NationStates Jolt Archive

I encourage all people who are opposed to the war in Iraq to observe "Not a Damn Dime Day" on January 20th, innaugeration day. Suggested by Bill Moyers (who I think is a journalist on some national news program, but don't quote me on that), Not a Damn Dime Day is meant to send a message to our government through inaction - specifically, by our refusal to participate in consumer spending. Please, don't spend a dime on gas, on food, on clothing, on haircuts, on anything on January 20th. Please boycott large corporations like Wal-Mart, Kmart, Target, etc. As Bill Moyers states,

[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. 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
religious leaders and our politicians of their moral responsibility to
end the war in Iraq and give America back to the people.]

If you want to send a message to the leaders of our country, please take part in "Not a Damn Dime Day" and tell your friends and family about it too.

Thank you.

And if we don't live in the USA?

What is this going to accomplish? It'll just hurt the economy and inconvenience those who participate. It might not even do those two things.

The war in Iraq was a stupid idea, but now we are committed to stay until there is a strong and stable Iraqi government. Like it or not we can't leave or we leave another pre-9/11 Afghanistan style failed state in our wake.

None of my friends over there want to come home. They believe they're doing the right thing.

So, if you want to protest, don't say you're doing it for them. Because they would hate you for saying that they were doing the wrong thing.

Not in their name please.

Gee, I'm not sure about that case. Sorry :(

Surely people participating in this thing would stoke up on things that they will need the next day or by a bit in their next shop after?

wait...

there are 20 months in a year?

How about a national shoplifting day? We could say it's for tsunami releif or something. No, wait. We'll say it's for religious liberty in Saudi. Five finger discount for freedom day.

It would do no damage to the economy, it is simply a way for the public to express themselves. (A kind of economic opinion poll or referendum). The idea is not to damage anything but to send a message.

wait...

there are 20 months in a year?

In the US they sometimes have 31 ;)

If you want to send a message to the leaders of our country, please take part in "Not a Damn Dime Day" and tell your friends and family about it too.
Kinda like sour grapes 'cause Kerry lost, eh? Well WTF is Bill Moyers? I was under the impression that he's Canadian, yes? :mad: :headbang:

I'll make sure to spend as much as I possibly can on the 20th. Thanks for the warning. :D

Wow. Did I ever set the trend. I've been observing "Not a Damn Dime" day since, oh, the payday before Christmas.

Well, Bill Moyers isn't quite like Morley Safer at CBS, who, in his zeal to find something wrong with the Vietnam War, and not finding a "hot" story to film when he was there, paid a group of Marines to set fire to a village.

The film is famous - it's been shown over and over again. The Marines in question were court martialed for it - but Morley and CBS proudly showed it as proof of the evil American soldier at work.

Morley has admitted paying them. But he's never been prosecuted for it.

Anybody who takes part in this is none too bright.

Wait. Why are we talking about Safer? What's wrong with Moyers? Something about burning villages?

So what, Safer and Moyers share a profession. So do Bush and Pinochet. Meaning what?

I'm sure no one will notice the blip on the 20th, if there is one at all.

Rough math here:

Of registered voters, perhaps 1 in 4 didn't vote, largely because they didn't care. So that's people who won't join the protest.

Of those who voted, slightly more than half (we'll say half of the three that remain, so 1.5 out of 3).

That leaves 1.5 people out of the original 4 who voted for Kerry. I would bet that not all of these people care so much about the war that they would go a whole day not spending money.

I bet the whole thing has far, far less impact that you imagine.

Well, Bill Moyers isn't quite like Morley Safer at CBS, who, in his zeal to find something wrong with the Vietnam War, and not finding a "hot" story to film when he was there, paid a group of Marines to set fire to a village.

The film is famous - it's been shown over and over again. The Marines in question were court martialed for it - but Morley and CBS proudly showed it as proof of the evil American soldier at work.

Morley has admitted paying them. But he's never been prosecuted for it.

Link to that information?

Link to that information?

I'll find it for you. They covered it on the History Channel.

I will show my support for these people by not spending a single dime on 01/20/05. I also plan on showing my support on 01/12/05-01/16-05, 01/20/05-02/03/05, and later on in the year at indetermined times.

I'm sorry. I got to ask again: What does Safer have to do with this?

You open up by saying Moyers ain't quite like Safer, then lay out some atrocious shit about Safer. What's the pertinence to "Don't Spend a Dime Day"?

