I’d just like to thank dingbats.com for the toll free # they gave.

888-818-6641

That way I can call 888-818-6641 and tell them how proud I am of the troops and how much I support them simply by calling the number 888-818-6641. How about we shove the pipe back up the idiots ass on this one and flood the lines with calls of support!!!!

Morris does your mommy and daddy know that you are on the computer?

Y’know - if Morris had any actual arguments supported by facts - he may be an interesting poster.  However, it seems he’s simply a far-left wing cliche who can only spout rhetoric he’s read on extreme liberal websites and overheard at anti-war rallys in between flag-burning ceremonies in front of the local recruiters office.

In other words - Morris - do you actually have anything to add to these discussions - or does your hit-and-run method of liberal talking point bombs just make you feel better?

I imagine Morris has listed his accomplishments here at various other left-wing sites - how he’s shut down conversations with his “brilliant” pieces.  Sorry - but that dog don’t hunt....

We saw how Morris typed his silly rant.  Here’s how he laid it out for his dorm buddies:

“Yo.  Check it out, dudes.  The pro-war baby bombers are, like, the only voices the evil, white Congress actually paid attention to, maaaan, because they’re, like, the ones who buy the votes which...ummmmm… [Takes massive bong hit} The idea that people who <cough> don’t care about using, like, phosphorous bombs, ok, on civilians are, like, an “alternative” to righteous dudes who want to avoid sending minorities and stuff to die for white corporations is prepostorous, maaaaaaannnnn.  HIGH FIVE!”

Is it me or does Morris sound like a homesick abortion?

Evan

Was there even a coherent point in his comment?

look at Morris’ recent posts… they all follow a very simaler trend:  post claim, stop.  (No facts, support, response, or logic)

Was there even a coherent point in his comment?

Of course not.  But when he got done, he congratulated himself for “bitchslapping those evil Neocons.” He thinks he hit a grand slam because his points are all (in his mind and the minds of those who tell him what to think) self-evident.

If you ever read the Yahoo News message boards, they’re full of guys just like Morris.

Quick! No one use flash or smoke grenades around Morris.

AKA: God damn, you’re so fucking stupid.

I have to point something out. There are 10 comments in this thread:

Post 1: zricz posting something on-topic.
Post 2: Morris pinching a loaf.
Posts 3-10: People talking about Morris.

Folks, you’re giving him exactly what he wants. He’s pushing your buttons and you’re responding just how he wants/expects.

You can continue with the Morris-bashing and let him make fools of you, or you can ignore him and watch him fade away. The choice is yours…

Back on-topic, I like zricz’s idea. Just make sure that your message looks different than the moonbats, or it’ll be glanced at and assumed to be the same. Write a real letter - state your position and your reasons behind it. Those get a LOT more weight from politicians than form letters that somebody only had to type their name and click “Submit” to send.

I just called the number and left a message with our local Congressman. I do not consider myself, like 99% of humans on this planet, a “Pro-War” person, but but no matter whether you are Republican or Democrat, were for the war or against it, intelectually it makes NO SENSE to bring our troops home now. Our troops WANT to stay and see this to its end. I saw this is a live interview with an armed soldier that patrols Baghdad and has been saved several times by the armor under the uniform. Bringing our troops home now is only going to undo everything they have done and those that have died will have died for nothing! Wake-up hypocrits, I mean Democrats!

So long as the Democrats are helmed by Howard Dean I do not think they have to do much to refute them so much as let them hang themselves.  Check out Michelle Malkin’s (www.michellemalkin.com) website for a classic picture of Dean holding up Code pink t-shirts.

This is just an unclever Democratic ploy.  They are not just anti-war for the reason that war is not so swell, but rather trying to earn political cache and hoping the US military loses so the anti-war-left looks good.  They do not support the troops.  They do not support peace. They do support their own cache.

Good grief Morris go give a hummer to Saddam already

Okay, enough about Morris.  We get it.  He thinks that a Republican congressman rebutting to a Democratic congressman is tantimount to “squashing dissent.”

Anyway, this has inspired me to e-mail my congressman--a Bush-bashing liberal who shall remain nameless--to say how much I support the war in Iraq.

