The Pro-War Freepers are right, they ARE the majority!

[Walt Starr]

Hear me out.

Pro-war elected officials make up the majority of both houses in congress. So long as the Pro-War stance holds the majority of seats in those bodies, they ARE the majority. They hold the power and they set the agenda.

So until January 3rd 2007, at the best, the pro-war stance is the majority.

We have a chance to change it on that day, but it all depends on what happens on November 7, 2006.

[Bluzmann57]

1. Well said

We have to work our asses off to make sure that our type of candidates win election in '06. We cannot depend on the ongoing republican meltdown, we have to be self reliant. Boy, that sounds almost republican, at least once. No more though. Anyway, we have to bust our butts to try and insure that we anti Iraq war people are represented and soon.

[dogman]

2. You are correct sir.

They are the majority where it matters and until that is changed we will be on the outside looking in.

[manic expression]

3. So I guess the House of Saud is the majority in their country

right?

[Walt Starr]

4. Oh yea, the comparison is soooo spot on...

:eyes:

[manic expression]

6. If you consider the people's actual views on the subject

then yes, it is. Look at the poll numbers, then decide who is the majority.

[Walt Starr]

8. The majority in the governing body is the only majority that matters

If the majority of Congresscritters support the war, then we stay at war.

That's how it works.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. That doesn't jive with our country's support of Israel

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. "They hold the power and they set the agenda"

You mean like Social Security reform and banning gay marriage? Don't forget that lots of dem leaders are still "pro-war" too.

[Ladyhawk]

7. It also depends upon whether the Dems will actually take a stand

against the war. Very few do now.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. And I would hasten to add...

So stop spending your time on useless demonstrations and go volunteer for your local Democratic party. Use that bus ticket money as a donation to Bob Casey, so he can go kick that batshit-insane jackass Santorum back into whatever hole he crawled out of.

[Kerrytravelers]

14. Demonstrations are not useless. They provide a visual for the

American people and the world that there are people willing to come together and march in unity against the mass murdering thugs in OUR White House.

I encourage people to both march and work hard to get the war-loving rethugs out of office. I also encourage people to vote strategically. I get real pissed when someone says "Oh, so-and-so Democratic candidate didn't get me excited." I remind them of the alternative. Especially during the 2004 election. I pused the Supreme Court and now I can see that I was correct on that one. * has two nominations... and who knows how many more. With their side advocating the shooting of judges they disagree with, it's only a matter of time before the assassinations begin like they did in the 60's.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

16. No, they are useless.

They haven't stopped the war. They've had no noticeable impact on public opinion. They give a platform to asshats like ANSWER who are a pox on the left. They preach to the choir and are a useless drain on scarce human and monetary resources necessary for fighting the Republicans from now until 2008 at the ballot box, which is the only place that counts. There have been larger demonstrations against the Iraq war than against any American foreign policy endeavour since the end of the Vietnam War, and they haven't done a goddamn thing.

[Kerrytravelers]

21. Ok, whatever you say.

I'm glad there are hundreds of thousands and millions all over the globe who disagree with you.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

24. Millions, eh?

Looks like they didn't stop the war either.

[Kerrytravelers]

58. Are we in Iran yet?

Scott Ritter proved time and again how we were headed there, but the will of the people have stalled that plan.

[Tower]

61. Demonstrations aren't supposed to accomplish anything.

They provide a sense of community to the activists. They can also present a visual to others that opposition does exist, but that's incidental.

Demonstrations are for the demonstrators. They're a way of meeting others of a like mind, and thus invigorating the movement.

[MadHound]

11. So what? We should throw up our hands in despair,

And stop trying to change the public's attitude? Stop contacting our Congressional reps and throw our faith behind the flawed notion that an election contest that is heavily rigged by redistricting and faulty voting machines will return an anti-war majority to Congress? How very defeatist of you friend.

Protests change peoples' minds, and when they do, they start flooding Congress with their anti-war message. You put pressure on politicians, especially when an election coming up, then a good politico will do his/her job and bow to the will of the constituents. It is the essence of how our represenative democracy works.