Moyers and Safer are both journalists? What?

Because there's a pretty huge difference between burning villages and calling for a boycott that draws attention to consumerism and the financial aspects of the war.

One's a war crime, the other's social engagement. I agree it'll probably be a pretty futile gesture, but it has nothing to do with Safer.

It would do no damage to the economy, it is simply a way for the public to express themselves. (A kind of economic opinion poll or referendum). The idea is not to damage anything but to send a message.
I'm not clear on what the message is exactly. Is it that you don't think we should have gone into Iraq, or are you saying we should pull out immediately?

Kinda like sour grapes 'cause Kerry lost, eh? Well WTF is Bill Moyers? I was under the impression that he's Canadian, yes? :mad: :headbang:

I'll make sure to spend as much as I possibly can on the 20th. Thanks for the warning. :D

This has nothing to do with kerry. Those of us who opposed the war from the beginning have never been comfortable with Kerry. If you really support the war, though, do more than spend money. Enlist or encourage your sons and daughters (or in your case, Eutrusca, grandsons and granddaughters) to enlist.

I can't abide journalists who have a political axe to grind.

If they expect to be treated as though they have credibility and integrity and honesty and no bias in their reporting, then they have to stay out of politics.

The moment they cross that line they are no longer reporters, and should be fired from their jobs.

Morley Safer was the first of such, and was so eager to get a story, he didn't care how he got it.

Well, there's a fundamental difference of opinion. I personally have no problem with journalists holding political beliefs, so long as these biases are not presented as objective news.

Every major newspaper in America runs opinion pages, which are essentially journalists letting their colors show. Moreover, there's no job in the world that should preclude an individual from having or voicing beliefs. They shouldn't use their position to voice their beliefs (i.e., deliver a monologue in the middle of the evening news), but if Moyers wants to call for a boycott, let him.

What Safer did, what Hearst did, what Rather did, these are abuses, but what Moyers is doing is very different.

Well, there's a fundamental difference of opinion. I personally have no problem with journalists holding political beliefs, so long as these biases are not presented as objective news.

Every major newspaper in America runs opinion pages, which are essentially journalists letting their colors show. Moreover, there's no job in the world that should preclude an individual from having or voicing beliefs. They shouldn't use their position to voice their beliefs (i.e., deliver a monologue in the middle of the evening news), but if Moyers wants to call for a boycott, let him.

What Safer did, what Hearst did, what Rather did, these are abuses, but what Moyers is doing is very different.

If people think that Moyers advocating a very specific political action is OK, and think that he can still remain an unbiased reporter, then those very same people should say that it's great that Fox News exists, and that Fox News can be trusted to be an unbiased news source.

I hardly think so.

I can't abide journalists who have a political axe to grind.

If they expect to be treated as though they have credibility and integrity and honesty and no bias in their reporting, then they have to stay out of politics.

The moment they cross that line they are no longer reporters, and should be fired from their jobs.

Morley Safer was the first of such, and was so eager to get a story, he didn't care how he got it.

I have looked it up and have seen nothing saying that he bribed the officers to do it. I have found information that several other journalists were crucial in finding information that gave Safer and idea of what was going to happen and why, days before it happened, meaning Safer had no reason to bribe them. A investigation by the military showed no evidence of bribery.

Edit: The main article I read even stated that Safer's cameraman was instrumental in helping some of the civilian families.

I can't abide journalists who have a political axe to grind.

If they expect to be treated as though they have credibility and integrity and honesty and no bias in their reporting, then they have to stay out of politics.

The moment they cross that line they are no longer reporters, and should be fired from their jobs.

Morley Safer was the first of such, and was so eager to get a story, he didn't care how he got it.


Document the Morley Safer accusation. If you are referring to the incident at Cam Ne village then you are just flat out wrong.

http://www.thehistorynet.com/vn/blwhathappenedatcamne/

If people think that Moyers advocating a very specific political action is OK, and think that he can still remain an unbiased reporter, then those very same people should say that it's great that Fox News exists, and that Fox News can be trusted to be an unbiased news source.

I hardly think so.

Who really cares? Moyers is retiring this year anyway. Let him get his 500 or so weekly veiwers to stop spending one day, they will just buy more stuff the next day to make up for it. It truely is one of the lamest things I have ever heard. Now if you really want to stick it to El Presidente go down to his inaguaratoin with a bag of flour and throw it on rich republicans while screaming I've got Anthrax! I've got Anthrax!

