Saturday, May 08, 2004
Open Letter To BartCop.
Yeah, umm, I went crazy on Ole Bart
. Umm, some of it might not be all that clear because I went with a fisking letter rather than solid prose. Anyway, here it is:
BC -- but the Taliban had to be beheaded.
Yes, we just had to get rid of the Taliban and replace them with brutal warlords because they were letting Al-Queda train in their country. Never mind that Al-Queda also trains in Pakistan right next door.
BC -- Only the craziest of doves would think we should have just taken 9-11 and done nothing.
And only the stupidest asshat would think that opposition to the collective punishment of Afghanistan is equal to doing nothing. As was pointed out numerous times prior to the bombing of that country and the endangerment of millions of civillians: There were other ways to deal with the situation using proper international channels. Bush started bombing a mere 3 weeks after 9-11 -- never even pausing to consider other alternatives -- and 5,000 innocent people were slaughtered (not to mention the tens of thousands of people who took up arms to defend the country.)
BC -- I think Bono, Lennon and Martin Luther King would've supported taking down the Taliban.
You should not assume what others would do, especially if they are not here to speak for themselves. The above sentence is exactly the same as Rall putting motives to Pat Tillman's actions.
BC-- I understand people hating "the war," but there are two wars. One had to be fought, the other war was all about oil and greed and revenge. Bush pulled troops off of bin Laden so he could invade Iraq, the bastard.
And the Unocal Gas Pipeline (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm) had nothing to do with anything? You don't think they thought about what they could get out of it when they were picking a country to bomb? Why didn't they go after Saudi Arabia & Pakistan then?
"Fighting terrorism" is not synonomous with "destroying Afghanistan" any more than it is with "Occupying Iraq.
BC -- Notice how you had to stetch and exxaggerate "hero" into "superhero" for effect? That tells me "hero" wouldn't work for you because that sounds logical. When a man dies for his country he is a hero - what's wrong with you?
And there have been many hundreds of people who have died for this country over the last few years. Since the Media isn't constantly going on about their sacrifice and they are all heroes as you say, then there must be something special about Tillman. Hence: Superhero.
BC -- If you have proof Tillman was in for a cut from the BFEE - let's see it. What you just said there was stupid.
Just because he's doing the bidding of the BFEE doesn't mean he's getting a cut of the profits. As has been pointed out, he was conned into it by slik propogandists in thousand dollar suites.
BC -- Now you're saying Tillman's death was noble, but it was wasted.
You're not reading very well lately. The writer said "noble gesture."
BC -- Does that mean you're pro-Taliban, and we shouldn't have invaded those nice guys?
"You're against the war in Iraq, so you're obviously pro-Saddam." Sound familiar? Fucking hell man, you are becoming your enemy!
BC -- What does opium have to do with Tillman's death?
Well, his death helped make Afghanistan the Opium capital of the world, so....
BC -- I think men who die for their country shouldn't be called "saps" and "idiots."
So, by that logic, Nazi footsoldiers were "heroes" as well. Obviously, they couldn't be saps and idiots who were manipulated by the propoganda of fear and hate because they died for their country.
Dying in military service is not dying for your country. Learn the fucking diferrence.
BC -- I still haven't found one e-mail that recognizes the fact that Tillman gave up a life of luxury to die for his country.
Yes, because he knew he was gonna die! He was psychic! He obviously didn't think he'd be able to serve his three years and come back to start his career. Never!!!
BC -- Well, my first clue was that he offered his life to defend his country. Generally, those people can be taken at their word.
No, he didn't. There is no defense in either of Bush's wars. Destroying Afghanistan has not stopped terrorists, it has emboldened them. What do you call someone who fights a war that endangers his country?
Ugh. I'm tired of this. I like you, man, but you got a few problems in your thinking sometimes.
Peace and Good Health.
C Bryan Lavigne
Uh, yeah. I think I made a lot of good points. Bart's as retarded on this subject as he is on the subject of the Greens in 2000.
And pardon spelling errors, I forgot to spellcheck before I sent it.
WND Columnist Refutes His Own Facts.
World Net Daily has gotten even more stupid in my absence. Right-Wing talk radio asshat Dennis Prager wrote an anti-gay marriage column
for them a couple of days ago and I didn't even have to look up any sources to refute it in my letter to the editor -- he did the work for me!
It's basically your standard gay-bashing bullshit. He argues that it's a solid fact that children are better off when raised by heterosexual parents. And apparently, gay marriage would legally deprive children who are already being raised by same sex couples
of their right to this better environment. Pretty stupid, eh?
This is where it gets funny though, later on in his own column he refutes his very own assertion that hetero couples are better for children. I quote:
As Professor Don Browning of the University of Chicago recently wrote in the New York Times, "We know next to nothing" about the effects of same-sex parenting on children."
"The body of sociological knowledge about same-sex parenting," he and his co-author wrote, "is scant at best. ... There are no rigorous, large-scale studies on the effect of same-sex marriage on the couples' children."
"Steven Nock, a leading scholar of marriage at the University of Virginia, wrote in March 2001 after a thorough review that every study on this question 'contained at least one fatal flaw' and 'not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research.'"
So, an intelligent reader will ask, how can he claim that "a child does best with a good mother and good father" if there are no reliable studies on the effects of same-sex marriage on children? Well, the answer to that is easy, he writes for WND. Duh!
Dennis Prager really is a moron of the highest order -- any dumber and he'd drown trying to drink a glass of water. I can't believe he gets paid for this dribble. Fuck. Why don't I get paid for my dribble?