Visit the Cellar!

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: bright folks talking about everything. The Cellar is the original coffeeshop with no coffee and no shop. Founded in 1990, The Cellar is one of the oldest communities on the net. Join us at the table if you like!

 
What's IotD?

The interesting, amazing, or mind-boggling images of our days.

IotD Stuff

ARCHIVES - over 13 years of IotD!
About IotD
RSS2
XML

Permalink Latest Image

Sept 20th, 2017: Manhattan Gluten

Recent Images

Sept 19th, 2017: Fireworks
Sept 16th, 2017: Cute Paws
Sept 17th, 2017: Kauri Dam
Sept 16th, 2017; Tiny House
Sept 15th, 2017: First American Planetarium
Sept 14th, 2017: Swings
Sept 13th, 2017: Damifino

The CELLAR Tip Mug
Some folks who have noticed IotD

Neatorama
Worth1000
Mental Floss
Boing Boing
Switched
W3streams
GruntDoc's Blog
No Quarters
Making Light
darrenbarefoot.com
GromBlog
b3ta
Church of the Whale Penis
UniqueDaily.com
Sailor Coruscant
Projectionist

Link to us and we will try to find you after many months!

Common image haunts

Astro Pic of the Day
Earth Sci Pic of the Day
We Make Money Not Art
Spluch
ochevidec.net
Strange New Products
Geisha Asobi Blog
Cute animals blog (in Russian)
20minutos.es
Yahoo Most Emailed

Please avoid copyrighted images (or get permission) when posting!

Advertising

Philadelphia Pawn Shop
The best real estate agent in Montgomery County
The best T.38 Fax provider
Epps Beverages and Beer, Limerick, PA
Sal's Pizza, Elkins Park
Burholme Auto Body, Philadelphia
Coles Tobacco, Pottstown
ERM Auto Service, Glenside
Glenside Collision
Moorehead Catering, Trappe
Salon 153, Bala
Dominicks Auto Body, Phoenixville

   Undertoad  Tuesday Apr 8 01:56 PM

4/8/2003: Protest gets painful



Oakland police ratcheted up the "war on protests" by loading up with rubber bullets and wood "pellets" to stop protesters. Some people were hurt. One guy had his hand shattered.

The protesters were ratcheting up the volume themselves, by trying to block access to a shipping company that was apparently involved in shipping to the war effort.

Apparently, this is the first time that any projectiles have been used in protests in the US for this war.

Wa Post story

This one enters into some very murky waters. On one hand, the use of these wooden pellets or "batons" is really over the top.

Description of wooden batons and proper usage

That page explains: the wooden rounds work by "producing incapacitation by blunt impact trauma and excruciating pain." It also says "IMPORTANT NOTE: Never aim at or above the Sternum. Less Lethal Ammunition can cause contusions, abrasions,broken ribs, concussions, loss of eyes, superficial organ damage, serious skin lacerations massive skull fractures, rupture of the heart or kidney, fragmentation of the liver, hemorrhages, and death."

Death. Huh.

On the other hand, actually interrupting a military operation is going much further than speaking out with signs and marching. Whether you're for or against the operation, it's happening, and to interrupt the supply of it is to put troops at risk. The 250 mile supply line into Baghdad actually starts from these port cities, thousands of miles away.

And then there are the costs. San Francisco has learned that the city itself is affected by the protests there, having to deal with almost a million dollars in additional costs because of them. (But much more positively affected by having the city unofficially represent the counter-culture!) One can only imagine how the city of Oakland makes its decisions when looking over at its neighbor, when it would have a harder time of affording such additional costs. And yet, by opening themselves to lawsuits, Oakland may find its approach even more costly than San Francisco's!

The proper way to address this might have been to arrest the protesters for trespassing, and then petition the feds to add treason to the charges. You can demonstrate, you can speak, you can march, but you can't interrupt shipments to troops. Don't ratchet up the physical pain threshhold for protesting: elevate the debate to taking it to courtrooms.



arz  Tuesday Apr 8 02:21 PM

Apparently the cops also shot at and injured a couple of longshoremen who had shown up to work and were waiting for Oakland's finest to clear out the protestors blocking the entrance.