Don’t let these idiots be the only voices Congress hears.

At least these “idiots” can compose an e-mail without glaring spelling errors:

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/2407/flipthierscript7ro.jpg

That’s it JimK, better shut down the site. You made a typo. Shut ‘er down!

Agent B, shouldn’t you be in your room, playing with your toys?  Cause if mommy finds on the compoooter, you might get a red little tushy.

Now go brush your teeth and get ready for bed.

Anyways, I sent my email out voicing my opinion. There is no way we should be leaving now. No way.

I can’t believe it...Morris that Cat is posting on this audio blog too! Mindless Drivel that sounds about the same as it does hear!

Listen here

At least these “idiots” can compose an e-mail without glaring spelling errors:

As one of my enemies once said, you know you got ‘em when they go after your spelling and grammer.

Well, count one call into the Capitol in support of the soldiers doing what they do best.  Meanwhile, the rest of us here are just itching to get out of school, commission, and get some of our own.

Post 2: Morris pinching a loaf.

Better call his mommy to change him.

Well I just called my congressman, Ed Case, and let him know how proud I am of our troops and their sacrifices and how proud I am of President Bush and his courage to stand up against Saddam Hussein and the terrorists and let the world know that we will not be pushed around anymore.  I also told him that I am proud of Americans like the ones who run Moorewatch.com and their courage in standing up against those who hate this country and want to see our troops fail.

Does anyone remember the time when having a president who would stick to what he said he would do regardless of the poll numbers was looked upon as a GOOD thing?
So far as I can tell the troops over there understand very clearly and support the actions of the president that’s why the reenlistment numbers and the reupping for tours back to Iraq are in record numbers. Now who should we believe Katie Couric who says there is no progress and the war is useless or our President and the guys actually fighting the damn thing. Even though they are throwing phosphorous on innocent children or whatever Morris the asshole says.

I think we need to address the issue of just why ALL goverments seem to be not trusted in the world today. Oh unless of course you are from an extremist part of the world that is less financially or militarily superior, and choose to lead your country with a corrupt and murderous regime....that’s fine. Why anything WE do is scrutinised with pin point accurasy and damned, whilst anything the others do is accepted and/or forgotten. Why terrorists can’t be held respocible for their own actions every time they (non Iraqi’s terrorists) commit the mass murdering of innocent Iraqi civilians (the very people they claim to be fighting for)And why when they do this...WE GET THE BLAME. Why can’t the anti war lobby see this is EXACTLY why we are fighting the terrorists. Arab extremism did not evolve from the Gulf wars...they’ve been fucking with the western world for years.

Ravx, we can’t go around acting like we have some moral authority. Part of Iraqi culture is brutal dictatorship. Who are we to say which is better? Its their right to have the sort of country they want, we should just accept and understand that they liked being killed for their thoughts or assosciations.

Fletch,

An awesome comment.  While I do not agree with everything the president does I do liek the fact he is willing to make a stand on issues and do what he thinks is best.  Which in a representative democracy is what we SHOULD expect from our elected officials.  We do not elect them to cater to our whims, we elect representatives to make decisions on our behalf, look out for our best interests and to take our advise.  But they are not at the beck and call of polls.  They should not be hip deep in the wallets of special interests.

If our founding fathers listened to polls and did what was easy and avoided any conflict we would still be part of the UK.

genFX,

Of course we would never agree with absolutely EVERYTHING a President wants to do.  At least reasonable people would agree on that. The difference is that THIS President stated very clearly what he intended to do and that it would be a long ardous process and we would stay until finished. That was clear BEFORE he was reelected so don’t let these assholes in the MSM twist and convolute this into an issue that we the people have a right to disagree with the President we do but with goals and actions clearly defined and followed up on nobody should be allowed to undermine him or the country.

Additionally while peopel are able to repectfully disagree with the means and methods of this war in Iraq I would suggest that it is treasonable to criticize the whole mission and how we got there by saying Bush lied and other more spurious things that demean us as a country and demean our Pres.

Calling disagreeing with the President or the mission in Iraq treasonous is hyperbole.  We as Americans must respect the fact that freedom of speech also applies to speech we do not like.  Frankly, to state what you did runs contrary to American ideas.  Though it is your right to say so. 

