When you think of the vast percentage of Americans who can’t be bothered to come out and vote…and that musicians develop an overwrought campaign called “Vote Or Die,” which really doesn’t mean much of anything, as opposed to the “Vote And Die” message being spread by Iraqi terrorists…
It’s just pretty dámņëd impressive, the Iraqis turning out to vote in their first election. Make no mistake, it’s still a horror show, we still shouldn’t be over there, Bush lied to America, and Bush’s List continues to grow. But at least Iraqis are braving all manner of risk to vote, as opposed to many Americans who are so cavalier about a right they never earned or had to fight for.
PAD
• 
I agree that it’s impressive, and seeing it all unfold and how happy (most of them) are almost makes it seem worth it. *ALMOST* 😉
As a former (fingers crossed) member of our military I have some very strong beliefs concerning democracy and our current occupation of the unwilling nation of Iraq. The turn out in their elections lifts my heart and reminds me what it means to give one’s life for democracy. Now if we just could import some of that dedication here maybe I wouldn’t be the bitter, jaded veteran I am =) Of course things could be worse, Bush could still be my boss AND my president.
I would *love* to know where the better voter turnout was, our last election or the Iraqi election?
on a semi-related note, here’s an article written by a female iraqi (whoo lives in Britian) who is refusing to vote in the elections:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=605289
Bravo to Peter for calling the “insurgents” by their true name–terrorists. one hopes that after the elections not even Michael Moore will be able to compare them to the Minutemen or any other organization…except maybe the KKK, with more sophisticated weaponry.
Whoever had the idea for the inked finger should get a medal. An unforgettable image. Of all the victories against terrorists we have had in the past few years, the picture of ordinary Iraqis holding up their ink stained hands may be the most potent. I wonder what the citizens of other middle east countries are thinking (I think I know what their leaders are).
I can’t speak for everyone, Peter, but I can’t wait for our next presidental election. 🙂
Seriously though, I have voted every major election year since I turned 18 (2000, 2002, and 2004).
Commendable, yes.
I can’t speak for the U.S.’ poor voter turnouts, but you’d get more people tunring out to vote in Canada if you could arrange three things:
1 – Give us someone to vote FOR instead of always someone to vote against.
2 – See to it that they do keep their promises (what’s the point of voting if nothing changes but the names on the doors?)
3 – Eliminate the Party system’s stranglehold on individual Members of parliament’s voting. What good electing someone if they then ignore my wishes and votes party Line instead of how their constituents want them to?
By the way … #2? An idiot judge in Ontario ruled that one could not, and should not be able to sue governments for broken promises. He went on to say people should not be so naive as to believe what politicians say during elections, and that, if one could hold them legally accountable for breach of promise, our Democratic system would collapse.
A poster boy for the hazards of doing drugs, this guy. He doesn’t seem to be clued in to the hazards to society as a whole when our so-called leaders can lie, cheat, break verbal contracts at will and get away with it. What sort of an example does that set for the masses?
Peter, are you a “true” American?
Fortunately the good folk at THIS MODERN WORLD has this handy dandy quiz that will help you out here:
Here’s question #1 to ponder while your browser links up: Do you *genuinely believe* the terrorists are motivated by nothing more complex than a blind, unreasoning hatred of *freedom*? Yes or No?
If you happen to pass then obviously you’ve been confused by the LME (Liberal Media Elite) and their fancy arguments. That’s okay, THIS MODERN WORLD also shows how you can counter their arguments with one simple phrase:
“Why do you hate America so much?”
— Ken from Chicago
Woops, seems the hyperlinks didn’t show up. My programming skills stopped with C, just before HTML and the internet took off in the late 80s early 90s:
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/07/01/tomo/
http://salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/04/01/tomo/index.html
— Ken from Chicago
“on a semi-related note, here’s an article written by a female iraqi (whoo lives in Britian) who is refusing to vote in the elections:…”
Also saw her column in one of the Stateside papers. She misses one simple point, though: While conditions are, shall we say, less than ideal in Iraq today, if she refuses to vote, she misses her chance to affect things for the better. Abdication of responsibility, by and large, is cowardice, not protest.
Saddam’s Absence on Ballot Thrills Iraqis
By ELLEN KNICKMEYER
ASKAN, Iraq (AP) – In the “triangle of death,” where voting is a life-threatening experience, Karfia Abbasi held up her ink-stained finger, elated that for the first time she has been able to cast a ballot for someone besides Saddam Hussein.