Elspode  Tuesday Apr 8 02:41 PM

I suppose it would be silly and racist of me to point out that, were these people staging a protest in interference with any sort of military operation in, say, Iraq, that they would probably have been beaten, shot, burned, kidnapped, raped and tortured for their punishments?

Protest is legitimate, interference with a military support operation is not. In fact, I feel that it more closely borders on treason than anything that Peter Arnett said, and I think *he's* an idiot.

Scream, yell, wave signs, perform acts of passive civil disobedience, but stay the hell out of the way of the military when it is actively operating, otherwise, expect to get your ass kicked for your trouble.

I'm not saying it is right to injure protesters, I'm saying (much as I said about the bulldozed protester in Gaza) that if you interfere with something that is not going to be interfered with, expect to get hurt.



Uryoces  Tuesday Apr 8 03:07 PM

Thank God they weren't using pepper spray!

I don't think there's a way to rinse that off her[his?] pie-hole.



dave  Tuesday Apr 8 03:38 PM

Well, a few things. Dispersing a large crowd is a lot different than taking away a single person. If they had fired rubber bullets at a woman holding a sign and being in the way... well, that's pretty re-goddamn-diculous. On the other hand, I have little sympathy for these people. The police don't have much of a choice when there are 750 people that are obstructing a very serious operation. You need to get them out of there, and fast. Taking all day to do it could cost lives. Again, if it were a single person, arrest makes perfect sense. But not in this case.

She certainly shouldn't have a wound to her face, but the cops are generally pretty good about that. I'm guessing she didn't realize what was happening and ducked, which is the dumbest thing you can do with less lethal ammunition, because it greatly increased the chances of you being <b>permanently</b> stopped. If you're hit over the heart with a bean bag, you're a goner.

The best bet is to not do stupid shit like obstructing an area like that with a large crowd, where the police really have no choice but use these methods.



xoxoxoBruce  Tuesday Apr 8 04:35 PM

They forgot about O-HI-O.



Joe  Tuesday Apr 8 06:00 PM

Real cool.

That doesn't look like a richochet wound, someone took a head shot on a girl. She's very lucky it was a glancing blow.

These are "less lethal" munitions, not non-lethal. Take a straight-on head shot with a baton (dowel) round and you die. I thought they had stopped making those things because they were so dangerous. The instructions call for skip-firing, not taking direct aim.

A riot once broke out on the street I live on. A cop took a head shot on a teenager with a bean bag round, and blew the victim's eyeball out of the socket. The police department later issued an apology and said they wished it had never happened.

Here's the deal. You don't use powder-actuated projectile weapons for crowd dispersal, that's what tear gas is for.



slang  Tuesday Apr 8 06:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dave
You need to get them out of there, and fast. Taking all day to do it could cost lives. Again, if it were a single person, arrest makes perfect sense. But not in this case.
I agree with Dave on this one.

And....here again, as with the dozer, if you see and hear the cops shooting get the fuck out of the way.


Uryoces  Tuesday Apr 8 07:11 PM

Quote:
That doesn't look like a richochet wound, someone took a head shot on a girl. She's very lucky it was a glancing blow.
I don't know, Joe. It looks like it hit her cheek, then skipped down off her neck. If the officer fired it from a ladder it might make sense, or maybe she saw they were firing, dropped forward and caught a skip shot.

Gas or pepper spray would have been a better alternative if they were in a hurry.


Whit  Tuesday Apr 8 08:26 PM

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The cops also have this paint ball like round filled with white pepper. Finely ground. Makes a nice cloud or at least that's what I hear. It also hit's a little bit harder than a regular paint ball. How cool is that? Still, these are common enough that I've seen them in person. (Um... a cop showed 'em to me in a friendly way... not a ... hostile situation) It seems they would have been a better choice too.



wolf  Tuesday Apr 8 08:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Uryoces
Thank God they weren't using pepper spray!

I don't think there's a way to rinse that off her[his?] pie-hole.
It's called "Bio Shield" ... It both washes the capscascin (sp?) resin off of you and neutralizes it.

It works.

Extremely well.

(I have never been sprayed myself, but have spent a fair amount of time around people who have been.)


BrianR  Tuesday Apr 8 08:49 PM

pepper spray removal techniques

They told me to use warm water and LOTS of liquid soap.

I found that plain yogurt worked better.

Yes, I've been sprayed. Three times.

