I'm launching a boycott
This weekend, Senator Russ Feingold (Moonbat, WI) proposed censuring President Bush.
Now I'm not sure what this entails, exactly, but it doesn't sound very good. I wish these ankle-biting obstructionists would quit attacking our president in time of war for keeping us safe. And to prove it, I'm going to break with tradition and officially start a boycott. From this point forward, I will not drink a single Feingold beer until the senator drops this outrageous proposal.
That's right, not one more beer, dammit! (All right, I know it's not exactly spelled the same, but it's the closest I could get.)
I know this goes against my normal "no boycotts" policy, but this one should be fairly painless to implement, since no human has actually consumed a Feingold in, what, thirty years? The ones I see at the corner deli still have a pull-top on 'em, for God's sake.
Who's with me?!?
Comments
Thank you for treating Feingold's statement with the seriousness it deserves.
Posted by: blue eyes | March 13, 2006 11:05 AM
Hey Barry,
Feingold is simply right. We are supposed to have democracy in this country. Bush is supposed to be a president and not a king. He has no right to behave like a military ruler. What he did was illegal and he should be censored. Destroying democracy does not protect from terrorism. It just destroys democracy.
Posted by: Blue Wind | March 13, 2006 09:41 PM
> ...he should be censored.
Did he say a bad word?
Posted by: BNJ | March 13, 2006 10:31 PM
Feingold is simply right. We are supposed to have democracy in this country. Bush is supposed to be a president and not a king. He has no right to behave like a military ruler. What he did was illegal and he should be censored. Destroying democracy does not protect from terrorism. It just destroys democracy.
Seriously, why do you speak? You know that these words aren't going to persuade people who don't already agree with you. Of course, you've told me that you believe people like me secretly do agree with you, so maybe that's why you keep making these completely unargued statements all the time without deigning to justify them.
I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just kind of fascinated. Like, lava-lamp fascinated.
Posted by: Adam | March 13, 2006 10:55 PM
Adam,
You fascinate me. You know exactly what illegal actions Bush took (wiretapping)but you pretend you dont know. Would you want me to post here the US constitution as a proof?
I should also point out that frequently you quote some obscure right-wingnut extremist sites to support your arguments. That is probably worse than not quoting a source at all. Cheers.
Posted by: Blue Wind | March 14, 2006 07:43 AM
You fascinate me. You know exactly what illegal actions Bush took (wiretapping)but you pretend you dont know. Would you want me to post here the US constitution as a proof?
Nah, I'd like for you to point to the specific part of the constitution taht proves it, then discuss why it proves it, and if I disagree, explain what's wrong with my analysis, rather than just bluntly telling me that I'm wrong.
I should also point out that frequently you quote some obscure right-wingnut extremist sites to support your arguments. That is probably worse than not quoting a source at all. Cheers.
Right, because methodologically speaking, if you disagree with a person, then no information they provide is worth paying attention to--not even to provide counterevidence from what you consider to be a less biased source!
Of course, I'm not entirely sure what "right wingnut extremist sites" you're referring to, since your definition of the term is (undoubtedly) different than my own. Certainly I have used evidence put forward by conservatives, but I have also used evidence put forward by liberals, and (shock beyond shock) people who actually aren't entangled in politics, but do scientific studies for a living.
I've cited all these sorts of people and more, because i do not care what kind of a person you are. I care about the method through which you obtained your evidence, and then, what the implications of that evidence would be if it turns out to be accurate.
Cheers, as you say.
Posted by: Adam | March 14, 2006 03:38 PM
Adam,
Ok. Cheers then :)
Posted by: Blue Wind | March 14, 2006 03:48 PM