“This is democracy,” Abbasi said. “This is the first day I feel freedom.”
For U.S. Marines helping guard Sunday’s vote, the streams of men and women walking into the gritty polling places of this area south of Baghdad was a payoff more impressive than the toppling of Saddam’s statue in the capital during the fall of his regime in April 2003 – less spectacular but tougher to bring off.
“That was a work of triumphs – those are always easy. This is the hard work of democracy now,” Lt. Col. Bob Durkin of the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines said Sunday morning, from a rooftop where Marine marksmen stood watch over voting sites.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050130/D87UKVK00.html
BTW, two of my friends were in the embassy in Baghdad when it got hit on Saturday. They’re both okay and both dedicated to staying to finish their job.
So, what happens if the Iraqi council elected by this vote turns around and drafts a constitution that calls for the appointement of a military warlord with all the power and trappings that Saddam held? Do we sit back and call that a success of democracy, or do we then invade again and start all over?
1 You make me sad. I really enjoy your writing for the most part, but in future, when I make my shopping decisions, I don’t know if I will be able to bring myself to financially support you and your views. I have been able to hold my nose and watch West Wing, so maybe I will be able to.
Just for the record, I suppose Pres. Clinton never lied right? Our troops will be out of Bosnia in 6 months right? The milk factory is a chemical weapons factory right?
And Kerry sailed into Cambodia wearing his magic hat?
While conditions are, shall we say, less than ideal in Iraq today, if she refuses to vote, she misses her chance to affect things for the better.
The thing is, is that this is only a first step. There is no guarantee that, just because they voted yesterday, things will turn out for the better.
We got to vote last November and, well, I can’t say that it was for the better.
But in Iraq, right now, they are still in a worse situation than they were when Saddam was in power: daily attacks and bombings, lack of food, water, and electricity, potential for civil war after this vote. Martial law.
Not to mention the Bush Administration jumping for joy at the possibility that the “domino effect” could cause similar civil unrest… err, the rise of democracy… to break out in the rest of the region.
Of course, the last time the threat of a “domino effect” occured, it lead us to Korea and Vietnam, and boy what a wonderful time that was.
Anyways, people are electing a general assembly, and if people thought voting along party lines here was bad, I’m curious to know how it goes when they could have voted purely along religious lines, how they are going to form a constitution when entire parts of the population won’t be or don’t want to be represented, religious aspects, rights for women, etc.
I don’t know if I will be able to bring myself to financially support you and your views.
Didn’t we just have this discussion the other day?
Our troops will be out of Bosnia in 6 months right?
I don’t recall that, but at the time we went to Bosnia, Milosevich was in the middle of his little tirade as Latest Dictator of the World.
Plus, I don’t think our body count began to approach what has happened in Iraq.
So, face facts: you just want to piss on Clinton and wave your little banner that says you support Bush, regardless of how many lives he throws away.
So, what happens if the Iraqi council elected by this vote turns around and drafts a constitution that calls for the appointement of a military warlord with all the power and trappings that Saddam held? Do we sit back and call that a success of democracy, or do we then invade again and start all over?
Depends. Will they still have oil?
Of course, Bush and his crew already picked the winned before the election, and if the Iraqis voted for the wrong guy, you know who’ll actually (be declared) win…
PAD wrote: “It’s just pretty dámņëd impressive, the Iraqis turning out to vote in their first election. Make no mistake, it’s still a horror show, we still shouldn’t be over there, Bush lied to America, and Bush’s List continues to grow. But at least Iraqis are braving all manner of risk to vote, as opposed to many Americans who are so cavalier about a right they never earned or had to fight for.”
It really bothers me that you felt the partisan need to qualify your acknowledgement of the truly inspirational and remarkable bravery of the Iraqis who went out and voted yesterday. The response of the Iraquis should make it clear to even the most jaded cynic that democracy and the urge to be free is a fundamental dream for every person, regardless of their cultural roots or faith. It is also clear that historically, such freedom never comes to those who are not willing to fight, and possibly risk it all, for such a privilege.
Throughout history, the price of freedom has usually been paid for with sacrifice, misery and blood — not safely pursuing the status quo.
I like how they play with the numbers. Pat Robertson said on The McLaughlin Group (it was either Pat or that guy who looks like Norm from Cheers) that all but four of the Iraqi provinces were safe to hold elections. Yeah, the four provinces where most of the people live. Then the news yesterday was reporting a seventy-two turnout. Seventy-two percent of what? They didn’t say.
