U.S. Sen. candidate walks to end war
By ConnPolitics.tv Staff on Nov 10, 2009 | In News, Sen. Chris Dodd (D) | 23 feedbacks »
Stonington (WTNH) – U.S. Senate candidate Democrat Merrick Alpert [D] is on a campaign walk. Alpert who wants to unseat Sen. Chris Dodd is walking from Stonington to Greenwich.
Alpert is running for Senate and said the main reason he is walking is to end war.
“Today’s the first day of a very long walk across a very great state,” Alpert said.
It’s about 117 miles from the Rhode Island border to New York; Alpert will reach Greenwich Saturday and hopes to spread his message along the way.
“When you carry a flag you send a pretty clear message that you love your country and you love the troops that are serving,” Alpert said.
T-shirts that Alpert had made send a pretty strong message as well; he wants U.S. troops pulled out of Afghanistan.
“Having served as a US peacekeeper in a Muslim country for six months the course we’re on in Afghanistan is a losing course,” he said.
John Evans, a veteran, thinks that Alpert will definitely catch the attention of people that have served. “Yeah, because I was in Korea and Vietnam,” he said.
Evans said he agrees with Alpert’s right to walk but not where he stands on Afghanistan.
“They’ve got to protect the country,” he said.
When asked, “How do you fight terrorism when you’re not in a country where you believe they may be?” Alpert said, “Well you fight terrorism by doing it in a much more covert way. You don’t send hundreds of thousands of uniformed troops to be an occupational force in a Muslim country.”
Along this walk he is also making several stops to spread his message; he stopped at Norm’s Diner, in Groton, for a little food, a little conversation, and then went on his way again.
It’s a walk which ends at the state line but he hopes will propel him to Washington.
23 comments
Comment from: Ted [Visitor] 
Who told him to take a walk? You should have said go jump off a bridge.
11/10/09 @ 19:16
Comment from: Visitor2 [Visitor]
Keep walking you liberal moron.
Take your state back !
Vote consevative 2010 and 2012 !
Take your state back !
Vote consevative 2010 and 2012 !
11/10/09 @ 19:19
Comment from: Able [Visitor]
Explain how voting conservative shall take the state back to anything but 1955.
11/10/09 @ 20:03
Comment from: Passing Thru [Visitor]
Able once again you rise to the bait and show you political leanings.
Net, if you vote for a Republican or a conservative you are a racist. Sounds like bigotry to me.
Net, if you vote for a Republican or a conservative you are a racist. Sounds like bigotry to me.
11/11/09 @ 10:00
Comment from: Todd [Visitor]
And this is any different from the "Tea Party Express"?
Maybe Visitor2 would like to explain this to all of us. As apparently conservatives taking a bus across the nation, and congregating on the national mall with Glen Beck as their main speaker is somehow not moronic?
Maybe Visitor2 would like to explain this to all of us. As apparently conservatives taking a bus across the nation, and congregating on the national mall with Glen Beck as their main speaker is somehow not moronic?
11/11/09 @ 11:05
Comment from: Get Real [Visitor]
Able -
I don't think that we're all going to dump our cell phones and put fins on our cars, but going back to 1955 or how we remember it - it was a simpler time where morals mattered and yes there was corruption, but none of this PC stuff used to gloss over or sweep it under the rug existed.
Also there were less taxes and fees back then, the church of peoples' choosing played a much bigger influence in peoples' lives and a family SHARED a telephone, TV, etc...
I don't think that we're all going to dump our cell phones and put fins on our cars, but going back to 1955 or how we remember it - it was a simpler time where morals mattered and yes there was corruption, but none of this PC stuff used to gloss over or sweep it under the rug existed.
Also there were less taxes and fees back then, the church of peoples' choosing played a much bigger influence in peoples' lives and a family SHARED a telephone, TV, etc...
11/11/09 @ 11:06
Comment from: Lew [Visitor]
keep walking you moron! If we had people like you during WWII we would all be speaking German on the East Coast and drinking saki on the West Coast. I bet you don't think the attack at Fort Hood was a terrorist attack either.
11/11/09 @ 12:32
Comment from: Winnebago Warrior [Visitor]
"Maybe Visitor2 would like to explain this to all of us. As apparently conservatives taking a bus across the nation, and congregating on the national mall with Glen Beck as their main speaker is somehow not moronic?"
.....And supporting and defending any dirt bag politician is better??
.....And supporting and defending any dirt bag politician is better??
