Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Official Public Notice

Everyone is hereby given notice to remove his or her Halloween yard displays by November 7. If they are still up after this coming weekend, I will not be held responsible for my actions. You have been warned.

I think the weekend after Halloween is sufficient time for people to deflate the crap on their yards and shuffle it all back to the garage. There is no reason to keep this crap up any longer.

Yet, I have a bad feeling about this. Why do I think I may now see blow-up turkeys in people’s yards? Or even worse, they go straight to Christmas decorations 2 months before the holiday!

Maybe I should teach them all and create a big blow up leg lamp to go in my front yard! Hell, I know I could sell at least two of them! Now that would be classic!

Can I use any more exclamation points in the last 4 sentences?



Just found out yesterday I will be going to San Francisco at the end of November. Seems rather strange that I will be gone a week, but only 3 days of work. Two whole days will be spent traveling. What a waste.



I was a bit surprised that only one person had any sort of disagreement with my thoughts about protestors supporting terrorists. Of course, they missed the point on part of it. You have a right to exercise your freedom of speech. No one is telling you not to dissent from the government. But when your actions encourage our enemy to fight harder or are used by the enemy to demoralize our troops, you are effectively hoping they will surrender or die.

You had also wanted provide some proof to back up the assertion that war protests are fanning the flames of the insurgency in Iraq. It seems quite common for people to ignore the proof that is out there. The letter from Al-Zaqari to Al-Zawari (don’t care about spelling on those bastards) states that usuing the media is important. It is the same strategy that is used in Vietnam. The fact that newspapers had stories ready to go once a soldier had passed is proof. Besides, how many good stories do you see CNN, ABC, CBS, or NBC reporting on in Iraq? It is always death they report. They do not talk about children whose lives have been saved. They do not talk about how the Iraqi Army or Police have been trained or how they take great pride in what they are doing for their country.

You say the major media, both local and national, did not cover these protests. Depends on where you live. I saw it. It didn't deserve major coverage, but still got it.

Fact is Anonymous, you probably hide from the truth. Just as you hide your name. Do you read any website that will give you the opposite opinion? Do you read independent news outlets? It would seem you do not as you would get that information. Even calling it an “insurgency” is incorrect. That would imply that they are fighting Iraqis. They are not. They are fighting international terrorists. People that do not give a flying f@#* about the Iraqi people. The Syrians, Saudis, Iranians, etc. that are killing Iraqis all in the name of religeon are the problem, not good guys as you would like to think.

Furthermore, you show that you basically hate this President and will sleep with any dog that agrees with you, no matter their intent. Blunder-thon. I wish you had extrapolated on that subject more. By no means would I say would they have done in Washington is great, but it sure isn’t as bad as you or other haters would believe. Have you noticed the economy? Nah. You think the price of oil is the real topic they’re ignoring is how employment is at highs and how two hurricanes didn’t slow down GDP. International policy? More countries are experiencing forms of democracy in the Middle East than ever before. The Afghanis and Iraqis are free of tyrannical rule. The Syrians left Lebanon. Sounds like failure to me. Or are you going to give the “the world hates the United States” speech too. Here is a hint: the world has really liked us to begin with. See the United Nations for further proof. I bet you also think that Clinton was one of our greatest (cough cough) presidents as well though he accomplished what? And don’t even try to give him credit for the economic boom of the 90s. If you do, then you know nothing about economics.

You can think what you would like. My words won’t change your mind. Just don’t go harming our military.

And let me get back to talking about drinking and stuff.

19 comments:

TomInWestBend said...

Why do I expect you to scream like H. Dean?

StB said...

I wasn't that insane. Close, but not quite.

TomInWestBend said...

I know thats why I didn't demand it! Good post btw...

Blonde said...

I already told my mom that I am going to set her yard on fire if she still has all the Halloween shit on it next week.

It I see ONE christmas decoration on a lawn, I am going to go postal.

I am ready to scream like Dean...I think I need to get laid

Anonymous said...

I talked with my father about what it was like during the Vietnam era (he fought there and lost his brother also). He wasn't very fond of our governments decision go to there and he wasn't particularly fond of the people who were able to get out of going and protested instead or the people that had strings pulled for them to get "easy" duty. But, neither feeling made him want to fight any less hard. Survival is a pretty strong motivator.

If you are saying that it is not okay to protest our goverments actions during war, you are saying in essence that dissent is unacceptable. When do you expect protests to go on? When most people actually approve of the job the government is doing, or when they do not?

The pentagon ignored the advice of Gen. Shinseki re: troop deployment. Had they not, I think we would have better control of the insurgency (if you can back up the assertion that none of them are Iraqis, I'll call them whatever you want).

