It seems that somebody forwarded a FOIB message from me to a bunch of Neo-Conservatives and so for the last few days I have been besieged by endless reams of all-too-familiar drivel from Pro-Bush supporters. Frankly, I’m not willing to spend much effort to convince such dupes that they’re wrong … but it seems they have endless energy to take on these debates.
When I hear someone saying something so fervently, I’m often moved to believe that the person they’re really trying to convince is themselves. Here’s a great thread.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Dan Lowe
> To: “‘Ian Andrew Bell'”
> Subject: RE: @F: Fwd: FW: MORE DIXIE CHICKS
> Seems strange how you like to shift the argument when it does not suit
> needs? This will be my last email because it sounds as if you are
> of reasoning with. You are right Ian, Iraq has not attacked us
> but they are in violation of a truce treaty they signed 12 years ago.
> Besides, how many more ties to Al Queda do you need to see? Do you
> believe that Sadaam is above having a relationship with Al Queda? One
> question, have you had a father, grandfather, or even great grandfather
> serve in the military to protect the freedoms you enjoy today? What
> you and
> all of those countries and their people fail to recognize is that there
> would be no Belgium, no Switzerland, no france, no Venezuela, etc. if
> we did
> not exist. These countries are only sovereign because of us and the
> that we pose to world conquering dictators. So brush up on your
> russian and arabic speaking abilities if your ideology becomes the
> of the majority in this counrty.
> Oh wait, next you are going to tell me it is about oil. Lets end this
> right here and now. Oil companies have already stated that they would
> rather negotiate deals with a sanctioned oil for food Iraq then a
> democrtatic Iraq which command a higher price at the bargaining table.
> Also, why did we leave Kuwait if it is all about oil. Did we stay in
> and Germany to pilage them of their resources or did we prop up their
> governments economic system to help them get back on their feet after
> WW II?
> We are not conquerors we are the defenders of liberty – our liberty
> and that
> of others.
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Ian Andrew Bell [mailto:hello [at] ianbell [dot] com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 10:32 AM
> To: Dan Lowe
> Subject: Re: @F: Fwd: FW: MORE DIXIE CHICKS
> Sorry… I wasn’t aware that IRAQ had attacked the US.
> On Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 06:47 AM, Dan Lowe wrote:
>> You want to talk about a REAL abuse of authority. Let’s see, how
>> about a
>> comparison between homeowners associations in the Houston area telling
>> homeowners that they can not put a ‘Support the Troops’ sign in their
>> or put a flagpole in their front yard compared to radio station
>> managers who
>> conducted online polls from their audience on whether or not to
>> playing the Dixie Chicks in which the respondents in cities all across
>> country voted overwelmingly to take them off the air. I call it
>> in action. If you libs aren’t careful, we will begin to pass
>> approving public displays of patriotism. Why can’t libs join
>> in the fight with OUR common enemy – rogue states intent on
>> threatening the
>> civilized world with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction?
>> —–Original Message—–
>> From: Ian Andrew Bell [mailto:hello [at] ianbell [dot] com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 5:52 PM
>> To: Dan Lowe
>> Subject: Re: @F: Fwd: FW: MORE DIXIE CHICKS
>> You clearly refuse to listen to that which you do not currently
>> Tell me, how did you come upon my email message in the first place?
>> On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 03:01 PM, Dan Lowe wrote:
>>> oh excuse me for thinking everyone in your entertainment industry was
>>> by ratings and what the people want. So now the argument has changed
>>> ‘a violation of the dixie chicks freedom of speech’ to ‘contractual
>>> obligations’. ‘Abusing of authority’ as it relates to bad cops, over
>>> zealous security guards, the Presidents of France, Russia or Germany
>>> is one
>>> thing, but that is a mighty long reach to say that radio station
>>> who listen to their audience and act appropriately are ‘abusing
>>> is normally. In fact, I see no abuse of authority. Instead I see
>>> Americans! Freedom of speech is a 2 way street, one who makes
>>> millions from
>>> being in the limelight must also be aware of the repurcussions of
>>> —–Original Message—–
>>> From: Ian Andrew Bell [mailto:hello [at] ianbell [dot] com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 4:46 PM
>>> To: Dan Lowe
>>> Subject: Re: @F: Fwd: FW: MORE DIXIE CHICKS
>>> Go for it… be mad, be pissed off. Call the radio stations and
>>> your platform … fill your boots! But when programmers at radio
>>> stations take them out of the rotation they are abusing their
>>> and eschewing their responsibility as broadcasters on spectrum that
>>> of us, Canadian or American, pay to administer.
>>> On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 08:59 AM, Dan Lowe wrote:
>>>> you can let all of your dixie chick buddies know that the only
>>>> group I belong to is called the United States of America. You guys
>>>> stand the fact that this many people are disgusted by the comments
>>>> singing idiots, and think there has to some kind of conspiracy going
>>>> on. In
>>>> all actuality, 8 out of 10 support Pres. Bush and the troops and
>>>> comments were out of line with the majority of Americans whom she
>>>> incorrectly that her statements more closely resembled. And another
>>>> I believe most concert ticket sales took place before the comments.
>>>> Somebody better put a muzzle on natalie or they will end up an
>>>> overseas act
>>>> exclusively like Madonna. Why the double standard? If Natalie is
>>>> free to
>>>> open her mouth and say what she thinks then why aren’t we free to
>>>> voice our
>>>> displeasure with what she said. Nobody is trying to lock them up
>>>> away the key. They are still being shuffled around in limos, living
>>>> in posh
>>>> hotels and being treated like little queens by their pamperers, so
>>>> the public be outraged and active in their outrage because it
>>>> so.Why can’t we?
>>>> Dan Lowe