If you can't beat 'em...beat the cr@p out of them

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 9:16 pm

Despite President Bush's election victory, destructive attacks on the GOP continue. Saturday night, a mob vandalized the North Carolina Republican headquarters. According to the AP (whose article can be found here:

A police officer reported Friday night that about 100 people wearing masks and gloves were walking down a street near the headquarters, police Capt. D.S. Overman said.

Officers investigating that report found a second group "vandalizing and damaging" the GOP headquarters, said police Maj. D.R. Lane.

The vandalism was a "planned and orchestrated event," police spokesman Jim Sughrue said.

"This is not a political statement," Sughrue said. "A political statement is what we made Tuesday. This is a crime."

The officers found several spent fireworks, poster boards with slogans and spray-painted expletives on the walls. At least two windows were broken and police said it appeared that the vandals tried to put incendiary devices inside the building.

This is yet another example of the left attempting to enact a Kristallnacht...and they have the gall to call President Bush Hitler and all conservatives Nazis. I think we can all agree this is unnecessary and sad. Those that find sympathy in the vandals' acts may want to visit the Canadian Immigration website here.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:24 am

I was watching/listening to CSPAN quite a bit on Sunday and at first I was amused but slowly became uneasy about some of the calls that came in.

The "losers" last Tuesday scare me. I've never heard so much BS in my life; comments about "unholy alliances", "evil", "Hitler", how DEVASTATED these Kerry-backers (actually Bush-haters) were at the loss. The "blue" folks just don't seem to get it; the fact that they view us "red" folks as un-enlightened idiots is comical.

John Kerry got his 48% of the vote from:

New York City, Washington DC, Boston, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, and Miami.

George Bush got his 51% from:

Pretty much everywhere else.

Here's a little test I thought of while viewing a county-by-county map that was done up in red and blue...

If you waved a magic wand and "erased" either all of the "reds" or all of the "blues", I wonder under which scenario America would survive quicker and/or easier?

WYCAT · Post by **WYCAT** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:56 am

If you waved a magic wand and "erased" either all of the "reds" or all of the "blues", I wonder under which scenario America would survive quicker and/or easier?

Well said El Gato.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:01 am

This isn't the place, but in summary, if w doesn't moderate his actions (hidden by rhetoric and secrecy), we must resist him with everything we've got. A 60s type revolution is needed. Bozeman and other blue towns need to act.

HelenaCat95 · Post by **HelenaCat95** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 2:43 pm

wow velo,
it sounds like you're condoning the violence that started this thread.

please tell me that is not the case.

WYCAT · Post by **WYCAT** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:48 pm

we must resist him with everything we've got. A 60s type revolution is needed. Bozeman and other blue towns need to act.

How is violence or vandalism of property going to help the situation? I know there are a lot of people disappointed Bush won re-election but he did. There are also (about 3.6 million more than those disappointed) a lot of people that thought he was the better choice than Kerry. I doubt if Kerry had won that radical anti-Kerry protestors would be pulling this kind of crap. I don't see how you can call for a revolution.

CelticCat · Post by **CelticCat** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:18 pm

I don't know about a revolution, but my first thought when I found out Bush won, was to simply leave the country. I wasn't a big supporter of Kerry per se, but I was to the point where I thought a trained monkey could do better in office than Bush.

Van Damme for president? I know it can't happen, but man would that be cool.

WYCAT · Post by **WYCAT** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:22 pm

Leaving the country is a better response than the stuff that is going on right now. Wouldn't break my heart to see a lot of the blue leave for Canada, Mexico, or wherever right now either. The election is over and we have what we have. These types of activities aren't going to help bridge the gap we have in this country.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:22 pm

We might see Velo at Cat-Griz getting dragged off the field, naked, and in handcuffs. He'll be the one with the big circle around a W with a slash through it on his chest.

On his back - "Anarchy"

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:33 pm

You guys are watching too much 'Crossfire.' Most voting Americans, in my purely unscientific belief, go to work, pay their taxes, support the President, and exercise their rights under the Constitution.

T.V. has to be controversial or no one would watch, or care. Case in point: Most everyone on this message board present their opinions, and they let others present theirs. Then they both go on with daily life being respectful of each other and their opinions/beliefs. Nobody would watch that on T.V. YAWN.

