quote:

---

he re-election of George W. Bush, in spite of his innumerable failures of policy and practice throughout his first term, inspires disbelief among many. How is it that a man who has overseen the deaths of over 100,000 people in the course of a war fought on specious grounds at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and in violation of international laws manages to retain his office? How is it that a man who seemingly dedicates himself to the eradication of virtually all socially-beneficial government programs from public education to social security retains the confidence of a large portion of the population? And how is it that the national press can continually ignore the abundant evidence of incompetence and malfeasance, maintaining a posture of ostensibly impartial reportage even as they recount a once-unimaginable litany of absurdities, deceits, and insanities ranging from the scuttling of social programs to state-sanctioned torture in military prisons?

And, how is it that the wishes of the majority of Americans for such things as a decent living wage, a sane healthcare system, a modicum of environmental protection, a few reasonable limits on corporate power, an equitable taxation system, and laws which respect rather than mock constitutional rights are so cavalierly disregarded? Simple: Our leaders aren't listening.

Well, perhaps we aren't speaking loudly enough. And perhaps we're not speaking in a language that the administration, its corporate supporters, and the media readily understand.

There is, though, a language that they understand, and it's one that you speak: The language of dollars. The dollars they make from your purchases, the dollars they make from your labor, and the dollars that flow into federal coffers when you pay your taxes.
Your dollars are their power. The more of your dollars you give to them, the more power they have. Conversely, the more you keep for yourself, the more power you have. It's that simple.

While one person deciding not to work or spend for a single day won't make a noticeable difference, there is strength in numbers. 49% of this country - at least - voted against George W. Bush, his wars, his neglect of the lower and middle classes, his assault on the environment, and his disregard for the rights and liberties enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. That's 49% of the population who could - if they wanted - take the day of George Bush's second inauguration to let him know in no uncertain terms that they're sick and tired of being exploited, sick and tired of unjust wars waged in their name, sick and tired of having their grandchildren's legacy squandered through ballooning deficits, sick and tired of seeing their country's natural resources plundered by his corporate pals.

On January 20th, people across the country will join together to speak in one voice. By staying home from work, by not buying products from chain stores, by turning off their cable TV, by not buying (or using) gasoline or other oil-based products, by not making long-distance phone calls - in an infinite number of ways, Americans will send George Bush a message he sorely needs to hear. America expects accountability, transparency, humanity and justice from an administration which has, up to now, provided little in any of these areas.

For one day, why not keep your power where it belongs: In your hands. Pass this message along to your family, friends, and co-workers, and let them know that they can make their voices heard too. On January 20th, let your voice join with thousands of others in rising from a whisper to a shout - a shout that the Bush Administration can't ignore.

---

quote:

---

Would you believe me if I said he did not?

---

Absolutely. For one, you've actually made me think sometimes, Tom.
 

---

Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
 
Oh yeah, thanks for the link. I took a look at his guest book. Some are typical trollisms, but other people had the same reaction I did. I think his appearance on Fox News has resulted in people deciding it's a good idea to do the opposite of what this guy is asking.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I think I'm going to save up my shopping for the next 10 days to do it all on the 20th.

And quoting that 100,000 number shows he has no intention of trying to be accurate. That study is so flawed in concept and execution its not worth mentioning.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
Why is this Black Thursday thing even newsworthy?

quote:

---

....by turning off their cable TV...

---

quote:

---

Not One Damn Dime Day - Jan 20, 2005. Since our
political leaders don't have the moral courage to
oppose the Iraq war, Inauguration Day, Thursday,
January 20th, 2005 is "Not One Damn Dime Day" in
America.

On "Not One Damn Dime Day" those who oppose what is
happening in our name in Iraq can speak up with a
24-hour national boycott of all forms of consumer
spending.

During "Not One Damn Dime Day" please don't spend
money. Not one damn dime for gasoline. Not one damn
dime for necessities or for impulse purchases. Not one
damn dime for nothing for 24 hours.

