NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: I don't blame these families at all for not wanting their sons or daughters used as propaganda tools by Cindy Sheehan. As far as I'm concerned this is a continuation of the disrespect of deceased military personnel which began with Ms. Sheehan's disrespect for her son. I regard this as a serious breach of ethics on the part of the "anti-war protestors."


Pro-war kin take down crosses at Sheehan site (http://www.military.com/earlybrief/0,,,00.html)


By Joyce Howard Price
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
August 25, 2005

Military families disturbed by a sea of crosses erected by anti-war protesters near President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, have removed crosses bearing the names of their fallen children and transferred them to another site to show support for American troops in Iraq.

Anti-war protesters "never asked for my permission to put up a cross for my son for their cause," said Gary Qualls, whose son was killed in Iraq. "They are not respecting our sons and daughters."

The rival cross camps are evidence of a growing public backlash against the anti-war campaign of California activist Cindy Sheehan, who blames Mr. Bush for son Casey's death in Iraq and has called for immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Gregg Garvey's son, Army Sgt. Justin Garvey, 23, was killed in Iraq in July 2003. On Tuesday, Mr. Garvey of Keystone Heights, Fla., removed two crosses bearing the name of his son that were posted at the Sheehan demonstration site -- dubbed "Camp Casey" -- outside the Bush ranch.

"I also picked up crosses of two colleagues [of his son], after their parents gave me permission to remove their crosses as well," Mr. Garvey said yesterday.

The crosses were erected by a group called Veterans for Peace as part of Mrs. Sheehan's protest that began Aug. 6.

"One by one, [Mrs. Sheehan's] crosses are coming down," said Mr. Qualls, whose son, Louis Qualls, 20, was a Marine reservist killed in Fallujah last fall.

Mr. Qualls, an Army veteran from Penwell, Texas, said he has removed three different crosses bearing his son's name from the nearly 600 erected on the narrow road leading to Mr. Bush's ranch. Each time he removed a cross, protesters replaced it, he said.

Last weekend, Mr. Qualls transferred the crosses to a site in downtown Crawford that's been nicknamed "Fort Qualls." Mr. Garvey moved his son's crosses there as well. By yesterday afternoon, friends and relatives of 13 other fallen soldiers had followed suit.

"More are on the way," Mr. Qualls said, based on the number of e-mails, letters and phone calls of support he has received.

Also, starting today, about 500 yard signs that say "Support Our Troops" and "Bush Country" will be placed on property directly across from Camp Casey by a group called GrassFire.org.

"We will also unfurl a huge American flag" to fly at the site, which is being called "Camp Reality," said Steve Elliott, president of GrassFire.org. He said his group has collected 400,000 petitions supporting both Mr. Bush and U.S. troops.

In a telephone interview yesterday from Fort Qualls -- outside the Yellow Rose souvenir shop in Crawford -- Mr. Qualls called Mrs. Sheehan's group "left-wing extremists." Her supporters include filmmaker Michael Moore and "gay rights activists, peace organizations and radical feminists," Mr. Qualls said.

"Everything they want to do is contrary to what I taught my son," he said. "Our fallen heroes deserve nothing but pure honor and respect."

Julie Curtis-Win of Fort Hood, Texas, executive director of the Texas Military Family Foundation, was at Fort Qualls yesterday, having been asked to go there by some of the 500 Fort Hood soldiers deployed to Iraq last week.

"They wanted me to go to say we support our troops and that America is one. So we're up here trying to do the right thing," said Mrs. Curtis-Win.

During the past three years, she said, about 100,000 troops from Fort Hood have been sent to Iraq or Afghanistan. On Tuesday, some mothers of Fort Hood soldiers killed in Iraq removed their crosses from Camp Casey and transplanted them at Fort Qualls. Mothers who found duplicate crosses bearing their sons' names at the anti-war site took the extras home, Mrs. Curtis-Win said.

She condemned the placement of the crosses at Camp Casey as "very, very disrespectful."

A pro-troop "You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy" tour, organized by a conservative group called MoveForwardAmerica.org, that began in California is due to arrive in Crawford this weekend.

And I consider the fact that a single soldier has died in Iraq to be a sign of disrespect to the military in general, to the families who have lost relatives in other, necessary military actions, and to the nation as a whole.

This is the thing you need to understand, Eutrusca. Those people out there with Sheehan--they're not anti-military. You may think they are, because you supposedly had a bad experience when you came back from Vietnam, but they aren't. Some of them no doubt are pacifists, but not the majority. The majority are people who are pissed because your president fed them a line of shit about the necessity for this war and hasn't paid a price for it anywhere but the public opinion polls, while a lot of them have lost relatives.

And I still don't know where you get off accusing Sheehan of disrespecting her son's memory. That's bullshit, and you ought to know better.

Those people out there with Sheehan--they're not anti-military. You may think they are, because you supposedly had a bad experience when you came back from Vietnam, but they aren't. Some of them no doubt are pacifists, but not the majority. The majority are people who are pissed because your president fed them a line of shit about the necessity for this war and hasn't paid a price for it anywhere but the public opinion polls, while a lot of them have lost relatives.

And I still don't know where you get off accusing Sheehan of disrespecting her son's memory. That's bullshit, and you ought to know better.

Bravo.

And I consider the fact that a single soldier has died in Iraq to be a sign of disrespect to the military in general, to the families who have lost relatives in other, necessary military actions, and to the nation as a whole.