Relying on elections to return an anti-war majority to Congress is naive and foolish. Such a thing isn't going to happen on its own, without some outside assistance. We have to continue to keep the anti-war drumbeat going as loud as possible. It is how we change minds and influence people. And besides, if we shut down our message now, the politicians, not hearing any opposition, will continue merrily on down the bloody path of endless war.

So I beseech you, don't be quiet, don't rely solely on elections to change things. This is still a government of the people, by the people and for the people. And for such a government to do what we want it to do, it needs to hear from the people. It is Basic Democracy 101, it is how our government works.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. "Protests change peoples' minds"

No they don't. There hasn't been one single instance of a measurable change in public opinion on the war that can be related to any protest activity whatsoever. There have been measurable changes related to events in Iraq, however.

Americans don't like losing. That's the sad truth of why people are against the war these days. It has fuck-all to do with the administration, the plight of ordinary Iraqis, or soldiers coming home dead. I am sick and tired of people trying to prove that these protests are worth a damn. If the same number of people spent the same amount of time volunteering for and donating to grass-roots Democratic political organization, that'd be at least one step in the right direction towards cleaning up this mess. As it is, the protests are nothing more than social masturbation.

[Kerrytravelers]

15. I do both. Why should we discourage people from marching as a

visual demonstration of their opinions, while working to make elected changes as well?

You sound very cynical.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

18. Show me a good politician...

...and I'll show you a master cynic.

:)

[MadHound]

17. Yeah, right, whatever. Go learn you history

Tell me how the massive protests done by women, African-Americans, anti-war activists, gays, and many many other groups in our country, throughout our history haven't changed things. Go tell the sufferagettes, the civil rights activists, the anti-war activists and all of the other marchers throughout our history that all of their efforts were in vain, that in reality women and African Americans still can't vote, that Jim Crow still rules the South, etc. etc.

Sorry friend, but history solidly and emphatically rejects your premise.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. Those are entirely different things.

Are you seriously comparing this shindig in DC yesterday to the suffragettes and Martin Luther King?

Come off it. People responded to those protests because they were genuine. This thing yesterday was a joke.

[MadHound]

20. Oh, and you're saying that the protests in DC weren't serious?

DING DING DING! Sorry, you lose friend, you've just lost all credibility.

Tell your little opinions to the tens of thousands of people who marched, not just in DC but across the country. Not only are those marchers and protesters serious as a heart attack, but I guarantee you they were effective in getting their message out too.

It was little minds like yours who also rejected the sufferagettes and civil rights people when they marched. Look what happened there.

The only joke around here is your attitude friend, such defeatism is pitifully funny. Tell you what, why don't YOU organize an idealogically "pure" protest then, get off your happy ass and rally thousands upon thousands of people to march not just in DC, but nationwide. Then you'll have room to talk. Until then, you're just blowing smoke up your own ass and the gullible few who will listen to your defeatist rhetoric.

[Kerrytravelers]

23. MadHound, take a bow.

:applause:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

37. Because it's so easy to spout unprovable gibberish and lose elections n/t

[Kerrytravelers]

60. My goodness.

You are so negative and socynical. I think calling other's opinions gibberish is just plain rude.

You may think I'm a fool when my husband and I carry our homemade banner that has the American soldier and Iraqi civilian body count, the number of American funerals attended by bush (0) and the number of days since he vowed to capture bin laden. But when people take pictures of our banner and put it on thier websites. When citizens along the street see the numbers and are surprised, I feel like I've done something. I have fliers with these numbers that I hand people. They walk away with the numbers and the sources of these numbers are who knows... maybe it does make a difference.

I don't have to politically agree with everyone else at the march to make a difference myself. So, you may laugh and shake your head at me, but someday, I will tell my children that I did everything available to me- march, write, work on campaigns, organize conferences- to make their world better.

I guess everything I just wrote is plain gibberish to you.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. ...

Tell your little opinions to the tens of thousands of people who marched, not just in DC but across the country.

but I guarantee you they were effective in getting their message out too.