That should cause a commotion. Or just chuck a moltov cocktail at his limo. Whatever.

If Safer had no axe to grind, why the obvious omissions in his story?

Here's yet another account (not the one I'm looking for)

http://www.11thcavnam.com/education/zippo_raids.htm

wait...

there are 20 months in a year?
Day, month, year. It goes up. It is a logical order.

Sad to say, Bill Moyers is a Texan. And, as usual, he is trying to blast Bush and make a fuss. So we are supposed to boycott our big retail discount chains, gas stations, barbers, and everyone else to do what?...make Bush sad and maybe make him cry? All something like this would do is hurt the little guy...the barber, the mom & pop store, the dry cleaners, etc. who depend on their commerce just to get along day by day. As usual Bill Moyers, who has a maligned view of just about everything, has made another stupid statement. Instead of listening to him and others like him who never go anywhere their chauffer can't drive them, why don't you pay attention to some of the people on here who have been to Iraq and know what is really going on over there?

I'm going shopping on the 20th. Who wants to go with me? :D

Whatever happened to the turn your back thing?

Did that just evaporate?

I'm doing it. It's not too hard. I'll do it for the fact that its something different instead of consuming.

I stopped caring about the war when they stopped caring about what we think. I'll not buy anything on the 20th for the sheer value of novelty.

EDIT: @Browning, post 25

If you're working on the premise that people with beliefs cannot present news objectively, you're in a rather inflexible and, I believe incorrect, position.

Fact of the matter is there's no such thing as an objective person. Even judges (who ought to be more of a paragon of neutrality than reporters) have party affiliations and play politics. This does not mean that anyone isn't able to strive towards objective reporting. Not that everyone does, but they can.

What you're dictating with this view is that reporters cease to be anything but reporters. No job ought to require that.

And what do you do when a reporter takes part in, say, a breast cancer walk or an AIDS fundraiser as part of a feature story? Is that out too? If it ain't, you're applying your own subjective view to which outside activities are acceptable.

Once they're off camera, journalists are free to be as political as they want to be. This is the difference between FOX, Rather, and Moyers. Two are biased on screen, one is biased in outside statements.

Day, month, year. It goes up. It is a logical order.
you see, thats what i thought. that way makes sense.

and then i saw this thread

01/20/2005

so theres 20 months now?

its the same with 9/11. what happened on the 9th of November thats so special? maybe it was overshadowed by the 11th?

If Safer had no axe to grind, why the obvious omissions in his story?

Here's yet another account (not the one I'm looking for)

http://www.11thcavnam.com/education/zippo_raids.htm

This web site just states complaints the military had with the reporting (hardly a story - what subject of a news story is happy about the reporting?). However, you claimed:

...Morley Safer at CBS, who, in his zeal to find something wrong with the Vietnam War, and not finding a "hot" story to film when he was there, paid a group of Marines to set fire to a village....Morley has admitted paying them. But he's never been prosecuted for it.

There is nothing here that even suggest what you have written.

This is horrendously flawed logic. As the only way to really partake of this is if you lay on the ground and do nothing all day. Unplug everything, don't eat, don't drink. Because when you do those things you are violating the "Not a damn dime" by expending money, even if it isn't being payed for on that day.

This is a common criticism, so yeah.

In fact, I'm going to sponsor someone who takes up this cause! For the people I meet in person who decide to take up this cause, I'll buy double what I normally would.

This web site just states complaints the military had with the reporting (hardly a story - what subject of a news story is happy about the reporting?). However, you claimed:



There is nothing here that even suggest what you have written.

Still trying to find that link, as I said in the last post.

I think as a war protest, this is a little misguided, but Moyers's second point:

"'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"

is a very sound one. I'm not going to do the whole "evils of consumerism" thing, because it's been done to death and people still go gobble gobble gobble down at the Costco.

I just want to point out that in all measures of personal debt (the big ones being mortgages, credit cards, and per capita personal bankruptcies), America is at an all-time high. Meanwhile, the average personal savings rate have plummeted to less than 2% of income (you have to go back to the Depression to match this) while debt servicing fees consume nearly 14% of the average worker's after-tax income. Meanwhile, we're being pitched the line that we need to "grow the economy" through consumption? Get the hell out.

Forget the war: This is what "not a damn dime" should be protesting.

