PDA

View Full Version : Giving Peace a Chance - Illegal?!?!



Beast
03-06-2003, 01:15 AM
'Peace' T-shirt gets man arrested
Wednesday, March 5, 2003 Posted: 11:18 AM EST (1618 GMT)

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A lawyer was arrested late Monday and charged with trespassing at a public mall in the state of New York after refusing to take off a T-shirt advocating peace that he had just purchased at the mall.

According to the criminal complaint filed Monday, Stephen Downs was wearing a T-shirt bearing the words "Give Peace A Chance" that he had just purchased from a vendor inside the Crossgates Mall in Guilderland, New York, near Albany.

"I was in the food court with my son when I was confronted by two security guards and ordered to either take off the T-shirt or leave the mall," said Downs.

When Downs refused the security officers' orders, police from the town of Guilderland were called and he was arrested and taken away in handcuffs, charged with trespassing "in that he knowingly enter[ed] or remain[ed] unlawfully upon premises," the complaint read.

Downs said police tried to convince him he was wrong in his actions by refusing to remove the T-shirt because the mall "was like a private house and that I was acting poorly.

Calls to the Guilderland police and district attorney, Anthony Cardona and to officials at the mall were not returned for comment. Downs is due back in court for a hearing on March 17 and he could face up to a year in prison if convicted.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/05/offbeat.peace.arrest.reut/index.html

Ok, this has to be the most serious messed up thing I have read in ages. Sometimes I wonder where we're headed as a human race, when a non-offensive T-shirt can get you arrested. Especially one that the guy bought at the damn mall he was at. :stupid:

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

James Boba Fettfield
03-06-2003, 01:36 AM
Well, I guess it is the mall's right to do it. Not sure if it would be cool to have a shirtless guy walking around the mall, but if that's how the mall wants to work....ok then.

Exhaust Port
03-06-2003, 01:41 AM
The stupidity of this is compounded even more by the fact he bought the shirt the the very same mall as you said. My first reaction though is that there has to be more to this story than we're being told about. The statement where he said he was "acting poorly" leads me to believe that he might have made a scene when asked to leave or whatever.

What triggered the security guards to even make an issue of the shirt? Were they are "High Peace Shirt Alert?" I'm assuming these mall cops are like every mall cop and can't seem to pull themselves away from checking out the teen girls or shopping for themselves long enough to notice squat. So, what triggered these mall cops to address this man his shirt?

I would guess that some sort of rule would be in violation in order for the mall to kick someone out. Like the no shoes/no shirt policy that we all know. I would also guess that some sort of law would be in violation in order for the cops to take action. Disorderly conduct?

The media: Half the story, All the time.

mini-rock
03-06-2003, 01:44 AM
Ridiculous.:rolleyes:

JEDIpartner
03-06-2003, 09:07 AM
I don't think it's the mall's right to do anything! So what if he had that shirt on? I've seen people wearing shirts that read "F... You! I already have enough friends!" Or people wearing size imappropriate clothing.... how about that? Or people wearing things that have been worn to tatters... well? That's absolutely inexcusable for the mall to do such a thing. Shame on them... terrible!

Besides... I know more people who agree with the sentiments on that shirt in comparison to what is happening in reality!

InsaneJediGirl
03-06-2003, 09:23 AM
Well,we have reached a new low.Can't wear a shirt with the word "Peace" on it.:rolleyes:To me it almost sounds communist.Whats next,inforcing a dress code for the USA so everyone has to wear the same thing?

derek
03-06-2003, 09:50 AM
so the guy just bought the shirt, right? and he put it on? that probably means he took his other shirt off in public and put the "peace" shirt on in the mall, probably to make a spectacle of himself. i would almost guarantee there is more to this story....

regardless, the mall can do what they want. unless 'yall don't recognize property rights.........now that's communism

QLD
03-06-2003, 09:56 AM
Yeah, I am thinking there is more to this story as well.

The Overlord Returns
03-06-2003, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by derek
so the guy just bought the shirt, right? and he put it on? that probably means he took his other shirt off in public and put the "peace" shirt on in the mall, probably to make a spectacle of himself. i would almost guarantee there is more to this story....

regardless, the mall can do what they want. unless 'yall don't recognize property rights.........now that's communism

Because he couldn't POSSIBLY have changed in the washroom.....


I have to say...this is hilarious. People go on and on about how you couldn't do/say/ wear things like this in other countries around the world, and that living in America affords you that right......until ofcourse, some renta cop who can't get into the army decides you're a bloody hippie...;)

JON9000
03-06-2003, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by derek
regardless, the mall can do what they want. unless 'yall don't recognize property rights.........now that's communism
Ah Derek, still playing that old harp, huh? ;)

I think you will acknowledge a subtle difference between private property such as one's house and a place of PUBLIC ACCOMODATION. If this gentleman walked into my house with that shirt on, I would be entirely within my rights to make his staying conditional upon his removing the shirt. If I operate a facility that is generally open to the public and I engage in commerce, I have to make some concessions to the police power. The right to exclude others is a fundamental property right, but that right is diluted by the public interest based on the public nature of the facility. You may not agree, but I think you might acknowledge the difference.

What I am getting at is that it is possible to respect property rights and also feel the mall needs to make an accomodation. I guess we are living in a Communist country since we do not have absolute property rights in every sense, and you you seem to hold to a strict dichotomy.

:Pirate:

derek
03-06-2003, 11:42 AM
The right to exclude others is a fundamental property right, but that right is diluted by the public interest based on the public nature of the facility. You may not agree, but I think you might acknowledge the difference.

i agree that some courts might agree with you, but if so, i think you and they are wrong. i see no difference between the rights of a home owner and a business owner. if a business man wants to sit at the front door of his shopping mall and only let in certain people, it's his right. if he's a nut and wants to walk around and eject people from his mall, he can do that as well(for no reason). now, i think from a business perspective, him doing either of these things would be incredibly stupid, but i support his right to do so.

.........and i don't play the harp. 'round these parts we strum a banjo.;)

The Overlord Returns
03-06-2003, 11:45 AM
So, said Business man can SELL the t shirt in his mall....but, a PATRON of his establishment, is not allowed to enjoy the product he purchased in this mall?

