one from my end.

yeah...the "typical liberal" responses really chap my ass.

Also let me tell you just how convincing the "Hes a family man" or "Hes a religious man" arguement that certain people have been using to explain how hes been doing a good job.

my favorite... "he's one of us!" *puke*
i just want to scream, "HEY, IS THAT YOUR BRAIN OOZING OUT OF YOUR NOSTRILS ONTO YOUR SHIRT?"

Originally posted by per1sh
typical liberal response eh? you assmonger, do you think any "typical liberal" would be un-PC enough to talk about an ocean of abortions? no.

and i guess it would "typical conservative" to condone the use of our military for one group's self interest and/or reelection campaign.

Ah, name calling... another calling card of the liberal. Oh wait, now we see an anti-abortion message? How should we take you then? If you want to get mired down in the details, no self-respecting conservative would ever suggest such a course of action as defecating and puking into a box and mailing it anywhere. Instead of name calling and spouting rhetoric (the normal liberal response), you choose to respond by suggesting the mailing bodily fluids - how is that different?

How is your vomit party anything but a disgusting and revolting way to show your disagreement with the current administration's policies? I believe someone made the comment about "Then I look at the "Horrid Liberals" arguements and posts, see how well thought out and researched they are (For the most part) " - how would your vomit party be anything other than a cromagnon way of expressing your discontent? From my perspective your proposal is neither well thought out, nor an effective way to argue your point.

One group's self interest? A re-election campaign, eh? As far as I know, there was bilateral support for the war amongst Congress. It's only now that certain members of Congress decided to come out and bash the President around and advance their wacked agendas - of course, they committed political suicide in doing so (bye bye Br. Daschle, you'll be missed). There are some 35 countries supporting the coalition, as well, which means that there is at least a modicum of support for this war worldwide.

It would be ludicrous to portray this war as a simple way to get re-elected, as would it be to portray it as for "one group's self interest". The shortsightedness of those comments is quite amusing.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by scobib
Ah, name calling... another calling card of the liberal. Oh wait, now we see an anti-abortion message? How should we take you then? If you want to get mired down in the details, no self-respecting conservative would ever suggest such a course of action as defecating and puking into a box and mailing it anywhere. Instead of name calling and spouting rhetoric (the normal liberal response), you choose to respond by suggesting the mailing bodily fluids - how is that different?

Yes, because no conservative has ever suggested anything of political humor. I don't particularly see much difference between his calling you an "assmonger" as much different from your dismissal of all liberal arguments as "typical liberal response". After all, conservatives have tried to turn the word liberal into something of a derogatory nature. Moreover, it isn't as though Rush Limbaugh and most other conservative commentators have never resorted to name calling and playing with words in an attempt to bash liberals and democrats (who generally are not liberals, just moderates).

How is your vomit party anything but a disgusting and revolting way to show your disagreement with the current administration's policies? I believe someone made the comment about "Then I look at the "Horrid Liberals" arguements and posts, see how well thought out and researched they are (For the most part) " - how would your vomit party be anything other than a cromagnon way of expressing your discontent? From my perspective your proposal is neither well thought out, nor an effective way to argue your point.

I think it was meant in jest. I doubt he actually intends to send vomit to the president.

One group's self interest? A re-election campaign, eh? As far as I know, there was bilateral support for the war amongst Congress. It's only now that certain members of Congress decided to come out and bash the President around and advance their wacked agendas - of course, they committed political suicide in doing so (bye bye Br. Daschle, you'll be missed). There are some 35 countries supporting the coalition, as well, which means that there is at least a modicum of support for this war worldwide.

I don't see how "certain members of Congress" expressing contempt for Bush and the war is political suicide or at all wrong. I remember Republicans throwing fits about how evil Clinton was over a blow job, or over one policy or another. It's about time some representatives of the people begin representing those of us who are opposed to war.

It would be ludicrous to portray this war as a simple way to get re-elected, as would it be to portray it as for "one group's self interest". The shortsightedness of those comments is quite amusing.

Is it amusing because you've found quality arguments against this stance, or because you've dismissed it as "typical liberal response"?