Leave America? Only if you don't like what you have or how you live. There are simpler lives elsewhere in the world to be sure, but to bail on life in America just because your guy didn't get elected? That's WACKED MAN!!! If I moved - it would be to the beach!

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:57 pm

Anyone who's read my posts throughout this board will surmise (correctly, I might add) that I was not a Kerry supporter.

That said, however, I think the Massachussets Senator really made a classy concession speech. In his speech, states "n the end, we are all Americans." Not the easiest thing to say when your running partner (Senator Edwards) is suggesting you sue and take the election into the judicial system, but it was the most appropriate.

Many of the politically active on the Democrats' side strike me as sore losers. They complain in the open press and to anyone else who happens to be listening that the country is divided and polarized.

They are absolutely correct. However, they are wrong when they place the blame on President Bush or any of his supporters. The dividing and polarizing is coming from within their own numbers. Michael Moore, et al, have been industrial-strength polarizers, without giving any alternative solutions to their collective rants.

This country would have been much worse off had the 2004 election gone the way the 2000 election did--into the courts. I think it's time for the supporters of the Democratic party to come together with the supporters of the President so we can all work on fixing this country's problems.

DCC2MSU · Post by **DCC2MSU** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 6:55 pm

I believe the story tells of 100 people vandalizing the office, which is definately wrong. But how do you turn that into all the "blue" people? Last I checked there were more than 100 people that voted for Kerry. I don't vote by party, but rather by person. So to me suggesting that the "blue" people have to compromise because it is their fault is crap. Statements like that and allowing 100 people to represent millions (isn't this what exit polls do?) only furthers the sentiments you are complaining about. I think both parties need to work together and compromise. Moore isn't any worse or better than Rush. They are both too extreme in my opinion. That said, maybe people like that are needed to balance things out. I don't know but I don't think either truly represents either democrats or republicans. Just because you aren't in the majority doesn't mean you have no say. As far as erasing either the blue or the red, neither would make it. All parts of the country contribute. Do you really think the "red" states would be better off without the economy boost provided by urban areas?

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:05 pm

I didn't say "better off"; I said SURVIVE.

I'm simply saying that the red areas are more necessary to the ultimate survival of this or any nation; the "providers", if you will. The blue areas, to me, contribute the bulk of their economic 'boost' by buying & selling the goods produced in the red areas. Another way of putting it: The red areas economy is based on real, TANGIBLE goods; the blue areas economy is based on services, contracts & money. If the red area isn't producing goods, there is ultimately no need for contracts & money. Ever try to eat a $100 bill?

A New York stock broker would starve to death without the Iowa farmer; would an Iowa farmer die if the stock jockey disappeared?

A simple analogy, I know, but a telling one nonetheless, I believe.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:57 am

I would never advocate violence - that's what we need to stop. I hadn't read the top of the thread. Civil disobedience may be needed, though. The folks in the white house never listen to any but their hand picked fanatics. We need to find new ways to resist erosion of our civil rights, ignorance and arrogance. We shouldn't leave the country, we need to stay and resist the destruction of the ideals in the constitution. We must point out nonsense and make sure people know what is going on. Most Bush supporters believed there were WMDs in Iraq, that Iraq helped Al Qaida, and that most world citizens supported Bush in Iraq. That's scary, most of w's supporters believed nonsense, because they didn't care to pay attention. Deceipt and corruption reign.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 11:23 am

Most Bush supporters believed there were WMDs in Iraq, that Iraq helped Al Qaida, and that most world citizens supported Bush in Iraq. That's scary, most of w's supporters believed nonsense, because they didn't care to pay attention. Deceipt and corruption reign.

So...you're calling me ignorant, idiotic and unable to think on my own?

Thanks for the compliment.

No man can ever be correct 100% of the time in war--that's a fact. The true test of good leader is to continue to do the right thing (rebuilding Iraq) in the face of withering criticism by "Monday Morning Quarterbacks," many of whom would make the same decision as the President when given the same information.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:13 pm

If you believe any of those three things, you would be deluded. The first two have not been supported by any evidence, and the third is laughable (that the world supported us).

BozoneCat · Post by **BozoneCat** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:41 pm

velochat wrote:I would never advocate violence - that's what we need to stop. I hadn't read the top of the thread. Civil disobedience may be needed, though. The folks in the white house never listen to any but their hand picked fanatics. We need to find new ways to resist erosion of our civil rights, ignorance and arrogance. We shouldn't leave the country, we need to stay and resist the destruction of the ideals in the constitution. We must point out nonsense and make sure people know what is going on. Most Bush supporters believed there were WMDs in Iraq, that Iraq helped Al Qaida, and that most world citizens supported Bush in Iraq. That's scary, most of w's supporters believed nonsense, because they didn't care to pay attention. Deceipt and corruption reign.