That's backwards thinking if ever I saw it....besides, what happened to "the customer is always right"?? ;)

derek
03-06-2003, 11:50 AM
a PATRON of his establishment, is not allowed to enjoy the product he purchased in this mall?

you can buy condoms in a mall as well, but can't "enjoy that product" as you continue shopping.:crazed: better yet, one could buy a loud hand held stereo, a.k.a. a "boom box", but i wish you luck trying to walk around with that playing music as well.:)

hey, this does sound fishy, but bottom line is it's a property rights issue, plain and simple. maybe the management did over-react, but that's their right.

stillakid
03-06-2003, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by derek
you can buy condoms in a mall as well, but can't "enjoy that product" as you continue shopping.:crazed: better yet, one could buy a loud hand held stereo, a.k.a. a "boom box", but i wish you luck trying to walk around with that playing music as well.:)

hey, this does sound fishy, but bottom line is it's a property rights issue, plain and simple. maybe the management did over-react, but that's their right.

I'll preface this by saying that I'm not a lawyer,

however you can't try out the condoms in public due to other mitigating circumstances, like public nudity laws. And you are generally discouraged from "blasting" a boom box due to public noise ordinances.

But Freedom of Speech is definitely a protected right in this country. If we were to use your above explanation as the baseline for what is allowed, black people would still be getting their lunch from the back door near the kitchen. Being the owner of private property definitely does NOT give a person the absolute right to disregard Constitutional guarantees.

Based on the AP reports of the incident in question, it's impossible to know who lodged that complaint against the gentleman, but if it was the "owner" (which I doubt...more likely a building manager or something of the sort), he has the right to protest the message that was being said, but no right to stop him from saying it there. If he was that uphappy, he should go get his own T-shirt that supports the war effort.

The Overlord Returns
03-06-2003, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by derek
you can buy condoms in a mall as well, but can't "enjoy that product" as you continue shopping.:crazed: better yet, one could buy a loud hand held stereo, a.k.a. a "boom box", but i wish you luck trying to walk around with that playing music as well.:)

hey, this does sound fishy, but bottom line is it's a property rights issue, plain and simple. maybe the management did over-react, but that's their right.

Obviously, as SK stated, there are other laws, actual laws, that would prohibit one from using a condom in said mall it was purchased from:crazed: , along with a boom box......these laws exist....there is no law, to my knowledge, about wearing a t shirt that says give peace a chance.

While the legal issue is perhaps a bit blurry, the ethical issue is clear as day. This person drew the dissaproval of someone in the mall who had counter ideas to his, and had enough power to censor that view. I have to ask derek, would you feel the same way if this was a pro war t shirt, or one that fell in line with the policies of the government?

If you allow something like this, a direct breech of ones right to free speech, what's to stop a white supremacist restaurant owner from throwing out a black family that walks into his restaurant looking for a meal?? An extreme example, I know...but still....valid.

mabudonicus
03-06-2003, 12:47 PM
I guess I better forget bringing my "Hang Loose" shirt on anymore cross border jaunts:D
That coupled my long hair and devil-may-care attitude could probably get me declared one o' them there combatants that can be held indefinitely with no charge, and I don't think I need that much freedom:D

Kidhuman
03-06-2003, 12:51 PM
Maybe he told him to take it off because he didn't wash it first.


ANyway it is ridiculous that some person would actually tell another person that the shirt is offensive. There definatley has to be more to this story.

The Overlord Returns
03-06-2003, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by kidhuman
Maybe he told him to take it off because he didn't wash it first.


ANyway it is ridiculous that some person would actually tell another person that the shirt is offensive. There definatley has to be more to this story.

I really don't think so.......every report I have heard makes this a case of one person supressing anothers right to free speech.....

stillakid
03-06-2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by kidhuman
Maybe he told him to take it off because he didn't wash it first.


ANyway it is ridiculous that some person would actually tell another person that the shirt is offensive. There definatley has to be more to this story.

I have to agree to this too. Just for the fact that he chose to buy the shirt and then put it on immediately. Who buys clothes and immediately puts them on in the mall or the store? Nobody, unless they were trying to draw specific attention to themselves. Given the nature of the shirt, that probably goes without saying, but generally a "message" shirt isn't cause for more than a look much less being escorted out. I'd be willing to bet that this guy caused more trouble than just peacefully wearing his shirt.

Jargo
03-06-2003, 01:56 PM
I've seen a few 'give peace a chance shirts in my time and if this guys was like the ones i've seen it possibly had a pictorial representation of a marijuana leaf on it. That could be seen as an advocation of ilegal drug use which the owners of the mall woulds be within their rights to address and eject someone who advocated such behaviour in a public place and in the presense of minors. if the shirt was just wording then it's a gross miscarriage of justice for the guy to be taken to court in the first place. I'm not surprised if he kicked off when the guards tried to eject him. but then again if he was throwing his legal weight around like a lot of lawyers seem to feel they have a god given right to then he must have been acting like a real pain in the tush. so he deserves to be canned. However, a year in prison for this is ridiculous. A total waste of time and resources. Do the courts not have better things to take up their time with? How petty this whole thing seems. Sadly society seems to be becoming more and more puritanical as the decades roll on. This is the sort of situation i would expect to be reading about in a history book chronicling the 1950's.

Lman316
03-06-2003, 02:11 PM
The reason that the guy and his son were told to remove their shirts was because of past problems the mall had had with protestors.
Apparently, the Macy's there had complained because a large group of protestors had been walking around the mall not too long ago, wearing similar T-shirts and carrying signs. It was interfering with shopping of other people.
When the man and his son got the T-shirts made, and then put them on, a mall employee complained because he didn't want another incident like the Macy's thing...

So, that's the "reason" that they made a big fuss over it. I got this information from the O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel - Bill had them on and asked them specifically what was up. The son then told about the Macy's thing...
Now, here's the thing, I'm for action in Iraq. I didn't really agree with what was printed on their shirts ("Inspections Work", and the like). But even so, I still didn't like what they did to these gentlemen - they have a right to wear whatever shirts they want in public, regardless of the message. And, like was stated on the Factor, they were only wearing T-shirts, trying to get something to eat at the food court. It wasn't like they had signs too, and it wasn't like they were trying to make a scene.