Originally posted by Adam D
Yes, because no conservative has ever suggested anything of political humor. I don't particularly see much difference between his calling you an "assmonger" as much different from your dismissal of all liberal arguments as "typical liberal response". After all, conservatives have tried to turn the word liberal into something of a derogatory nature. Moreover, it isn't as though Rush Limbaugh and most other conservative commentators have never resorted to name calling and playing with words in an attempt to bash liberals and democrats (who generally are not liberals, just moderates).

How is his suggestion an argument at all? It's not. And, I didn't mean 'liberal' in a derrogatory way, as you say, but as merely a commentary on the response - and it is typical. The Democratic party is becoming more and more leftist, and as it continues to do so, the moderates are either switching sides or joining other parties - it wouldn't be far fetched to say that the Democratic party will become the minor third party in the future. The only time the Demos get up an cheer now is when one of their beloved liberal icons like Mr. Daschle makes an inflammatory comment. They are not able to attract new moderates, nor keep their current fold...

I think it was meant in jest. I doubt he actually intends to send vomit to the president.

Yes. I think we all understand that...

I don't see how "certain members of Congress" expressing contempt for Bush and the war is political suicide or at all wrong. I remember Republicans throwing fits about how evil Clinton was over a blow job, or over one policy or another. It's about time some representatives of the people begin representing those of us who are opposed to war.

I didn't say it was wrong necessarily, just stupid. If 2/3 of the country supports a war with Iraq, going out on a limb and saying 'Bush's weak diplomacy failed and now we have to go to war' isn't necessarily the smartest thing to do - especially for someone like Daschle, who's support has been waning in his home state. I'll go out on a limb here and say that when we invade Iraq, we're going to find many, many things they are not supposed to have - and then how will Daschle's comments be viewed?

Likewise, Daschle's comments are just the way he can play both sides of the fence anyway - like other saavy politicians. He voted for the resolution to go to war, and yet now he condemns it. This way, he's got both positions covered, like the others that are now "speaking out".

Is it amusing because you've found quality arguments against this stance, or because you've dismissed it as "typical liberal response"?

I never dismiss "quality" arguments as typically anything - quality arguments, those from people who use actual logic and facts to make a point are great. I may not agree with them, but a good argument is a good argument - nothing here has been an argument at all.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by scobib
How is his suggestion an argument at all? It's not. And, I didn't mean 'liberal' in a derrogatory way, as you say, but as merely a commentary on the response - and it is typical. The Democratic party is becoming more and more leftist, and as it continues to do so, the moderates are either switching sides or joining other parties - it wouldn't be far fetched to say that the Democratic party will become the minor third party in the future. The only time the Demos get up an cheer now is when one of their beloved liberal icons like Mr. Daschle makes an inflammatory comment. They are not able to attract new moderates, nor keep their current fold...

What? Democrats are not getting more leftist. Leftist advocates have been condemning the Dems for moving to the center, abandoning labor and other leftist concerns. It began with the "New Democrats" that Clinton was so proud to be the frontrunner of. They aren't liberal at all anymore. At most they speak some nice rhetoric to appease the unions and gain support from them, but they are hardly liberals anymore. Granted, there are a few Dems who are very liberal in their views, but Daschle is not one of them, nor is he liberal by any means.

I didn't say it was wrong necessarily, just stupid. If 2/3 of the country supports a war with Iraq, going out on a limb and saying 'Bush's weak diplomacy failed and now we have to go to war' isn't necessarily the smartest thing to do - especially for someone like Daschle, who's support has been waning in his home state. I'll go out on a limb here and say that when we invade Iraq, we're going to find many, many things they are not supposed to have - and then how will Daschle's comments be viewed?

I think a few weeks into the war public opinion will flip flop to opposing the war, is it was prior to Bush's 3/17 speech. Even if it doesn't, it's a smart move for Dems to push anti-war platforms for their presidential canidates. There are a lot of very active anti-war activists on the left (and the right), and they will vote for a canidate, even one of otherwise inferior qualities, if it means ending the warfare. Considering how little of the population votes, it wouldn't take much to overpower Bush in 2004 on little more than an anti-war platform.