I also find it interesting that most Iraqis didn’t even know what they were voting for, that it was widely believed they were voting for a president. The TV commercials were misleading, too, showing people voting immediately followed by American troops evacuating. Which we know won’t happen any time soon.
“I don’t know if I will be able to bring myself to financially support you and your views.
Didn’t we just have this discussion the other day?”
And yet somehow it just never gets old. I get at least one e-mail a month from someone who informs me of just that. The most recent was from a fellow who made a point of cc’ing me on an e-mail he’d sent to Marvel informing them that because of Guido wearing a shirt with a political statement in “Madrox #5,” and because of my annoying liberal blog, he wouldn’t be continuing reading my work. I expressed my annoyance with him, especially in that the bit with the shirt was Pablo’s idea and I didn’t even know about it. His response was that my attitude was unprofessional. Ah well.
“Just for the record, I suppose Pres. Clinton never lied right?”
Just for the record, I suppose I defended any lies Clinton told by saying, “Nixon never lied right?” Oh. Wait. I didn’t.
Support my work, don’t support my work, it’s your call. I suppose if Iraqi voters can risk terrorist bombs in order to express their views, I can risk the wrath of consumers who are so irate that I’m an American expressing my opinion that they feel they must drop attempted financial bombs. Just keep in mind which side of free expression that puts you on.
PAD
The only think I want to know is why the Iraqi people have a shot at a fairer election the citizens of the United States? I’m not trying to incite party arguments, but I find it interesting that the Iraqis are allowed to vote by methods that generate a paper trail. God forbid that in our modern, wired, Diebolt-centric country, we be afforded the same privilege.
Not that I’m sayin’ anything. I’m just sayin’.
The only think I want to know is why the Iraqi people have a shot at a fairer election the citizens of the United States? I’m not trying to incite party arguments, but I find it interesting that the Iraqis are allowed to vote by methods that generate a paper trail. God forbid that in our modern, wired, Diebolt-centric country, we be afforded the same privilege.
Not that I’m sayin’ anything. I’m just sayin’.
“clear to even the most jaded cynic that democracy and the urge to be free is a fundamental dream for every person”
Freedom, yes. But freedom from what? The Iraqis want freedom from the US military and the violence brought about by the military’s presence in their cities. The only Iraqis who don’t seem to mind us being there are some of the ones who don’t live in Iraq.
But democracy? Not necessarily. Is Algiers a democracy? Is Kuwait? Believe it or not, not everybody in the world wants to follow our political model.
“It really bothers me that you felt the partisan need to qualify your acknowledgement of the truly inspirational and remarkable bravery of the Iraqis who went out and voted yesterday.”
Well, I’m sorry it bothered you, but it was most to stave off what I figured would be a fast conservative tidal wave of “Ah hah! So you’re saying Bush was right!” If I’ve learned anything, it’s that Bushies are quick to seek any opportunity to try and twist opinions in their favor (witness the loopy endeavors to misconstrue “Bush’s List” as an anti-woman’s-right-to-choose argument.) So I felt constrained to point out that, no, I still don’t feel the ends justified the means.
PAD
And was it Voltaire (or maybe Bugs Bunny) who said, “I do not agree with what you have
to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
Brian (actually agreeing with PAD on his political views)
Just as an interesting aside, my wife and I found it funny while playing Everquest 2 (an on-line RPG for those that don’t know) the in-game “bad-word” filter wouldn’t let me use the term “Bushites,” which of course I was using to refer to those that seem to defend everything Bush says, does, or supports.
It may just be a game developer letting a political bent show, or maybe an honest attempt to keep profanity from the game, but we found it amusing that it could be considered a “bad word.”
I tried to do a quick search to see how the Iraqi election was set up, and didn’t find any details. Was the vote nation/expatriate wide, meaning every candidate could receive votes from anywere? Or was it based on provinces, with certain areas only voting on a smaller group of candidates?
Because for a representatvie democracy to truly work, you need representatives that come from every province, such as the colonies/states providing representatives to the congress that drafted the US Constitution. Without that, you can’t have anything close to equal or fair representation of the various parties and interests in the country. And without that, you will never have a government viewed as legitimate by all, and instead of creating a stable government, Iraq will just be a perpetual area of instability and insurgency.
R. Maheras:
>The response of the Iraquis should make it clear to even the most jaded cynic that democracy and the urge to be free is a fundamental dream for every person, regardless of their cultural roots or faith.
