How I got myself in trouble most recently

[kellinator]

So, I made a long rambling phone post yesterday, and rather than attempting to transcribe it, I'm going to attempt to write it out a little more clearly.

Or more than likely I'll get pissed again halfway through the writing and I'll just half-assedly throw it on the page to get it out of my system...

Yesterday afternoon I was getting back in my car after picking up some gaming treats to take to Athens and I saw two women getting out of a car. I had to squint to read the bumper sticker, it was all so shoved together:

10 out of 10 terrorists agree... Anybody But Bush

I started to just roll my eyes, get back in my car and play some loud music, but I figured they'd seen me, with my Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker, gawking at the car already, and, well, it's one thing to run my mouth on LiveJournal where I know that a lot of people agree with me, but have I really tried to make a real difference?

So I approached the car, and as politely as I could, I said, "Excuse me, ma'am, but if you're so certain that the terrorists don't want Bush, why is it that our one big terrorist attack came while he was in office?"

One woman looked like she might have been ready to at least offer some reasoning, but the other one, who was obviously in charge, snarled "Oh please!!" and stomped off. The other woman, who was mumbling something along the lines of "I don't really like him but..." looked at me semi-apologetically as I turned and yelled over my shoulder "A mind is a terrible thing to open!"

I then got in the car and left scarcrest a voicemail of which he later said, "I understood my name and that was about it."

...Was it the right thing to do? I don't know. All I know is that I felt that I had to say something, to at least attempt to start a dialogue. It's all very well to post links and rants here, but I don't think I'm making anyone think.

...At the same time, I seriously doubt I made them think, and I definitely raised my blood pressure, which is something I've been trying not to do during this election.

I don't know if there really can be open dialogue at this point anymore. We're too divided. And I include myself in that group. Certain things are like waving a red flag in front of me these days. I honestly don't understand how anyone could vote for Bush. And I suppose that makes me part of the problem.

Comments

[buckthorn.livejournal.com]

What about the first two terrorist attacks, the WTC bombing and the Oaklahoma City bombing?

Not saying anything for or against anyone, just thinking you didn't make an entirely fair statement.

And weren't the plans for 9/11 in the works long before the 2000 election?

Just wondering.

[stronae.livejournal.com]

I really hate to get into these, but there's something interesting here. I'm not attacking you or anything -- I'm just seeing something being formed in my head based on your comment, above.

just thinking you didn't make an entirely fair statement.

Would the statement have been more fair if kellinator had said
"Excuse me, ma'am, but if you're so certain that the terrorists don't want Bush, why is it that our last big terrorist attack came while he was in office?" (bolding being mine)?

I'd bet you'd say 'yes', because it's true.

Now, would either of the other two persons' reactions have been any different with this slight change in language? I'd bet you'd say 'no, not really'. Thus, it really doesn't matter how fair her original comment was -- even if she put things in the fairest way possible, it would still be met with the resistance it had been.

So, having dispensed with the 'fairness' claim straightaway, let's turn our attention to your citations of the WTC bombing (hereafter, WTCb) and OKC. The bumper sticker seems to have the effect of saying, at the very least, (a) "terrorists don't like Bush", and at the very worst, (b) "if you don't vote for Bush, you're a terrorist," both being pro-Bush sentiments. There might even be something like (c) "Bush does something about terrorists" in there somewhere. Let's look at each of these three.

Given your citations, it's plain that terrorists don't hold their actions until a particular president comes along. Thus, (a) is refuted.

If we examine (b) and do a brief statistical count of the 2000 election, (b) would have us believe that slightly-more-than-half of America is comprised of terrorists. This is plainly ludicrous. Also, (b) itself is inflammatory and fear-oriented. Thus, we can refute (b).

Now (c) is a little more interesting. Sure, our troops went into Afghanistan, but where's Osama? In Pakistan! (At least, at the time, there were reports that he fled there.) Bush chose not to invade Pakistan, so he instead invaded a country that has nothing to do with Al Qaida whatsoever. Sure, he's "doing something about terrorism," but I believe that that "something" isn't particularly more effective in the grand scheme of things than the other presidents during WTCb and OKC. (I'll also casually mention that that ineffective "something" put us in debt for a long, long time, and leave it at that.) Hence, we may refute (c).

Therefore, I can conclude this: The basis for the bumper sticker is entirely refuted, leaving it hollow and weak. Please bear in mind that I'm not refuting *you* or anything -- I'm just using your evidence to help kellinator render a bumper sticker meaningless.

[gaiagurl.livejournal.com]

in both those cases, the terrorists responsible were caught and brought to justice.

and clinton warned the incoming bush administration that bin laden was a threat, and that they should be focusing on terrorism as the most important foreign policy issue. he was ignored.