This is the thing you need to understand, Eutrusca. Those people out there with Sheehan--they're not anti-military. You may think they are, because you supposedly had a bad experience when you came back from Vietnam, but they aren't. Some of them no doubt are pacifists, but not the majority. The majority are people who are pissed because your president fed them a line of shit about the necessity for this war and hasn't paid a price for it anywhere but the public opinion polls, while a lot of them have lost relatives.

And I still don't know where you get off accusing Sheehan of disrespecting her son's memory. That's bullshit, and you ought to know better.

I'll second Delator: Bravo.

And I consider the fact that a single soldier has died in Iraq to be a sign of disrespect to the military in general, to the families who have lost relatives in other, necessary military actions, and to the nation as a whole.

This is the thing you need to understand, Eutrusca. Those people out there with Sheehan--they're not anti-military. You may think they are, because you supposedly had a bad experience when you came back from Vietnam, but they aren't. Some of them no doubt are pacifists, but not the majority. The majority are people who are pissed because your president fed them a line of shit about the necessity for this war and hasn't paid a price for it anywhere but the public opinion polls, while a lot of them have lost relatives.

And I still don't know where you get off accusing Sheehan of disrespecting her son's memory. That's bullshit, and you ought to know better.

I'm not at all involved in this war, but I really couldn't agree more.

Too true The Nazz.

To the above three or however many it was.

There are a lot of things that Sheehan is doing wrong.

MISTAKE: Sheehan is blaming the president for the war.
TRUTH: Read your Constitutions, the president CANNOT declare war, he can only issue troops for six months and then Congress must declare war. She should feel privileged, and honored, that the president is even willing to listen to her.
MY RECOMMENDATION: Call your representative, your senators and plead with them not to renew the war bill or even to propose a referendum on the latest war bill. These are the men and women who keep delcaring war.

To the above three or however many it was.

There are a lot of things that Sheehan is doing wrong.

MISTAKE: Sheehan is blaming the president for the war.
TRUTH: Read your Constitutions, the president CANNOT declare war, he can only issue troops for six months and then Congress must declare war. She should feel privileged, and honored, that the president is even willing to listen to her.
MY RECOMMENDATION: Call your representative, your senators and plead with them not to renew the war bill or even to propose a referendum on the latest war bill. These are the men and women who keep delcaring war.
Here's the thing--in US history, the Congress has declared war all of 5 times. That's it--5 times. And yet we're constantly sending troops out all over the place. Since the Congress essentially gave Bush a blank check in 2002, there's no legal necessity for them to renew his right to send troops. They abdicated that responsibility two years ago, much as a Democratic congress abdicated their responsibility as regards the Vietnam War.

Here's the other thing--you say that Sheehan ought to feel privileged and honored that he's even willing to listen to her. I say bullshit. Bush works for us. He's not supposed to be descending from on high to deign to listen to what his subjects want--he's not an emperor. He's supposed to be the ultimate public servant, with the emphasis on the servant part.

I still don't know where you get off accusing Sheehan of disrespecting her son's memory. That's bullshit, and you ought to know better.
It's not bullshit, and you should know better yourself. This young man voluntarily enlisted in the Army to serve his Country. He knew, as does anyone else enlisting, there was always the possibility of being wounded or killed ... it comes with the territory.

So far as I know, he wasn't killed because he was dishonorable, or because he was incompetent, or for any other questionable reasons. He was killed in the line of duty. In the military, this means that he died honorably.

Then his mother turns around and tries to use his death to attack the very things for which he served. And you don't call that disrespect? I beg to differ!

Well, I see the vultures are gathering this morning in hopes of feeding on my dead carcass.

Far better than you have tried. :)

Well, I see the vultures are gathering this morning in hopes of feeding on my dead carcass.

Far better than you have tried. :)

Psst. Vultures usually don't wait for a critter to die just yet before they eat. If the critter is too weak to fight back, they eat. Besides, vultures are neccessary in any ecosystem, as is any other scavengers. They take out the corpses and trash usually before they can rot enough to spread diseases and whatnot.

This has been a literal statement. Any link to events on this forum are entirely unintentional. Or is it? =p

And besides, I'm sure a senior citizen like you would be all stringy and tough. =p

It's not bullshit, and you should know better yourself. This young man voluntarily enlisted in the Army to serve his Country. He knew, as does anyone else enlisting, there was always the possibility of being wounded or killed ... it comes with the territory.

So far as I know, he wasn't killed because he was dishonorable, or because he was incompetent, or for any other questionable reasons. He was killed in the line of duty. In the military, this means that he died honorably.

Then his mother turns around and tries to use his death to attack the very things for which he served. And you don't call that disrespect? I beg to differ!
Beg all you fucking want. Sheehan isn't saying her son acted dishonorably--she's saying that her son's Commander in Chief acted dishonorably, and to my mind, there's no question about that. Every soldier who has died in Iraq since this war started has died needlessly, and they've died because Bush, knowing that he had no real case to make, distorted and lied and scared people into supporting him. And to top it off, when he sent troops into Iraq, he sent them in underequipped, and in too small a number to accomplish the task he set for them. In short, Eutrusca, your president has disrespected the troops to a far greater degree than anyone else in this country, because he's personally responsible for them being where they are in the condition they're in. He's the Commander in Chief--it's his fault.

So back the fuck off of Cindy Sheehan. She's bringing respect back to troops who have been disrespected by their Commander.

It's not bullshit, and you should know better yourself. This young man voluntarily enlisted in the Army to serve his Country. He knew, as does anyone else enlisting, there was always the possibility of being wounded or killed ... it comes with the territory.