Public opinion with respect to the war remains, and has remained unchanged by the protest. I see no swing in the indicators whatsoever, other than the gradual downward slide that's been going on for ages, due exclusively to the news coming out of Iraq and W's inability to explain it away.

Tell your little opinions to the tens of thousands of people who marched, not just in DC but across the country.

I'll happily tell them to anyone willing to listen. If I haven't made this clear already, I think it's a waste of time, money, and resources.

It was little minds like yours who also rejected the sufferagettes and civil rights people when they marched. Look what happened there.

I would do no such thing. There's a fundamental difference between those protests and this one. It's quite obvious, and I'm surprised nobody has pointed it out yet in this thread.


The only joke around here is your attitude friend, such defeatism is pitifully funny.

I'm not a defeatist. I'm happily working away at getting Democrats elected in 2006.

Until then, you're just blowing smoke up your own ass and the gullible few who will listen to your defeatist rhetoric.

Right. Trying to get people to volunteer and contribute to the Democratic party is "defeatist." Thanks. Tell me when you and the other protesters end the war. It's going so well.

[MadHound]

28. Riiiiiight! The Great Almighty, All Powerful Democratic Party!!

Who, for the most part, voted FOR the IWR, and who continue to vote FOR ever more funding for said war, and whose current leading Presidential candidate has repeatedly stated that she wants to increase the troop levels dramatically. Is that the Democratic party you're talking about? If so, then good luck with that, because that bunch of bloodthirsty corporate whores are and have been for the most part nothing but an administration rubber stamp when it comes to the Iraqi war.

This is the same Democratic party who, back during the Vietnam War, radically escalted that illegal, immoral conflict. If we had relied on them to stop the war in Vietnam, we would still be fighting it!

And it is really nice to see you dissing your fellow liberal like this, telling them that all of their effort is for naught:eyes: Why are you such a defeatist? Why do you wish to slap the face of every single person who is working hard to stop this war? What is your fucking agenda? Why not make your own thread here on your disrespectful attitude, and see how many people rush to your defense. The only thing that might save your ass on that one is that the DC marchers are still making their ways home, and don't have access to a computer right now. Otherwise you would probably catch happy hell for your attitude towards them. And what in the hell have you done(other than conspire with the quisling spineless Dems) to help? Dump on everybody's parade? Really fucking classy there friend, not!

And tell me, in your oh so great and knowledgeable opinion, what is the difference between these protests and those of the sufferagette, civil rights and Vietnam protests? This should be good for a laugh, especially since you say it is oh so obvious.

I'm glad we haven't had to rely on "great minds" like yours in the past to get things done. Your help is marginal, but your defeatist attitude is potentially a threat. Thankfully the people who matter aren't listening to the likes of you, and are going ahead with the real work, stopping this illegal, immoral war.

And if you can't see that mass protests aren't having an effect in this country, then your head is buried entirely too deep in a place where the sun doesn't shine. Perhaps you should come up for air and take a look around at the reality based world.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

29. Hmm...

Is that the Democratic party you're talking about?

It's also the same Democratic Party that supported the Civil Rights reforms you keep jabbering on about. (Well, at least half of it did.)


And it is really nice to see you dissing your fellow liberal like this, telling them that all of their effort is for naught

This from someone who comes to a website called DemocraticUnderground and disses the Democratic party. Do you seriously think we'd be in Iraq if Gore were in the White House?

Why do you wish to slap the face of every single person who is working hard to stop this war?

How is it a slap in the face to point out the obvious - that the anti-war movement has been a complete failure with respect to its stated objective.

What is your fucking agenda?

Electing Democrats in 2006 and 2008. And then, one would hope, we won't have to worry about the wars with Syria and Iran.



I'm glad we haven't had to rely on "great minds" like yours in the past to get things done.

You keep lobbing this "great minds" thing around. I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be a great mind.


And tell me, in your oh so great and knowledgeable opinion, what is the difference between these protests and those of the sufferagette, civil rights and Vietnam protests?

Well, considering that the Vietnam protests were also a failure, and the troops were only brought home when it became clear to most ordinary Americans that we had lost, I put them mainly in the same category as the current protests. That is, the category of miserable failures.