End...

The Overlord Returns
03-06-2003, 02:17 PM
You don't agree with "Give Peace a Chance"??

Lman316
03-06-2003, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
You don't agree with "Give Peace a Chance"??

I don't agree with most "Peace-niks" at this point. And like I said, I don't agree with lines like "Inspections Work" because, in my opinion, they don't. I didn't mention the "Give Peace A Chance" line because I would obviously prefer peace - I didn't want to look like a war monger. But my stance on peace is that it has to be mutual. If you try to be the bigger man while someone else is not, you're going to set yourself up for a fall. But this thread isn't about who supports the war, and who doesn't and why. So, I won't go any further here...(unless challenged :p).
I knew I shouldn't have said anything. I only wanted to show that even those in support of the war were against what happened in that mall.

End...

The Overlord Returns
03-06-2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Lman316
I don't agree with most "Peace-niks" at this point. And like I said, I don't agree with lines like "Inspections Work" because, in my opinion, they don't. I didn't mention the "Give Peace A Chance" line because I would obviously prefer peace - I didn't want to look like a war monger. But my stance on peace is that it has to be mutual. If you try to be the bigger man while someone else is not, you're going to set yourself up for a fall. But this thread isn't about who supports the war, and who doesn't and why. So, I won't go any further here...(unless challenged :p).
I knew I shouldn't have said anything. I only wanted to show that even those in support of the war were against what happened in that mall.

End...

No, I was just pointing out that, according to CNN.com the t shirt in question said "give peace a chance", the other, belonging to the son (who took his off) was "No war with Iraq".....

So.....I have to ask....was it the inspection process that led to the discovery and destruction of he al samoud missiles....or was it more of Powells "hard" evidence ;)

Lman316
03-06-2003, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
No, I was just pointing out that, according to CNN.com the t shirt in question said "give peace a chance", the other, belonging to the son (who took his off) was "No war with Iraq".....

So.....I have to ask....was it the inspection process that led to the discovery and destruction of he al samoud missiles....or was it more of Powells "hard" evidence ;)

I won't get into the latter part with you. At least not in this thread - if you want to PM me about it, fine, I'll play :D.

First part: the shirts both had two messages on them. The son's had: "No War With Iraq" and "Inspections Work" and the father's had "Give Peace A Chance" and I don't remember the other phrase.
So, like I said, I don't agree with some of the messages there. I don't agree about the inspections and I don't agree about action in Iraq. That's my POV.
But again, like I said, I just wanted to say that even though I'm in support of the war, I wasn't in support of what happened to those people... To say that even I (being the war-monger that I am :p) still respect their right to say or wear what they want, even if I don't agree with it. I think it's stupid that this whole thing even happened.

End...

scruffziller
03-06-2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Quite-Long Dong
Yeah, I am thinking there is more to this story as well.

There usually is.

2-1B
03-06-2003, 03:23 PM
David Spade said it best last night . . .

"If your parents tell you that they are going to inspect your room for weed in 4 months, when that time comes it will be loooooong gone."

:crazed:

stillakid
03-06-2003, 03:26 PM
SHOWDOWN WITH IRAQ
An About-Face in Peace T-Shirt Case

From Associated Press
March 6, 2003

GUILDERLAND, N.Y. -- Officials at a mall where a man was arrested for refusing to remove an antiwar T-shirt asked Wednesday that trespassing charges against him be dropped.

Police said managers from Crossgates Mall called and asked that the complaint against Stephen Downs be withdrawn.

Earlier Wednesday, about 100 antiwar demonstrators marched through the mall to protest the arrest.

They told a mall manager they would stop only when charges against the shopper were dropped and when the mall outlined its policy.

"We just want to know what the policy is and why it's being randomly enforced," said Erin O'Brien, an organizer of the noontime rally. "It's only the people in the recent months who have antiwar or peace T-shirts that are being asked to leave the mall."

A mall spokeswoman did not return calls seeking comment.

Downs, 61, and his son were stopped Monday by mall security guards and asked to remove their shirts that read "Peace on Earth" and "Give Peace a Chance," or leave. Roger Downs, 31, took off his shirt. But his father refused and was arrested and charged with trespassing.


Typical Republican behavior. It's all well and good to stand up for what they "believe" in (supporting W's push for war), but when it clearly threatened their own bottom line, they quietly dropped the charges. How's that for standing up for what you believe in. :rolleyes: Frickin' hypocrites.

The Overlord Returns
03-06-2003, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Caesar
David Spade said it best last night . . .

"If your parents tell you that they are going to inspect your room for weed in 4 months, when that time comes it will be loooooong gone."

:crazed:

Ah yes, David Spade...one of the great political analysts of our time:rolleyes: :p

Fulit
03-06-2003, 04:27 PM
Yes! Beat the crap out of those hippies! And everything else the government wants me to say!

Jargo
03-06-2003, 06:10 PM
Hmmmm, Osama, whatever happened to him........... :confused:

Jedi Clint
03-06-2003, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by EMPEROR JARGO
Hmmmm, Osama, whatever happened to him........... :confused:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80408,00.html


Stillakid,

As "typical Republican behavior" goes.....What recourse for the trouble that the protestors caused them would have been appropriate? More arrests? Or continued loss of money because those that disagree with them politically have decided to wage war on their normal business operation?

Where the hell were these rebel rousers when Clinton skipped U.N. approval and invaded the balkans? The conviction of the vast majority of modern idealistic anti-war crusaders depends solely on what political party is in charge.

QLD
03-06-2003, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
[url]The conviction of the vast majority of modern idealistic anti-war crusaders depends solely on what political party is in charge.

I try to avoid most war-talk with people now, because I am not looking forward to it.

However, I found Jedi Clint's statement to be extremely accurate.

stillakid
03-06-2003, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80408,00.html


Stillakid,

As "typical Republican behavior" goes.....What recourse for the trouble that the protestors caused them would have been appropriate? More arrests? Or continued loss of money because those that disagree with them politically have decided to wage war on their normal business operation?
That wasn't an issue with the father and son in question. If the "mall" was having trouble with a large group of protesters, then deal with that appropriately. But taking that frustration out on a benign father and son guilty of just wearing Tshirts is uncalled for. The "typical" I was referring to was in regards to this specific case. Based solely on the events that led up to the arrest, it appears as if the managers of the mall specifically targeted those who opposed the war in opposition to the President's wishes. The only possible conclusion one can draw from that is that the mall managers are pro-war and pro-Bush...ergo most likely Republican. But in "typical" fashion, their political ideology was set aside when it became apparent that their immediate economic situation would suffer. If they truly believed in their cause, they would have pressed on with the charges and stood up for what they believed in to the bitter end.


Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Where the hell were these rebel rousers when Clinton skipped U.N. approval and invaded the balkans? The conviction of the vast majority of modern idealistic anti-war crusaders depends solely on what political party is in charge.
Another typical response, bringing up old news that has absolutely nothing to do with the current situation. Magicians use that tactic of distraction all the time to make the illusions work. I mean, why not bring up WWII while we're at it? Where were the protesters then? This whole Israel thing seems to have sparked much of the Middle Eastern conflict, so why not ask about the protesters against Truman?

You don't know that this "group" wasn't busy protesting during the Clinton years. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't...but it has nothing at all to do with what's going on right now. The global situation has changed dramatically since that time and many other factors need to be considered that weren't so volatile then. It really has nothing to do with party affiliation. Foreign governments don't give a hoot which of our parties holds the keys. All they are reacting to is the imminent threat of war. A protester may be protesting for any number or reasons...fear of destroying the already shaky United Nations...fear of escalating the terrorism situation...fear of driving our own economy further into the toilet than it already is...on and on. Simply putting protesters into a little box that says "Clinton" on it doesn't give the issue the justice it deserves. Although it's quite possible, knowing that a full popular majority of American voters didn't support W. taking office in the first place.

Jedi Clint
03-06-2003, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
That wasn't an issue with the father and son in question. If the "mall" was having trouble with a large group of protesters, then deal with that appropriately. But taking that frustration out on a benign father and son guilty of just wearing Tshirts is uncalled for. The "typical" I was referring to was in regards to this specific case. Based solely on the events that led up to the arrest, it appears as if the managers of the mall specifically targeted those who opposed the war in opposition to the President's wishes. The only possible conclusion one can draw from that is that the mall managers are pro-war and pro-Bush...ergo most likely Republican. But in "typical" fashion, their political ideology was set aside when it became apparent that their immediate economic situation would suffer. If they truly believed in their cause, they would have pressed on with the charges and stood up for what they believed in to the bitter end.


It sounds like a group of protestors caused some trouble at the mall. They were also wearing the simplistic slogan shirts that the poor little father and son team wore. Was the duo dealt with unfairly? Some may think so, and others not. My question was what to do after the mob of ignorant followers returns to the mall and does more harm to business. Prosecute and invoke their rath? Ok. You seem to believe that it is "typical fashion" for a Republican to account for only the bottom line, but in the next "breath" you critisize Bush for pushing the economy into the tank as he seeks to disarm Saddam. It doesn't sound like you think he is very worried about "the bottom line".


Originally posted by stillakid
Another typical response, bringing up old news that has absolutely nothing to do with the current situation. Magicians use that tactic of distraction all the time to make the illusions work.


I simply put the blusterings of the anti-warriors in historical perspective. But if you think we should forget the past when it makes liberals look bad, then I will make note of that ;)



Originally posted by stillakid
You don't know that this "group" wasn't busy protesting during the Clinton years. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't...but it has nothing at all to do with what's going on right now.

Where were all the organized protests and T-shirts? It does have a great deal to do with what is going on right now. I'm questioning the credibility of the simplistic slogan gang.


Originally posted by stillakid
The global situation has changed dramatically since that time and many other factors need to be considered that weren't so volatile then.

If you are referring to the after effects of 9/11, then I ask:

If the terrorists are angered by our coming actions in Iraq, and decide to take action against us as a result, does that make them right and us wrong? Doesn't that mean they are allied with Saddam? Wouldn't removing Saddam as a threat elimate one of their allies?



Originally posted by stillakid
It really has nothing to do with party affiliation. Foreign governments don't give a hoot which of our parties holds the keys.

That is a fabrication. How many insulting remarks did Canada's officials make against Bill Clinton when he was President? I expect evidence from you to back up your claim that Foreign govs don't care what party is in charge here...especially in regards to their cooperation.



Originally posted by stillakid
All they are reacting to is the imminent threat of war. A protester may be protesting for any number or reasons


What reasons did the majority of modern day protestors have for NOT actively protesting our actions in the Balkans?


Originally posted by stillakid
...fear of destroying the already shaky United Nations

France and company can take credit for that.....if it transpires.


Originally posted by stillakid
...fear of escalating the terrorism situation...

And doing nothing is somehow better? I think not.


Originally posted by stillakid
fear of driving our own economy further into the toilet than it already is...on and on.


I think uncertainty could be blamed for our current economic situation.


Originally posted by stillakid
Simply putting protesters into a little box that says "Clinton" on it doesn't give the issue the justice it deserves. Although it's quite possible, knowing that a full popular majority of American voters didn't support W. taking office in the first place.

Who put protesters into a little "Clinton" box? How many of them were they able to fit? :)

As for your addendum:


Originally posted by stillakid
[B]I mean, why not bring up WWII while we're at it? Where were the protesters then? This whole Israel thing seems to have sparked much of the Middle Eastern conflict, so why not ask about the protesters against Truman? [/b

How many modern protestors were alive to protest Truman's actions during the creation of Israel? How are such protests or the lack there of related to being "anti-war", or "giving peace a chance"?

Old Fossil
03-07-2003, 01:09 AM
Few protested our late Balkan adventure due to the historical record. After all, World War I began in the Balkans. Iraq's external conflicts have been mainly with Iran and, of course, Kuwait. War in Bosnia-Herzigovina in the 1990's threatened to spread into neighboring states, including Croatia, Montenegro, and possibly Greece; and with Eastern Europe still shaky from its recent freedom from Soviet dominance, the fear was that we could have another large European conflict. Those are particularly nasty, if you remember.