So far as I know, he wasn't killed because he was dishonorable, or because he was incompetent, or for any other questionable reasons. He was killed in the line of duty. In the military, this means that he died honorably.

Then his mother turns around and tries to use his death to attack the very things for which he served. And you don't call that disrespect? I beg to differ!

I agree, I think that is crap what they are doing. Also, reading that article of Anti-War protesters replacing the Crosses that were taken down. That is extremely disrespectful not only to the Soldier who gave his life for what he believed in but also to the families who went out of there way to remove the crosses of their own family members. That just shows that their respect lies only in their political agenda and not for other people who have lost loved ones in the War in Iraq. I am fully behind Bush on the War on Terror.

Well, I see the vultures are gathering this morning in hopes of feeding on my dead carcass.

Far better than you have tried. :)
Really should do something about that martyr complex.

So back the fuck off of Cindy Sheehan. She's bringing respect back to troops who have been disrespected by their Commander.
No. I won't "back off." Sheehan is a sanctimonious bitch who not only dishonors the memory of her own son, but who, as the article points out, is a lier and decietful.

I will not back off. As a matter of fact, I will do my best to come up with more ways of pointing out that this lying, decietful, dishonorable bitch is exactly that.

No. I won't "back off." Sheehan is a sanctimonious bitch who not only dishonors the memory of her own son, but who, as the article points out, is a lier and decietful.

I will not back off. As a matter of fact, I will do my best to come up with more ways of pointing out that this lying, decietful, dishonorable bitch is exactly that.And I'll be there pointing out that 1) you're full of shit and 2) that the real lying, deceitful, dishonorable son of a bitch is your president.

Psst. Vultures usually don't wait for a critter to die just yet before they eat. If the critter is too weak to fight back, they eat. Besides, vultures are neccessary in any ecosystem, as is any other scavengers. They take out the corpses and trash usually before they can rot enough to spread diseases and whatnot.

This has been a literal statement. Any link to events on this forum are entirely unintentional. Or is it? =p

And besides, I'm sure a senior citizen like you would be all stringy and tough. =p
Obviously, no one taught you to have any respect for your elders, even when it's painfully obvious they are smarter and more knowledgeable than you. But that really doesn't surprise me, since being disrespectful is a mark of the new left. Seems they've developed being disrespectful of anyone with whom they disagree into an art form.

It's not bullshit, and you should know better yourself. This young man voluntarily enlisted in the Army to serve his Country. He knew, as does anyone else enlisting, there was always the possibility of being wounded or killed ... it comes with the territory.

So far as I know, he wasn't killed because he was dishonorable, or because he was incompetent, or for any other questionable reasons. He was killed in the line of duty. In the military, this means that he died honorably.

Then his mother turns around and tries to use his death to attack the very things for which he served. And you don't call that disrespect? I beg to differ!

Yes Eutrusca, he voluntarily enlisted in the Army. Does that mean he could be used any way that his superiors like? He enlisted, he did not sell his soul.

Following your reasoning, if you voluntarily get into a car, and the car crashes and you die because of a glaring fault by the manufacturer, then lobbying the manufacturer to fix the problem or even just asking the manufacturer to explain themselves is disrespecting your memory. After all, you knew you were getting into a car, right?

Obviously, no one taught you to have any respect for your elders, even when it's painfully obvious they are smarter and more knowledgeable than you. But that really doesn't surprise me, since being disrespectful is a mark of the new left. Seems they've developed being disrespectful of anyone with whom they disagree into an art form.

I tend to not have any respect for elders, as they are responsible for making the world as shitty as it is. :D Have a nice day (that wasn't a personal attack, just my view on why elders don't recieve any special treatment from me, besides man you aren't all that old!)

Obviously, no one taught you to have any respect for your elders, even when it's painfully obvious they are smarter and more knowledgeable than you. But that really doesn't surprise me, since being disrespectful is a mark of the new left. Seems they've developed being disrespectful of anyone with whom they disagree into an art form.

Please stop insulting me Eutrusca. I do not make a habit of disrespecting you, heck we even have a sort of comraderie when we're leering at the female NS-ers. I openly acknowledge my left/liberal-leaning ways. By attacking the left in general, you attack me specifically as well

Obviously, no one taught you to have any respect for your elders, even when it's painfully obvious they are smarter and more knowledgeable than you. But that really doesn't surprise me, since being disrespectful is a mark of the new left. Seems they've developed being disrespectful of anyone with whom they disagree into an art form.
How's that glass house? Or is it not okay for him because he didn't use a green smiley? Cut the bullshit, Eutrusca-deal with criticism or don't put it out there. We're not going to roll over because you're a little older. Plea to authority, plea to special knowledge, remember those? Weren't you one of the ones lamenting people not knowing about falacies?

And I'll be there pointing out that 1) you're full of shit and 2) that the real lying, deceitful, dishonorable son of a bitch is your president.

George W Bush has handled the situations of his Presidency better than Al Gore and John Kerry both would have. He has taken a stand and will not back down because he gets a little criticism and I think that he was Re-Elected so at least half the country thinks he doing a good job.

How's that glass house? Or is it not okay for him because he didn't use a green smiley? Cut the bullshit, Eutrusca-deal with criticism or don't put it out there. We're not going to roll over because you're a little older. Plea to authority, plea to special knowledge, remember those? Weren't you one of the ones lamenting people not knowing about falacies?
Who asked you to "roll over?" Not I.

