With all of this talk of war, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001, and those who support terror. These activists may be alone or in a gathering...most of us don't know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette: 1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian. 2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose. 3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful. 4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying. 5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct. 6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. Square in the nose. 7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making. 8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost. We owe our military a huge debt for what they are about to do for us and our children. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose. Lesson over, class dismissed. DD
Hey Dada, at least give Moondog his props for that. I thought you were against copyright infringement. Pretty funny stuff tho'. fba34, I was wondering if anyone else recognized it. I miss Family Guy. They'd do a number on all the stuff that has been going on lately.
Goophers, I could not remember where I got it, in email or here....so MOONDOG, here is to you bro..... DD
Scientists have found that pro-war rallies are sparsely attended because they're usually held near the cultural/political center of a city and that's way too far of a drive from the suburbs and trailer parks. They'd rather support the rally by watching it on tv anyways. I find a lot of comedy in the political threads to. It's hilarious to read posts by the pro-bush people. They've all got that condescending tone that would imply that they've actually done any serious research into the allegations against Bush. Unfortunately they dismiss any facts from credible sources as being leftwing propaganda while they venerate Fox news and Bill O'Reilly. Try reading more ladies and gentlemen. But I will warn you that the truth is much more painful than your fictional reality. I feel for you, I really do. I used to be a Republican and Bush supporter as well until I actually started looking into the effects of his policies.
Heretic, Just because the word is written does not make it any more credible. Lies come in all forms, books, television etc..etc.... DD
It's called satire. And it's good satire because it's a magnification of something that's actually going on (and has been going on like crazy on this board). That's why Chance's was not only bad satire, but wasn't even satire. The openings are there for a good satirical piece from the other side. I personally don't think it would be AS good, as I find the circular logic of arguments for this war (and the last one in Iraq) to be the most maddening, cynical element of this whole deal. Don't like this justification? Here's another. That one doesn't work either? Here's another... Ultimately resulting in a return to the first flawed arguments. The ATF did the same thing to try and justify Waco and that was a load of crap too. DD (and Moondog): Very funny, very good post to those people who think violence never solves anything. I am absolutely in favor of self-defense. My problem is Iraq's never attacked us.
No, mine wasn't satirical. It was old-fashioned 'makin' fun of'. It was not an attempt at high comedy. It was bottom feeding lowest common denominator stuff. Like a fart joke.
I'm pretty good at spotting lies, I attended church for the first 15 years of my life. I know that dishonesty and biased journalism comes in all forms. However, when the journalists are using public information sources to obtain documents from the governor of florida's office and the offices of his subordinates then I had to begin to question the accepted official version of events that transpired before and after the presidential election of 2000. There's a lot of material out there available to anyone who wants to read it that indicates who benefits from various political and military actions. This is a blanket statement that applies to democratic and republican administrations. In most cases I believe that you'll find that the real justifications for various military conflicts are not necessarily the reasons reported on television. I'm definitely not a republican, but I'm not necessarily a democrat either. I have this aversion to stomaching bull****, which makes it hard for me to really support any of the slimeballs on capital hill.