The urge to be free, absolutely. The reaction says very little about a desire for a democratic government by the majority of the population. A few sound bytes does not equate to people desiring a democratic government. What the turn-out does seem to indicate is that these people need to feel that they have some control in the current situation. The latter does not necessarily imply the former.
>It is also clear that historically, such freedom never comes to those who are not willing to fight, and possibly risk it all, for such a privilege.
So are you supporting the U.S. troops in Iraq or the Iraqis who are fighting against them?
Gahrie wrote:
You make me sad. I really enjoy your writing for the most part, but in future, when I make my shopping decisions, I don’t know if I will be able to bring myself to financially support you and your views. I have been able to hold my nose and watch West Wing, so maybe I will be able to.
As others have pointed out (See this post), that conversation’s already been had.
Just for the record, I suppose Pres. Clinton never lied right? Our troops will be out of Bosnia in 6 months right? The milk factory is a chemical weapons factory right?
And Kerry sailed into Cambodia wearing his magic hat?
What do the lies of Clinton and Kerry have to do with Peter’s accusations of Bush lying? If Bush lied (I’ve yet to see any evidence that he knew there were no WMDs, and that wasn’t the sole justification anyway), then he was wrong. It wouldn’t matter if every Democratic president and candidate since the dawn of time was a pathological liar — just because your opponent does something wrong doesn’t mean it’s okay for you.
This is what annoys me about the administration’s apparent stance on the whole “torture” thing. Yes, the terrorists and their ilk are bad, bad men. Yes, they’ve done horrible things that would make the Chinese “dentist” from Alias (does he have a name?) look like a fuzzy bunny. No, the Geneva Conventions aren’t legally binding, given the complete disregard for them that our enemies are showing.
Not one whit of that matters, though. Torture is not an American value. That’s why I was so anxious to see some action on the Abu Gharib scandal — we needed to show that we took these things seriously. Unlike those who would cheer terrorists who behead civilians, we should have standards for our troops actions beyond the treaty-defined legal boundaries.
I support the President. I think his heart is in the right place, though some of his decisions are, to my mind, wrong. I voted for him not because I think he’s perfect, but because he was better than the alternative. Still, some of the things I’ve heard coming from this administration with regards to the treatment of some of our prisoners unnerves me. (I do think that there are, unfortunately, times when extreme measures must be taken to get information, but those instances should be extremely rare. The almost dismissive attitude that I sense from Gonzales is disturbing.)
Fred, that appears to be part of the problem now. Are the insurgents really just terrorists, as the Bush Adminstration claims? Or are they Iraqi freedom fighters? Or maybe a mix? I’m guessing there’s a mix of true terrorists and Iraqi revolutionists.
From the English point of view, the Colonial Rebels were little more than terrorists.
Finally, something the left and the right can agree on.
I admit…I got chills at the image of people holding up the ink stained fingers.
It’s nice to see that instead of the gesture with a finger we USUALLY get from people in that region of the world. 🙂
I don’t support your political views, and you probably don’t support mine. I guess thats a fair trade off. 🙂
I’ll continue buying your work.
(On a political note.. Would mutant-human marriages be legal or an abomination? *steps away from the box*)
How many Americans these days are willing to stand up to our government for their frredoms?
And consulting a pussy lawyer doesn’t count…
Hmmm. “But in Iraq, right now, they are still in a worse situation than they were when Saddam was in power: daily attacks and bombings, lack of food, water, and electricity, potential for civil war after this vote. Martial law.”
Well, all of those things are illegal now, rather than government sanctioned. Girls are being educated, women and girls aren’t being legally raped, etc. etc. etc.
Yes, Iraq IS better off today than before.
I’m of two minds. Iraq, as an imminent threat needed to be dealt with. Okay, so Iraq wasn’t the imminent threat it was cracked up to be (but it was in violation of just about everything it could violate; and by thumbing it’s nose at the UN with impunity it served to weaken the UN to a global suggestion. The UN should have dealt with them…) Still, knowing then what we knew now, probably we shouldn’t have gone in. I do think the indicators were there that we should have gone in at the time – and I think the adminstration was acting in good faith, not lies.
But… we’re there now. Prosecute to win and win completely. We’re there, finish the job. And not with some half-hearted exit stategy that would mean damage to the middle-east. Barbarism is over, time for the barbarians to figure it out and change or die.