I tend to not have any respect for elders, as they are responsible for making the world as shitty as it is. :D Have a nice day (that wasn't a personal attack, just my view on why elders don't recieve any special treatment from me, besides man you aren't all that old!)
I rather suspect that you "tend to not have any respect" for anyone, elder or not.

I disagree with the war on Iraq. But there are lines that you don't cross. Speak no ill of the dead, that's what I think.

George W Bush has handled the situations of his Presidency better than Al Gore and John Kerry both would have. He has taken a stand and will not back down because he gets a little criticism and I think that he was Re-Elected so at least half the country thinks he doing a good job.
First off, you don't know that either Gore or Kerry wouldn't have done a better job--it's wishful thinking on your part, and if it helps you sleep at night...

That he was re-elected has no bearing on whether or not he's a lying, deceitful son of a bitch--we've elected those in the past and will no doubt do it again.

I rather suspect that you "tend to not have any respect" for anyone, elder or not.

Respect is not given, it is earned. People who may be older than me don't automatically qualify for my respect just because they are old. That's like saying because a murderer is old and you may not know he is one he automatically deserves your respect just because you aren't aware of that fact that he kills people, but because he is old. Elders, like all people, must earn my respect and must actually be good people in order to earn it. Same applies to everyone.

Yes Eutrusca, he voluntarily enlisted in the Army. Does that mean he could be used any way that his superiors like?
As a matter of fact it does mean exactly that. Being a member of the armed forces means that your superiors can ( and will ) send you into harm's way, sometimes knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that doing so will result in your death. This is part of what it means to be a soldier. Many times, a force must hold a position at all costs to give supporting forces time to move into position, or to escape, or any of thousands of other scenarios.

Respect is not given, it is earned. People who may be older than me don't automatically qualify for my respect just because they are old. That's like saying because a murderer is old and you may not know he is one he automatically deserves your respect just because you aren't aware of that fact that he kills people, but because he is old. Elders, like all people, must earn my respect and must actually be good people in order to earn it. Same applies to everyone.
So you know me well enough to decide that I'm unworthy of your respect? Interesting.

George W Bush has handled the situations of his Presidency better than Al Gore and John Kerry both would have. He has taken a stand and will not back down because he gets a little criticism and I think that he was Re-Elected so at least half the country thinks he doing a good job.

Have you seen the recent polls? Have you seen the grim appraisals of Iraq being on the verge of civil war? Do you realize that most people now believe (with quite a lot of factual support,) that the Iraq War (which started out not addressing the war on terror, but has actually become a focal point and a cause in the escalation of the war on terror,) has made us less safe?

Also, how do you know Gore and Kerry would have done a worse job? Do you have a magic 8-ball that actually works? Is Nostradamus' ghost whispering in your ear?

Let's see in 2006 what Bush's "never back down" stance accomplishes. Consulting my very own magic 8-ball, I predict regions that formerly were all but conceded to Republicans will now be in play. If you are a true Republican, you should be cursing Bush for setting your party back for what could be a long time.

First off, you don't know that either Gore or Kerry wouldn't have done a better job--it's wishful thinking on your part, and if it helps you sleep at night...

That he was re-elected has no bearing on whether or not he's a lying, deceitful son of a bitch--we've elected those in the past and will no doubt do it again.

All i'm saying is I agree with the invasion of Iraq whether they had WMD's or not. That was not a deciding factor for me. I agree with the way Bush is handling the situation and it's your right to disagree with me. I don't think calling either side names is helping the issue.

So you know me well enough to decide that I'm unworthy of your respect? Interesting.

Maybe you are old :p get some glasses and read my original post. I never stated you were unworthy of my respect, and I never said you never had my respect. I merely stated that just because someone is old doesn't mean they automatically deserve respect from everybody. They're regular people who have reached an old age, they aren't superhuman. You DO have my respect because of the fact you served in the military and have actually been engaged in combat. Those two facts alone demand my respect.

Have you seen the recent polls? Have you seen the grim appraisals of Iraq being on the verge of civil war? Do you realize that most people now believe (with quite a lot of factual support,) that the Iraq War (which started out not addressing the war on terror, but has actually become a focal point and a cause in the escalation of the war on terror,) has made us less safe?

Also, how do you know Gore and Kerry would have done a worse job? Do you have a magic 8-ball that actually works? Is Nostradamus' ghost whispering in your ear?

Let's see in 2006 what Bush's "never back down" stance accomplishes. Consulting my very own magic 8-ball, I predict regions that formerly were all but conceded to Republicans will now be in play. If you are a true Republican, you should be cursing Bush for setting your party back for what could be a long time.

I think the Democrats are in a much worse way than the Republicans are. People may disagree with the War on Iraq. But what about other issues.

As a matter of fact it does mean exactly that. Being a member of the armed forces means that your superiors can ( and will ) send you into harm's way, sometimes knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that doing so will result in your death. This is part of what it means to be a soldier. Many times, a force must hold a position at all costs to give supporting forces time to move into position, or to escape, or any of thousands of other scenarios.

But there are rules, are there not? Of course a soldier accepts that they can and will be sent into mortal danger. That does not mean that they can be (as examples only,) be ordered to commit war crimes or cover up activity detrimental to the safety or standing of the United States.

Also, I politely request that you address the other half of my post that you snipped (without indicating that you had.)

Obviously, no one taught you to have any respect for your elders, even when it's painfully obvious they are smarter and more knowledgeable than you. But that really doesn't surprise me, since being disrespectful is a mark of the new left. Seems they've developed being disrespectful of anyone with whom they disagree into an art form.