Saying that I think the insurgents are "good guys" really makes you look stupid. Just because I disagree with going to war and how it has been handled doesn't mean I don't have friends and family who are or have fought there. So, you must think I want them to be harmed. Dispicable. I think we could have a good debate here if you didn't invalidate yourself by saying something so dumb.

Re truth: No one has a monopoly on it. It's my opinion that this war has been a pretty major fuck up, although I hope it turns out well. I agree that there are a number of strategic reasons why we would want to have a strong foothold and ally in a democratic Iraq. But, I don't need to be lied to (WMD, spreading freedom, etc) by the president. Give me the real fucking reason, I am willing to listen. Give me the TRUTH.

I am not going to debate particular points of this presidents' record. He's not the worst president and he's certainly not the best. I think he's fucked up alot of things, but certainly not everything. If you want specific examples, let me know.

And, no, I don't think Clinton was the greatest president ever. I think he cared more about what matters to me than Bush, so I think he was the better president. He didn't fuck up a major war (e.g. Kosovo), he lied about shit I would lie about (e.g. getting a BJ by someone not my wife), he could communicate effectively, he was a much better diplomat (you know there is a reason why he got sent to Thailand after the tsunami and was used after Katrina, don't you, don't you???).

Re: The Economy. Please tell me that you realize you give Bush credit for the low unemployment rates, strong GDP, etc. All economic measures of course. And then at the end of the same paragraph state, "don’t even try to give him [Clinton] credit for the economic boom of the 90s. If you do, then you know nothing about economics."
I do know very little about economics, but I am not sure how you can give Bush credit for maintaining a strong economy, but not give Clinton credit for establishing it. Again, I don't know shit about economics, maybe you can explain it to me?

-Anonymous:)

StB said...

Normally I wouldn't respond to someone who fails to identify themselves and resorts to the liberal trick bag of calling others names and asking for proof or the truth when they fail to search themselves. Go check out Michael Yon before you start typing.

Furthermore, read what I say before you go off. Dissenting is ok until it is used to harm the troops. Do you have an idea of who backs most of the groups that form these protests? Hint: They are not getting Christmas cards from the White House. Where do I even imply you think of them as the good guys?

The truth is that WMD's were found. They weren't found in a huge stash as was thought they would be but they did find smaller caches around the country as well as plans for long range missiles. I didn't know Iraq was forming a space program. Yet, I see no opinion of yours as to why we are there. And don't try to say it is because of oil.

Why did Clinton get us involved in Kosovo? We had no reason to be there. Where was the protest about that war?

By no means should any president get all claims to the economy, but Bush did get policies passed to jump start the economy. Greenspan did the rest. But did you realize that the gains in the 90s were basically transparent? Enron, Worldcom, Tyco were running rampant committing fraud in the 90s. Clinton was too busy going after legitimate business to care. To top it off, he had absolutely nothing to do with the catalyst that made the economy so strong.

Blonde said...

anonymous needs to get his/her own blog.

StB said...

BTW Anon, what are you studying in school?

WhisKeYGyrL said...

I'm gonna leave mine up until christmas just for you STB!!!! ;)

std said...

Nice to know you can log an IP address....Does it really matter who I am? I don't know you, I don't know your name. Unless, that is, stb is your real name.
You can call me std.

1)from your OP. maybe I read it wrong. I took 'good guys' as meaning terrorists.

"That would imply that they are fighting Iraqis. They are not. They are fighting international terrorists. People that do not give a flying f@#* about the Iraqi people. The Syrians, Saudis, Iranians, etc. that are killing Iraqis all in the name of religeon are the problem, not good guys as you would like to think."

I don't agree with you that dissent harms the troops and I have actually talked to people personally who share the same view and have been in this and other wars. Have you?

I believe the anitwar demonstration was organized by ANSWER. Read any left-leaning blog and you would have seen quite a bit of in-fighting over this. They are a little far out there for me, I don't support them but that cuts both ways. Did you actually support the disgusting display by swift boat veterans for "truth"? Attack someone who was in real fucking combat as a means to support someone who got strings pulled to get them out of real duty. I think if GW Bush really would have believed in fighting for freedom he would have stepped up in the late 60s and volunteered for duty in vietnam. Lots of people did. Even fellow Yalies.

WMDs found? I'll believe you that a few caches were found, but is that why we went there? A few caches and some plans? lmfao. I've probably shit comparable things in my toilet. Why aren't we in North Korea? The real reason why we are there? Policy laid out by the Project for the New American Century. Read a synopsis of the their core views and beliefs and tell me why you think are in Iraq. Btw, the members of PNAC are basically a who's who of the current admin.

Kosovo=genocide=0 combat casualites= few protests because no one died.