I think as a war protest, this is a little misguided, but Moyers's second point:

"'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"

is a very sound one. I'm not going to do the whole "evils of consumerism" thing, because it's been done to death and people still go gobble gobble gobble down at the Costco.

I just want to point out that in all measures of personal debt (the big ones being mortgages, credit cards, and per capita personal bankruptcies), America is at an all-time high. Meanwhile, the average personal savings rate have plummeted to less than 2% of income (you have to go back to the Depression to match this) while debt servicing fees consume nearly 14% of the average worker's after-tax income. Meanwhile, we're being pitched the line that we need to "grow the economy" through consumption? Get the hell out.

Forget the war: This is what "not a damn dime" should be protesting.

Well, then we should all go down and file for bankruptcy. I'm sure that would send a message.

Still trying to find that link....

Must be some really obscure post. There is no shortage of links about Cam Ne and the role of both the military and the media:

The History Net
http://www.thehistorynet.com/vn/blwhathappenedatcamne/

eHistory
http://www.ehistory.com/vietnam/books/buildup/0062.cfm

PBS (Safer’s version)
http://www.pbs.org/weta/reportingamericaatwar/reporters/safer/camne.html

The Museum of Broadcast Communications
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/V/htmlV/vietnamonte/vietnamonte.htm

Time Magazine
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0%2C10987%2C1101900430-154366%2C00.html

American Journey Online
http://www.americanjourney.psmedia.com/cgi-bin/aj/aj/crosslink.cgi?query=(VEDOC1660)%3Adocid&arealist=VE&source=MAIN

Just nothing to substantiate your wild claims that a journalist paid marines to set fire to the village.

Well, then we should all go down and file for bankruptcy. I'm sure that would send a message.

You don't have to swallow personal responsibility hook, line, and sinker to know how ridiculous that sounds. I'm saying that statistics show that we, as a nation, need to live a little more within our means. One day of cold turkey ain't a bad way to call attention to this. Kind of like the "National Smoke Out" day (I know, I know, who was on that committee?) encouraged all smokers to quit for a day, not thinking that it would take, but that it would get them thinking about quitting.

Speaking as someone who has filed for bankruptcy to get out of debts incurred by my ex-wife, I feel it's a good thing.

I don't really enjoy being bond slave to the credit card company. Or having the illusion that I own my home when what is really happenning is that I am a wage slave to a mortgage company.

It reeks of the whole company town thing, with the illusion of economic freedom.

Wait. Why are we talking about Safer? What's wrong with Moyers? Something about burning villages?

So what, Safer and Moyers share a profession. So do Bush and Pinochet. Meaning what?

I think the Bush and Pinochet comparison is closer than the Safer Moyers one. Try something like "My cousin and Bill Gates are both employed by MS" or something.

I encourage all people who are opposed to the war in Iraq to observe "Not a Damn Dime Day" on January 20th, innaugeration day. Suggested by Bill Moyers (who I think is a journalist on some national news program, but don't quote me on that), Not a Damn Dime Day is meant to send a message to our government through inaction - specifically, by our refusal to participate in consumer spending. Please, don't spend a dime on gas, on food, on clothing, on haircuts, on anything on January 20th. Please boycott large corporations like Wal-Mart, Kmart, Target, etc. As Bill Moyers states,

[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. 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
religious leaders and our politicians of their moral responsibility to
end the war in Iraq and give America back to the people.]

If you want to send a message to the leaders of our country, please take part in "Not a Damn Dime Day" and tell your friends and family about it too.

Thank you.

So basically by "protesting" the war, you suggest that you screw over your fellow countrymen and not buy anything for a day?

I mean seriously, people that follow his lead are sheep. Our economy benefits everyone that lives here (and billions that don't). By suggesting that you want to boycott purchasing on a certain day, you go against everything that the United States stands for.

Kerry lost, get over it. If you want to protest, protest in a less destructive way.

It is your choice to buy or not to buy. Keep in mind, however, that by partaking in this charade you not only stop our economy, but you also screw over everybody, including those that support your cause.

So basically by "protesting" the war, you suggest that you screw over your fellow countrymen and not buy anything for a day?

I mean seriously, people that follow his lead are sheep. Our economy benefits everyone that lives here (and billions that don't). By suggesting that you want to boycott purchasing on a certain day, you go against everything that the United States stands for.

Kerry lost, get over it. If you want to protest, protest in a less destructive way.