As for another issue, Peter, I was in agreement until you told the benighter that he fell on the other side of free speech. That’s simply not true. He has the right to do with his money as he wishes; and he has the freedom to tell your publisher why he’s not spending his money on you. If you disagree, then isn’t it you fall on the wrong side of free speech?
KingBobb:
>Fred, that appears to be part of the problem now. Are the insurgents really just terrorists, as the Bush Adminstration claims? Or are they Iraqi freedom fighters? Or maybe a mix? I’m guessing there’s a mix of true terrorists and Iraqi revolutionists.
I totally agree. A more important focus, should anyone choose to continue this direction of thought here is how are so many of these Iraqi citizens being convinced to join up against the troops?
>From the English point of view, the Colonial Rebels were little more than terrorists.
Again, both sides could be argued. When the founding fathers organized colonists, a main rationale given was the obnoxiously high over-taxation. The truth was that the colonists were paying less than those living in Great Britain and the taxes collected weren’t even enough to cover the costs of the British expenditures for the support of these people.
Does this mean that it was wrong to revolt?
It is all a matter of perspective. Unfortunately, whether the focus is poverty, self-entitlement, or moral values, too many in this world see things from a very egocentric point of view.
Robinn:
>>Hmmm. “But in Iraq, right now, they are still in a worse situation than they were when Saddam was in power: daily attacks and bombings, lack of food, water, and electricity, potential for civil war after this vote. Martial law.”
>Well, all of those things are illegal now, rather than government sanctioned. Girls are being educated, women and girls aren’t being legally raped, etc. etc. etc.
Nope, just caught in the crossfire on a daily basis, bombed and shot. Collateral damge. Illegal when perpetrated by whom?
>Yes, Iraq IS better off today than before.
This is all a matter of perspective. Slightly less than 4% of Iraqi children were suffering from malnutrition before the invasion. Now that number is approximately 8%. Are they better off? Stats certainly can be thrown out from both sides of the argument.
Fred
I get PAD’s “other side of freedom of speech” argument. Saying “He has the right to do with his money as he wishes; and he has the freedom to tell your publisher why he’s not spending his money on you” is NOT upholding the ideals of freedom of speech. At its heart, the concept of freedom of speech is that ideas can be expressed without fear of repurcussions. If you claim to hold to that ideal, then you shouldn’t seek to repress ideas that you disagree with by excercising economic pressure on those that generate those ideas. While anyone is free to choose what they want to buy, and what they don’t want to buy, writing in to a person’s boss to state, explicitly, that they are no longer going to be a customer of Marvel or DC or whoever because of the political musings of said author is a direct attempt to purge that political view through economic means. Anyone who claims to be a proponent of free speech cannot also support such attempts to impede free speech without falling under the label of hypocrit.
Fred wrote: “So are you supporting the U.S. troops in Iraq or the Iraqis who are fighting against them?”
As a former military person, I obviously support the former.
Using the U.S. Revolution as a rough comparison template, I’d say the U.S. military is playing the role of the French (without whom the Colonials would have definitely lost), while the democracy-seeking Iraqis are Washington and his Revolutionary band. Saddam, of course, filled the King of England’s role, while the insurgents are the Tories, or perhaps even, arguably, the Hessians (who were funded by the Crown).
PAD wrote: “Well, I’m sorry it bothered you, but it was most to stave off what I figured would be a fast conservative tidal wave of “Ah hah! So you’re saying Bush was right!” If I’ve learned anything, it’s that Bushies are quick to seek any opportunity to try and twist opinions in their favor (witness the loopy endeavors to misconstrue “Bush’s List” as an anti-woman’s-right-to-choose argument.) So I felt constrained to point out that, no, I still don’t feel the ends justified the means.”
Yeah, but I also know such crowing goes both ways. Still, I understand where you’re coming from.
Posted by: kingbobb
Are the insurgents really just terrorists, as the Bush Adminstration claims?
Suicide bombers and beheadings of innocents would be 100% terrorists!
Or are they Iraqi freedom fighters?
No
Or maybe a mix? I’m guessing there’s a mix of true terrorists and Iraqi revolutionists.
From the English point of view, the Colonial Rebels were little more than terrorists.
Yeah, the Colonial Rebels cut off tons of innocents heads or shot tied up prisoners in the back. Comparing Colonial Rebels to Iraqi terrorists is really really poor and shows how desparate some on the left are. A recent poll by an Iraqi newspaper stated that 80+% approved of violence against the Iraqi terrorists.
