Goo Goo Dolls pulled a "dixie chick" in Toronto!

[Ratpack]

My guess is that the GOO GOO DOLLS were trying to get the publicity that the Dixie Chicks did. Also, I think Bush is doing a decent job, better than the trash we had recently. Bush is a God fearing Christian and openly admits it. However, he is human and we will make mistakes, but did he? Frankly the way I see it, we only know what the media tells us and we shouldn't believe half of that and the other half is probably fiction. Saddam had such a tight rein on the country that he could have easily gotten rid of any evidence of WMD and he knew with all the bickering between nations about it that it would make the US look bad when they found nothing. So do we really know what happened, I doubt it. Only God himself knows all that happens. Bush spends time in prayer and uses that in his decisions and for that alone, I stand and applaud him.

 

[PRINCESS VIJA]

Are we now going to free everyone else who is oppressed? Don't think so.

Speaking from a standpoint as a DD from immigrants who had to leave their beloved country because of oppression, I wish we would free more oppressed people. I will be the first one to stand up and cheer for our government as they free people. It is sad to see when Americans who enjoy their freedoms so much blast the same government when they help others try and get the same freedoms.

 

[Blondie]

Originally posted by addicted_to_WDW
And please, lets not get into the "if you don't like it leave" argument. Because I'm American I'm permitted to speak out against the government's actions. It's in the Constitution...check it out.

And because I am American also, I'm also permitted to tell you to leave the country if you don't like it.

Doesn't mean you have to take my advice, but it'll make me feel better.

 

[addicted_to_WDW]

Intelligent argument there Blondie.

I received this the other day via email. Makes you think:

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Baath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-***.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into _ buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off_ people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's
body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us
invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes,_ make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Q: Good night, Daddy.

 

[Blondie]

 

[caitycaity]

And because I am American also, I'm also permitted to tell you to leave the country if you don't like it.

your permitted to, but it sure is an ignorant statement.

i thought you were going to sweden...?

 

[Pugdog007]

As I don't feel the need to read through mile long propaganda, I would pose a question to you since you seem so knowledgeable about the "behind the scenes" with this military action:

If there are/were no WMD, why in God's name wouldn't they allow the inspectors in to confirm this?

Think about it.

 

[Steve H.]

So, the Goo Goo Dolls didn't put on a good show?

 

[addicted_to_WDW]

And I'll pose this question:

If there are/were WMD, why wouldn't they have been used during the war? Once the invasion started, Iraq had nothing at all to lose by using them. It's clear that the Iraqi leadership had no problem sacrificing the lives of their own people...wouldn't you think that they would have been thrilled to take more Americans with them? Of course they would have.

I'm sure that Hussein tried to build WMD, but Iraq was never a threat to the U.S., and his WMD program was obviously not successful or the U.S. would have found something by now.

Hans Blix is having the last laugh and the U.S. looks terrible to most of the world.

 

[caitycaity]

If there are/were no WMD, why in God's name wouldn't they allow the inspectors in to confirm this?

you're kidding right?

there are so many answers.

national sovereignty issues come to mind, or how about because they wanted everyone to think they had them?

countries do not always act rationally. you can't assume things based on peole's actions (especially saddam's).

 

[Blondie]

Originally posted by caitycaity
your permitted to, but it sure is an ignorant statement.

i thought you were going to sweden...?

Here we go...I knew it wouldn't be long.......

Thanks for remembering that about me cc, I posted that back in October during the sniper incident. Wow, again...I'm amazed at some of the memories here on the DIS! (((hugs))) Thanks for keeping me and my family in your closest thoughts!

 

[Deb in IA]

Originally posted by PRINCESS VIJA
Speaking from a standpoint as a DD from immigrants who had to leave their beloved country because of oppression, I wish we would free more oppressed people. I will be the first one to stand up and cheer for our government as they free people. It is sad to see when Americans who enjoy their freedoms so much blast the same government when they help others try and get the same freedoms.

I feel the same way, Princess Vija. It is so easy for those who have never lived under a repressive, totalitarian regime to take their personal freedoms for granted, isn't it?

I guess that ol' "freedom of speech" thing really ticks you off, right, caity?

And addicted_to_wdw, you do realize that that paragon of morality, Bill "depends on what your definition of 'is' is" Clinton, also did not receive the majority of the votes in his elections -- twice.

 

[Buckalew]

LOL, Blondie. I guess you are worth remembering anyway!

 

[caitycaity]

I guess that ol' "freedom of speech" thing really ticks you off, right, caity?

huh??? what is that supposed to mean?

no freedom of speech doesn't tick me off. i think exercising it (no matter what you are saying) is a very american thing.

however, one can be american and also ignorant.

ignorance ticks me off, not freedom of speech.

 

[Pugdog007]

Originally posted by Steve H.
So, the Goo Goo Dolls didn't put on a good show?

Sorry Steve... yes they did! They played for about 1 hr, Bon Jovi played about 2 1/2 hrs. The Dolls' lead singer seems to have a serious tobacco addiction though... as he had to smoke a cigarette during the 1 hr show!

Worth every penny... US or Canadian

 

[addicted_to_WDW]

I think some of you are misunderstanding some of my argument. I'm thrilled that the Iraqi people were freed. If, from the beginning, Bush came out and said that we were invading them because they are oppressed I would have been more likely to be in favor (but probably not due to the fact that we snubbed the U.N. and the popular opinion of the rest of the world). But that was never the intention, or we wouldn't have had to fabricate WMD info as the justification. The talk about WMD was intended to bring the rest of the world onto our side. If we HAD come out and said that we wanted to free the people, we would have been obligated to free everyone else in the world and that is not what the U.S. government wants or intends to do.

Deb - I realize that morality is in the eye of the beholder. I don't appreciate being lied to by my president and dishonesty is very much against my morals.

 

[addicted_to_WDW]

Oops, sorry Deb. I realized that I misread your statement. That's what I get for skimming quickly during work.

I think there's a big difference between saying that you didn't have sex with someone and getting on television and making statements that you know are untrue to generate popular support for a war that will kill thousands of people. Both are wrong, but in the first case no one was killed.

I'm not truly bothered by the electoral college/popular vote differences..it's happened before and it will again. I find it humorous though when people act as if Bush is wildly popular. In my neck of the woods he isn't at all.

 

[Deb in IA]

Originally posted by addicted_to_WDW


Deb - I don't appreciate being lied to by my president and dishonesty is very much against my morals.

Right. Like when Clinton wagged his finger at the nation and LIED, "I did not have sex with that woman" ??

 

[Pugdog007]

Originally posted by addicted_to_WDW
I think there's a big difference between saying that you didn't have sex with someone and getting on television and making statements that you know are untrue to generate popular support for a war that will kill thousands of people. Both are wrong, but in the first case no one was killed.

Your assumption that Pres. Bush presented inaccurate information in his rationale for the military ops in Iraq is just that... an ASSUMPTION. It is not a fact. It is however a FACT that Clinton knowingly lied to us in an sad effort to try & maintain popularity.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Clinton's actions as having no casualties. Maybe if he had been more in tune with what was going on in the world, and less in tune with his affairs, 9/11 would never have happened. He had several opportunities to "off" OBL and did not.

 

[Disney Doll]

My sentiments exactly pugdog. Maybe the world would be in different shape now if there had been less worrying about what was going on under the desk and more worry about what was going on in the world around the desk.

But I guess we'll never know..