It is your choice to buy or not to buy. Keep in mind, however, that by partaking in this charade you not only stop our economy, but you also screw over everybody, including those that support your cause.

The real sheep are those who continue to equate consumerism with patriotism. Buying less, spending less, consuming less are good ideas not just for a day, but for life.

@Ludite:

Zing! :D

Kinda like sour grapes 'cause Kerry lost, eh? Well WTF is Bill Moyers? I was under the impression that he's Canadian, yes? :mad: :headbang:

I'll make sure to spend as much as I possibly can on the 20th. Thanks for the warning. :D
Dude, it's not a revenge tactic to make Bush look bad, it's a legitimate form of protest. Not just to express dissatisfaction at the way the Iraq war is being handled, but against the mindless consumerism exhibited by so many Americans.
Peace & Love
:fluffle:

This has nothing to do with kerry. Those of us who opposed the war from the beginning have never been comfortable with Kerry. If you really support the war, though, do more than spend money. Enlist or encourage your sons and daughters (or in your case, Eutrusca, grandsons and granddaughters) to enlist.
My oldest grandchild is 15 ( grandaughter ). When she gets to be 18, whether she chooses to join the military will be her decision, as it will be for all of my grandchildren.

If I could re-enlist, I would have already. Unfortunately, I am both too old and too disabled, according to the recruiters. This is a source of continuing frustration to me, but not much I can do about it.

The real sheep are those who continue to equate consumerism with patriotism. Buying less, spending less, consuming less are good ideas not just for a day, but for life.

America is great because we are powerful. Our economic purchasing power is in direct proportion to our ability to produce goods and distribute them.

Our economy is envied around the world. It gives us the ability to feed ourselves, to wage war, and, when necessary, protect ourselves. This ensures our sovereignty and way of life. Our power is partially contained within this fact.

A perfect example of this is in Afganistan. They had, and still have, a very, very small economy. The people in power had almost no ability to produce and distribute food, let alone war supplies, to protect themselves, and thus were invaded quite readily.

So no, I am not a sheep. If you want a job, if you want your car, if you want to EAT, then consider that consumerism makes it all possible. If you do not believe that, I suggest you go starve in Cuba with the rest of the communists.

I'm interested to see what happens to the protesters at the inauguration.
The fact that Moyers has suggested a relatively secret and anonymous form of protest implies that he is afraid (and so is everyone who would participate) of protesting in the traditional fashion.

It gives us the ability to . . . wage war, and, when necessary, protect ourselves.

I'm glad to see you make a distinction between these two things.

Our economy is envied around the world. It gives us the ability to feed ourselves, to wage war, and, when necessary, protect ourselves. This ensures our sovereignty and way of life. Our power is partially contained within this fact.


No it is not. Some of us prefer economies that are actually based on something more than running a huge government defecit. You are not self sufficient for food, fuel, iron, copper etc. You depend upon other countries for the supplies you need to wage war.
Curtailing spending, particularly credit spending is not only a good idea, but one that America will have to adopt soon, like it or not. This is not a threat, simply a prediction.

No it is not. Some of us prefer economies that are actually based on something more than running a huge government defecit. You are not self sufficient for food, fuel, iron, copper etc. You depend upon other countries for the supplies you need to wage war.
Curtailing spending, particularly credit spending is not only a good idea, but one that America will have to adopt soon, like it or not. This is not a threat, simply a prediction.

Absotively. I'm particularly interested in seeing how our national 2% savings rate is going to mesh with the disembowelment of Social Security. I mean, everybody thinks that they'll be better fund managers than the Social Security Trustees, but last time I checked, there wasn't no Sizzler waitress cutting up the Trustees' credit cards.

this is all over the conservative blogs. They urge going out and buying gun paraphenilia and a gun itself if you have the money. I think I'll buy my first rifle that I'll have payed for. If I can get ahold of a K98 mauser in good condition that would kick ass, albeit expensive. Hmm, I suppose I also have the money to pony up for an M1A.

None of my friends over there want to come home. They believe they're doing the right thing.

So, if you want to protest, don't say you're doing it for them. Because they would hate you for saying that they were doing the wrong thing.

Not in their name please.


If your entire young adulthood is spent in the army, one tends to support that which indoctrinated you.

Or simply put, of course your going to support those who pay your bills...