The military requires one to be sprayed once a year to maintain qualifications on it's use. I could use pepper spray for three out of the last four years that I was active duty.

The last qual, the instructor was using me to demonstrate how incapacitated a person would be for a class...I got up, took away his canister and let him have it. He didn't know that I can operate blind, I do not react well to pepper spray, that is, I do not have the full effect - (I don't breathe IN when sprayed...I hold my breath!)

This boy knows how to deal with most weapons that I might find on the street. Too bad the instructor wasn't breifed on that...HE had the full effect! HEHEHEHE

Brian



quzah  Wednesday Apr 9 05:56 AM

What I want to know is, why is there a bumble bee embedded in her nose?

Quzah.



Uryoces  Wednesday Apr 9 12:55 PM

I was originally going to make some comment about patchouli and stud-seeking rounds, but thought better of it. I was trying to be sarcastic about the pepper spray, and that you can't rinse the golfball and severe rug burn of her pie-hole.



paranoid  Wednesday Apr 9 03:28 PM

Is it ok to interfere with the military operation?

Just two places.

June 4, 1989 - Tiananmen Square, Bejing, China.
August 19, 1991 - Moscow, Russia.

People there were lying before the tanks and died for what they beleived was right. It does take courage and not everyone is willing to do it, but I can only admire the courage of people who oppose what they think is wrong.

If one disagrees with "military operation" (which is an euphemism for war), if one disagrees with invading another country or with killing innocent civilians and is willing to stand for her beliefs, that is a great person. And it is not treason, but the highest form of loyalty to be able to say "my country is wrong" and attempt to correct while risking your life.



dave  Wednesday Apr 9 03:36 PM

Well, it is kind of hard to argue against the war when there are millions of Iraqis celebrating in the streets for the first time in forty years.



dave  Wednesday Apr 9 03:37 PM

And, I might add, if those people were there, keeping supplies from getting to American troops who put their lives at risk so we can be assholes back home... I'll hurt them myself.



Elspode  Wednesday Apr 9 03:38 PM

Someone told me that Paranoid said: "If one disagrees with "military operation" (which is an euphemism for war), if one disagrees with invading another country or with killing innocent civilians and is willing to stand for her beliefs, that is a great person. And it is not treason, but the highest form of loyalty to be able to say "my country is wrong" and attempt to correct while risking your life."

Ergo, the current US regime is as abusive, dictatorial and oppressive as those in Communist China and the former Soviet Union?

Forgive me if I respectfully disagree. If our regime was as oppressive as those, and as that of Badhdad, you would be having your door kicked in right now and being dragged out into the street to be run over by tanks *involuntarily*.

We have problems in this country, but nothing that requires us to sacrifice our lives in martyrdom toward the overthrow of a corrupt regime for which human rights violations are a means of civil policing.

Protest and sacrifice are noble, especially when the alternative is being put to death by your own government. That doesn't happen very often in this country, and when it does, the people who get squished are usually doing a little more than leading peaceful, productive lives and exercising their freedom of speech. We have abuses of power in the US, but not for long...our people don't stand for it for more than the average four year term.



wolf  Wednesday Apr 9 05:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Uryoces
I was originally going to make some comment about patchouli and stud-seeking rounds, but thought better of it. I was trying to be sarcastic about the pepper spray, and that you can't rinse the golfball and severe rug burn of her pie-hole.

Oooooh. (realization dawns.)

Yah. That would sting.


smalland  Friday Apr 11 04:51 AM

nonsense

Come on guys, isn't it a teeny weeny bit hypocrytical to suggest that

Quote:
you can speak, you can march, but you can't interrupt shipments to troops
(i.e. promote civilised behaviour), while at the same time supporting a war whose timing is utterly capricious given that the `civilised', diplomatic and alternative routes (that you are apparently so keen on) were nowhere near exhausted?

Surely the man in power in the White House should not be able to silence the people protesting war simply by waging it!!! Now is as good a time as any to protest.

And don't give me the traitor bullshit: no-one has attacked us.

Dan


dave  Friday Apr 11 06:32 AM

Uh. Okay. I think you missed something there.

Protest is fine. Go stand in the fuckin' road. Protest by interfering with shipments to troops? <b>That could cost lives.</b> That is not okay.



