appletreeblog.com Forum: Last 35 Posts

bedrocktruth on "Eagles vs Moonbats--Bring it on!"

bedrocktruth — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:31:11 +0000

The next couple of weeks should be pretty interesting on the protest front based on what I'm reading in the blogs.

Michelle Malkin explains...

"On Sept. 15, the far-left group ANSWER ("Act Now to Stop War and End Racism") will descend on the nation's capital to demand what they've been demanding for the last six years in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks: immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan; immediate closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and immediate release of every last suspected al Qaeda operative in American custody; immediate impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney; and immediate capitulation to our enemies at home and abroad.

Who will be there to counter the Jane Fonda retreads? Will you?"

Apparently a host of sane, rational and patriotic Americans plan to be there with a counter protest. To mention a few--
Move America Forward, A Gathering of Eagles, Protest Warriors.

The problem these groups will have however is that they mostly have lives and jobs and are accustomed to simply supporting the best interests of this country without fanfare or pukeout. They are tyros at the protest game,competing with people who developed their skills early on-slinging pablum and Fruit Loops from high chairs, scrawling pictures of "Teechur" while their classmates were learning something about the foundational values of this country, adopting "Protest 101" as their textbook for
citizenship lessons, tossing pies at conservative speakers,squatting during recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance, tripping up
military recruiters and spray painting "Bushhitlerchimpnazi" epithets on college campuses and puking out on the nation's
freeways.

Still, given the tauts back and forth between moonbat grottoes such as Daily Kos and heartland sites like Free Republic it should
be interesting to say the least.

"For every anti-Bush activist agitating for immediate withdrawal and throwing rocks at ROTC offices, an Eagle will be there in Washington to oppose the planting of the white flag. The organizations leading the way include the Gathering of Eagles, Eagles Landing, Move America Forward, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Free Republic, Vets for Freedom and the Victory Caucus. (Visit gatheringofeagles.org and moveamericaforward.org for details.)

As retired Army Col. Harry Riley explains, "Unlike the '60s and '70s, the anti-war lemmings will not have the streets or the political stage to themselves. This time, Eagle Americans -- we who support our troops, understand the stakes in the War on Terror and the true nature of our enemy, who aren't blinded by an insane hatred of our way of life and our form of government -- will also be in Washington, D.C., to show Congress that we will not tolerate another betrayal of our own forces or our allies. . . . While the anti-democracy forces are well-funded by pro-left, anti-Americans, we Eagles have steadily been building our own coalition to stop ANSWER in its tracks, and keep Congress focused on winning the war, not their political ambitions."

I wouldn't miss it for the world."

More here....

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/27/63651/2474

http://www.moveamericaforward.org/

http://www.gatheringofeagles.org/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1866711/posts?page=12

Pass the popcorn babe.....

gordo on "It's Official: If convicted, Libby will be pardoned."

gordo — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 08:42:03 +0000

From the New York Times:

Libby and Cheney Will Not Testify, Says the Defense

Libby will not call Dick Cheney to the witness stand, so the vice president won't have to go under oath and answer questions about his involvement in exposing a CIA officer. The only reason I can think of that Libby would fail to call Cheney to testify for him is that Libby knows that if he's convicted, Bush will pardon him before leaving office.

gordo on "Religion and Science: the False Controversy"

gordo — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:10:41 +0000

This New York Times article is supposed to be about the conflict between believing in creationism and doing work in the field of evolutionary biology:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/12geologist.html?ex=1328936400&en=c3267d075279160b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

But if you read closely, you'll see that not a single one of the scientists quoted here has any problem with the idea. They're fine with the idea that a person doesn't have to accept science as the final arbiter of truth in order to do valuable work in the field.

gordo on "Warhawks have not evolved"

gordo — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:59:24 +0000

I happened to be listening to the Thom Hartmann program on the radio, and he asked people to call in to try to justify the decision to go to war in Iraq. Caller after caller did nothing more than recycle the same talking points we've heard since 2002:

1) Support for terrorism

2) Weapons of Mass Destruction

3) Brutal dictatorship

4) Destabilizing force in the Middle East

These are also the same reasons given to justify our continued presence, and to justify our aggressive posture toward Iran. But during the last 4 years, they've been completely discredited. Hussein had no ties to al-Qaeda, and the war has created terrorism. There were no weapons of mass destruction, the region is far less stable, and the people of Iraq were better off under Hussein than under the incompetent, thuggish rulers they now have.

