You bray your mindless indignance against the president with a great and totally unearned sense of moral superiority. You throw the word "terrorist" at Bush in a most infantile manner, as if your arbitrary and simply incorrect usage of the word makes it so. Perhaps if you hollered "IS SO, IS SO" enough times, you think this will make it true.

None of this, however, will do anything at all to stop the people who are trying to kill us.

You apparently don't give a rat's ass about defending the country, though. Absolutely consistently, you have never ever presented even a lame-ass plan for something to actually protect us from all the jackasses who are trying to KILL US.

But then, what do you care? You have renounced the whole country. It's not YOUR 4th of July. You've said repeatedly that you are anxious to flee the country as soon as you can afford it.

You go on about being a Christian. Oh, you are full of love for humanity. Except not really. On the basis of your writing, starting with this post and the 4th of July post, your beliefs sure SOUND much more like the poisonous Christian resentment described by Nietzche.

Fine. Knock yourself out. However, the rest of US plan on defending ourselves from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The fact that you have huge chips on your shoulder doesn't mean that the rest of us are going to just sit here and wait for some more of these bastards to come kill us. We're not suicidal, however unworthy you may consider us.

Suicide is painless and brings on many changes and makes great entertainment for the mob.

I actually just saw the word suicide in Al's response. It really sucks to try and read italics on a computer screen (you'd think everyone would realize that by now). Just blockquote is fine.

How about we take up a collection to send her to the country of her choice?

That way we won't have the obstructionists interferring with us actually protecting ourselves.

BTW, which recount did Bush actually lose?

Sigh. In order:

#1- Al, Natalie said nothing on this page to indicate that she doesn't care about defending the country in which she lives. She simply disagrees with President Bush's plan to do that. She's harsh and rude to Bush, but you aren't Bush. Don't take it personally.

#2- I don't even understand your comment!

#3- Give me a break. If you don't feel like responding to yet another list of the same grievances, then don't. But offering to help her leave the country, misrepresenting her views as anti-protection, or responding at all to the tired recount topic is just silly.

Again folks, if you think that the war on Iraq is an important part of the overall war on terror, that's fine, but don't assume that everybody who disagrees wants America to be attacked again. There are a number of different grounds on which one can base opposition to war in Iraq without wishing all Americans would die, okay? It's simple logic, even though the childish name-calling of the protestors don't always leave one in a logical frame of mind.

Remember how many of you felt when President Clinton was doing whatever he did to make so many of you upset at him? That's the same sense of powerless rage many of these people feel (though I speak not for Natalie, specifically, knowing that her own motivations are far more complex and principled). Please, try to remember how warm and loving you felt toward your fellow Americans on September 12, 2001. Then avoid petty arguments. If you disagree, post your own take on the speech, but leave personal attacks out of it.

HI Nat, agree to disagree, but how do we defend ourselves against those who hate us to the point of homicidal/suicidal violence? If there was a way other than killing them first I'd sure like to hear it.

#4 That was in response to her "commander-in-theif" comment.

As for the collection, I hate the idea of her sitting around crying and I'm only trying to help. She has posted numerous times that she "wants" to leave this country.

Personally I would rather have the terrorist gather in Iraq and fight against our military than to have them commit terrorist acts here at home.

If we have that many gathering there then there are less gathering here.

But it is not an either/or prospect.

All of the people slipping into Iraq (not to mention to the people who already live there who have been prodded by the ineptness of Bush's occupation) would not be streaming into the US. Nobody who creams over the "flypaper" justification (which wasn't part of planning put something made up to try and cover Bush's ass) has shown that one terorrist who would have come here is now in Iraq.

And I don't think many of the families of the soldiers who have been killed from people who weren't an immediate threat (and in most cases even a remote threat) to the US until Bush started his disastrous war.

Look, Gore won both the popular vote and Florida. Read Jews for Buchanan by John Nichols or the Florida sections of the Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast. Robert Parry wrote about the bad coverage of the media recount which did show Gore won. But we'll still be arguing about this after Bush loses in 2004.

...but how do we defend ourselves against those who hate us to the point of homicidal/suicidal violence? If there was a way other than killing them first I'd sure like to hear it.

Damn, for some reason links don't seem to be working in comments. There were a bunch in my comment, but the most important one was this one

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/112101a.html

This is the site of a group of families of people in the military who are against the war and will be participating in a congressional briefing on Tuesday

http://www.mfso.org

and a group of Sept. 11th families

http://www.peacefultomorrows.org

This is the only comment I will make here, as I will not argue or contribute to the escalating awfulness on Blogcritics.