Obviously, you've lost your sense of humor which you displayed less than 24 hours ago when I made a similar post to one of your statements. Remember the missing posterior statement? If you can lose it so easily, I can only shake my head in disappointment. And to use that temper of yours to translate what I said, which has no stance on the main issue, as disagreement with you? Tsk.

And I've been around quite a few elders. Some were knowledgeable. Others struck me often as overly arrogant even when physical evidence proved them wrong, often clinging to the "older is better" mentality. The latter stagnated. The former kept an open mind.

Being old doesn't translate to being smart, or even wise. Nor does being young do that. It's the ability to learn from experiences and remember the lessons learned.

Oh, and about respect. It's earned. Not a blank cheque because you lived to a certain age. And you can't earn respect universally either unless your actions had universal implications. Furthermore, you have not displayed any characteristics and achievements that would make you any more respectable in my personal opinion than your average NS poster.

Besides, like any resource, respect can be squandered away. Nothing is infinite. Throwing accusations and generally venting your anger on people does nothing to help your cause.

As a matter of fact it does mean exactly that. Being a member of the armed forces means that your superiors can ( and will ) send you into harm's way, sometimes knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that doing so will result in your death. This is part of what it means to be a soldier. Many times, a force must hold a position at all costs to give supporting forces time to move into position, or to escape, or any of thousands of other scenarios.
And we, and the relatives of the fallen, can hold those commanders-specificly the cheif commander-responsable for the decision to use the troops. It is in fact our duty. If we are not to question that then we are NO BETTER than the regime we just toppled. Now, I know that's going to send you into a spiral of non-sequitor, but face it: If we aren't supposed to question the use of our military for frivolous wars than Casey really has died for absolutely nothing because even what he was supposed to be protecting has been lost.

Casey did volunteer and he did do his job and he didn't have the privilage of questioning it. That responsability falls on our shoulders. If we had done a better job he'd be alive and able to serve his country to this day.

I don't care what anyone thinks of the war , the President, or Cindy Sheeehan, if someone wants a cross representing a loved one removed from eiother Sheehans protest or the counter-protest they should have to do nothing more than ask. Why add insult to injury? The families of dead servicemen and servicewomen have already suffered enough.

Obviously, no one taught you to have any respect for your elders, even when it's painfully obvious they are smarter and more knowledgeable than you. But that really doesn't surprise me, since being disrespectful is a mark of the new left. Seems they've developed being disrespectful of anyone with whom they disagree into an art form.
Yeah like it was real fucking respectful if you comparing those disagreeing with you and speeking up, vultures

:rolleyes:

Hypocrite

I think the Democrats are in a much worse way than the Republicans are. People may disagree with the War on Iraq. But what about other issues.

You mean like health care costs, lowered earnings for typical (as opposed to average) Americans, oil prices, the breaking of ethics rules, the possible indictment of senior officials (investigation is ongoing,) and worries about the weakening of Social Security benefits? Those issues?

I don't care what anyone thinks of the war , the President, or Cindy Sheeehan, if someone wants a cross representing a loved one removed from eiother Sheehans protest or the counter-protest they should have to do nothing more than ask. Why add insult to injury? The families of dead servicemen and servicewomen have already suffered enough.
Egggxactly.

All i'm saying is I agree with the invasion of Iraq whether they had WMD's or not. That was not a deciding factor for me. I agree with the way Bush is handling the situation and it's your right to disagree with me. I don't think calling either side names is helping the issue.
He called the man, Bush, a lieing decietful son of a bitch, not 'the other side.'

Yeah like it was real fucking respectful if you comparing those disagreeing with you and speeking up, vultures
Um ... nooo. When I refer to "vultures" on here, it means that a group with some ax to grind is ganging up on one poster with whom they disagree. It's not because a particular poster disagrees with me that might make me refer to him/her as a "vulture," it's because she/he is indulging in the forum equivalent of "piling on" in American football.

Um ... nooo. When I refer to "vultures" on here, it means that a group with some ax to grind is ganging up on one poster with whom they disagree. It's not because a particular poster disagrees with me that might make me refer to him/her as a "vulture," it's because she/he is indulging in the forum equivalent of "piling on" in American football.
Wait, because more than one person disagrees with you they're vultures?

Nope, I think that posters point stands-now better than ever.

Um ... nooo. When I refer to "vultures" on here, it means that a group with some ax to grind is ganging up on one poster with whom they disagree. It's not because a particular poster disagrees with me that might make me refer to him/her as a "vulture," it's because she/he is indulging in the forum equivalent of "piling on" in American football.

Hey, you started the thread, knowing full well what would happen. That means you have to live with the results.

... I politely request that you address the other half of my post that you snipped (without indicating that you had.)


To what do you refer? This?
Following your reasoning, if you voluntarily get into a car, and the car crashes and you die because of a glaring fault by the manufacturer, then lobbying the manufacturer to fix the problem or even just asking the manufacturer to explain themselves is disrespecting your memory. After all, you knew you were getting into a car, right?
I hardly think you can compare enlisting in your country's armed forces with getting into a car. I didn't address this half of your post because it's an analogy which is used to illustrate the first half of the post, but an analogy which, IMHO, is invalid.

Hey, you started the thread, knowing full well what would happen. That means you have to live with the results.
Have I run away? Have I refused to respond to posts, even ones which indulge in personal attacks? Have I resorted to flaming and profanity?