It is also clear that historically, such freedom never comes to those who are not willing to fight, and possibly risk it all, for such a privilege.
And if I remember correctly, we fought the British in our revolution, the French overthrew their own monarchy, etc.
I didn’t see the Iraqis overthrowing Saddam.
I don’t see the Iranians doing the same to their governement either… not without our troops “liberating” them.
So, in this instance, we are essentially “forcing” freedom upon them – not a bad thing, obviously, but it makes one wonder if they really want it, or our style of government.
the in-game “bad-word” filter wouldn’t let me use the term “Bushites,”
Probably the fact that it’s easy to hide šhìŧ in a BuSHITe? 😉
I’d say the U.S. military is playing the role of the French (without whom the Colonials would have definitely lost),
In your example, it would be more appropriate if we gave aid to the Kurds while they fought the war themselves against Saddam.
But that is not what happened – we fought their war for them.
“A mass grave being excavated in a north Iraqi village has yielded evidence that Iraqi forces executed women and children under Saddam Hussein.
US-led investigators have located nine trenches in Hatra containing hundreds of bodies believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the 1980s.
The skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys are being unearthed, the investigators said.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm
The children that are suffering from malnutrition will, at least, have a chance to get healthier and live full lives…unlike these children who, while most likely well-fed, wound up in a mass grave while Hussein was in power. I’m sure that the UN is using that Oil-For-Food money, channeling it to UNICEF instead of personal bank accounts and rapidly sending supplies to Iraq to help the malnourished children.
If you want to shift the stated reasons for the invasion and subsequent war (calling it, as Ann Coulter did, “at worst a humanitarian effort”) then you’re gonna have to explain why we don’t do something about the political unrest currently going on in Mexico. That has a lot more bearing on the US than some goat farmers in the Middle East.
And if you want to focus on the horrible things Saddam Hussein and the Baath party perpetrated against the Iraqi people, you’re gonna have to own up to the fact that we’re the ones who put Saddam in power in the first place.
Eric!, where’s your information come from? What pollsters are wandering among the insurgent campes taking count? Because of course, only “bad guys” (meaning terrorists) engage in such evil acts as targeting innocents (see Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and engaging in horrific acts of violence like beheadings (see public exocution via guillitine).
But, good to know that the insurgents don’t allow anyone fighting for the idea of an Iraq free from US control or influence in their ranks. Your proof?
And for the record, I didn’t compare Colonial Minutemen to Iraqi terrorists. I just stated that, from the English Crown’s point of view, they were terrorists. Local fighters engaged in military conflicts using unconventional tactics to oppose the ruling party. Colonials attempted to reason with the Crown, and when that failed, they turned to unconventional means in order to “scare” England away. From this point of view, they were, in fact, terrorists.
That statement in no way denigrates the Colonial fighters. It’s just meant to bring caution to those that would decry any act of terrorism.
If you want to shift the stated reasons for the invasion and subsequent war (calling it, as Ann Coulter did, “at worst a humanitarian effort”) then you’re gonna have to explain why we don’t do something about the political unrest currently going on in Mexico.
Or Africa, or a few other places.
Everybody loves to quote the mass graves, but I don’t seem them bringing up Somalia in the same sentence, a situation that Clinton atleast tried to do something half-assed about (and one of the biggest problems I had with his presidency).
Now, if we could just get democracy to take hold in America….
“He has the right to do with his money as he wishes; and he has the freedom to tell your publisher why he’s not spending his money on you. If you disagree, then isn’t it you fall on the wrong side of free speech?”
Well, no, because I’m not attempting anything punitive against him simply because I disagree with him. I could answer in greater depth, but Kingbobb’s repsonse already covered it.
PAD
Hm. Is the Iraqui violent opposition monolithic? Or are there several factions, some of which are clearly terrorists, some of which are not known>
If only we could get some journalists embedded with the Iraqi insurgents, find out what they want, who they are, where their bases of operation are, when they plan their next attack, how many of them are there…
Wait, those probably wouldn’t be journalists, they’d be SEALs or something…
“Would mutant-human marriages be legal or an abomination?”
Of course. Despite claims to the contrary, the Marvel Mutants are not a separate species of human. They would be more akin to dwarfs or other people with a congenital disease or deformity, albeit one that may make them better at certain things than the average human.
So does that mean that Wolverine gets to park in the handicapped parking spots?
I mean, he probably can park anywhere he wants. I’m speaking legally, bub.
Bub, Bobb…. Bobb, bub.