Not So Young But Angry Conservatives Unite

Getting sick of the progressively worse slant and obvious bias of the media? Got booted out of other sites for offending too many liberals? Make this your home. If you SPAM here, you're gone. Trolling? Gone. Insult other posters I agree with. Gone. Get the pic. Private sanctum, private rules. No Fairness Doctrine and PC wussiness tolerated here..... ECCLESIASTES 10:2- The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of a fool to the left.

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Counterprotestors go against supposed peaceniks....

Well, the so-called peace movement (which swings at cops, and vandalizes stores and yells obscenities at elderly GOP delegates in NYC...) marched on DC. They bragged about their hundreds of thousands. Yeah, too bad real math and liberal math don't gel. Try a few hundred for the anarchists and America bashers..... however, this weekend, the pro-troops, pro-victory PATRIOTS showed up to overshadow the liberals. Why the weekend only for the troop supporters? During the week, we have JOBS and RESPONSIBILITY, unlike those who skip work or are welfare babies who go to EVERY PROTEST MARCH.

Here's photographic proof and a good blog to see the PRO-US COUNTERPROTESTORS!



  • At 1:15 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    Are you referring to the protest in DC over the weekend?!? ...suggesting there were mere hundreds?

    Heres one that cites 370 people were arrested for the protest -- so it would certianly suggest that since only a small portion of people would have been arrested, well, I think the math works:

    Here, this is from your own town's paper. It suggests there were in excess of 100,000 protestors:

  • At 2:52 PM, Blogger Ranando said…


    I hate to do this to you but I have to agree with Kevin on this one.

    Where are you getting your information?

  • At 3:31 PM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    Other site, come on man. Also, humor. Some bragged millions of protestors, and obviously fell short.

  • At 5:19 PM, Blogger RightWingRocker said…

    Never mind the numbers ...

    That lil blonde is a cutie!


  • At 6:23 PM, Blogger Ranando said…

    Like I told you before, I'm not big on Cindy anymore. When she was down in Texas I was with her but not now.

    I'm not big on getting arrested, whats the point?

    Do I think Iraq was a bad move, yes I do.

    Do I want to cut and run, no I don't.

    I want to win and like I've said before, If were not there to win then let's get out.

    If were there to win, then I say kill every muslim mother-fucker you can.

    But please don't think I was for the war in Iraq.

    I was for the Afgan war and I wish we would have finished that war too.

    I'm all for getting and killing anyone who attacks the USA, Iraq did not.

    By the way Nick, I'm glad your OK from Rita. I hope you and your family are doing well.


  • At 8:34 AM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    Iraq supported terrorism before 9/11, don't think they wouldn't have done more if they were still in power.

    Also, they broke the precious UN Resolutions many libs are keen on observing, yet never enforce.

    Sorry, we did what we had to do....

  • At 10:45 AM, Blogger Kevin said…

    A lot of countries support terrorism Nick.

    It's not our job (nor in our budget) to go hunting all of them down.

    If there had been a direct link, I think people might feel differently, much differently. I think the vast majority of Americans, even those opposed to war, would still be supporting the war --- if we could show a link. But we can't.

    Some time ago the majority of America was behind this war -- but now even the most outspoken supporters have changed viewpoints. And no, they haven't flipflopped, they were just lied to in the first place.

    I don't think we should leave the country as it would be disastrous now, but I am surprised at how, with all of the evidence and information now available, you can still say the war was a good idea.

  • At 10:47 PM, Blogger owdbob said…

    Let's see who will hunt the terrorist down the U.N.? No they work for the U.N. France? Looks like we have the deep pockets. We are stuck with the job like it or not. Maybe we should save money on the N.E.A. I can live without LOL art. AIDES funding OK with me.

  • At 3:11 AM, Blogger Kevin said…

    I think the majority of the United States, and certainly the world, disagrees with that line of thinking Bob.

    More importantly, however, are the lives being lost (on both sides). So whilst I realize the rhetorical question has become cliche, if we are stuck with the job, why aren't you a part of the armed forces?

    I know, everyone has a good excuse for that question. But as the other cliche goes, excuses are like assholes...