I am not anti-protection. I am anti-violence and anti-war. I am prepared to die, but not to kill, for any reason. I want no harm to come to Americans or any other of my brothers and sisters on this planet, for whom I care just as much as I care for those who happen to reside on the same land mass.

Thank you, Phillip, Brian, and Steve for your words. Yes, I am harsh toward the person who sits and plans killings in the White House. Rude? I don't think so; I believe I am labelling him correctly. Those who call him "president" are, IMO, being rude to those actually elected to the position. As for my calling him a terrorist, the dictionary backs me up, whatever some say "popular usage" happens to be. He and his cohorts do use violence (threatened and actual) and fear to intimidate and coerce others. What is popular is not always correct (for example, the ideas many in society accept about "race") or good (Milli Vanilli, at one time). I have my own mind, and I will decide my beliefs and what is right and wrong, not society. If society chooses to punish me for it, through ostracization, belittlement, or violence, so be it. This part of the journey is finite anyway, and it is not the most important leg.

To the rest, respectfully, I suggest we agree to disagree.

I'm out. Pray, carry on.

I like Milli Vanilli and still don't understand why they were Milli Vilified for being a studio construct.

Okay - the fact that they didn't sing on their records, and didn't play any instruments, and were hired for their looks and dancing abilities may be damning to them as artists, but doesn't change the fact that SOMEONE made several great dance-pop songs under their name.

Girl You Know It's True

And yo, Mr. O: They had some killer remixes back in the day, too! And the mega mix of their hits is too sweet!

Actually, this woman would disagree with regard to MV. But then, much of what is popular I find distasteful.

That said, very cleverly worded, my friend.

Bricks: word.

Nats: thank YOU, my friend. You and your father are on my mind - I wish you both nothing but peace and hope.

Sometime, Natalie, when you do have the time and inclination, I would personally find it wonderful to visit Blogcritics one day and see a post on how to remain non-violent in a violent world.

I'm sure you've heard it said before that Gandhi was only successful because he was facing down the British Empire, honorable in some ways while obviously dastardly in others. How much of that is true? While I've studied some of Gandhi's words, I've studied very little of the overall history of non-violent protest. How does one effect change while advocating non-violence against a group of people who target civilians as a form of protest?

I'm of the "leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" mindset most of the time, but it is difficult to imagine how to respond to hose who don't seem to respect non-violent traditions. Eric asked the question and Brian took his answer to a different place, reading into Eric's question what wasn't there (but was probably very much in Eric's mind, though I'm guessing).

I'm honestly asking, in general (or perhaps with an eye to certain current situations involving seemingly never-ending groups of suicidal terrorists and the governments who relentlessly oppress them), how does one use non-violent means to make peace in what seems to be a increasingly violent world?

If you don't want to start a fuss on BC, I understand that and would appreciate some emailed links.

Actually, Phillip, I plan to do a piece on Gandhi, nonviolence, and satyagraha. I don't know when the time will present itself -- things are very crazy right now -- but hopefully soon. I am not sure if I would do it for BC, but whenever and wherever, I will make sure to send it to you.

As a start, visit the site for Soulforce, which offers many informative resources. And you can also check my site, which presents a bunch of related writings under the Blogathon 2003 category. (And you'll also find my terrific recipe for Snickerdoodles.)

Thanks, Eric. I'm about to head off to see him. Dad is being moved to a hospice this evening. Sadly, he likely won't be there for long.

I don't feel like paying this 87 billion dollar price tag. Could all you super patriots out there pitch in to cover the bill? It's a great way to show your patriotism: you know, sacrifice and all.

Also, planes are leaving for Baghdad, if you want to help the U.S. military dictatorship clean up the mess it made. Don't let me stop you. Show us what you're made of.

Gene Sharp has written many A Force More Powerful: A Century of Non-Violence Conflict.

Ah yes, the Einstein Institution does necessary and valuable work. God bless Gene Sharp and his colleagues. If you have the opportunity to peruse A Force More Powerful, grab it.

Steve,

I know that Gore won the popular vote, but that is not how we elect presidents. There are reasons that our fore fathers set up the Electorial College.

I still have not heard about a recount that Gore actually won Florida. All of the news I have read said that Bush won the state.