No it is not. Some of us prefer economies that are actually based on something more than running a huge government defecit. You are not self sufficient for food, fuel, iron, copper etc. You depend upon other countries for the supplies you need to wage war.
Curtailing spending, particularly credit spending is not only a good idea, but one that America will have to adopt soon, like it or not. This is not a threat, simply a prediction.
Actually we are a food exporter. We can certainly feed ourselves. Also we can produce our own Iron and do have some large copper deposits. It's just cheaper to buy from overseas. Our steel mills aren't closing because we have no Iron ore, they are closing because foreigners produce the stuff cheaper.

America is great because we are powerful.

Soviet Russia was powerful. Nazi Germany was powerful. The Mongol Empire was powerful.

It is not America's "power" that makes us great. Ideas such as freedom, equality, and civil liberty make us great.

Citizenship is not base upon consumerism.

If I could re-enlist, I would have already. Unfortunately, I am both too old and too disabled, according to the recruiters. This is a source of continuing frustration to me, but not much I can do about it.

Au contraire. You could find a job with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Right now they're looking for civilian employees who are willing to volunteer to serve in Iraq and if they don't get sufficient numbers they will designate which employees are assigned there.

Kinda like sour grapes 'cause Kerry lost, eh?
Kerry wasn't anti-war.

I can't abide journalists who have a political axe to grind.
There's nothing wrong with opinion columns, as long as the journalist's opinion is

a) not presented as objective reporting
b) based on facts

b) based on facts
How about, completely factual and tells exactly what their sources do and come from. If that happened, however, anywhere from 2/3 to 7/8 of AP and Rueters reporting about the Iraq war would have to be trashed.

A poll was taken in Iraq, and more than 80% of the troops support the war and President Bush. So if you really want to "support our troops", do more to reinvigorate the economy, not hurt it.

I'm sure I saw this on some other forum... somewhere on the net.
If I lived in the states I'd participate even though I like to spend money, mainly because Bush is a war criminal, and should be put on trial... If only America wasn't a superpower.

Kinda like sour grapes 'cause Kerry lost, eh? Well WTF is Bill Moyers? I was under the impression that he's Canadian, yes? :mad: :headbang:

I'll make sure to spend as much as I possibly can on the 20th. Thanks for the warning. :D

Why would any, ANY intelligent human being use that stupid smiley?

Sounds like a pretty stupid idea to me. Let's deprive each other of the benefits of commerce for one whole day, that'l show 'em! Maybe we could keep it going for a whole month and see how many people still have jobs! Everyone in government still would.

If you want to stop government, quit giving THEM money.

None of my friends over there want to come home. They believe they're doing the right thing.

So, if you want to protest, don't say you're doing it for them. Because they would hate you for saying that they were doing the wrong thing.

Not in their name please.Well, I sure wouldn't want someone hating me. I suppose it's important for their current sanity and survival to believe they're doing good work. I'm sure some of the people over there would really like to come home and would quit if they were allowed to. I want them all to come home but want those who want to come home to come home the most.

[QUOTE=Windleheim]"Not One Damn Dime Day" is about supporting the troops. 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.
QUOTE]

these are interesting statistics, here's some more for you from a friend of mine who just got back from Iraq and is wishing he could go back (eye problems have him grounded)

over 400,000 Iraqi children have up to date immunization for the first time in their lives

school attendance in Iraq is up more than 80%

over 1,500 have been renovated and had weapons removed so education could take place

over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq

100% of Iraqi hospitals are open and recieving patients, compared to 35% before the war

Every major Iraqi city now has working sewer and water lines

over 400,000 Iraqi's have telephones for the first time ever

Girls are allowed to attend school for the first time ever in Iraq

Kinda like sour grapes 'cause Kerry lost, eh? Well WTF is Bill Moyers? I was under the impression that he's Canadian, yes? :mad: :headbang:
Seriously, is this going to be your response to everything?

Kerry lost, get over it. If you want to protest, protest in a less destructive way.


How bout if Kerry had made the same corporate-owned horrendous blunders costing so many lives because of his and his crews' f*cking arrogance you'd be all over him like stink on sh*t?
You get over it. No one's talking about Kerry. Keep up with the actual conversation. And don't try and blame Clinton for it either.
As for protest, American citizens don't have as much right to peaceably assemble anymore so be careful what you pick as to your methods.

these are interesting statistics, here's some more for you from a friend of mine who just got back from Iraq and is wishing he could go back (eye problems have him grounded)

over 400,000 Iraqi children have up to date immunization for the first time in their lives

school attendance in Iraq is up more than 80%

over 1,500 have been renovated and had weapons removed so education could take place

over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq

100% of Iraqi hospitals are open and recieving patients, compared to 35% before the war

Every major Iraqi city now has working sewer and water lines

over 400,000 Iraqi's have telephones for the first time ever

Girls are allowed to attend school for the first time ever in Iraq

So that is why we invaded Iraq (the reason has changed so many times).