No? Then am I not "living with the results" of starting the thread?

Wait, because more than one person disagrees with you they're vultures?

Nope, I think that posters point stands-now better than ever.
Whatever.

It's the act of "piling on" that makes me refer to them as "vultures," not the fact that they disagree with me. Understand??

To what do you refer? This?

I hardly think you can compare enlisting in your country's armed forces with getting into a car. I didn't address this half of your post because it's an analogy which is used to illustrate the first half of the post, but an analogy which, IMHO, is invalid.

I think it's valid, if you don't then please illustrate why. Casey enisted. He died. His mother disagrees not with his enlistment or with the profession of being a soldier, nor does she disparage her son's actions in any way. In retrospect, she wishes he had not enlisted, but that is because of the result, not because of the enlistment itself. That is a far cry from calling him a fool or a dupe for enlisting. Her argument is with the commander who sent him, the war plan which put his life in greater risk than it should have been and the reasons why he was sent to Iraq which ultimately resulted in his death. I fail to understand why questioning the basis for this partcular war dishonors his memory.

By Joyce Howard Price
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
August 25, 2005

Mr. Qualls, an Army veteran from Penwell, Texas, said he has removed three different crosses bearing his son's name from the nearly 600 erected on the narrow road leading to Mr. Bush's ranch. Each time he removed a cross, protesters replaced it, he said.

Bush neighbour lets war protesters use land (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1124273780649_17?s_name=&no_ads=)

CRAWFORD, Texas — One of U.S. President George Bush's neighbours will allow use of his land by dozens of war protesters who have camped in roadside ditches the past 11 days, giving them more room and halving their distance from Bush's ranch.

Fred Mattlage, an Army veteran, said he sympathizes with the demonstrators whose makeshift camp off the winding, two-lane road leading to Bush's ranch has angered most residents. Mattlage said the group will be safer on his corner 1-acre lot.

"I just think people should have a right to protest without being harassed," Mattlage told The Associated Press on Tuesday night. "And I'm against the war. I don't think it's a war we need to be in."

I guess it is all a matter of perspective? Some people on these forums state that they fought for the right for people such as Sheehan to speak "freely", and that they are defenders of "democracy", yet here they are protesting her protest. Kinda like double talk to me. :eek:

Whatever.

It's the act of "piling on" that makes me refer to them as "vultures," not the fact that they disagree with me. Understand??
No, frankly I don't. Should we organize, have a meeting-"Okay, you be the one that represents the group that disagrees with Eutrusca?"

"Piling on" is bullshit. It's more than one person that disagrees with you. Piling on is just your martyr complex flairing up again.

Some people on these forums state that they fought for the right for people such as Sheehan to speak "freely", and that they are defenders of "democracy", yet here they are protesting her protest. Kinda like double talk to me. :eek:
Hmm. So let me see if I've got this straight:

I served in the US Army. At least one of the reasons for my having done so was to ( in some small way ) protect the right to free speech.

Now I find that I disagree with someone who is exercising that right to free speech.

( With me so far? )

Now ... somehow ... because I disagree with what someone says, I don't have the right to protest that what they are saying is contrary to what I believe? Even though I fought for that right? Or perhaps, in some demented lefty way, because I fought for that right???

So although it's ok for me to fight for someone else's right to free speech, doing so means that I can't excercise that same right?

Hello? What's wrong with this picture???

No, frankly I don't. Should we organize, have a meeting-"Okay, you be the one that represents the group that disagrees with Eutrusca?"

"Piling on" is bullshit. It's more than one person that disagrees with you. Piling on is just your martyr complex flairing up again.
LOL! Oh. So now I have a "martyr" complex, eh? Man! I never knew just how messed up I was until I started posting on NS General. I sure am glad to have all y'all around to set my ass straight about my numerous psychological and emotional shortcomings. :rolleyes:

LOL! Oh. So now I have a "martyr" complex, eh? Man! I never knew just how messed up I was until I started posting on NS General. I sure am glad to have all y'all around to set my ass straight about my numerous psychological and emotional shortcomings. :rolleyes:

It's only because us "lefties" believe you should receive therapy. :D

That's just a joke, by the way. Hope everyone gets the reference, and I hope this explanation doesn't dilute the humor to lame status.

LOL! Oh. So now I have a "martyr" complex, eh? Man! I never knew just how messed up I was until I started posting on NS General. I sure am glad to have all y'all around to set my ass straight about my numerous psychological and emotional shortcomings. :rolleyes:
I don't know how else to characterize the nearly half of your posts that contain the "Oh woe is me, I'm sooo picked on. Liberals must stay up nights thinking of ways to foil me. Such a burden I carry" posts.

You still haven't sufficiently explained how people disagreeing with you is 'piling on' or makes them vultures, and thus have not refuted the statement that started this line. As such I think the assertation in it stands.

Now ... somehow ... because I disagree with what someone says, I don't have the right to protest that what they are saying is contrary to what I believe? Even though I fought for that right? Or perhaps, in some demented lefty way, because I fought for that right???


No-one's saying you don't have the right, they're just commenting on how fucking stupid they feel it is to do so. ;)

I don't know how else to characterize the nearly half of your posts that contain the "Oh woe is me, I'm sooo picked on. Liberals must stay up nights thinking of ways to foil me. Such a burden I carry" posts.

You still haven't sufficiently explained how people disagreeing with you is 'piling on' or makes them vultures, and thus have not refuted the statement that started this line. As such I think the assertation in it stands.
ROFLMAO!!! Ok. Ok. Whatever you say. I surrender. Jeeze. LOL!