Leus  Friday Apr 11 02:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dave
Well, it is kind of hard to argue against the war when there are millions of Iraqis celebrating in the streets for the first time in forty years.
That's sarcasm? If not, I doubt that millions of Iraqis are celebrating.


dave  Friday Apr 11 02:03 PM

Good for you. I don't doubt it, be they in the streets or in their homes. Baghdad's population is 5 million; it's not unreasonable to think that 20% of them wanted him gone.



Elspode  Friday Apr 11 02:06 PM

I want a head count, Dave, and names...also addresses, political party affiliation and whether or not they like their women to wear burqhas.

Without real proof, your statements are nothing but hyperbole.



Leus  Friday Apr 11 03:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dave
Good for you. I don't doubt it, be they in the streets or in their homes. Baghdad's population is 5 million; it's not unreasonable to think that 20% of them wanted him gone.
No need to get cranky. I was just watching the news here, particularly the reports of a chilean reporter in Baghdad. He stated that the majority of the people of Irak is happy about Saddam's "dissapearing" , but they are not celebrating yet.


xoxoxoBruce  Friday Apr 11 05:27 PM

I hate it when they protest in the summer. PA won't let me use my studded tires in the summer.



quzah  Friday Apr 11 11:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Leus
He stated that the majority of the people of Irak is happy about Saddam's "dissapearing" , but they are not celebrating yet.
If I lived there, I'd be worried about celebrating too soon also. Seriously, what's his nut from Afghanistan vanished without trace, and now Sadam. Who is to say they won't show up again down the line? Who is to say we won't decide Saddam isn't our primary threat again.

Hey, Bush already said that about Bin Laden. He is no longer considered our primary concern.

So much for the 'War on Terror'.

But who the hell cares, right? IIRC, over half of Americans polled believe that Saddam was the cause of the towers anyway.

[edit]Can't spell for shit.[/edit]

Quzah.


juju  Saturday Apr 12 12:54 AM

When did Bush say that?



quzah  Saturday Apr 12 06:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
When did Bush say that?
One of those nifty televised news updates IIRC. It's amazing what you can do with google...

Viola!

Quzah.


juju  Saturday Apr 12 11:47 AM

Wow. I'm shocked. What a moron.



Whit  Saturday Apr 12 04:51 PM

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Moron? I don't think so. Consider how short the average persons memory is. How many people have you heard bitching about the fact that Bin Laden has been forgotten since the war broke out? Very few is the answer Id have to give. It's simple substitution. Kinda basic, but very well orchestrated. So now Saddam is the big bad, and Bin Laden is last weeks news. If he keeps playing it this way we can expect a new great evil of the month from here on out. Even if the fate of Saddam remains uncertain he'll be forgotten. The question is, who's the next evil?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I haven't seen any of the supposed polls saying that most Americans believe Saddam was connected to 9/11, but if it's true then it would be indicative of how well Bush can manipulate the situation. Come to think of it I've never even talked to someone that held such a belief... Even if it's not true then he's still pulled off some stuff, such as going to war without UN backing, that I wouldn't have believed he could ever pull off when he was elected.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Yeah, 9/11 changed everything for him, but he's really worked it well. Calling Bush a moron plays into his game. He is a man that really knows how to work being "misunderestimated." Never just assume he's stupid. Every time people do that Bush comes out ahead. I'd be happy about this if I was convinced he'd bring the US along or the ride.



juju  Saturday Apr 12 07:13 PM

Just because people can't remember what they had for breakfast yesterday morning doesn't mean Bush is some sort of Genius Mastermind. I actually get the sense that he has about average intelligence, but I'd bet he's the one being manipulated.

The whole 9/11-terrorist mindset is sort of like the mob/rioting mentality. You don't have to be smart to get away with crazy shit. People just let you do it because they're caught up in the moment and forget their rationality.




Whit  Saturday Apr 12 10:13 PM

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I may have overspoke a little. I'm not suggesting Bush is some kind of genius. I'm saying that he's done a good job of getting what he wants. Hell, what has he not gotten that he wanted? If he doesn't have it yet then I bet he's working on getting it pretty quick.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Look at it from that point of view. I remember making jokes about how much Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11. We never thought it would happen. After 9/11 most of the people I knew still didn't see it happening.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Now it has happened. I think a lot of the reason things have gone this far is that people still think Bush is an idiot.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He can't talk right, but he sure seems to get his way. That is my point. If he is a moron could he have gotten his way so often?



elSicomoro  Saturday Apr 12 10:16 PM

I'll take Dubya over his sidekick anyday.



