STANG floods the forums with a specific argument. He seems to hope that sheer repetition/advertisement of his position will convince people that he is correct or at least to consider that possibility when they otherwise would not.
Does his strategy work? Has it worked on any of you?
I think it works for me up to a point. However after a while I lose respect for his position because I lose respect for him, and therefore any position he might have loses credibility.
I repeat myself because RHP has a huge number of members and new ones who may not have seen the message before.
I also repeat myself because the message appears to be forgotten between wars like Vietnam and Iraq.
I also repeat myself day after day in much the same way as the loved ones of up to 100,000 dead Iraqis suffer day after day and in much the same way as Bush remains day after day.
For me, it is not just something to be debated until you're bored.
I've never been an activist.
Bush made me one.
Bush is a liar and a war monger.
Bush is a threat to the security of the world.
The deaths of up to 100,000 Iraqi's and coalition soldiers are just the start in a world where violence is being accepted as standard, the balance of power is changing and nuclear weapons abound.
Bush also breeds terrorism.
America, stop living in denial and impeach Bush now.
Demonstrate your concern for international peace and demonstrate that politicians will be held accountable.
There are many hundreds of millions who feel similarily.
Don't fall for Bush's costly political campaign.
Demonstrate with all your might and remind others to do so too.
While you're at it, sign on-line petitions to impeach Bush at:
http://www.votetoimpeach.org
and
http://votenader.org/get_involved/impeach.php
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI think this has the potential of being an excellent discussion.
STANG floods the forums with a specific argument. He seems to hope that sheer repetition/advertisement of his position will convince people that he is correct or at least to consider that possibility when they otherwise would not.
Does his strategy work? Has it worked on any of you?
I think it works for me up to a point. However after a while ...[text shortened]... tion because I lose respect for him, and therefore any position he might have loses credibility.
I would like to add an extra question:
If Stang's method doesn't work. What will?
Strange that America would kill for freedom and democracy yet support dictators.
In the name of freedom and democracy, there could be an argument to assassinate the people who support dictators ... or similarily meddle with the affairs of other countries.
Of course, people could make their own judgements on what is noble and who to kill and levels of acceptable "collateral damage" in its defence.
That's what 9/11 was.
That's what Iraq is.
Violence leads to violence.
However, violence also escalates.
No wonder you're scared of nuclear missiles sitting on their launch pads.
I think it depends on the object of the excercise.
I assume that the objective is to get people involved in activities highlighting and opposing George Bush's illegal war and the various effects of this war.
This is an objective I had the utmost sympathy with, and which I spend a reasonable amount of my own time supporting (amongst other political activity).
However, I know from my political experience that simply bashing out the same message repetitively is counter-productive - people switch off. Once you've bored people a couple of times, they stop reading what you give them.
I'd be interested to hear from Stang if anyone from this site has got involved in anti-war activities as a direct result of his posts.
Originally posted by RedmikeI don't know. The only count I have is my RECS. By the way, there's more to consider than people who may have got involved in anti-war activities.
I'd be interested to hear from Stang if anyone from this site has got involved in anti-war activities as a direct result of his posts.
Originally posted by STANGI agree, you could also cause an overall increase in awareness of opposition to the war. But I don't see how you could measure that.
I don't know. The only count I have is my RECS. By the way, there's more to consider than people who may have got involved in anti-war activities.
I'm trying to get a concrete measure of the success or otherwise - encouraging people to become active is one such measure.
I'm not sure how valid recs are as a measure. I think most people give these out on a purely partisan basis - if it gets up the noses of the right-wingers, it'll get a rec from me. In any event, they are likely to be from people who already pretty much agree with your view.
I'm interested in the people who's views were changed by your posts.
Originally posted by shavixmirI don't think focusing on the short term, immediate solution/gratification of removing Bush is the solution. Even with Bush gone the infrastructure that dictates US foriegn policy is still firmly entrenched. I would propose focusing on a long term change in how the US interacts with the global community.
I think this has the potential of being an excellent discussion.
I would like to add an extra question:
If Stang's method doesn't work. What will?
Globally we have to start working together rather than trying to dominate each other. This will take generations... consider that much of the global population has never even made a phone call.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungStang just becomes tiring. His posts are too simplistic and endlessly repetitive.
STANG floods the forums with a specific argument. He seems to hope that sheer repetition/advertisement of his position will convince people that he is correct or at least to consider that possibility when they otherwise would not.
Does his strategy work? Has it worked on any of you?
I think it works for me up to a point. However after a while ...[text shortened]... tion because I lose respect for him, and therefore any position he might have loses credibility.
Originally posted by RedmikeHow do we define any war as illegal, is there a permission court on
I think it depends on the object of the excercise.
I assume that the objective is to get people involved in activities highlighting and opposing George Bush's illegal war and the various effects of this war.
This is an objective I had the utmost sympathy with, and which I spend a reasonable amount of my own time supporting (amongst other political act ...[text shortened]... f anyone from this site has got involved in anti-war activities as a direct result of his posts.
wars somewhere? Was WW1 legal, WW2 legal, how about the civil
war? Who says what is or is not legal?
Kelly