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/recount/

With all due respect, the "forefathers" certainly did not anticipate the criminality and chicanery that kept the rightful winner -- whom I did not support, BTW -- from "officially" ending up with the Florida electors he earned. Katherine Harris made sure of it and the new congressperson was rewarded richly for her efforts. The 2000 election was bogus and the not-so-Supreme Court only made it more so.

here

here

here

here

here

I also recommend reading Greg Palast's The Best Democracy Money Can Buy and Michael Moore's Stupid White Men.

Did you even check out the web address I provided?

If anybody tried to steal the election it was Gore with his "recount" of only Democratic areas, and recount, and recount and recount.

Even a year later when the media did the recount they said that Bush still won.

And really, I wouldn't read anything Michael Moore had to say because he is too partisan to be believed.

Katherine Harris followed the law, as it was written. What else could she have done? The law clearly stated that the election results were to be confirmed within 7 days. There had already been 3 recounts by then.

I don't think there would have been as big a problem as there was if the News hadn't jumped the gun and declared Gore the winner of Florida after only 1 or 2% of the votes were in....what moron's.

Not to mention, the lost votes to Bush because the polls were still open when the news gave the state to Gore. Yeah, right, who was trying to steal the election????

Please!

Gore was stupid. He would have won a recount of all the ballots including over and undervotes.

From the NYT site you pointed to:

"If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin. For example, using the most permissive "dimpled chad" standard, nearly 25,000 additional votes would have been reaped, yielding 644 net new votes for Mr. Gore and giving him a 107-vote victory margin...

Using the most restrictive standard — the fully punched ballot card — 5,252 new votes would have been added to the Florida total, producing a net gain of 652 votes for Mr. Gore, and a 115-vote victory margin.

All the other combinations likewise produced additional votes for Mr. Gore, giving him a slight margin over Mr. Bush, when at least two of the three coders agreed."

It should be noted that:

(1) Campaigning on a plan to privatize Social Security could hurt your real election chances in Florida, due to massive senior citizen voter turnout can practically ruin your chances of victory in Florida;

(2) There are more Democrats in Florida thant Republicans, South Florida being strongly Democratic (more liberal), North Florida being conservative Democratic (blue dog) and Central Florida (Orlando and Tampa Bay areas) can vote either way, swingin the election, but running on a completely conservative platform isn't likely to win this area, legitimately, if it's spun conservatively, instead of moderately, which wasn't done by the Bush campaign;

(3) To win Florida, you need to be here, physically, more often; do not depend on your borther-governor getting you the votes to win, especially when he's alienated some of the voting blocks that got him elected, originally; voting blocks that could have been Bush's if JEB hadn't angered them;

(4) Learn how to do PR; trust the media, they're your friends, if you approach them correctly, but approach them the wrong way and it'll be all over for you, even when you call folks, such as Adam Clymer (SP?) an "asshole";

(5) To win Florida in 2004, make a strong peace plan for Israel and give seniors a prescription drug benefit, but remember, you've alienated quite a bit of the electorate with your foolishness with Iraq (more PR flops, miscommunication, or plain dishonesty) and the economy, so winning Florida may not matter;

(6) Always remember that some of us know the truth about the Bush Administration, and those of us who do, even though we spoke for them in 2000, may transfer our vote elsewhere, but that may not matter, epecially since electronic voting machines can be programmed to get the results wanted by a small group, rather than by the majority of voters.

Of course, one should remember this: From chaos comes order.

Goodnight.

What happened to all the links I had posted in #22? They were there this morning! My dad died today; I haven't the energy to go looking for them again. Can someone please explain where they went and why my final sentence now hangs there, out of its intended context?

Nat, I fixed the links, they weren't pointing to any words, added "here." Very sorry about your loss. My thoughts and prayers are with you and your family.

Thanks, Eric. My brain must have gone on the fritz when I pushed "post." (Preview! Preview!)

No prob

"A democracy unsatisfied by support of the people cannot long survive ... We live in probably the most turbulent and tormented times in the history of this nation. Criticize ... disagree, yes, but also we have as leaders an obligation to be fair and keep in perspective what we are and what we hope to be."
John Bowden Connally

the lost blogger

I don't know which is more culpable, the deliberately alarmist hawking of threats to all Amurrikins if they don't swallow Dubya's BS hook, line, & sinker - or the abysmally stupid Amurrikins who DO swallow this crap. No one with half a functioning brain cell can listen to this Chicken Little ranting by BushCo & give it any credibility, especially after 6 years of escalating & blatant, constant & consistant lies, fraud, treachery & lawlessness by Bush & his flunkies.