President Bush is a conviction politician and as such there is much less ambiguous feelings about him.  Margaret Thatcher was much the same way.  Being a President should mean having convictions rather than going whereever the wind blows in polls.  That is not to say one is better than the other, but if the poop hits the fan I would rather have a conviction politician at the helm than a poll watcher.

Think what would have happened to the UK had Neville Chamberlain continued as PM rather than Churchill becoming PM.  An extreme example to be sure, but a good one none the less.

Calling disagreeing with the President or the mission in Iraq treasonous is hyperbole.  We as Americans must respect the fact that freedom of speech also applies to speech we do not like.  Frankly, to state what you did runs contrary to American ideas.  Though it is your right to say so.

I never said simply disagreeing with the President or the mission in Iraq was treasonous. What I said was stating
that the whole mission was wrong and stating over and over again in the public media,especially by ,say a Senator that Bush lied to achieve this mission and therefore the mission is without merit is undermining our Commander-In-Chief in the time of war and giving aid and comfort to our enemies. That my friend by definition of law is not hyperbole but treasounous. As I stated differing opinins about how to conduct the war and what methods to use are legit. Saying that,even after you voted to authorize him to do so, out CIC is a liar and our boys are dying for no good reason fits the definition of treason if you ask me. It is not just simply disagreement provided by free speech. I doubt you would find this type of discourse by our elected public officials during any war,except maybe Vietnam and none of us should wish to repeat that disaster in any form.  Comments anyone?

There are very good reasons why we have laws that define treason, especially during time of war and last time I checked this action was duly authorized by overwhelming approval by the Congress of the US.  So it is no hyperbole to call actions that aid and abet the enemy treason. We unfortunately have drifted to far into politicizing EVERY situation and forgot what is necessary when we do declare it important enough to go to war over.

Think what would have happened to the UK had Neville Chamberlain continued as PM rather than Churchill becoming PM.  An extreme example to be sure, but a good one none the less.

BTW this is an excellent example of what i meant.  Chamberlain was VOTED out of office and Churchhill was VOTED into office.  While they were in office I doubt, especially in Churchills case anyone in the British government gave speeches to the newsmedia that called Chuchill a liar and said he misled the country in time of war. He told people what he would do. He was elected and he did it.  This is exactly what Bush did but unlike Great Britain in time of war we have some treasounous SOBS making public statements that far exceed the parameters of “disagreements.” Please understand the phrase, “aid and comfort to the enemy” and what that means by law.
Enough posting I’m done.

How can Democrats.com assume that every democrat out there is against the war ?

They tell you what to think, what to feel. What to write to your Representitive.

Freedom is dead to them.

Oh geez Democrats.com you have got to be kidding me!  The house already voted on immediate withdrawl.  Dont you remember the Murtha bill?  IT WAS JUST LAST MONTH!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176132,00.html
It was voted against 403-3.  What is your moonbats explanation behind that?

Fletch, what is more important our basic fundamental rights as Americans or limiting them for the sake of protecting our troops.  While what the left says about the Iraq conflict does undermine it, I would question HOW much it really does.  Time will tell on this, which sucks because it probably is important.

However if the government did what you seem so keen on proposing, this country would not longer be worth living in or having the troops to protect it.

Again freedom of speech applies to more than speech we agree with. 

If there are people in this country support the insurgents in Iraq in an tangeable way, then they should be prosecuted and thrown in the cooler.  However talking about how bad the Iraq situation is and being ignorant about it is their right.  Freedom of speech also applies to patently stupid remarks too.

Criticism the president with dubious facts is also covered in freedom of speech.  Just because someone parrots the same stupid crap does not imply treason.