The suffragette and Southern civil rights protests were different from the current rash of shrillness because every single person in those marches was part of an oppressed or disenfranchised group, who were fighting for changes that were directly personal in nature. And, in the case of the civil rights movement, most of them faced fear of violence or death as a result of their actions. The protesters in DC are risking nothing more damaging than (in the most extreme cases) a night in jail, and (with few exceptions like Cindy Sheehan) are not personally involved with the same immediacy which was present in the suffrage and civil rights movements. And that's not even getting to the problem of ANSWER, whose very presence makes it impossible for any even remotely powerful mainstream Democrat to associate him or herself with the justifiable anti-war sentiments of a large majority of the crowd.

And if you can't see that mass protests aren't having an effect in this country, then your head is buried entirely too deep in a place where the sun doesn't shine.

What effect? Where is this effect? The only effect I see is that of the images coming out of Iraq night after night, and the president's inability to explain his fucking actions. That resonates with the American people. Cindy Sheehan's protest resonated with the American people because it was personal. (See Suffrage and Civil Rights protests above.)

You've put words in my mouth by telling me I stated that protests never work, which I didn't. You've accused me of slapping people in the face by pointing out the obvious and making suggestions on how to improve our lot. And you've consistently failed to provide any sort of evidence that the current anti-war protests have changed anything. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[MadHound]

33. The disconnect is simply astonishing!

You state that the Vietnam protests were a failure, yet go on to state that "the troops were only brought home when it became clear to most ordinary Americans that we had lost," What in sweet God's name do you think made it clear to ordinary Americans that we had lost in Vietnam? What made it clear to ordinary Americans that Vietnam was an illegal, immoral war? Are you seriously going against the learned opinion of virtually every scholar of modern American history who all categorically emphasize the impact that the anti-war protests had a huge impact on ordinary Americans? Wow, friend, that is quite telling, and quite bizarre. Talk about revisionist history:eyes:

And if you can't see the effect that the modern day protests are having, then let me ask you to do something. Go look at the pictures of the anti war protests. Note how many many of those faces are "ordinary Americans" Note in the interviews how these people became involved in the protests. Notice how many of these people state that they got their initial exposure to the truth through watching the protests, how that vast group of marchers effected people time and again. Also note how the majority of people in this country right now are against the war in Iraq. Then reconcile that with your belief that the protests are nothing but a joke. It will make your head spin.

And again, you are showing your lack of historical knowledge when you say the Vietnam protesters weren't risking anything. Gee, tell that to the people who got their heads smashed open in Chicago '68. Tell that to the people who died at Kent State. Tell that to the people at Jackson State who were peacefully protesting the Vietnam war, and were shot dead because of it. Tell that to the people who had their lives ruined due to the actions of a corrupt government. And to imply that these protests weren't "directly personal in nature" disregards an entire group of people who either had a relative or friend in the Army at the time, or who were themselves facing an imminent draft. Gee, I think that covers the majority of protesters at the time friend.

And now you're backpedaling on your own previous statements. You are disrespecting every single person who is working their ass off to stop the war. Your callous labeling of them as a "joke", "a waste of time, money, and effort" and your implication that the protests aren't worth a damn is an insult to tens of thousands of fine people who are doing a hell of lot more work than you are in stopping this war. Ooo, ooo, you're working to put more Dems in power. Are these the same Dems who voted for the IWR? The same ones who vote yes on every obscene war funding bill that comes in front of them? And will you work for Hillary too if she is the nominee? Tell me then, how will working to put into office somebody like Hillary, who voted for the IWR, who has voted for every single war funding bill, and who has repeatedly stated she wants many more troops in Iraq, actually going to stop the war? Damn friend, that's one hell of a disconnect you have there, and really quite disturbing to see. Vote for a pro-war candidate in order to stop the war? Orwell would be proud of you:eyes:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

36. .

," What in sweet God's name do you think made it clear to ordinary Americans that we had lost in Vietnam?

Television.

What made it clear to ordinary Americans that Vietnam was an illegal, immoral war?