Great.

By this rationale Haiti and Somalia should be the next countries we invade - I mean if we are going to war based on where we can do the most good.

A perfect example of this is in Afganistan. They had, and still have, a very, very small economy. The people in power had almost no ability to produce and distribute food, let alone war supplies, to protect themselves, and thus were invaded quite readily.


Quite readily indeed, just ask the Russians ... and just forget all about the opium trade. Maybe those aren't really any historically accurate reasons you listed. Maybe it had something to do with something else in the structure that they only accomplished so much with what they had.
:rolleyes:

I consider the War in Iraq to be going exceptionally well. 1,200 caualties in two years? Shit, the British lost 12,000 in 3 DAYS on the Somme!

While all loss of life is tragic, I'm amazed that Iraq is going even this well.

Quite readily indeed, just ask the Russians ... and just forget all about the opium trade. Maybe those aren't really any historically accurate reasons you listed. Maybe it had something to do with something else in the structure that they only accomplished so much with what they had.
:rolleyes:
Not to butt in, but a primary difference in the russian war with afgahnistan and ours is we where feeding the opposition weapons when we invaded...

Now why didn't we do this on November 4? It won't have any effect with the small amount of people doing it. None of the liberals here know how to fight. I've lost hope for this country. I'll sit back in Luxembourg or Ukraine and watch it collapse piece by piece.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/not1dime.asp

Probably won't affect a thing.

By this rationale Haiti and Somalia should be the next countries we invade - I mean if we are going to war based on where we can do the most good.

The US just LEFT Haiti! :confused:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/haiti/2004/0405powell.htm

The real sheep are those who continue to equate consumerism with patriotism. Buying less, spending less, consuming less are good ideas not just for a day, but for life.
Buying less isn't necessarily a good idea. Not everyone lives beyond their means. Next thing you'll be saying we should all eat less, even though some of us are damn skinny.

The US just LEFT Haiti! :confused:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/haiti/2004/0405powell.htm

Just shows how long lasting our influence is.

Just shows how long lasting our influence is.

Or it shows that the rest of the world needs us. ;)

Buying less isn't necessarily a good idea.

Certainly that would go against the best interest of corporate USA

I consider the War in Iraq to be going exceptionally well. 1,200 caualties in two years? Shit, the British lost 12,000 in 3 DAYS on the Somme!

While all loss of life is tragic, I'm amazed that Iraq is going even this well.
You completely misunderstand modern warfare, then. The Somme was completely different, eg, thousands of soldiers walking slowly in lines towards an organised and competent enemy (in the beginning).

Nowadays, everything has changed. The reason there are so few deaths is because of improved medical technology which raises the traditional battlefield ratio of 3 wounds to every death to about 10-1. Meaning, something like 12,000 American soldiers have been wounded in combat, of whom half we can assume to return to duty, and the other half to be placed in non-combatant positions or honourably discharged.

As well, the American forces in Iraq are not of significant size. With the casualty rates increasing, and fewer troops available, the war will take it's toll. This is looking eerily like the beginning stages of Vietnam.

these are interesting statistics, here's some more for you from a friend of mine who just got back from Iraq and is wishing he could go back (eye problems have him grounded)

over 400,000 Iraqi children have up to date immunization for the first time in their lives

school attendance in Iraq is up more than 80%

over 1,500 have been renovated and had weapons removed so education could take place

over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq

100% of Iraqi hospitals are open and recieving patients, compared to 35% before the war

Every major Iraqi city now has working sewer and water lines

over 400,000 Iraqi's have telephones for the first time ever

Girls are allowed to attend school for the first time ever in Iraq

You're reading too much of the administration's propaganda.