The Churchill / Chamberlain example only applied to what a poll watcher and a conviction politician woudl do in a historical context.  Churchill certainly had his opponents and critics.  But your extrapolation is probably not all that applicable given the different set of circumstances to WWII, which was far more dire than the Iraq conflict.

genfx,

i guess i just find it easier to discern distinction in free speech allowances. For instance the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater is negated by the damage that can be done. You don’t seem to be able to make the distinction in types and intent along with the result of speech. There are laws against certain types of speech in times of war.  They should be enforced. They are there for a reason. End of discussion. That sort of speech was recognized as harmful to the common good IN TIMES OF WAR ergo you ,by law, are not allowed to say whatever you feel like in times of war. And while I agree that this war is not the same in magnitude as WWII it is the same in importance if you realize that Iran is the new Germany and we can’t afford to allow them to gobble up Iraq.  Think in terms of Bush recognizing the threat in a much more prescient manner than say the heads of Europe recognized Hitler’s ascendency.

i guess i just find it easier to discern distinction in free speech allowances. For instance the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater is negated by the damage that can be done. You don’t seem to be able to make the distinction in types and intent along with the result of speech. There are laws against certain types of speech in times of war.  They should be enforced. They are there for a reason. End of discussion. That sort of speech was recognized as harmful to the common good IN TIMES OF WAR ergo you ,by law, are not allowed to say whatever you feel like in times of war. And while I agree that this war is not the same in magnitude as WWII it is the same in importance if you realize that Iran is the new Germany and we can’t afford to allow them to gobble up Iraq.  Think in terms of Bush recognizing the threat in a much more prescient manner than say the heads of Europe recognized Hitler’s ascendency.

The fact that I take the first amendment seriously is not a character flaw. I would suggest that not taking it seriously is.  Unfortunitely there will be people who are intent on saying stupid and unfounded things, that is their right.  Much as it is our right to say thoughtful and researched things. 

I did not realize the first amendment was limited by whatever military decisions our commander-in-chief takes.  I guess it should be illegal to criticise the conflict in Iraq or any of the various peace-keeping and aid programs our military participates in.  Note the sarcasm.  The first amendment protects speech, even speech you think is stupid or that you disgree with.

The yelling fire in a theater is a strawman of an argument.  If you are stooping to that already, your position’s stregnth is dubious.  I was not saying yelling fire in crowded theater is right, far from it.  There is demonstrable proof that sort of thing violates other people’s rights and safety. 

The US sending mixed messages is certainly bad, but it is indicative of a country that allows people to state what they think.  Iraq was not an issue everyone agreed upon, so it is not shocking there will be a lot of dissent.  I agree that the white flag democrats are hypocrites to no end.  I would hope that the US and world sees that.  But we are not responsibale for what other people think about us.  Either they agree that people like Saddam Hussein are bad or don’t. 

I happen to agree that Bush did the right thing, just for the wrong reasons.  The WMD card proved to be a bust, even if it looked good on paper.  I would hope that the flaws of the Iraq conflict are taken to heart by the government, because there are certainly lessons to be learned.  What the white flag left are doing is simply contrarian and counter-productive.  Bush had the forethought to realize no good can come from Hussein remaining in power, ont hat we agree.  His business partners (the UN, France and Russia) did not.:)

Hello, hello,

There are some types of speech that are AGAINST the fucking law therefore they are not protected by the Constitution.  One of those types of speech is treasonous speech given DURING TIMES OF WAR. It is against the law for Christ’s sake.  Just because some weakkneed people CHOOSE not to enforce the law doesn’t mean people aren’t breaking it. That is all I’m saying. Now for your to keep chirping tha we have free speech does not take into account that you CAN get arrested for certain types of speech aND THERE ARE THOSE TYPES WHEN YOU ARE AIDING AND ABETTING OUR ENEMY IN TIMES OF WAR.

I did not realize the first amendment was limited by whatever military decisions our commander-in-chief takes.  I guess it should be illegal to criticise the conflict in Iraq or any of the various peace-keeping and aid programs our military participates in.  Note the sarcasm.  The first amendment protects speech, even speech you think is stupid or that you disgree with.

YOU JUST CAN’T QUITE COMPREHEND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGITIMATE CRITICISM AND TREASONOUS SPEECH AND THERE IS ONE.
yOU MAY CRITICIZE MANY THINGS BUT GET THE DISTINCTION PLEASE. 

I guess it should be illegal to criticise the conflict in Iraq or any of the various peace-keeping and aid programs our military participates in.

IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL TO DO CERTAIN THINGS WITH SPEECH. HELLO HELLO.