Whit  Saturday Apr 12 10:28 PM

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Actually ... I'm feeling a little queasy ... I've never said such nice things about Bush before ...

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Damn it, Juju! It's all your fault. ;]



juju  Saturday Apr 12 11:00 PM

I guess you're right. I've always ridiculed people who said the president is a moron, because obviously you don't get to that position without some skills. Now here I am doing it!


I've made a cursory effort to try to nail down a respectable source for the two Bush quotes in question. I just want to see it on a site that somebody's little brother couldn't have done up. Like a major news site, or something well-known.

The source for the last quote, The New American, is actually given. But it was still hard to find, because they transposed two of the words, therefore slightly changing the wording. This initially made a google search turn up nothing, but I did eventually find it here.

But I still have yet to find a trusted source for the second-to-last quote. It's the most incriminating one. The one that makes him look most like an idiot. The last quote could have just been taken out of context, but the second-to-last one is pretty damned clear. Anyway, the second-to-last quote is cited everywhere on the net. A google for "bush "bin laden" "not our priority"" turns up 145 hits. But no major news sites show up in the first four pages.

Did he actually say this, or did someone just say he said it and it caught on?



Torrere  Sunday Apr 13 01:12 AM

I found a site dated to April 18 2002 which claims that Bush made the second to last quote from BuzzFlash.

Also, damningly, I found a geocities site, whose owner made up quotes attributed to supermodels that wanted to have sex with him, with the quote by Bush.



Whit  Sunday Apr 13 01:59 PM

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I googled "Bush 3/13/02" and I got a list of sites. No major news sources that I noticed but there were a number on different sides. Seems likely he did say it. Though, again, I don't think it makes him a moron. More like a jerk.*

* (My kids are right here...)



juju  Sunday Apr 13 06:27 PM

I think you underestimate how easily false information can spread online.



wolf  Sunday Apr 13 06:40 PM

buzzflash.com IS an authorized, authoratative source, isn't it??



juju  Sunday Apr 13 11:31 PM

uhh..



Torrere  Monday Apr 14 12:45 AM

Normally, buzzflash.com would be an authoritive source. However, it so happens that Karen lost most of her credibility a year ago, with the infamous prediction she made last year regarding the leaf cartel.



wolf  Monday Apr 14 01:44 AM

SARCASM, dammit ... the winky smiley thingy denotes sarcasm, right?? or should I use fake tags to delimit the sarcastic remarks from now on ....

Of course, you COULD just take it as given that anything I say as goofy as that was intended to be sarcastic. :p

sheesh.



smalland  Monday Apr 14 07:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dave
...
Protest by interfering with shipments to troops? <b>That could cost lives.</b> That is not okay.
I don't have to point out the increadible irony of that comment, do I?..

D


dave  Monday Apr 14 08:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
I think you underestimate how easily false information can spread online.
The correct sentence is: "I think you <b>misunderestimate</b> how easily false information can spread online."


dave  Monday Apr 14 08:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by smalland
I don't have to point out the increadible irony of that comment, do I?..
No, because a) it's not ironic and b) there's no such word as "increadible".


smalland  Monday Apr 14 08:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dave
because a) it's not ironic
Then try harder.

Let me ask you this much, totally honestly: Why do the protesters think war is so bad?


dave  Monday Apr 14 09:07 AM

Because they're sheep and buy the party line?

If you endanger the lives of the United States military, you are a really dumb person. That's why there was such a show of force at breaking up this demonstration. Again, I got no sympathy. I've got a friend somewhere over there and I want to make sure he's well supplied to do his job so he can get the fuck back and start posting to the Cellar again. Anyone that puts that at risk, well, I've got no sympathy for you.



xoxoxoBruce  Monday Apr 14 09:20 AM

Quote:
Anyone that puts that at risk, well, I've got no sympathy for you
YES !


smalland  Monday Apr 14 09:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dave
Because they're sheep and buy the party line?
Possibly, though I don't think that's a very persuasive argument about what's happening here in England.