You think we got out of Vietnam because it was illegal and immoral? Jesus Christ, what country do you LIVE in? We got out because we LOST, plain and simple. The great majority of people in this country don't give a FUCK whether its actions are legal or moral. People want out of Iraq because we're losing. End of story.

Are you seriously going against the learned opinion of virtually every scholar of modern American history who all categorically emphasize the impact that the anti-war protests had a huge impact on ordinary Americans?

Umm... Did they stop the war? No. 50,000 kids in body bags and multiple failed offensive campaigns stopped the war. I'm sure Nixon would have gone right on fighting if he though for one second that the war was winnable.

Notice how many of these people state that they got their initial exposure to the truth through watching the protests, how that vast group of marchers effected people time and again.

Typical unprovable, hyperbolic hogwash. Show me any case since before the war where you can find any discernible connection between the anti-war protests and public sentiment towards the war. In fact, in the past 12 months the anti-war movement's done barely a thing - and THAT is the period during which we've seen the largest erosion of public support. I'm glad the protests are back on again, now that more people are on our side of their own accord.

And again, you are showing your lack of historical knowledge when you say the Vietnam protesters weren't risking anything.

Except that I never said that.

Damn friend, that's one hell of a disconnect you have there, and really quite disturbing to see. Vote for a pro-war candidate in order to stop the war?

Fine. You go vote for Nader. Enjoy President Jeb.

[MadHound]

52. Whoop, there it is! When all else fails,

When you don't have an intellectual leg to stand on, go and tell your opponent to "Go vote for Nader" LOL friend, LOL.

And now not only are you dissing the protesters, but have expanded to dissing the entire American populace too; "The great majority of people in this country don't give a FUCK whether its actions are legal or moral." Not a good way to win friends and influence people.

And again, I have to ask, how does electing and re-electing a bunch of pro-war Dems going to actually stop the war? I've asked this before, but you keep ignoring the question. I'd really like to hear your take on this one, how electing Hillary, who voted for the IWR, every war funding bill, and wants many more troops on the ground, is actually a way of ending the war? I'm waiting for that answer.

Now then, since you refuse to do your own research, here are some links to back up my point about the protesters helping to bring about an end to the Vietnam war:
http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/VVAW_WinterSoldier.html]
<http://www.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/Vietnam/ThreeImages/brady.html>
<http://www.trincoll.edu/classes/hist300/intervie2.htm>
<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/protesting_1-20.html> etc. etc.

For you to argue that the anti-war protests aren't having a positive effect is like arguing that Ghandi didn't have an effect. Such publicity raises awareness on a massive scale. Such publicity makes people realize that they aren't alone in their beliefs. Such publicity energizes people to get out and start doing something.

But apparently, unless those people are willing to work towards putting pro-war Dems in office, you think that they're worthless.

Do you see the disconnect here friend? Here are the anti-war people, out in the streets protesting, writing, invovlved, working to actually stop the war. And then there is you, working to anybody with a D behind their name into office, even if they're for the war. How sad is that. And really now, who is doing more to end the war? Now do you see the disconnect?

Sadly, probably not. Well friend, you just keep doing what you're doing, electing those pro-war Dems. We'll just go on our merry way, doing what we can to stop the war, whether you agree with us or not. That's just how we are.

[11 Bravo]

27. Was the April '71 rally a joke as well?

I see some real similarities between the two.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

31. I dunno...

Did they want to free Mumia in '71?

[MadHound]

35. No, but if I remember correctly, the AIM folks were there

As were numerous other non-war protesters. Face it, in every leftist, anti-war rally, you're going to have a small group of people who want to get other messages out. By and large, this is a good thing, and it in no way detracts from the impact of a massive anti-war rally. Do believe that is does so is simply to fall for the the BS and bluster of the RW pundits.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

38. but the problem with ANSWER

is that they give those people the main stage for a large part of the event. Also, the ANSWER organisers fucking nutcases.