So we had a clear historical context within which to operate when we went into the former Yugoslavia. Iraq is different. We are not "keeping the peace" in Iraq, as we were in the Balkans; by invading Iraq, occupying it, replacing its existing government, etc., we are nation-building. Left to its own devices, Iraq would probably start trouble again in the region by attacking one or more of its neighbors, as it has before. Left under U.N. sanctions and prostrate under the no-fly zones, Iraq is (and has been since the Gulf War) effectively CONTAINED.

Bush should help maintain the status quo in Iraq for now, I say, and stop conveniently ignoring a much more serious threat: North Korea's nuclear program. The last time we put Korea on the back burner (again, historical context), it cost us three years of war and a seemingly perpetual peacekeeping mission.

stillakid
03-07-2003, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
It sounds like a group of protestors caused some trouble at the mall. They were also wearing the simplistic slogan shirts that the poor little father and son team wore. Was the duo dealt with unfairly? Some may think so, and others not. My question was what to do after the mob of ignorant followers returns to the mall and does more harm to business. Prosecute and invoke their rath? Ok. You seem to believe that it is "typical fashion" for a Republican to account for only the bottom line, but in the next "breath" you critisize Bush for pushing the economy into the tank as he seeks to disarm Saddam. It doesn't sound like you think he is very worried about "the bottom line".
I believe that W is going in to better his own bottom line. This is an oil family we're talking about. He gets his and helps out his wealthy friends while he's at it. I'm not bashing it, rather I'm just calling a spade a spade.





Originally posted by Jedi Clint
I simply put the blusterings of the anti-warriors in historical perspective. But if you think we should forget the past when it makes liberals look bad, then I will make note of that ;) Interesting spin you managed to put on that. ;) I did say that the protests had little to do with party affiliation, or did you manage to conveniently forget that? The issue at hand has to do with current events and as such involves the current administration. Bringing up the past, whether it involves a liberal, a conservative, or an undecided is just a red-herring method to distract attention from the present. What happened then may have caused what is happening now, but it does absolutely no good to dwell on it with phrases like "Where the hell were these rebel rousers when Clinton ...." etc etc etc. What does it matter where they were? Really? What does it matter? The issue is what's happening right now and the people behind it.





Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Where were all the organized protests and T-shirts? It does have a great deal to do with what is going on right now. I'm questioning the credibility of the simplistic slogan gang. How so? What does credibility have to do with anything? Someone doesn't support what's going on. So what? Do their motivations really matter? It sounds as if you are suggesting that the protesters wouldn't be protesting at all if it were Clinton going in and not W. I don't buy that at all. "Peace" really isn't a partisan idea.

But if you're out to question the credibility of someone, why not start with the guys who are causing all this ruckus in the first place: the current administration. Why exactly is this sooooo important all of the sudden? We've kept the guy reigned in for years now. Why the sudden state of concern? Why is time so imperative? Why isn't North Korea an equal if not more of a threat to this administration?

Look, if W. had stood up a long time ago and said that we needed to go in and stop the atrocities going on in Northern Iraq for humanitarian reasons, I'd be prone to believe in the cause. You know, bring up the Jews in WWII. Talk about the Balkans. That sort of thing. But no. He (they) didn't choose to start a war because of something so benevolent (mainly because that isn't in their nature to begin with). They've got this story that Iraq is an imminent threat all of the sudden and if we don't go in right now to completely turn that country inside out, then we are all doomed. Great. Maybe it's true. But what about North Korea? Why the double-standard if this is the reasoning. Hmm? I wonder. It wouldn't have anything at all to do with W. and the oil interests that his family holds in the Middle East would it?



Originally posted by Jedi Clint
If you are referring to the after effects of 9/11, then I ask:

If the terrorists are angered by our coming actions in Iraq, and decide to take action against us as a result, does that make them right and us wrong? Doesn't that mean they are allied with Saddam? Wouldn't removing Saddam as a threat elimate one of their allies?
Yes, I don't think you'll find anyone in these parts who will disagree that Saddam is a menace and that the world can do without him and his ilk. The question is how to do it. If you hadn't noticed, the world isn't exactly agreeing on how to proceed lately. You know, it would be peachy keen if the UN was as strong a union as our good ol' United States of America. But it isn't. By a long shot. So what's the worst that can happen? We go into Iraq and take Baghdad. In the meantime, we've created a million more suicide bombers, alienated former allies, and further crush our domestic economy into oblivion...and for what? W. gets revenge for his daddy? W's friends get some lofty backroom oil drilling deals from our victory? Yeah, the world will be rid of Saddam, but will it be better off for it?





Originally posted by Jedi Clint
That is a fabrication. How many insulting remarks did Canada's officials make against Bill Clinton when he was President? I expect evidence from you to back up your claim that Foreign govs don't care what party is in charge here...especially in regards to their cooperation.
Not. Clintons administration wasn't lining our entire fleet up off the coast of Turkey at any point in his term. W. is willfully scoffing at the opinion of the UN, right or wrong. This country, the good ol' US of A, is supposed to be the shining light of just how well a democracy can work. Really nice example W. is setting for us, eh?





Originally posted by Jedi Clint
What reasons did the majority of modern day protestors have for NOT actively protesting our actions in the Balkans?
The rationale for going into the Balkans was for humanitarian reasons. Who's going to protest that?

This is why I was saying that had W. and his college buddies played their cards right, they would have full support from everyone that mattered by now. But instead, they decided to make it about weapons that may or may not exist. We KNOW that a bit of ethnic cleansing has been going on up north. That kind of atrocity should be more than enough justification for anyone to invade and conquer.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
France and company can take credit for that.....if it transpires.
If the UN breaks apart, it is the fault of everyone for different reasons. As I mentioned, the US, which should be setting the example of democracy, consistently ignores the UN whenever it suits our own selfish purposes. At the same time, a specific resolution was drawn up by the UN which some members are choosing to ignore at this time. That's wrong as well. We can only guess at their reasons, but I deign to think that it isn't because they are concerned about Hussein's well-being.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
And doing nothing is somehow better? I think not..
I didn't suggest that either. Clearly something needs to be done. The problem is that we've got a bunch of nations all playing their own little games. The motivations for the US are very unclear and extremely suspect. The same goes for France in particular, and also Germany and Russia. We've got a pretty decent and honest beat on Turkey.