On "Not One Damn Dime Day," please boycott Wal-Mart,
Kmart, Target... Please don't go to the mall or the
local convenience store. Please don't buy any fast
food (or any groceries at all for that matter).

For 24 hours, please do what you can to shut the
retail economy down. The object is simple. Remind the
people in power that the war in Iraq is immoral and
illegal; that they are responsible for starting it and
that it is their responsibility to stop it.

"Not One Damn Dime Day" is to remind them, too, that
they work for the people of the United States of
America, not for the international corporations and K
Street lobbyists who represent the corporations and
funnel cash into American politics.

"Not One Damn Dime Day" is about supporting the
troops. The politicians put the troops in harm's way.
Now 1,200 brave young Americans and (some
estimate)100,000 Iraqis have died. The politicians owe
our troops a plan - a way to come home.

There's no rally to attend. No marching to do. No
left or right wing agenda to rant about. On "Not One
Damn Dime Day" you take action by doing nothing.
You open your mouth by keeping your wallet closed.

For 24 hours, nothing gets spent, not one damn dime,
to remind our politicians of their moral
responsibility to end the war in
Iraq and give America back to the people.

---

So don't do Black Thursday, but please do participate in Not One Damn Dime Day. Its not a liberal or democratic thing, its an American thing.

[ January 11, 2005, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
Cool, now I have an excuse to go skiing on the 20th insteada just goin' cuz I'm a slacker.
...wait a minute...everybody takes the day off...longer lift lines...
OKAY PEOPLES, GET YOUR LAZY BEHINDS BACK TO WORK. And none of that BlackThursday nonsense either. I know you guys are just slacking off.

Sheesh, take a day off and the whole country goes into the can.

[ January 11, 2005, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 

---

Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
 
Skiing doesn't count, that would be spending a dime. Not One Damn Dime, remember?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
You're just making me want to spend more money on the 20th.
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
Well Dag, you can find my wishlist on amazon.com.
 

---

Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
 
In order to protest this protest, I would like to organize an "Every Damn Dime I Have Day." This is where we save up all our money for the next 9 days and spend every single red cent on good ol' fashioned American Imperialist Capitalist Materialism (I almost included the words "Red-State" in the list of adjectives, but I deplore the ultra-polarization that is implied by the whole Red State/Blue State modifiers that have come into vogue of late.) We can also call this Green Thursday, if you like. God Bless the U.S.A! Yee-Haw!
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Technically America isn't really imperialistic, and never really was, at least not until 1900, but all the really good stuff was taken by then, and we gave most of it back by 1950 anyway. Still, compared to the great imperialistic powers of Europe we were barely a blip on the map.

That's neither here nor there, but I'm a history major, I can't control it.
 

---

Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
 
Eeeh, technically, we were very Imperialistic. I mean, if we weren't we wouldn't have gotten California, Texas, and a few other states. True, we mostly bought the land west of the Mississippi. But still. Now if you're talking new imperialism, as in industrial expansion, we were pretty much king from the end of the civil war until...now.
 

---

Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
 
Oh, and...

quote:

---

In order to protest this protest, I would like to organize an "Every Damn Dime I Have Day."

---

 

---

Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
 
I wasn't making a political statement by including "imperialist" in my list of modifiers. I was parrotting the claims made by the ultra-liberal wackos who publish the local Free Press. You can't get through any article in that newspaper, including ones that have nothing to do with international trade, without reading about how America is an Evil Capitalist Imperialist nation that deserves all the destruction that is heaped upon us.