11/11/09 @ 15:15
Comment from: Serious Dem [Visitor]
So many distasteful and unconstructive comments. If folk like the previous commenters were to apply even a small portion of their negativity toward, say, making a positive contribution to their communities, how much better off we all would be. Nothing but anger, ignorance, and empty words.
Why not give some constructive reason for why you believe Merrick's perspective on the conflict in Afghanistan is misguided, rather than simply slandering the man. This war in Afghanistan is a pressing social issue that merits discussion – whatever one's particular stance may be. And bald, negative comments like these do nothing but undermine that dialogue. I give Merrick a great deal of credit for having the strength of conviction to announce his beliefs about such a controversial issue, and for being willing to talk openly about why he thinks that escalating our involvement in Afghanistan is not in the best interest of our citizens. When was the last time you heard a political candidate so candidly and honestly speak his mind?
Why not give some constructive reason for why you believe Merrick's perspective on the conflict in Afghanistan is misguided, rather than simply slandering the man. This war in Afghanistan is a pressing social issue that merits discussion – whatever one's particular stance may be. And bald, negative comments like these do nothing but undermine that dialogue. I give Merrick a great deal of credit for having the strength of conviction to announce his beliefs about such a controversial issue, and for being willing to talk openly about why he thinks that escalating our involvement in Afghanistan is not in the best interest of our citizens. When was the last time you heard a political candidate so candidly and honestly speak his mind?
11/11/09 @ 15:28
Comment from: Independant Observer [Visitor]
I hope gets lost while walking. We don't need more left wing loons in Congress.
11/11/09 @ 15:56
Comment from: Digitaldem [Visitor]
Well said, Serious. All you hear from the "right" is how much we should be in Afghanistan. One question - how many of you have served? All you have for a former service member on V-Day is empty criticism and anger. I think the absolute least that this man has earned is the right to speak his mind.
Oh - and equating Afghanistan to WW2? Nice one, buddy. Real smart. Because Afghanistan was really about to take over Europe and invade the United States. Keeping us real safe, there pal.
The Pentagon itself has acknowledged that there are less than 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, so who are we fighting? I say let's get the terrorists - that is, the ones that attacked us! Go after Bin Laden, who is NOT in Afghanistan! I don't understand what excites you guys about fighting a pointless war - when the perpetrators of 9/11 are roaming free!
Past that - have you ever considered that keeping us bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan is EXACTLY what Al Qaeda wants? Every soldier that we have in those countries is another wasted opportunity to gain justice and keep our country safer. How easy it is to call someone a liberal moron than to actually say something useful - and much easier than actually serving your country.
Oh - and equating Afghanistan to WW2? Nice one, buddy. Real smart. Because Afghanistan was really about to take over Europe and invade the United States. Keeping us real safe, there pal.
The Pentagon itself has acknowledged that there are less than 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, so who are we fighting? I say let's get the terrorists - that is, the ones that attacked us! Go after Bin Laden, who is NOT in Afghanistan! I don't understand what excites you guys about fighting a pointless war - when the perpetrators of 9/11 are roaming free!
Past that - have you ever considered that keeping us bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan is EXACTLY what Al Qaeda wants? Every soldier that we have in those countries is another wasted opportunity to gain justice and keep our country safer. How easy it is to call someone a liberal moron than to actually say something useful - and much easier than actually serving your country.
11/11/09 @ 16:07
Comment from: Digitaldem [Visitor]
Well said, Serious. All you hear from the "right" is how much we should be in Afghanistan. One question - how many of you have served? All you have for a former service member on V-Day is empty criticism and anger. I think the absolute least that this man has earned is the right to speak his mind.
Oh - and equating Afghanistan to WW2? Nice one, buddy. Real smart. Because Afghanistan was really about to take over Europe and invade the United States. Keeping us real safe, there pal.
The Pentagon itself has acknowledged that there are less than 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, so who are we fighting? I say let's get the terrorists - that is, the ones that attacked us! Go after Bin Laden, who is NOT in Afghanistan! I don't understand what excites you guys about fighting a pointless war - when the perpetrators of 9/11 are roaming free!
Past that - have you ever considered that keeping us bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan is EXACTLY what Al Qaeda wants? Every soldier that we have in those countries is another wasted opportunity to gain justice and keep our country safer. How easy it is to call someone a liberal moron than to actually say something useful - and much easier than actually serving your country.
Oh - and equating Afghanistan to WW2? Nice one, buddy. Real smart. Because Afghanistan was really about to take over Europe and invade the United States. Keeping us real safe, there pal.