I would say that anyone who thinks that George Bush or anyone involved in the war want our soldiers over in Iraq fighting and dying is somewhat deluded - nobody wants to see our country's young men and women taken away from home and put in harm's way. It is a tough decision to make, and I don't believe any president has ever taken this responsibility lightly. I think it is short-sighted and blind to say that Bush is just going over there to "make money for all his rich oil buddies..." If you think that "most" Bush supporters blindly follow what he says without taking a second to do some reading and forming their own opinion, that is just stupid - sure, some people do this, but I would argue (and win) that there are plenty of Kerry-supporters who do the same thing (probably moreso, for a variety of reasons). To blame Bush for making a decision based on every intelligence report he had that said Iraq had WMDs is equally deluded - and I think every congressman who voted to go to war based on this intelligence would agree. It seems that a lot of Democrats just don't want to listen to what most Republicans (including Bush) are saying about the Iraq-9/11 connection - that although there is no proven direct connection between the two, there is evidence that Iraq has harbored and supported terrorist organizations in the past. In my eyes, if your country has any connections to terrorist organizations, you are opening yourself up for fair game. It also seems that many Democrats choose to ignore the testimony of countless soldiers and even General Franks himself, who all support the war and George Bush's handling of it. Look, war is a bad thing, I think we can all agree on this. War by its very definition is an extremely dynamic situation, where nothing ever goes exactly as planned, even for a military force as mighty as the USA's. People die in war. These brave people volunteered to serve in the military, and countless numbers of them have volunteered to go back and serve second and third duties in Iraq. If you ever have the privilege of talking to some of these people, you should ask them what they think of Bush and the war. It should tell you something that 80% of people in the military vote for Bush - I highly doubt one would give his vote if they thought we shouldn't be over there. I also think the media misrepresents the welcome most of the people in Iraq give our soldiers, because it just isn't sensational enough. There are obviously pockets of insurgents who oppose us, but most people are glad we are there to fight for the people who can't fight for themselves - do you think these people enjoyed living under the oppression of Saddam Hussein? As for the coalition, I think many Democrats are taking this thing entirely too far - we do have a broad coalition, and we will not forget their support when they come to us for help in the future. I agree that I wish more countries would contribute more tangibly to the war effort, but we have to make due with what they are offering. This still doesn't change the mission, however. I am much more confident with our own soldiers executing the mission than I am of soldiers from other countries'. As for what France and others think - screw them. We do not need their approval and/or support to make decisions for our own country. They may not like the war, but I guarantee they will enjoy the fruits of what will eventually bring about a much safer global community.

Cat'sPawAlum · Post by **Cat'sPawAlum** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 4:43 pm

Very well put, Bozone.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:22 pm

The president may have convinced himself of what he wanted to believe, by choosing his intelligence carefully. Facts tend to be a nuisance to him.

BozoneCat · Post by **BozoneCat** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:23 pm

velochat wrote:The president may have convinced himself of what he wanted to believe, by choosing his intelligence carefully. Facts tend to be a nuisance to him.

I think you are the one trying to convince yourself of how stupid and evil Bush is by choosing your "facts" to fit your purpose. If the president chose his intelligence to fit his diabolical plan for world domination, what do you have to blame the same intelligence that led to near-unanimous approval (even by St. Kerry) by Congress to go to war? Let me also remind you that the man who presented said intelligence to Bush at the time was a man appointed Director of CIA by Bill Clinton. My only point here is to show that Bush didn't put somebody in at that position to be a mindless puppet for him so that he could take over the world without anyone even knowing it. The DCA makes his recommendations based on the intelligence presented to him by subordinates who make their recommendations based on the reports from the field. Our country has a long and distinguished history of having the best intelligence operations in the world - I don't see any reasonable argument that would have led the President, or anyone else, to doubt our intelligence at the time. As for me, I could care less about not finding WMDs. If Saddam didn't have them, I have little doubt that he was trying to get them, and I have no doubt that he would not hesitate to use them. Our country is safer and this world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in power, end of story.