[thread-derailing argument] I will admit, though, that they have a point. We ARE imperialistic in the sense that our economy depends on imports of raw materials from other countries (much like colonial Mercantilism,) and these economic interests affect how we make decisions in foreign policy. We hold other countries under our influence by the fact that we could squish them like a grape by applying just a few economic sanctions, thus depriving them of their lifeblood. But I digress. [/ thread-derailing argument]
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I suppose I was more proving the point that we weren't Colonial powers rather than Imperialistic, as colonialism is usually lumped in with imperialism. Texans themselves organized the revolution that led to the annexation of that state, though admittedly the Union did jam Americans in there in the hopes that they would do just that. We bought Louisiana. But I guess yeah, the core of American Imperialism would be in killing off the Native Americans, and stealing Hawaii. Even so, on the scale of say, Great Britain, France, Spain, or even the Roman Empire, we're minor players.

If you want to redefine Imperialism under a broader Economic and Cultural Imperialism then I'll totally agree with you, in the 20th century anyway. And the comparison to America being a mercantilistic nation that uses raw resources from other nations as a primary source of fuel to make things here is totally false. Strictly speaking in a mercantile system the nation that receives the resources owns the place sending them. Plus, America is one of the most resource rich countries on the planet. What major raw materials do we import?
 

---

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 

quote:

---

they are planning for the next election, planning America's future, trying to figure out who they are and what they want, and most especially how to get it.

---

quote:

---

For the record, I think that who you are and what you want are much more important than how to get it.

---

quote:

---

I seriously doubt Hannity and Colmes would get a liberal who could present a serious challenge to Ann Coulter.

---

quote:

---

Michael Moore says a lot of goofy stuff, but I've never heard him downright call the other side traitors who hate America.

---

quote:

---

These bastards who run our country are a bunch of conniving, thieving, smug pricks who need to be brought down and removed and replaced with a whole new system that we control.
Michael Moore
Dude, Where's My Country?

---

quote:

---

I can't believe she honestly agrees with the things she says, unless she's certifiably insane (which is possible).

---

quote:

---

These bastards who run our country are a bunch of conniving, thieving, smug pricks who need to be brought down and removed and replaced with a whole new system that we control.

---

then I would think you are just as offensive as I think Michael Moore and Ann Coulter are, and therefore would feel free to ignore your opinion.
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
How can a statement be offensive if it is true? That statement, if it was meant to be applied to the political system, could've came from John McCain or Ralph Nader.

Edited to add: OK, McCain and Nader would probably not use the word "prick", but the rest of the stuff I can picture them saying.

[ January 12, 2005, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
But Coulter thinks what she says is true. If this is simply a political debate, then saying "Liberals Love America Like O.J. Loved Nicole" is no more bitchy than calling politicians "conniving, thieving, smug pricks."

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
 
It is offensive, not because of the content, but because of the language used to make the argument. It is the same reason that we try to keep our language on Hatrack within the realm of polite discourse, no matter how strongly we disagree. To allow ourselves to degenerate into base name-calling and ad hominem attacks makes it much easier for someone to ignore our opinion. If John McCain wanted to make his point, he would say something like "The inside-the-beltway Establishment is corrupt, and we should work together as Americans in replacing this system with one that better represents the American people."
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
I think it is a provable fact that our current campaign finance system facilitates the electoral victory of conniving, thieving, smug pricks.

Coulter's statement on the other hand....
 

---

Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
 
Coulter's language is insensitive and inflammatory, designed to sell more books. However, her point is that there are liberals who don't really love America, but instead only love America if it is exactly the way that they want it, totally under their control. Now, I don't personally agree with this point, but if she had said it in this way, I don't think many would find it offensive. It is just as much of a "provable fact" as your assertion that our political system is inherently corrupt.

edit: nit-picky spelling mistake

[ January 12, 2005, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Brian J. Hill ]
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 

quote:

---

It is offensive, not because of the content, but because of the language used to make the argument.

---

quote:

---

Michael Moore says a lot of goofy stuff, but I've never heard him downright call the other side traitors who hate America.

---

quote:

---

Stipulating that liberals love America – which apparently depends on what the meaning of "love" is – do they love America as much as they love bin Laden and Castro?

http://www.anncoulter.org/

---

quote:

---

still much more insulting than Moore's comment IMO.