Doing nothing is certainly an option though. I haven't researched it yet, but the thought occurred to me the other night as I listened to the news and the projected cost of the war and the occupation afterwards. Astronomical. Then I remembered another news piece I'd read not a week earlier about Fuel Cell vehicles and why they weren't being massed-produced already. The reason: not enough money to set up the infrastructure for consumers to fill up the tank. Hmm? Then it occurred to me that if we put all our war toys away and sank those billions of dollars into something constructive like this, then we wouldn't NEED to invade countries halfway 'round the world to steal their oil.



Originally posted by Jedi Clint
I think uncertainty could be blamed for our current economic situation.
Absolutely, and W. is doing nothing to reverse that. But the economy was getting flushed down the toilet long before this started...before 9/11. The economic policies of the Republican Party typically result in huge deficits and recessions. Taking money from the middle class to prop up the richest 1% has never proven to be a successful long range plan for the greater good. But as long as that 1% remains happy (and the gun toters keep their gun rights), then it's all okay I suppose.




Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Who put protesters into a little "Clinton" box? How many of them were they able to fit? :)
You did! :) All of em by the sound of it.


Originally posted by Jedi Clint
As for your addendum:

How many modern protestors were alive to protest Truman's actions during the creation of Israel? How are such protests or the lack there of related to being "anti-war", or "giving peace a chance"?
Exactly. You've seen the light.:cool:

Jedi Clint
03-07-2003, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by Twodot Tatooine
Few protested our late Balkan adventure due to the historical record. After all, World War I began in the Balkans. Iraq's external conflicts have been mainly with Iran and, of course, Kuwait. War in Bosnia-Herzigovina in the 1990's threatened to spread into neighboring states, including Croatia, Montenegro, and possibly Greece; and with Eastern Europe still shaky from its recent freedom from Soviet dominance, the fear was that we could have another large European conflict. Those are particularly nasty, if you remember.


So we had a clear historical context within which to operate when we went into the former Yugoslavia.

The "domino effect" wasn't considered acceptable reasoning among the anti-war protestors during the Vietnam war, but it's good enough for Bill Clinton to get a pass on his aggression in the region? I don't know about clear. There were many here in the states that thought we should have left the peoples of the balkans to sort out their own issues. I'm not taking issue with Clinton's actions in the region, but with the simplistic notion that war is never the answer.....and with those who only crawl out of their hole to actively protest when an act of aggression is perpetuated by a Republican.


Originally posted by Twodot Tatooine
Iraq is different. We are not "keeping the peace" in Iraq, as we were in the Balkans; by invading Iraq, occupying it, replacing its existing government, etc., we are nation-building. Left to its own devices, Iraq would probably start trouble again in the region by attacking one or more of its neighbors, as it has before. Left under U.N. sanctions and prostrate under the no-fly zones, Iraq is (and has been since the Gulf War) effectively CONTAINED.

How is he "effectively CONTAINED"? The inpectors know nothing more than what Saddam has let them know.



Originally posted by Twodot Tatooine
Bush should help maintain the status quo in Iraq for now, I say, and stop conveniently ignoring a much more serious threat: North Korea's nuclear program. The last time we put Korea on the back burner (again, historical context), it cost us three years of war and a seemingly perpetual peacekeeping mission.

I wasn't aware that he was "ignoring" the threat.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80409,00.html

Jedi Clint
03-07-2003, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by stillakid
I believe that W is going in to better his own bottom line. This is an oil family we're talking about. He gets his and helps out his wealthy friends while he's at it. I'm not bashing it, rather I'm just calling a spade a spade.


More like calling a spade a carrot. I would like to know exactly how you figure Bush and or his "wealthy friends" plan to steal Iraq's oil.




Originally posted by stillakid
Interesting spin you managed to put on that. ;) I did say that the protests had little to do with party affiliation, or did you manage to conveniently forget that? The issue at hand has to do with current events and as such involves the current administration. Bringing up the past, whether it involves a liberal, a conservative, or an undecided is just a red-herring method to distract attention from the present. What happened then may have caused what is happening now, but it does absolutely no good to dwell on it with phrases like "Where the hell were these rebel rousers when Clinton ...." etc etc etc. What does it matter where they were? Really? What does it matter? The issue is what's happening right now and the people behind it.

If you believe I intend distraction, you are sorely mistaken.


Originally posted by stillakid
How so? What does credibility have to do with anything? Someone doesn't support what's going on. So what? Do their motivations really matter? It sounds as if you are suggesting that the protesters wouldn't be protesting at all if it were Clinton going in and not W. I don't buy that at all. "Peace" really isn't a partisan idea.

You are correct. I am accusing them of hypocrisy. You don't buy it? Tough.


Originally posted by stillakid
But if you're out to question the credibility of someone, why not start with the guys who are causing all this ruckus in the first place: the current administration. Why exactly is this sooooo important all of the sudden? We've kept the guy reigned in for years now. Why the sudden state of concern? Why is time so imperative? Why isn't North Korea an equal if not more of a threat to this administration?

We started with Iraq, N. Korea will get their turn. How have we kept him "reigned in"?


Originally posted by stillakid
Look, if W. had stood up a long time ago and said that we needed to go in and stop the atrocities going on in Northern Iraq for humanitarian reasons, I'd be prone to believe in the cause. You know, bring up the Jews in WWII. Talk about the Balkans. That sort of thing. But no. He (they) didn't choose to start a war because of something so benevolent (mainly because that isn't in their nature to begin with). They've got this story that Iraq is an imminent threat all of the sudden and if we don't go in right now to completely turn that country inside out, then we are all doomed. Great. Maybe it's true. But what about North Korea? Why the double-standard if this is the reasoning. Hmm? I wonder. It wouldn't have anything at all to do with W. and the oil interests that his family holds in the Middle East would it?

What oil interests do they hold in the mid-east kid? Wouldn't it be much cheaper to simply allow Iraq to export more of it's oil? Bush isn't for lifting those sanctions. So how do you figure he is going to profit from this?