ROFLMAO!!! Ok. Ok. Whatever you say. I surrender. Jeeze. LOL!

NOOOO!!! NOT MY CORN POPS! Keep fighting, it's great entertainment to see you take on all these people. It's like watching a Bruce Lee film.

It's only because us "lefties" believe you should receive therapy. :D
Hey! Now there's a thought for when the lefties get back in power ... just label everyone who disagrees with the leftist approach to government as "mentally unstable" and herd them all into government-run mental institutions, never to bother the leftist elite again! Kewl, huh? :)

No-one's saying you don't have the right, they're just commenting on how fucking stupid they feel it is to do so. ;)
It is interesting to see him make the same equivacol (It's a word now, dammit) error that he decries the other person for making all in one breath. You have to admire the efficiency.

Hey! Now there's a thought for when the lefties get back in power ... just label everyone who disagrees with the leftist approach to government as "mentally unstable" and herd them all into government-run mental institutions, never to bother the leftist elite again! Kewl, huh? :)
Yeah it will be a nice change from declaring them all immoral and making their choices illegal :p

Have I run away? Have I refused to respond to posts, even ones which indulge in personal attacks? Have I resorted to flaming and profanity?

No? Then am I not "living with the results" of starting the thread?

All I'm saying is that starting something that has an inevitable result and then complaining about the result is a little silly, good sir.

No-one's saying you don't have the right, they're just commenting on how fucking stupid they feel it is to do so. ;)
ROFL! So because I have an opinion different from the prevailing lefty ones, I'm "stupid." I guess that was to be expected. ;)

Or perhaps, based on the wording of that post, you mean that it's stupid that I even have the right to an opinion? Wierd.

This is just a small bit of proof that liberals are willing to use the lives of other people just so they can go against the government.

Just some sample quotes on people who think of the Iraqi Parliament.


I hate to say this to Iraqis, but I pray for chaos and civil war: it's the only way to stop Bush's policies and show that peace can never come through force. If Iraq gets peace, Bush wins credibility. It cannot be allowed to happen.
Nina, Toronto Canada



What parliament? A puppet government under an occupation. What hopes can we have? Iraqis need to understand this is a cover to provide cover-up to the corrupt Bush administration. Americans, please wake up and see how greedy you are.
Sahil, Sydney, Australia

ROFL! So because I have an opinion different from the prevailing lefty ones, I'm "stupid." I guess that was to be expected. ;)

Yeah, that's what I said. :rolleyes:

Hey! Now there's a thought for when the lefties get back in power ... just label everyone who disagrees with the leftist approach to government as "mentally unstable" and herd them all into government-run mental institutions, never to bother the leftist elite again! Kewl, huh? :)

Well, at least you'll get warm food, some interesting meds and a comfy diaper. :D

Well, at least you'll get warm food, some interesting meds and a comfy diaper. :D
"Diaper?" :eek:

Canada City']This is just a small bit of proof that liberals are willing to use the lives of other people just so they can go against the government.

Just some sample quotes on people who think of the Iraqi Parliament.

Well, all it is is just proof of what 2 people have to say. I'm sure I could round up a quote from a KKK member who considers themself a good Christian and a Republican, but that would hardly be sporting, would it?

Yeah, that's what I said. :rolleyes:
Or perhaps, based on the wording of that post, you mean that it's stupid that I have the right to an opinion? :confused:

Canada City']This is just a small bit of proof that liberals are willing to use the lives of other people just so they can go against the government.

Just some sample quotes on people who think of the Iraqi Parliament.
I often find myself wondering just how many of the lefties truly feel this way:

"I hate to say this to Iraqis, but I pray for chaos and civil war: it's the only way to stop Bush's policies and show that peace can never come through force. If Iraq gets peace, Bush wins credibility. It cannot be allowed to happen." - Nina, Toronto Canada

"Diaper?" :eek:

Yes, you'll be a pampered guest.

Yes, you'll be a pampered guest.
That or a dependable one (Depends for thoes that dont recognize the brand I am reffering to)

Yes, you'll be a pampered guest.
I'll kill myself before I'll allow that to happen.

Obviously, no one taught you to have any respect for your elders, even when it's painfully obvious they are smarter and more knowledgeable than you. But that really doesn't surprise me, since being disrespectful is a mark of the new left. Seems they've developed being disrespectful of anyone with whom they disagree into an art form.

Do as I say but don't do as I do, eh eutrusca? :p

No. I won't "back off." Sheehan is a sanctimonious bitch who not only dishonors the memory of her own son, but who, as the article points out, is a lier and decietful.

I will not back off. As a matter of fact, I will do my best to come up with more ways of pointing out that this lying, decietful, dishonorable bitch is exactly that.

Obviously, no one taught you to have any respect for your elders, even when it's painfully obvious they are smarter and more knowledgeable than you. But that really doesn't surprise me, since being disrespectful is a mark of the new left. Seems they've developed being
disrespectful of anyone with whom they disagree into an art form.

Well, I see the vultures are gathering this morning in hopes of feeding on my dead carcass.

Far better than you have tried. :)

Should I go on?

Do as I say but don't do as I do, eh eutrusca? :p

Should I go on?
Please do. I find it highly entertaining! :)

I'll kill myself before I'll allow that to happen.