  • At 3:17 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    When I have some free time to spend discussing this topic, we will have a long and lengthy discourse, I am sure.
    The MAIN reason that some people are "turning their opinions" AGAINST the war is the nightly negative news coverage, of said event.
    How many times do you turn on the news and see "There were 100 new schools built in Iraq today" and "ground was broken on 25 new Water treatment plants for Iraqis", or even "American soldiers dug into their own pockets to help feed an Iraqi Family".
    Be honest (yes, I WILL hold you to honesty, in ANY discussion which we have), HOW much GOOD news have you seen reported from Iraq?
    Soldiers who are actually IN Iraq, by and large, tell us that there are FAR more GOOD things happening than BAD. Why is THIS not reported, by your MSM?
    Why, if things are SO bad, would the Marines be retaining 102% of their recruitment goals(of soldiers RE-enlisting), the MARINES, for God's sake, the ones with more "boots on the ground" than most any other division of the Armed Services?
    Could it possibly be a negatively biased media, whom MOST of the country relies upon for their "News"?????
    Hmmmm... makes u go HMMMMMM, doesn't it?

  • At 12:49 AM, Blogger Kevin said…


    But, only using your argument here, the MSM is ALWAYS reporting like that.

    It's not like all of a sudden they just started spinning this thing negatively, they report BAD NEWS (thats the sad reality of our news media).

    But, people HAVE been shifting viewpoints even amidst this continuous stream of negative MSM. Why?

    My main point was only that if you view this scientifically, the MSM's reporting style has remained constant. People's opinions have changed. Therefore, what variables have influenced this change?

  • At 6:30 AM, Blogger chefwes said…

    From David Warren's latest peice about the ME:

    We, in the West, including those in Washington, tend seriously to underestimate the power of sheer morale to determine winners and losers in the Middle East. It is a hard cultural fact, I would say wherever the Arabic language is spoken, that in order to win it is usually sufficient to appear to be winning. And this is why the refusal of both Western and Islamic media to report anything positive from Iraq has real, practical consequences.
    Copied from
    I believe he states it far more eloquently that I ever could, You should read the aritcle, it's very informative.

  • At 6:41 AM, Blogger chefwes said…

    Another revealing statement from John Abizaid,a General in the US Army, one who's historical roots come from the ME, "Gen. Abizaid raised the stakes for Iraq by presenting a chilling assessment of al Qaeda’s worldwide goals. He said leader Osama bin Laden’s sights are set on Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and then the entire region, as well as Asia.

    Although the Bush administration describes the conflict as the “war on terror,” Gen. Abizaid made clear the enemy is al Qaeda.

    “Their objectives are very clear,” Gen. Abizaid said. “They believe in a jihad, a jihad, first and foremost, to overthrow the legitimate regimes in the region. But in order to do that, they have to first drive us from the region. This is what they believe. They believe, ultimately, that the greatest prize of all is Saudi Arabia and the holy shrines there.”

    He said the war against Zarqawi’s al Qaeda in Iraq, and al Qaeda worldwide, presents “a rare opportunity to get in front of these extremists and focus on them now before al Qaeda and its underlying ideology becomes mainstream.”
    copied from
    Now, while his focus is mentioning Iraq, being the most well known, at one time, maybe even still, possibly the dominant terror group, ALL Islamofascist terror groups follow and believe in the same philosophy of Jihad, they use many of the same funding sources, have the same ideologies and even have links to one another, co-operate with each other, help tran each others forces & plan joint operations.
    Their main source of dissent would be in WHO will be the dominant force, who will be the eventual world leaders, who will be in power.

  • At 6:44 AM, Blogger chefwes said…

    correction, that should read "while his focus is on AlQaeda"

  • At 6:49 AM, Blogger chefwes said…

    Carrying David Warrens logic out to the Liberal mind set...It is a hard cultural fact, I would say wherever the Liberal thought is spoken(one could even substitute peace movement here), that in order to lose it is usually sufficient to appear to be losing. And this is why the refusal of both Western and Islamic media to report anything positive from Iraq has real, practical consequences.

  • At 2:13 AM, Blogger Kevin said…


    I will write some more on this tomorrow -- as I really need to sleep. But, I am surprised at something you said, only because it does not follow logic (which I know we've debated much in the past =])

    One quote said:
    [David Warren]...would say wherever the Arabic language is spoken, that in order to win it is usually sufficient to appear to be winning.

    You personally said:
    I would say wherever the Liberal thought is spoken that in order to lose it is usually sufficient to appear to be losing.

    But in our world, with two choices, to NOT win is to lose.

    Therefore you are writing that David Warren also wrote the following:

    ...would say wherever the Arabic language is spoken, that in order to NOT win it is usually sufficient to appear to be NOT winning.

    BUT, as you no doubt know from studying logic -- the flaw is that a statement does not imply that its converse nor its inverse hold true.

    In fact, of the four simple permutations of logic, the only sentence that makes sense would of course be the contrapositive:

    would say wherever the Arabic language is spoken, that if you appear to be NOT winning, then you have not won.

    I'm really not trying to make a big deal out of it, but since you have been very particular about logic, I just wanted to mention it.


Post a Comment

<< Home