Originally posted by stillakid
[B]Yes, I don't think you'll find anyone in these parts who will disagree that Saddam is a menace and that the world can do without him and his ilk. The question is how to do it. If you hadn't noticed, the world isn't exactly agreeing on how to proceed lately. You know, it would be peachy keen if the UN was as strong a union as our good ol' United States of America. But it isn't. By a long shot. So what's the worst that can happen? We go into Iraq and take Baghdad. In the meantime, we've created a million more suicide bombers, alienated former allies, and further crush our domestic economy into oblivion...and for what? W. gets revenge for his daddy? W's friends get some lofty backroom oil drilling deals from our victory? Yeah, the world will be rid of Saddam, but will it be better off for it?

What would G.W. be seeking revenge for.....exactly?! And again...provide at least one example of how he will profit from "backroom oil drilling deals".



Originally posted by stillakid
Not. Clintons administration wasn't lining our entire fleet up off the coast of Turkey at any point in his term. W. is willfully scoffing at the opinion of the UN, right or wrong. This country, the good ol' US of A, is supposed to be the shining light of just how well a democracy can work. Really nice example W. is setting for us, eh?

Hmmmm.... Clinton didn't take his war to the U.N. Doesn't that show even less respect for their will?




Originally posted by stillakid
The rationale for going into the Balkans was for humanitarian reasons. Who's going to protest that?

This is why I was saying that had W. and his college buddies played their cards right, they would have full support from everyone that mattered by now. But instead, they decided to make it about weapons that may or may not exist. We KNOW that a bit of ethnic cleansing has been going on up north. That kind of atrocity should be more than enough justification for anyone to invade and conquer.

The Bush administration has presented a case against Saddam regarding his human rights violations.


Originally posted by stillakid
Absolutely, and W. is doing nothing to reverse that. But the economy was getting flushed down the toilet long before this started...before 9/11. The economic policies of the Republican Party typically result in huge deficits and recessions. Taking money from the middle class to prop up the richest 1% has never proven to be a successful long range plan for the greater good. But as long as that 1% remains happy (and the gun toters keep their gun rights), then it's all okay I suppose.

Factual innaccuracy. What policy of the current administration resulted in this recession?



Originally posted by stillakid
You did! :) All of em by the sound of it.

Really?! How? ;)

stillakid
03-07-2003, 03:30 AM
There's no sense in continuing this line of discussion as you've already made up your mind that everyone who is anti-this war has a Jones for Clinton. Just about everyone of your rationales goes back to some kind of reference to him. If not that, you ignore the Bush interest in oil. There's no way in the world to convince you otherwise, so carry on.

Here's to bloodshed! It is the American way afterall. :)

plasticfetish
03-07-2003, 04:40 AM
(Amazing. You're Amazing. Let me put some pennies on the track and see if I can derail this train.)

#1) Malls are lame.
#2) The shirts were ugly.
#3) If they paid more than five dollars each for those shirts, they deserve to be arrested.
#4) I never saw that TV show ... "The war in the Balkans." Was it on FOX? On the other hand, this new show seems to be on every network 24hrs a day. I find this new show and all of the actors boring.
#5) Fulit put up a link to a great poster image. Where did that thing come from Fulit?
#6) Hmmm, I wonder if the KB in that mall had any new Star Wars figures.
#7) mabudon, you shouldn't worry about wearing your "Hang Loose" shirt into the US ... we don't take Canadians seriously here anyway. Now, if it was one of those "Frankie say Relax" shirts ... then you'd be hassled a bit maybe. PS. I will be moving to your country soon in order to avoid the next 20 years of war and international hassles that we're likely to jump into pretty soon. I'm hoping to spare my son from being drafted into whatever video chip enhanced military that we've got going in the next decade. Please encourage your nation to continue to stand quietly and watch from up there, as we blunder our way into oblivion down here. I hear Toronto's nice ... but those garbage strikes over the summer sounded like a drag.

(*cough* thread closed yet? *cough*)

Emperor Howdy
03-07-2003, 06:32 AM
Let' see.....

M40 gas mask...check. M4 carbine rifle with an attached M203 grenade launcher.....check. .45 cali........oh, hey Overlord, I didn't see you.

James Boba Fettfield
03-07-2003, 07:08 AM
We're going to war! Yay! (It goes with my avatar, and since we're off topic I might as well post it)

Fulit
03-07-2003, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by plasticfetish

#5) Fulit put up a link to a great poster image. Where did that thing come from Fulit?


From the fuuuuture! The faaaacist fuuuture! Woooooo!

No, really, it came from a cool little site with sarcastic comments about news events called fark.com

Fulit
03-07-2003, 08:58 AM
Here's another funny picture you may have seen. I think its a spoof of a movie or something.

Fulit
03-07-2003, 09:07 AM
Sorry, for the three-in-a-row, but I keep coming across this stuff I think people should read. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=564&e=3&u=/nm/20030306/ts_nm/iraq_usa_uniforms_dc

1.When a bunch of Iraqis die and everyone's blaming us, read that article.

2. Don't let Saddam watch "Three Amigos" anymore.

The Overlord Returns
03-07-2003, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Emperor Howdy
Let' see.....

M40 gas mask...check. M4 carbine rifle with an attached M203 grenade launcher.....check. .45 cali........oh, hey Overlord, I didn't see you.

See, Howdy, you always show just how cute you are.

Here we have a debate that I have barely been a part of, yet, being your Canadian opponent, you once again zoom right in on me.....

It's flattering to have a cyber stalker ;)

mabudonicus
03-07-2003, 12:29 PM
I like how Saddam is always hiding all of his "military targets" like water treatment plants and radio stations in the midst of all his people.. what a coward..... he should put those things out in the desert where no-one lives, like they do in every other country... he knows that these buildings will be destroyed by foreign peacemakers, after all...I think I heard that his army is also comprised mostly of former civilians, and that in the case of invasion by the US, he will order these former civilians to put themselves in mortal danger..... I hope someone goes in there and flattens the place so that these atrocities will cease...
Plasticfetish- Toronto is alright... our dollar is getting stronger too, might be a good time... you should move to BC, it's real nice there by and large... and we haven't been sitting around, we've been busy punishing government types who get caught on tape saying W is a moron and stuff like that, a lot of our govt turns to spineless cowards when confronted with the mighty giant to the south, fearing the day when the need for water in the US turns us into the next member of the "Axis of Evil".. that or reformed marijuana laws.....
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

