Posted on 01/12/2005 4:53:49 PM PST by Jacob Kell
Pray for W and Our Troops
They were sooooo successful in their - anyone but Bush campaign - that they want to extend it to yet another fiasco.
I don't live in America right now, but thanks for posting this! There are lots of things not available here in Japan that I order off the Internet from companies back home in the US. I haven't made a big order in a while, and the to-buy list is getting long. Guess who's gonna be dusting off the old Visa card on innaugeration day and ordering a bunch of stuff online from good ol' red white and blue companies? I hope they can buy at least one Daisycutter with the tax revenue I generate!
As noted in earlier post, this is one of Karl Rove's subtlest and most brilliant schemes. These buffoons are going to hurt businesses that cater to liberals or hire them. Voluntarily. Where can one sign up to encourage them to extend the boycott thru the weekend?
Yeah, right. I'm sure W beleieves the same as all of us here. These guys are idiots. If he acknowledges them at all it will be laughing and pointing at them as the parade goes by. He'll know who they are as they will be the ones with their backs turned. Attention fellow FReepers in DC, this will be a good time to stick the sign on their backs that states "KICK ME!"
[If people don't show up at work or buy things, companies lose money. As he sees it, that's money the Bush administration can't tax, and can't use to run the war in Iraq, protect polluters or chip away at the Constitution.]
...or pay entitlement benefits.
Still think this is a good idea, David?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/not1dime.asp
Snopes.com did a great hit piece summary on this stupid idea yesterday. The very last line is excellent:
"As a functional protest, this one is equally off the mark. Although a boycott can be an active form of protest (even though boycott participants are in effect doing nothing, they're following a course of action that directly affects the object of their protest), boycotts succeed by causing economic harm to their targets, thereby putting them out of business or at least requiring them to change their policies in order to remain in business. But the target of this boycott isn't an entity that has the power to bring about the desired resolution (i.e., the government) — those who will be economically harmed by it are innocent business operators and their employees. These people have no power to set U.S. foreign policy or recall troops from Iraq, but they're the ones who would have to pay the price for this form of protest, incurring all their usual overhead costs (e.g., lighting, heat, refrigeration) to keep their businesses open and paying employees' salaries, all the while taking in little or no income. (And no, it doesn't all even out in the end — restaurants, for example, aren't going to recoup their lost business through boycott participants' eating twice as much the next day.)
Whether the desired goal is laudable or not, a protest that has little chance of succeeding at its purpose but a high likelihood of harming innocent parties does no one any good. As we always say about these kinds of things, results are generally proportional to effort: If the most effort one is willing to put into a cause is to do nothing, then one should expect to accomplish nothing in return."
What a wimp, if he really meant it he should"
Stop paying mortgage or rent.
Stop showing up for work and enabling 'the man'.
Stop buying groceries.
Stop paying the gas, electric, waste bills and encourage his loopy followers to do the same.
That'll show us!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.