[MadHound]

54. And yet and all, I still have yet to hear from the MSM

That there were a bunch of "nutcases"(as you so eloquently put it:eyes:) at the protest. What I'm hearing, solid wall to wall on the MSM is that there was a LARGE anti-war rally in DC, followed up the next day by a much much smaller prowar rally. Nothing about ANSWER, pro-Palestine, Mumia, etc. etc.

So honestly, I think you folks are making a mountain out of a molehill. Your message hasn't been and won't be compromised, OK. And if you're still so worried about it, then hell, go out and organize your own DC protest next time.

[G_j]

55. WTF???

are you sure you are in the right place?

you know that besides a few hundred thousand Americans, there were well over 200 military families there, also veterans etc.

So it was a joke? excuse me while I...

:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

[ThomWV]

12. No They Are Not - That's Pure Bullshit

Those who support the war are the minority, by a long shot. Its just that at the moment the minority has more seats in congress than the majority does. Actually the Democratic party represents more people than the Republican party does so in any real sense if you consider that we actually do still have a 'representative democracy' then it is the Minority that supports the war no matter how you look at it.

[Walt Starr]

25. The majority of citizens is meaningless, the majority in Congress is all

that matters, unfortunately.

Of course, if the majority of citizens are mobilized on November 7, 2006, the majority in Congress will be dramatically altered on January 3, 2007.

[welshTerrier2]

49. connecting public opinion on issues to the election process

let's see if we can agree on a few points here ...

first, there has been an enormous shift in public opinion since the Iraq war began ... Okay? and that shift now shows that 52% of the American people now want "immediate withdrawal" (recent CBS/NY Times poll) ...

so before we debate what is "meaningful", let's start by acknowledging exactly where the citizenry is at ...

now, as i understand your point, you're arguing that "the majority in Congress is all" and that the opinion of the citizens, except on election day, is "meaningless" ...

and here we disagree ...

meaningless, you say? you don't think Congress knows an election is coming and that most reps are way out of touch with their constituents? you haven't read the parade of articles recently about how nervous the republicans are about taking a bath next year because of Iraq? you don't see the in-fighting within the Democratic Party that has very much captured the attention of elected Dems and Dem Party leaders?

bush's Iraq policy is dead ... Congress is not about to drift into 2006 with the current "going nowhere" policy in effect ... the Democrats are currently meeting to put together "god knows what" but they are not going to remain anonymous on the issue for much longer ... all of this is and will be a response to "the citizenry" ...

your theme about the critical nature of elections and the importance of gaining a majority is absolutely valid ... but when you make statements about the "majority of citizens being meaningless", you've gone off the deep end ...

and what is the essential advice you're providing with your post? are you implicitly suggesting that there is no point in fighting to educate the citizenry on the issues and fight for causes, e.g. ending the war, that we believe in? are you arguing that all our efforts should go to campaigning for candidates because issues make no difference? you seem to be making a huge disconnect between building public opinion on key issues and winning back the Congress or the WH ... the two are integrally connected ...

[Walt Starr]

51. THANK YOU!

Finally, somebody gets the point! But the only way to get a meaningful change in Congress is to mobilize that 52% of the people who want immediate withdrawal, otherwise, yes it's meaningless.

[G_j]

56. In all due respect, your logic is scary

I guess it makes sense to someone who thinks there were no innocent ppl killed in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Honestly, I find your reasoning truly chilling. :scared:

[MADem]

22. Yeah, the majority of them are assholes who are wrong nt

[titoresque]

30. Another reason you SHOULD go to an anti-war rally

because you simply do not know what you're talking about!
It's really very clear when you;re out there....in the streets! WE ARE THE MAJORITY!
And as far as the "elections" go.......BWAHAHAHAHA! There will be no "elections"

We the people need to rise, and continue to rise because our so called leaders have failed us! It's time to come to terms with that!
The majority in the house and senate do not speak for the people.....that is what we pay them for! The miserable bastards need to hear it loud and clear.....and they arent going to hear it by casting lousy phony votes to diebold........they're going to hear it in the streets, they're going to hear it with our letters and our phone calls.

And if people were really smart we'd organize a boycott in 06......NO VOTES until we have receipts! NO VOTES! MAke 'em hear it loud and clear that we're not going to waste our time campaigning for these son of a bitches...DEM's or Repubs unless they make sure our time and effort is valid! No money and NO votes!