Try these URL's for a more objective picture:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-08-18-iraq-hospitals-usat_x.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4054105.stm

http://www.unfoundation.org/IraqinTransition.pdf

http://medact.org/content/wmd_and_conflict/Medact%20Iraq%202004.pdf

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

Girls are allowed to attend school for the first time ever in Iraq

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5090841-103550,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5090841-103550,00.html
Questions. Is an article by a single half iraqi woman really very reliable. Especially seeing as she is not there? Instead, why does she advocate internal change, even though Saddam's heir would quite likely have been even more brutal? I think it would have been good for her to go live in Iraq in Shiite territory with little to no money before and after we invaded. Somewhere away from where the outsiders and terrorists from Syria and Iran, as well as remnants of the old regime that have been to Syria for training, and then be allowed to write on the difference. Somehow, I think she would not be writing the same things she is now.

How bout if Kerry had made the same corporate-owned horrendous blunders costing so many lives because of his and his crews' f*cking arrogance you'd be all over him like stink on sh*t?
You get over it. No one's talking about Kerry. Keep up with the actual conversation. And don't try and blame Clinton for it either.
As for protest, American citizens don't have as much right to peaceably assemble anymore so be careful what you pick as to your methods.

Whoa, simma down man, simma down!

No, Kerry would have backed out. He and his tree-hugging hippie friends would have saw to that... (just kidding, don't get mad again...)

Quite readily indeed, just ask the Russians ... and just forget all about the opium trade. Maybe those aren't really any historically accurate reasons you listed.

The opium trade only funded the drug lords. The average citizen rarely saw any of that money. These sorts of markets only fund a small portion of an economy, and cannot be the only economic asset if a stable and strong economy are to exist. The markets are way too volitile and do not spur off necessary markets such as mass food production or steel mills like other markets, such as industry does.

What resistance we did see in Afganistan was mainly due to our funneling weapons in to defeat the Russians during the cold war as previously mentioned. Since they didn't have the resources nor the means to produce said products themselves (ie no economy), they were at the mercy of the few supplies remaining from our Russia troubles. This being the case, they were readily defeated.

Maybe it had something to do with something else in the structure that they only accomplished so much with what they had.
:rolleyes:

The key phrase here is "only accomplished so much with what they had" along with "structure".

An economy is, by its definition, "the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services."

Take that in. The production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

We make it, ship it, and use it. Whatever they had is a directly dependent on the production, distribution, and consumption of the product. If they didn't have what they needed, then that was because their economy did not match up to their economic expectations.

The economy is the whole structure when anything is produced or consumed. Admittedly there are circumstances that caused the economy to preform poorly, however the fact still remains that if goods and services such as food are not provided, a war cannot be effectively waged.

Our economy in the US can support massive wars. Looking just at our nuclear arsenal we have enough to blow up the entire world many, many times. Why? Because we feed our people. We give them the service of education. We provide them with the tools and expertise necessary to protect ourselves and improve our lives. In other words, we efficiently allocate resources, or simply we have a great economy.

I'll make sure to spend as much as I possibly can on the 20th. Thanks for the warning. :D
Why not try to spend as much as you possibly could on snacks and fast food on the 20th? You could call it "Not-a-damn-diet-day"

LOL!!!!!

I plan to go out to dinner with 3 friends in one of the most progressive parts of Seattle and celebrate. All of us displaying our support for GWB. We plan to toast GWB's inauguration loudly, proudly and often!! After that we are planning to go to a well known progressive hangout and have a few after-dinner drinks, again loudly and proudly proclaiming GWB's victory over the MoveOn.org "owned" DNC!!!!

You completely misunderstand modern warfare, then. The Somme was completely different, eg, thousands of soldiers walking slowly in lines towards an organised and competent enemy (in the beginning).

Nowadays, everything has changed. The reason there are so few deaths is because of improved medical technology which raises the traditional battlefield ratio of 3 wounds to every death to about 10-1. Meaning, something like 12,000 American soldiers have been wounded in combat, of whom half we can assume to return to duty, and the other half to be placed in non-combatant positions or honourably discharged.

As well, the American forces in Iraq are not of significant size. With the casualty rates increasing, and fewer troops available, the war will take it's toll. This is looking eerily like the beginning stages of Vietnam.

And you are pretentious. I made the statement to point out that only two generations ago, the number of loses in war was FAR greater.

Beginning stages of Viet Nam? Hardly. While the war has not been run the best it can be, it's not as if the insurgency has the support of a superpower and the native populace. And there is no equal to ANY of these terrorists to Ho, whom was the George Washington of Vietnam.

The only way the US will lose in Iraq is if the US wants to.