The Pentagon itself has acknowledged that there are less than 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, so who are we fighting? I say let's get the terrorists - that is, the ones that attacked us! Go after Bin Laden, who is NOT in Afghanistan! I don't understand what excites you guys about fighting a pointless war - when the perpetrators of 9/11 are roaming free!
Past that - have you ever considered that keeping us bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan is EXACTLY what Al Qaeda wants? Every soldier that we have in those countries is another wasted opportunity to gain justice and keep our country safer. How easy it is to call someone a liberal moron than to actually say something useful - and much easier than actually serving your country.
11/11/09 @ 16:07
Comment from: Digitaldem [Visitor]
Well said, Serious. All you hear from the "right" is how much we should be in Afghanistan. One question - how many of you have served? All you have for a former service member on V-Day is empty criticism and anger. I think the absolute least that this man has earned is the right to speak his mind.
Oh - and equating Afghanistan to WW2? Nice one, buddy. Real smart. Because Afghanistan was really about to take over Europe and invade the United States. Keeping us real safe, there pal.
The Pentagon itself has acknowledged that there are less than 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, so who are we fighting? I say let's get the terrorists - that is, the ones that attacked us! Go after Bin Laden, who is NOT in Afghanistan! I don't understand what excites you guys about fighting a pointless war - when the perpetrators of 9/11 are roaming free!
Past that - have you ever considered that keeping us bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan is EXACTLY what Al Qaeda wants? Every soldier that we have in those countries is another wasted opportunity to gain justice and keep our country safer. How easy it is to call someone a liberal moron than to actually say something useful - and much easier than actually serving your country.
Oh - and equating Afghanistan to WW2? Nice one, buddy. Real smart. Because Afghanistan was really about to take over Europe and invade the United States. Keeping us real safe, there pal.
The Pentagon itself has acknowledged that there are less than 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, so who are we fighting? I say let's get the terrorists - that is, the ones that attacked us! Go after Bin Laden, who is NOT in Afghanistan! I don't understand what excites you guys about fighting a pointless war - when the perpetrators of 9/11 are roaming free!
Past that - have you ever considered that keeping us bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan is EXACTLY what Al Qaeda wants? Every soldier that we have in those countries is another wasted opportunity to gain justice and keep our country safer. How easy it is to call someone a liberal moron than to actually say something useful - and much easier than actually serving your country.
11/11/09 @ 16:08
Comment from: Independant Observer [Visitor]
Well St. Obama is still spending a lot of national treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan.. How is it when a left winger has the power and must make a decision he continues the Bush policies on the WOT..
11/11/09 @ 16:20
Comment from: Able [Visitor]
'How is it when a left winger has the power and must make a decision he continues the Bush policies on the WOT..'
Because he isn't anything but a moderate, and while he may not be hawkish, he is by no means a dove.
'Net, if you vote for a Republican or a conservative you are a racist. Sounds like bigotry to me.'
Please show me where I said this, or even made an inference to the like? I was asked, what was so wrong about 1955, for which I gave an answer, with no ties to either left/right/conservative/progressive. So, nice attempt at misdirecting the conversation to a place it was not headed.
'Able once again you rise to the bait and show you political leanings.'
I don't deny my political leanings, ever.
'I bet you don't think the attack at Fort Hood was a terrorist attack either.'
This all depends on how you define a terrorist attack.
'it was a simpler time where morals mattered and yes there was corruption, but none of this PC stuff used to gloss over or sweep it under the rug existed.'
The PERCEPTION is of a simpler time, but the reality is not much different than that of today. So, while we may live in a more techno-friendly society, our ethical and moral codes are nearly identical.
'Also there were less taxes and fees back then, the church of peoples' choosing played a much bigger influence in peoples' lives and a family SHARED a telephone, TV, etc..'
There was also racism, homophobia, sexism, ageism.. oh, wait? Those still exist? Hmm.
Now, the Church can play any roll it wishes, for which the majority of that role is creating an intolerant system of morals.
Because he isn't anything but a moderate, and while he may not be hawkish, he is by no means a dove.
'Net, if you vote for a Republican or a conservative you are a racist. Sounds like bigotry to me.'
Please show me where I said this, or even made an inference to the like? I was asked, what was so wrong about 1955, for which I gave an answer, with no ties to either left/right/conservative/progressive. So, nice attempt at misdirecting the conversation to a place it was not headed.
'Able once again you rise to the bait and show you political leanings.'