Quote:
If you endanger the lives of the United States military, you are a really dumb person. That's why there was such a show of force at breaking up this demonstration. Again, I got no sympathy. I've got a friend somewhere over there and I want to make sure he's well supplied to do his job so he can get the fuck back and start posting to the Cellar again. Anyone that puts that at risk, well, I've got no sympathy for you.
I appreciate the personal nature of your support for the military. However, I doubt your concern for saving lives (and hence moral outrage at the protesters) is going to make the boy who's lost his family and had his arms blown off feel more relieved (for example).


juju  Monday Apr 14 09:29 AM

Yup, it's ironic.



Leus  Monday Apr 14 09:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
[b][...]because obviously you don't get to that position without some skills.[...]
I can't help myself think about "kingdoms" and the such...


dave  Monday Apr 14 09:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by smalland
I appreciate the personal nature of your support for the military. However, I doubt your concern for saving lives (and hence moral outrage at the protesters) is going to make the boy who's lost his family and had his arms blown off feel more relieved (for example).
Hey man, you're welcome for 1945 and 1918. I'm really sorry about 1776 though. And 1812. Really.

Did, uh, any civilians get killed in WWII? I can think of about six million of 'em just off the top of my head...

If I've got to pick between some fugly bitch that went to protest by <b>interfering with the shipment of goods to soldiers overseas</b> and a man that has sworn to defend me at all costs, even if it means <b>turning his wife into a widow</b>... that's no choice at all.

I appreciate protest, and if you'd done your homework, you'd know that I was never sold on this war. I am as skeptical as any rational being is about it. But interfering with military business in the time of war is about as smart as running in to Harlem with a sign that says "I Hate Niggers". You are just <b>asking</b> to get shot.

There is a fine line, and I recommend that protestors respect that. They're able to voice their dissent because better men have sacrificed themselves for the good of the world.


Elspode  Monday Apr 14 10:04 AM

Bravo, Dave. And I would also like to go on record as saying that, although I was not 100% sold on the war, I am 100% sold on getting done what we set out to do and getting our people the hell out of Iraq. People who interfere with shipments of military materiel are attempting to screw up that process, and hence should expect to get hurt in the process. Their choice.

Now, can we all just get on with the business of wondering if GWB is going to just keep on chasing Saddam right into Syria? I will be even more dubious (Dubyaous?) of that possibility than I was of the current military excursion.



smalland  Monday Apr 14 02:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dave
Hey man, you're welcome for 1945 and 1918. I'm really sorry about 1776 though. And 1812. Really.
Look, I have total respect for FDR. But for the moment I'll side-step this complete red herring and point out that it was precisely after WWII that most of the world (<i>including</i> the USA, or should I say <i>particularly</i>?) decided that fighting each other was not the best way to go about sorting out our differences.

Oh, and while we're thanking each other, you could start by thanking those pesky French for your constitution.

Quote:
There is a fine line, and I recommend that protestors respect that. They're able to voice their dissent because better men have sacrificed themselves for the good of the world.
"better men", "the good of the world"? A wee bit self-righteous, don't you think?


dave  Monday Apr 14 03:16 PM

Quote:
"better men", "the good of the world"? A wee bit self-righteous, don't you think?
self-righteous? Huh? Like the hundreds of thousands of British and Americans that joined to defeat Hitler?

I did jack shit. It's hardly self-righteous. What it's called is <b>respect</b> and <b>thanks</b> for the men who didn't come home, that I can sit here and be an asshole without fear of being executed for having an unpopular opinion. If anything, I'd call your attitude self-righteous, for not recognizing the sacrifice many <b>better</b> men have made before you.


smalland  Monday Apr 14 03:42 PM

OK, dave, you go on discussing WWII and your interpretation of what it taught us about war.