Yeah, you are right Clinton had nothing to do with the economic rebound of the 90s. He didn't initiate any laws to help middle class people and get people out of poverty (minimum wage increase; lowest poverty rate since 1979) and he didn't move to pay down the budget deficit (he did) which in turn would drop interest rates (they did). The 90s economy wasn't about everything you are reading at newsmax or hear out of Charlie Sykes mouth. The dot com BS, was, well BS, but there were real gains.

I can't believe the right is still so focused on Clinton. Not big believers in zen philosophy I guess. God help me if I am still talking about Bush in 2014.

TomInWestBend said...

std did you read Yon yet? If you haven't I would think it would be best you read his dispatches before commenting on StB's blog...

std said...

I did read some of them. They were interesting and I am going to read more. Listen, I am all for listening to other accounts of how things are going in Iraq, but it doesn't deny the fact that Iraq didn't have massive quantities WMDs, or yellowcake uranium, or plans for a nuclear bomb (you do remember Ms Rice's comments about both, right?). And it doesn't deny the fact that many American's have been killed there already. I really don't think it has been worth it. The original rationale for war was that Iraq posed a significant threat to our safety. Colin Powell made the case in front of the UN, but it turns out that virtually none of what he said was true. So now the administration says we went there to spread freedom and democracy. I think we can agree that those are great things, but that is not what we were told in the lead up to the war. Why do you think this was? Easy, because no one would have bought it, the American public would not have supported it. Most people don't think it is our job to go around and overthrow the governments of other countries, and I agree with them. If this was our perogative, why aren't we in North Korea or China? Why didn't we trample Cuba 40 years ago?

So Yon's reporting doesn't change my opinion at all. He obviously has a POV just like everyone else. But, let's say things were going swimmingly over there and no American's were getting killed and Iraq was free and democracy was taking it's hold. Does the end justify the means?

I'll leave you alone now, I haven't seen one adequate response to anything I've said. I thought I could get a real debate, but all you can do is refer my to one guys blog who doesn't cover really anything I (lies from our gov't, protests, etc) am talking about.

StB said...

What lies from the government do you speak of?

std said...

Oh, I don't know. I think I heard something about someone indicted on perjury charges recently.

StB said...

Yeah, one person lied about his conversations with reporters. What is the big deal there? Until proven guilty, there really is not story. If guilty, he should be sent to jail as well as anyone else involved with intentionally deceiving the American people.

It is a shame that he followed the precedence set by the prior administration.

At least you didn't try to further lies about reasons on going to war. You do now that the President didn't lie about that, though libs still ignore the facts.

std said...

Clinton lied about getting BJ's from a fat chick, not exactly the same as lying in a case about outing a CIA agent to a news reporter and covering the ass of his boss.


Re war: There were the famous 16 words in dubya's SOU speech which were proven to be false. Now, you say he didn't lie because other people believed some of the same forged documents those words were based on and the documents weren't widely known to be fraudulent at the time. But isn't that something you want to make damn sure of? You are going to war for Christsakes. And Powell's testimony to the UN before the war? Less than a year later everyone knows that is BS, Powell admitted it himself. If it only took 1 year to find out that 99 percent of what the sec of state said to the UN to make a case for was false, don't you think it wouldn't have been that hard find out the correct info? All you needed to do was listen to the weapons inspectors that had been there.

StB said...

What forged documents? Bush never lied. Simple and true. Who thought Iraq had the weapons? US Intelligence, British, the UN. Many people couldn't account for the weapons. Hell, even the Iraqi army thought they had the weapons. Not his fault his information may have been faulty. Did you forget about the inspectors that were thwarted of doing their job correctly? They made an effort to get the info. You cannot say they didn't try.

Like the UN has/should have any credibility. They screw this country over every chance they get.

std said...

forged documents
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/

You didn't hear about them? must be the liberal media.

From David Kay's report

no evidence of orders or plans to continue an active nuclear program after 1991. The aluminum tubes were not for the purposes of uranium enrichment.

At the seven sites stigmatized in the September 2002 dossier of Blair's government, there was no evidence of suspicious activities or residues.

There was no sign of imported uranium.


Yeah, not his fault I guess. Seriously, there is more QC and fact checking for toilet paper we wipe our ass with than there was for our case for the war.

StB said...

But you said they lied. Where is the lie? They believed the documents to be real. The British did too. All this time Iraq is acting like they have the weapons. What conclusion are you going to draw? The reason to remove Saddam from power is still there.

Again you are talking about the CIA and their job. Trusting them to do their job is not a crime. Hell, if they weren't forced to cut back in the 90s, maybe they would have found these to be fakes.

You would prefer to wait longer and allow Saddam to become a threat? You want to allow him to continue to support terrorist and kill Iraqis that do not agree with him?

He was a known killer that was circumventing sanctions against him. What do you think he intended to do with all the oil for food money? Throw a kegger?