El Chuxter
03-07-2003, 01:10 PM
First, back to the topic at hand, I really think we're getting half the story on the t-shirt dealio, simply because it's something that's easily sensationalized. I'm willing to bet it went down more like this:


OFFICER: Excuse me, gentlemen. I couldn't help but notice that you just put on those shirts a few moments ago--
FATHER: No we didn't.
OFFICER: Sir, I can see the collar of your other shirt underneath it.
FATHER: Are you calling me a liar? Who do you think you are?
OFFICER: No, sir, I'm not calling you a liar.
FATHER: Then why are you wasting my time? Go eat some donuts or something, pig!
OFFICER: [sigh] I was asked by some employees to see if you're staging a protest. You see, there was a protest here a few days ago, and it disrupted business considerably. The mall tenants don't want a repeat, so I think it would make them a little more comfortable if you wouldn't mind taking the shirt off for a few moments--
FATHER: You're infringing on my freedom of speech! Doesn't the Declaration of Independence and the Nineteenth Amendment mean anything to you?
OFFICER: Sir, I think you mean the First Amendment--
FATHER: So now I'm an idiot?
SON: Dad, just take the shirt off. It's not worth this.
FATHER: Oh, so now my own son's a fascist! Why don't you goose-step your way down to the nearest Klan meeting, Junior?
OFFICER: Sir, you're causing a scene. I'm going to have to ask you to leave.
FATHER: This is America! I can do whatever I want!!
OFFICER: This is private property. The mall reserves the right to refuse service to anyone. If you don't leave now, I'm going to have you removed.
FATHER: Help! Help! I'm being repressed!! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!! Remember Rodney King! Remember Rodney King!
OFFICER: Sir, you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. . . .

On to the other topic. . . .

Bush hasn't convinced me yet that war is the answer. Honestly, since it's pretty much decided, I wish he or some member of his adminstration would convince me. I'd even feel better if he lied about it and I found out five years after the fact that it wasn't true. If not for his trying to start conflicts or "cold wars" whenever another country that we're not on the best of terms with intercepts our spy planes, I'd possibly believe him that Iraq needs to be taken down. (Come on, seriously, what would we do if we intercepted a Chinese or North Korean plane over our airspace? I think it would be far less diplomatic than what's happened when the scales were reversed.)

You know what would make me feel even better, though? If Bush would take a little dose of "what's good for the goose is good for the gander," coupled with making his apparent belief that we are the global protectors of freedom more seriously rather than a half-baked excuse to start wars to distract the citizens of the US from the ailing (and declining) economy.

I'd like to hear this from Bush:
"Saddam Hussein, we're taking you down. After we're done with Iraq, Saudi Arabia's next if they don't clean up their act. To **** with the cheap oil, this chopping off of arms and crap is for the birds. Iran, Somalia, you guys are on our **** list, too. And Israel, don't think you're immune. We like you, but you've got to immediately stop this blowing up of refugee camps whenever Ariel Sharon has so much as an upset tummy. Supposedly Communist nations: cut the crap. We know true Communism is as far-fetched as Utopia, so just admit you're dictatorships and change your ways. France, North Korea, China, Russia, Britain, everyone else: get rid of your nukes and chemical weapons now. Period. We've already destroyed ours, and we expect yours to be gone within a year."

The Overlord Returns
03-07-2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by El Chuxter
France, North Korea, China, Russia, Britain, everyone else: get rid of your nukes and chemical weapons now. Period. We've already destroyed ours, and we expect yours to be gone within a year."


Um, but you haven't. In fact, the US has considered using nuclear strikes against Iraq.

The Overlord Returns
03-07-2003, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by mabudon
I think I heard that his army is also comprised mostly of former civilians

Isn't EVERY country's army comprised of "former" civilians??? ;)



Originally posted by mabudon

Plasticfetish- Toronto is alright... our dollar is getting stronger too, might be a good time...


Yep....Toronto is the spot.......great night life, good booze......and hell, I live here ;)



Originally posted by mabudon

and we haven't been sitting around, we've been busy punishing government types who get caught on tape saying W is a moron and stuff like that,


I'd love to know why that MP is being punished for telling the truth. What sort of lesson is that teaching the children???



Originally posted by mabudon

a lot of our govt turns to spineless cowards when confronted with the mighty giant to the south, fearing the day when the need for water in the US turns us into the next member of the "Axis of Evil".. that or reformed marijuana laws.....
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

S' why I love Chretien......he doesn't take any Dubya crap... ;)

El Chuxter
03-07-2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Um, but you haven't. In fact, the US has considered using nuclear strikes against Iraq.

Yes, I know that. But I'd like to hear it said because they had been destroyed. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons have far too much destructive power. In an ideal world, they'd all be disposed of in a safe manner and forgotten. I'm not daft enough to believe it will ever happen, but (unfortunately for my mental health, it seems sometimes) I'm idealistic enough to see it as something to strive for. World War I was supposed to be the war to end all wars, and it's had too many unforeseen sequels.

Cutting our dependence on oil will be more effective in the long run in our dealings with the Middle East.

However, I'm not opposed to war if necessary. I wish that the Bush administration would take the time to convince the sizable portion of the American people--not to mention the world--who are against war or on the fence, rather than acting like everyone who's not 100% behind them is stupid, uninformed, unrealistic, or, worst of all, evil. (It really offended me last night during his press conference when Bush responded to a question about the "as high as 50% of the American people who don't feel you've made a convincing argument" by laughing and making smart-alec comments. It makes me feel like the man in charge of our country doesn't give a rat's. . . butt about anyone who's different in any way from himself.)

The Overlord Returns
03-07-2003, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by El Chuxter
(It really offended me last night during his press conference when Bush responded to a question about the "as high as 50% of the American people who don't feel you've made a convincing argument" by laughing and making smart-alec comments. It makes me feel like the man in charge of our country doesn't give a rat's. . . butt about anyone who's different in any way from himself.)

I'd stick by that feeling if I were you....

Dar' Argol
03-07-2003, 09:27 PM
OK, this thread has gone waaaaaaaay past the original intent. It was discussing the problems this mall had with someone's T-shirt, not about weather Bush is right or wrong. And it certianly is not about 2 page long posts with Quotes and counter points. This thread has verd waaaaaaayy off topic and IMO,

THREAD CLOSED