---

quote:

---

His language is course, but even if it was polite, I find several of his ideas inherently offensive. Just like you find offensive the allegation of treason for all liberals, I find the idea of lumping together all politicians (but especially Republicans) as Evil, Rich, Thieving White Men to be offensive.

---

Ah... some common ground. I absolutely agree with you.

Moore's coarse language doesn't bother me as much as his tendency to cast White Males as the root of all evil.

That's why I cared about whether "the other side" referred to any particular group. If Moore was talking about the evil White Men or Evil Conservatives then yes, that would be as thoughtless as anything Coulter has ever said.

But based on that quote alone, it seems Moore was attacking the political system. I could be totally wrong once I see the quote in context, but that's why I asked for the context in the first place.

quote:

---

It is just as much of a "provable fact" as your assertion that our political system is inherently corrupt.

---

quote:

---

The IMO is the key, in this quote. There is no universal standard of what defines "offensive," especially if you base your accusation of offensiveness on subjective criteria such as whether you like or dislike the idea of the quote.

---

Isn't your idea of offensive based on subjective criteria?

Edited to add:

I see how this whole mess got started. If only I had said, "Moore's comment, if it referred to the political system, wouldn't be offensive to me, because it is true and I happen to agree with him."

[ January 12, 2005, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
 

---

Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
 

quote:

---

You don't think our current campaign finance system is corrupting our democracy?

---

quote:

---

Isn't your idea of offensive based on subjective criteria?

---

Yes.

[ January 12, 2005, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Brian J. Hill ]
 

---

Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
 
That last edit was because I slammed down the Control V and the wrong quote was on the clipboard, making the "Yes " totally non-sensical.
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 

quote:

---

I also believe that it is an opinion, not a "provable fact." While valid political opinions are backed up by facts, those facts no more "prove" the argument than does the existance of large ancient cities in Central America "prove" the Book of Mormon (a point that a majority of practicing LDS agree with.)

---

quote:

---

That last edit was because I slammed down the Control V and the wrong quote was on the clipboard, making the "Yes [Smile] " totally non-sensical.

---

You are such a polite poster Brian. I can see why Moore's language would offend you.

[ January 12, 2005, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
 

---

Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
 
Wow, isn't there some law about bringing up the historicity of the Book of Mormon in an argument? We could call it Wodgin's Law.
 

---

Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
 
It's because of the powerful NRA lobby. Much like the AARP, I doubt that all of the NRA's members actually agree with the issues that the lobbyists bring up.

quote:

---

Are there any published studies tracking corporate political donations with voting patterns?

---

I would assume that there are, which would definitely provide some evidence to back up an opinion that our government is corrupt, but they don't make it a "provable fact."

-

-

Another related issue that isn't often brought up is what I call "reverse bribery." Rather than the constituents giving the politicians campaign money in exchange for favorable legislation, "reverse bribery" occurs when the politicians give the constituents money (in the form of handout-style programs and pork barrell) in exchange for votes. Both forms of bribery are evident of a corrupt system which needs reform.
 

---

Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
 

quote:

---

Wow, isn't there some law about bringing up the historicity of the Book of Mormon in an argument? We could call it Wodgin's Law.

---

Guilty as charged. I hereby promise not to make that specific analogy ever again. Promise.

Now, about those Lamanite DNA samples . . .
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 

quote:

---

These bastards who run our country are a bunch of conniving, thieving, smug pricks who need to be brought down and removed and replaced with a whole new system that we control.
Michael Moore
Dude, Where's My Country?

---

quote:

---

But in the words of the CGD, military aid doesn't count because "one country's security enhancement is another's destabilizing intervention" – you know, the way U.S. soldiers "destabilized" France in 1944.

---

quote:

---

but Coulter says things that so wildly unfounded it makes her sound silly.

---

quote:

---

First, he called them thieves, not just greedy. Second, Moore's lies and half-truths are well-documented, and much of what he says makes him sound silly

---

quote:

---

I think we'd be better off if Coulter and Moore never published anything again.

---