In the meantime, I'm sorry if I thought we were talking about the very current war. (only half sarcastic)

Cheers,
D



dave  Monday Apr 14 03:53 PM

My sincerest apologies that you were unable to comprehend the fact that I was talking about prior wars which supported freedom of speech. (completely sarcastic)



xoxoxoBruce  Monday Apr 14 04:15 PM

Quote:
Oh, and while we're thanking each other, you could start by thanking those pesky French for your constitution.
No, thank the Iroquois Confederacy.


smalland  Monday Apr 14 04:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dave
My sincerest apologies that you were unable to comprehend the fact that I was talking about prior wars which supported freedom of speech. (completely sarcastic)
Itt saddens me that although you value free speech so highly, (which I completely agree with,) my dissenting voice was attacked ad hominem. Very ironic (yes, it really is,) since I'm not actually from England, as you so easily presumed, merely studying "here". It has been interesting and depressing to run with that, and discover how you so quickly (and with flare) beat your fellow American over the head because of his presumed country of origin, almost completely failing to engage the logic of any rational argument that was presented.

I do hope not all dissenting voices are treated like this back home.

D (for depressed?)
PS: My grandfather, one of the truely "better men", did fight in the war. Luckily he survived, and his stories haunt me to this day...


smalland  Monday Apr 14 04:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
No, thank the Iroquois Confederacy.
A complete enumeration of the influences on the constitution was not a goal (this reflects the original post). So surely you mean "also thank", no?


juju  Monday Apr 14 05:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by smalland
Look, I have total respect for FDR. But for the moment I'll side-step this complete red herring and point out that it was precisely after WWII that most of the world (including the USA, or should I say particularly?) decided that fighting each other was not the best way to go about sorting out our differences.
I know this is unrelated to the discussion, but I believe this shift in thinking occured after WWI. That's why Germany was able to get away with so much without the other countries doing anything. They had seen the horrors of modern warfare for the first time and didn't want to repeat them.


richlevy  Monday Apr 14 09:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Elspode
[B
We have problems in this country, but nothing that requires us to sacrifice our lives in martyrdom toward the overthrow of a corrupt regime for which human rights violations are a means of civil policing.
[/b]
..at least for the time being.


dave  Tuesday Apr 15 07:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by smalland
Itt saddens me that although you value free speech so highly, (which I completely agree with,) my dissenting voice was attacked ad hominem.
We all have our good days...

Look, I really don't mind you dissenting. Having a different opinion is good. I simply disagree with your notion that it's "ironic". Wanting to minimize <b>all</b> casualties, even those of soldiers, isn't ironic. Yes, I see what you were saying. It's ironic if you think Alanis Morissette has a good grasp of the word. But whatever. We're arguing semantics. The point here is that I really don't want to see a lot of people dead, and here are my reasons (in order of importance):

1) dying, by all accounts, pretty well sucks
2) it's awful PR that I have to put up with later


Quote:
Very ironic (yes, it really is,) since I'm not actually from England, as you so easily presumed, merely studying "here". It has been interesting and depressing to run with that, and discover how you so quickly (and with flare) beat your fellow American over the head because of his presumed country of origin, almost completely failing to engage the logic of any rational argument that was presented.
What can I say, I was having a bad day. You might not know that my house burned up in December; well, I found out yesterday that another one of my homes was burglarized. So that kind of put me "in a mood". Plus, I only got two hours of sleep 'cause I was up late playing GTA.

Seriously though, I just don't see the logic of your argument. You're saying "war is bad", which I agree with - but then what? It's silly to hope our troops come home safe? I'm not trying to be mean (I had a good nap last night; everyone feels better after a nap), but I guess I don't feel that you did a good job of outlining your point of view.

Quote:
I do hope not all dissenting voices are treated like this back home.
It depends on who your crowd is, and what your dissent is. You'll probably get a worse reception in, say, Mississippi. Just a guess.

(by the way, it wasn't really an ad hominem attack in the true sense of how that's used today; it was more a jab, but not one to discredit or help "make" my "argument")

Quote:
PS: My grandfather, one of the truely "better men", did fight in the war. Luckily he survived, and his stories haunt me to this day...
Mine too. That's why I want to get our troops home as possible, man. We don't need to scar any more people than necessary.


xoxoxoBruce  Tuesday Apr 15 05:02 PM

Quote:
A complete enumeration of the influences on the constitution was not a goal (this reflects the original post). So surely you mean "also thank", no?
Hey you're not foolin' me. I have an IQ approaching double digits, ya know.


busterb  Tuesday Sep 28 10:50 PM

oxB me 2 OO



Your reply here?

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: a bunch of interesting folks talking about everything. Add your two cents to IotD by joining the Cellar.