Likewise, Daschle's comments are just the way he can play both sides of the fence anyway - like other saavy politicians. He voted for the resolution to go to war, and yet now he condemns it. This way, he's got both positions covered, like the others that are now "speaking out".

It's the half-assed approach most Dems have been taking recently in politics.

[hepkatmama]

(1) eat lots of:

macaroni (for upchuck)

corn (for colon-processing)

(2) place in:

CLEAR plastic trash bag


i would suggest an additional political statement, such as a picture of our leader or maybe just a elephant picture to aim at so the recipients understand the message u are sending & not just the smell it leaves.

[per1sh]

Originally posted by scobib
Ah, name calling... another calling card of the liberal.

haha my god that is funny. so you're saying conservatives "play nice" and never call names? and if you didn't hear me the first time, I AM NOT A FUCKING LIBERAL. I AM ALSO NOT A FUCKING CONSERVATIVE. BOTH ARE FUCKING RETARDED.

How is your vomit party anything but a disgusting and revolting way to show your disagreement with the current administration's policies?

when did i ever claim that it was anything more? this is EXACTLY what it is. only a bag full of vomit, shit, urine, semen, and blood could possibly come close to conveying my disgust to our glorious president or whatever hapless twit that gets to open the bag.

From my perspective your proposal is neither well thought out, nor an effective way to argue your point.

at this point, we ask ourselves: "is someone that is planning on collecting various bodily fluids in a trashbag looking for a well thought out or "effective" way to "argue their point"? it's a pretty obvious NO. because "well thought out" arguments don't work with you "typical conservatives". much like bush's diplomacy, the time for well thought out and calculated rhetoric is over. THE AEON OF SHIT IS AT HAND!!!!

One group's self interest? A re-election campaign, eh? As far as I know, there was bilateral support for the war amongst Congress.

this would not surprise me seeing as congress is part our glorious system of democracy. democracy defined: The ideal form of a political system – now used interchangeably with the economic system called "capitalism" – in which a handful of wealthy people with occasional minor policy differences take turns enriching their patrons and being elected by a citizenry that is allowed no other choices.

There are some 35 countries supporting the coalition, as well, which means that there is at least a modicum of support for this war worldwide.

let's be honest with ourselves. "35 countries"...this should be changed to "the governments of 35 countries". granted a small handful might actually have the support of their people, but for the most part it's yes-men bowing to our whims in hopes of future favors. and i suppose the opinions of the millions that have marched in protest of this war don't matter. after all, they're probably all "typical liberals."

It would be ludicrous to portray this war as a simple way to get re-elected, as would it be to portray it as for "one group's self interest". The shortsightedness of those comments is quite amusing. [/B]

ohhhh really? so now i'm curious...what do you think this war is about? why are we in iraq, blowing the fuck out of baghdad?

So, you fit nowhere on the liberal-to-conservative ideological spectrum? I highly doubt that... Even Hitler and Stalin fit somewhere on that spectrum...

You don't feel that there are more amicable ways of sharing your viewpoints than crapping in a plastic bag? If reactionism is your thing, I guess that's fine, but I believe that if you took your penchant for not mixing words and put it together with your willingness to argue a point and did something constructive it would be more well received. Start a grassroots campaign, or join another, write letters, etc. I'm not exactly sure, but I think that your proposed action might be considered criminal, too.

This war is about several things, IMHO:

1. Liberation of the Iraqi people. Whether people like it or not, the ultimate goal is to liberate the people of Iraq from their dictator.

2. Disarmament of Saddam Hussein. I'm sorry, but Mr. Saddam is NOT being forthright about his weapons stores. His "full disclosure" is a joke. His compliance with 1441 is a joke - he has not intentions of fully complying. If he did, he would have accelerated compliance, offered some measure of relinquishment, or allowed full access to UN inspectors (which he claims to have done, but access on his terms and timetable).

3. Oil. Spin it the way you want, but it is somewhat about oil. Whether it is claimed to be "for the benefit of the Iraqi citizens", which it might be, or "for the moneygrubbing west", which it might be, nobody can deny that the oil is important.

4. Building a coalition in the Middle East - Afghanistan already fell, Iran will be next. We already have other allies. What would the end result be? Who knows... at this point, one can only guess.