The Censuring of Anti-War Sentiment
Democracy in the US, Bush style:
Why am I not surprised?
Subscribe to my feed
Search Osterley Times or the Web
Tortured.
Click on picture to buy.
Obama '08
Awards
third Iraq Moratorium
War Child
Bloggers Against Torture
Out of Iraq Blogroll
Amnesty International
Get Involved
Site Meter
Web Stats
License
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.
"Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for a perceived increase in security, deserve neither - and will eventually lose both." Benjamin Franklin.
| Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left Ring Owner: Thomas Knapp Site: Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left |
by Bravenet.com
6 comments:
Huh? You're complaining that an anti-surrender organization will only patch through callers who are anti-surrender? That's kind of their raison-d'etre. Would you complain if a pro-surrender organization would only patch pro-surrender people through?
The bizarre inference that democracy in the US is somehow crumbling because of this (and "Bush style" at that) doesn't make sense. Do you somehow think these people are calling Congress directly? They're certainly welcome to without going through Freedom Watch's switchboard.
No, Jason. They asked people to call Congress and tell them what they thought. They then only put through calls which support their position. So they have no interest in what people actually think, only in people who agree with their position.
And I am aware that people can call Congress without going through Freedom Watch's switchboard, that's why they gave the direct line number at the end of the ad.
Oh, and I notice that you and Freedom Watch use the emotive term "surrender". Does withdrawal not imply enough cowardice for you? Do you have to go that extra mile and call it "surrender"?
They asked people to call Congress and tell them what they thought.
No, they didn't. The ad said, "Call your Congressman or Senator. Tell them that surrender is not an option." The ads are very specific in their aim and what they are asking people to do. I might suggest that watching them for oneself is probably a better source of information on them than some organization with a counter-agenda.
So they have no interest in what people actually think, only in people who agree with their position.
Yes, that is the very clearly stated purpose of the ads. They would like people who don't believe surrender is a good idea to call their Congressman and Senator and tell them so. Just like the ad says.
that's why they gave the direct line number at the end of the ad.
Once again, incorrect. The number is to Freedom Watch's switchboard, not Congress's.
Do you have to go that extra mile and call it "surrender"?
I call it what it is. Would you prefer "retreat"? Maybe that would be more appropriate. I'll have to think about it.
Do you have to go that extra mile and call it "surrender"?
I call it what it is. Would you prefer "retreat"?
Firstly, I will concede that I have never seen the Freedom Watch advertisement. I live in Britain and couldn't find it on YouTube.
Secondly, I have already offered the word "withdrawal", which I think is an accurate description of what a nation does when they withdraw their forces.
"Retreat" continues to suggest that people who call for such a thing are cowards.
A retreat is a military withdrawal before an enemy. The term "retreat" is perfectly applicable, whatever the connotations. Therefore, those calling for a military withdrawal while we are engaged with the enemy are in fact calling for retreat.
How many young Americans must die before you will admit that this war is lost, Jason?
And let's date this - 28th August 2007 - and say that when the Americans do eventually withdraw, that you could have saved every single American life lost from 28th August 2007 forward.
On the future date of the American withdrawal, will you regret the stance you have taken, if your stance has resulted in the unnecessary loss of American lives?
I'll hold you to your reply.
Post a Comment