You'd think that in the course of the last 4 years a person would have had to either change positions on whether we should have invaded, or come up with a new justification. But as far as I can see, there's been no evolution at all in the position of the warhawks. Their minds seem completely impervious to the facts.

So my question is this: have you heard any new justifications, either for going to war or for staying, since the invasion? Or did the warhawks just send their brains on a 4 year vacation?

gordo on "Countries fight over climate change"

gordo — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 00:47:27 +0000

Lula and Jiang are right about this. They're being asked to stifle their own development so that Europeans and Americans don't have to make any changes at all in how we live. Not only isn't it fair, but it won't work. When push comes to shove, they're not going to subsidize our excesses by investing in a bunch of technology when we can't be bothered to invest in mass transit, conservation technology, and alternative fuels.

KatieKish on "Countries fight over climate change"

KatieKish — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 23:56:47 +0000

More than 100 countries approved a report saying humans are causing climate change and it's time to find solutions. Remember that show of cooperation and progression? Well, file it in the back of your mind as a cherished moment in history, because now some of those countries are rushing to explain why they can't be the ones to find a fix. As U.S. officials publicly balk at emissions caps and Germany shies away from vehicle regulations, leaders from developing countries are pointing fingers at the rich. Climate change "has been caused by the long-term historic emissions of developed countries and their high per capita emissions," said China's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu, who said such nations "bear an unshirkable responsibility" for leading the charge. And Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva criticized wealthy countries' tendency to "[approve] protocols, [hold] big speeches" with few results, saying he would lead a campaign to spotlight the need for rich countries to cut emissions.

If we want a low-emissions trajectory in our future, we're going to have to break the global impasse to get it. And this is only going to happen within a climate regime that takes due account of the real logic of our bitterly divided civilization, which does not encourage enlightened global cooperation. It's a challenge, and it has implications. Especially the "Who Pays?" question that has always been at the heart of global climate politics.

gordo on "Clinton parries Iraq questions in N.H."

gordo — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 23:33:45 +0000

There's a lot of Democrats who are unsatisfied with Hillary's position on the war in Iraq, and who say that she's not forceful enough about repudiating her vote to authorize the war. But if she's saying that she would not have voted for it if she knew then what she knows now, and if she's saying that she'll end the war if she gets elected, then that's good enough for me.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070210/ap_on_el_pr/clinton2008

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton faced questions Saturday from New Hampshire voters skeptical about her stand on the Iraq war, including one who demanded that she repudiate her 2002 Senate vote to send U.S. troops into battle...

Roger Tilton, 46, a financial adviser from Nashua, N.H., told Clinton that unless she recanted her vote, he was not in the mood to listen to her other policy ideas.

"I want to know if right here, right now, once and for all and without nuance, you can say that war authorization was a mistake," Tilton said. "I, and I think a lot of other primary voters — until we hear you say it, we're not going to hear all the other great things you are saying."

In response, Clinton repeated her assertion that "knowing what we know now, I would never have voted for it," and said voters would have to decide for themselves whether her position was acceptable.

"The mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress," Clinton said to loud applause."

gordo on "Using the Forum"

gordo — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:20:53 +0000

Any registered user can post a new topic, and any registered user can reply.

Primarily, this forum is intended to allow people to discuss news stories that aren't specifically covered at www.appletreeblog.com, but you can start a topic on any subject that you like.

If you think that a comment or a topic is inappropriate, please contact me at g.packard@comcast.net.