I don't deny my political leanings, ever.
'I bet you don't think the attack at Fort Hood was a terrorist attack either.'
This all depends on how you define a terrorist attack.
'it was a simpler time where morals mattered and yes there was corruption, but none of this PC stuff used to gloss over or sweep it under the rug existed.'
The PERCEPTION is of a simpler time, but the reality is not much different than that of today. So, while we may live in a more techno-friendly society, our ethical and moral codes are nearly identical.
'Also there were less taxes and fees back then, the church of peoples' choosing played a much bigger influence in peoples' lives and a family SHARED a telephone, TV, etc..'
There was also racism, homophobia, sexism, ageism.. oh, wait? Those still exist? Hmm.
Now, the Church can play any roll it wishes, for which the majority of that role is creating an intolerant system of morals.
11/11/09 @ 17:19
Comment from: Mr Clean [Visitor]
Alpert has the right idea. How is sending more troops to Afghanistan keeping us safe here? Does anyone really believe we are reducing terrorism with our presence there?
And to Lew, how is the Fort Hood attack linked to our presence in Afghanistan? Does sending more troops overseas prevent such an attack? That is the kind of reasoning only Glenn Beck could come up with.
And to Lew, how is the Fort Hood attack linked to our presence in Afghanistan? Does sending more troops overseas prevent such an attack? That is the kind of reasoning only Glenn Beck could come up with.
11/11/09 @ 17:24
Comment from: GLENNA MACDONALD [Visitor]
Oh, Tina you get a fiddle,I`ll get a bow and we will sing.."Don`t they all want no more war".
~Peace Glenna~
~Peace Glenna~
11/11/09 @ 20:57
Comment from: Digitaldem [Visitor]
If you really think about the matter - or researched the atrocity at Fort Hood - it ties back into the War in Afghanistan being a problem.
If we stay in Afghanistan;
1. The bot boils over; less extreme Muslims (upset at the continued occupation and murder of innocents, albeit unintentional)join the "Jihad" because they now have definite proof that the United States is imperialist and intends to stay there indefinitely.
2. There are continued attacks against the United States and its allies, more innocent deaths, and continued expenditure in resources and lives.
What are the negatives if we leave? I'm really not sure if there are any - except that the Taliban possibly comes back, or it becomes a "breeding ground for terrorists". Which it isn't right now? What do they have to attack if we're not there?
I personally agree with Merrick Alpert. Let's look at the money being spent here rationally. For a small percentage we could help build a few schools and hospitals - if Al Qaeda becomes a problem, the local people are probably go to be more willing to help us than they are now.
If we stay in Afghanistan;
1. The bot boils over; less extreme Muslims (upset at the continued occupation and murder of innocents, albeit unintentional)join the "Jihad" because they now have definite proof that the United States is imperialist and intends to stay there indefinitely.
2. There are continued attacks against the United States and its allies, more innocent deaths, and continued expenditure in resources and lives.
What are the negatives if we leave? I'm really not sure if there are any - except that the Taliban possibly comes back, or it becomes a "breeding ground for terrorists". Which it isn't right now? What do they have to attack if we're not there?
I personally agree with Merrick Alpert. Let's look at the money being spent here rationally. For a small percentage we could help build a few schools and hospitals - if Al Qaeda becomes a problem, the local people are probably go to be more willing to help us than they are now.
11/11/09 @ 21:19
Comment from: Lew [Visitor]
Mr. Clean - WOW! Thank you. Saying my comment is the kind of reasoning that only Glenn Beck could come up with is the BEST compliment I have gotten in years. Glenn is my HERO!
11/11/09 @ 23:55
Comment from: xoxox [Visitor]
"Mr. Clean - WOW! Thank you. Saying my comment is the kind of reasoning that only Glenn Beck could come up with is the BEST compliment I have gotten in years. Glenn is my HERO!"
It sure shows moron....
It sure shows moron....
11/12/09 @ 10:02
Comment from: Todd [Visitor]
"Well St. Obama is still spending a lot of national treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan.. "
Good God, and how much did Bush spend over 7 years? How many lives did he sacrifice?
Are you really so blind to slander Obama for war spending when Bush spent so much more?
Good God, and how much did Bush spend over 7 years? How many lives did he sacrifice?
Are you really so blind to slander Obama for war spending when Bush spent so much more?
11/12/09 @ 11:38
Comment feed for this postLeave a comment
| « Gov. Rell answers questions on Fedele | Will the AG run for CT Governor? » |
