give them back liberty, we’ll keep idiocy

It was only a matter of time…there is an online petition from folks who want to send the Statue of Liberty back to France.
Yeah, that’ll show ’em.

Share

10 Responses to “give them back liberty, we’ll keep idiocy”

  1. Maud Says:

    I want to say I can’t believe this, but unfortunately I *can* believe it.

    Keep up the great blogging, Laila. I’m listening.

  2. bill cameron Says:

    A rather large symbolic gesture in more ways than one. IMHO the lady of the harbor has become a cruel joke on would-be immigrants.
    I think they should just change the slogan from “Give me your tired,…” to “Fries wit’ dat?”

    Love your blog. Keep it up.
    Bill
    new reader from Canada

  3. Tom Scudder Says:

    It’s getting so that you can’t even parody them any more.

    Maybe someone should try and convince people to give Louisiana back.

  4. Big John Says:

    The Statue of Liberty is a symbol of Freedom, extended from the people of France to the people of America. As such it is valid, and I disagree with those people who would send it back.

    Just because present day France has turned its collective back on the Iraqi people, preferring to abandon them to the tender mercies of an ugly excuse for a human being yclept “Saddam”, is no reason to besmirch the memories of those earlier libertarians.

    They were believers in the basic decency of all peoples. Sadly, today’s French people seem more interested in sweetheart deals with the dictator than in his helpless victims. Pity.

    Sure, some are just ‘anti-war’, and that’s just it. No thought is involved, only a kneejerk reaction to the ‘W’ word, without any knowledge of history. Would you tolerate a gangster in your neighborhood? Then why allow it in the global neighborhood?

    Please don’t say that “Bush is a gangster too”. If we conservatives could stomach 8 years of Clinton without an open revolt, than you guys can bloody well do it too. That’s democracy, something that does not exist in Iraq (yet).

    You guys really ought to read the UN report on Saddam. Just don’t eat anything right before…

  5. Assamite Says:

    You’d probably be surprised to learn that the Bush Administration has NOT allocated a single fund to the reconstruction of Iraq. The job is going to Cheney’s old company, HALLIBURTON.

    And your demonisation of the French as “Saddam-lovers” is just pathetic.

    PAY ACTUAL ATTENTION TO THE WORLD AROUND YOU, rather than take eveything from FOX news at face value, okay?

  6. Lisa Says:

    Big John –

    Some of us gutless liberals have, in fact, read the reports on Saddam. I didn’t want to eat anything for the rest of the day. And, not being a flower-toting pacifist either, I would like to see the man wiped from the face of the earth.

    I’d also like to mention that I couldn’t eat anything for the rest of the day after reading reports on U.S. *and* French involvement – or rather non-involvement – in the genocidal killings in Rwanda. Nor could I eat anything after reading about the atrocities committed by Pinochet after the U.S. helped him come to power. Just as sickening is the thought that Saddam himself might never have had the opportunity to perpetrate all of those atrocities if the U.S. hadn’t supported, supplied, and trained him, before the bastard decided to take policy into his own brutal hands.

    On the other hand, the U.S. has done some wonderfully good things in other places of the world, sometimes at the same time as it was aiding and abetting dictators and murderers. What’s the point of all I’m saying here? That there isn’t just one pure, unsullied, righteous side to politics and war. You can’t expect politics and political agendas – no matter what country you’re talking about, including the U.S. – to have anything to do with morality, as if the ‘right thing’ were the end means. That’s not the truth of politics.

    Is getting rid of Saddam a good thing? Yes.

    Can the U.S. claim purity in all of its motives? No.

    Can France claim purity in all of its motives? No.

    Is France the only one who was benefiting from financial deals in Iraq *before* this war began? No. The U.S., in fact, benefited nicely from the fact that the Iraqi Regime helped to keep the U.S. Dollar afloat in the world market by pricing the export of its oil in U.S. dollars.

    Please don’t assume that people have no knowledge of history just because they happen to disagree with your view. For every historical point you might make in favor of U.S. policy, others could provide historical proof to oppose it. Nothing in politics is ever cut and dry and simple or applicable to an easily defined morality.

    That’s what civil laws are put in place for in democracies: to ensure justice.

    And Tom — I’m sure it wouldn’t be too hard to convince them.

  7. moorishgirl Says:

    One of the sites on the Statue of Liberty is also mentioned here

  8. Big John Says:

    “On the other hand, the U.S. has done some wonderfully good things in other places of the world, sometimes at the same time as it was aiding and abetting dictators and murderers. What’s the point of all I’m saying here? That there isn’t just one pure, unsullied, righteous side to politics and war.”

    Correct. As long as the system we live in is free enough to allow open communication, them good people can work together to expose bad things and try to make a naughty world better. Sure, some people do bad things in America’s name, but open criticism tends to check such evil eventually. Not so in Iraq. Saddam does not allow anyone to say anything except, “yessir!”.

    “Is France the only one who was benefiting from financial deals in Iraq *before* this war began? No. The U.S., in fact, benefited nicely from the fact that the Iraqi Regime helped to keep the U.S. Dollar afloat in the world market by pricing the export of its oil in U.S. dollars.”

    Woah. And Bush had the temerity to go against Saddam after that kind of heavy duty backscratching? He must be mad.

    “Please don’t assume that people have no knowledge of history just because they happen to disagree with your view.”

    You’re right, I’m generalizing too much. I’m sorry.

    “Nothing in politics is ever cut and dry and simple or applicable to an easily defined morality.”

    Ain’t it the truth.

    To Assamite: I never watch TV news, not because of the liberal slant, but because it has low content, and is geared toward evoking emotion rather than cogitation. I prefer NPR and Rush.
    Polar opposites I know, but I don’t trust nobody.

    NPR is liberal, but being on radio, they are forced to think about what they are saying, and sometimes cover both sides, despite themselves.

    Rush is off-center too, like NPR, but unlike NPR, he takes pains to make his stance very plain.

    My advice to you is to avoid TV news like the plague (Fox included), unless you can’t live without pretty pictures. ;)

  9. Green Baron Says:

    That is foolish. I have nolove for France, and their regecidal insanity of 1789 led to teh slaughter of quite a few of my ancestors, because they were aristos, but I think French bashing needs to be in normal levels and not any extremes.

    As for Louisiana, I was born in New Orlenas and lived there until I joined the Army (with the exception of two years in Memphis). I think most things French should become Louisianian, if we wnat to play that game, besides anything French and naughty should have a New Orleans references, for we are the NYC, the Chicago, and the Las Vegas of the South all rolled into one cosmopilitan, sinful (in a fun way), corrupt, old world city :)

  10. ed Says:

    ::
    ::
    ::
    :: Keep up the great blogging!!
    ::
    ::
    ::

  • Twitter

  • Category Archives

  • Monthly Archives