[onenote]

32. and exactly how would boycotting the elections change anything

It doesn't take a majority of eligible voters to get elected. It takes a majority of those who vote. Hell, a majority (or damn close to it) of eligible voters already stay home on election day, and not because they think the voting machines are rigged. They just don't care. And sadly, a lot of them don't particularly care about the war in Iraq...they may not support it, but its not clear that they'll go to the polls unless we make a strong effort to convince them to go. And telling them that it doesn't matter because the machines are all rigged, etc etc. isn't going to help. As usual, it takes Walt to cut through the fantasy and to speak the reality. We need to mobilize voters. Period.

onenote

[titoresque]

34. why mobilize voters?

please.....seriously? why?
You really think it's going to matter? They have stolen 2 elections.....and many more on state level.
This is so damn frustrating! Why spend all the time and energy and money to LIE to people and give them false hope that their votes are going to matter....that their money is actually going to get their candidate in office?

Do you really think your vote is going to count?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

39. Hell, why even go on living? n/t

[titoresque]

41. yeah that seems to be the answer anytime I ask

that question. Pretty lame.

[Walt Starr]

40. I can't even begin to show you how wrong you are, so I will start here

Let's presuppose that 1,000,000 people showed up at the demonstration.

That's less than one out of 250 people.

that's not even close to a measurable minority, let alone a majority.

[titoresque]

43. yeah well only 2 thousand people showed up

in Phx where we were.......about another 10,000 probably drove by in the few hours we were out there. I would say less than 1,000 of those DIDNT honk in support.

Not everyone shows up. You're really giving too much credit to evil,lies,and ignorance. People are smarter than this, and they're waking up everyday.

You would do yourself good to take your own poll.
Make yourself an anti-bush sign on cardboard and stand on a freeway overpass with a honk sign. See for yourself.

[titoresque]

47. you know the more I read your posts

it gets clearer. Thanks......keep on posting.
Except, you may want to tone down the "Im so scared, so I'm going to run around acting like a tough guy" thing......it's making you look like "the other guys"

[Walt Starr]

48. Ad hominems are the last resort of those who have no argument

And calling me out as a freeper or a troll is not a smart move as I've been here from the beginning.

As usual, you missed the point from the first post.

[confludemocrat]

42. purposely misleading headline, yesterday same poster was on a PR theme

Like the pR of the rally was not good, today rally doesn't matter because... Now because consensus is rally was success despite petty, whiny and eccentric quibbling, and not a PR failure-the PR benefits are lost on only these people, that person tries this tack, FREEPERS are right, they are the majority, read more, no actually pro-war Congressional majority. It's not both. My conclusion: willful and purposely phony polemic aimed at stanching the tide for some reason.

[titoresque]

44. Agreed!

[bpilgrim]

45. and a LOT of'm are in 'OUR' party

hope they are pay'n attention to weTHEpeople in the streets :bounce:


http://GlobalFreePress.com

peace

[DainBramaged]

46. Wow 400, wow, bet they were all military dressed up GI Joe style

400 Freepers. I have more flies show up when my dog takes a shit than that.

[Lexingtonian]

50. Seriously...it's time to grow up

I can't recall you ever finding The People culpable.
You give The People cheap grace and absolution but you very literally scapegoat the few politicians blythely and mercilessly.

I can't get that pretense to morality to work for me. It's the way feudal serfdom approaches the question of responsibility, not a Modern society.

It's politically a far wiser stance to wait out the complete failure of the Iraq business and then let the blame work its way out.

[bpilgrim]

53. "It's politically a far wiser stance" - to keep quite?!?

that's just another part of the problem, imho.

peace

[Kailassa]

57. There were a lot more eyes watching than critics realize

One effect of your protest march was to demonstrate to people all over the world that there are huge numbers of Americans working toward change. With the NeoCons so thoroughly isolating America, when you win power back you will find people all around the world watching, ready to support you if real political changes are made.

[raccoon]

59. Thank you for pointing that out! nt