Yeah, but inevitably some Republican will insist that you be kept on life support. :D

Yeah, but inevitably some Republican will insist that you be kept on life support. :D
Not if I do it right. :)

Well, I see the vultures are gathering this morning in hopes of feeding on my dead carcass.

Far better than you have tried. :)
Try not to stand still too long, they might mistake it for rigor mortis.

COMMENTARY: I don't blame these families at all for not wanting their sons or daughters used as propaganda tools by Cindy Sheehan. As far as I'm concerned this is a continuation of the disrespect of deceased military personnel which began with Ms. Sheehan's disrespect for her son. I regard this as a serious breach of ethics on the part of the "anti-war protestors."

Good for them. I applaud their efforts.

A pro-troop "You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy" tour, organized by a conservative group called MoveForwardAmerica.org, that began in California is due to arrive in Crawford this weekend.

Good! Even better. Now we can literally have both sides down there and actually have an intelligent debate provided that both sides stop hurling mud at one another.

Good! Even better. Now we can literally have both sides down there and actually have an intelligent debate provided that both sides stop hurling mud at one another.
No, I prefer they keep hurling mud, mud is usually less dangerous than full water bottles and things.

Try not to stand still too long, they might mistake it for rigor mortis.
That's entirely possible. After all, lefties seem to have a problem with deciding when something is alive or dead ( abortion, persistent vegetative states, etc. ). :)

That's entirely possible. After all, lefties seem to have a problem with deciding when something is alive or dead ( abortion, persistent vegetative states, etc. ). :)
So that respect you want everyone to have is not valid if someone happens to be a "lefties", is it?

You know, Eutrusca, you never met the man. You DIDN'T know him, and you don't know if he would have found his mother's actions to be right, wrong, or dishonerable.

Why the hell, no, by what RIGHT do you set yourself up as being better than her, and more knowledgable about how Casey felt about things?

Yes, yes, you were in the military as you remind us all every single damn day on this forum, but how is military service seperated by almost 40 years give you more heart knowledge than the man's own mother?

You rant and moan about Sheehan, you make statments that sound more like borderline threats, and always keep going back to the idea that since you were in the military you, and those who agree with you, have the right to honor Casey's sacrifice. That only you know what it truely meant.

If you're THAT sure, sir, go to California, and meet with her. I'd love to hear your report about how telling a mom that you, a total stranger, knew her own son better than she did went.

So that respect you want everyone to have is not valid if someone happens to be a "lefties", is it?
I try to give as good as I get, on here at least. In person, I extend consideraby more respect to people.

I guess it is all a matter of perspective? Some people on these forums state that they fought for the right for people such as Sheehan to speak "freely", and that they are defenders of "democracy", yet here they are protesting her protest. Kinda like double talk to me. :eek:

So your saying that they shouldn't use their constitutional right to protest the protestors?

Come on CanuckHeaven. Even I don't believe what your saying. Do you believe what your saying?

It isn't double talk in the least. Not even close to it actually. They have the right to do what they are doing just like Sheehan has the right to protest as well.

That's entirely possible. After all, lefties seem to have a problem with deciding when something is alive or dead ( abortion, persistent vegetative states, etc. ). :)
"Sweeping negative generalization of liberals/leftists for August the 25th by Eutrusca? Check"

Easiest. scavenger. hunt. ever.

So your saying that they shouldn't use their constitutional right to protest the protestors?

Come on CanuckHeaven. Even I don't believe what your saying. Do you believe what your saying?

It isn't double talk in the least. Not even close to it actually. They have the right to do what they are doing just like Sheehan has the right to protest as well.

No, he's just using his constitutional right to protest the protestors protesting the protestors.

Ow, my head hurts.

You know, Eutrusca, you never met the man. You DIDN'T know him, and you don't know if he would have found his mother's actions to be right, wrong, or dishonerable.

Why the hell, no, by what RIGHT do you set yourself up as being better than her, and more knowledgable about how Casey felt about things?

Yes, yes, you were in the military as you remind us all every single damn day on this forum, but how is military service seperated by almost 40 years give you more heart knowledge than the man's own mother?

You rant and moan about Sheehan, you make statments that sound more like borderline threats, and always keep going back to the idea that since you were in the military you, and those who agree with you, have the right to honor Casey's sacrifice. That only you know what it truely meant.

If you're THAT sure, sir, go to California, and meet with her. I'd love to hear your report about how telling a mom that you, a total stranger, knew her own son better than she did went.
Wow! Talk about going off on a tangent! All I know about the entire matter is that her son was a soldier, what that means, and how she's dishonoring his memory. Other than that, I have never met either of them.

Just to clarify a point here: I was retired in May of 2000, because of disability incurred as a result of a military parachuting accident. Not quite the "40 years" you seem to have assumed.

I try to give as good as I get, on here at least. In person, I extend consideraby more respect to people.
Then, by all mean, stop your hippocrisy and stop asking people to show some respect to you because you're older or were in the military. If you attack the left, every single leftie (as you call it) should have the right to attack you.

Respect has to be earned. You haven't earned any respect in this thread so far. In fact, you've lost some.

Who Cares? All Soldiers who participate in this so called "War" (Military action is more appropriate) is a WAR CRIMINAL!!

War Criminal Definition: A war crime is a punishable offense, under international law, for violations of the law of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war is a war crime.

The U.S. and Britian singlehandedly lied, cheated and dodged international law at every turn, not to mention the Baghdad Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal. The U.N. never sanctioned military action (which you can blame France for, but their right!! Hmmh where are those WMD'S?)

Yes I am saying every British, American, Polish etc. etc. Soldier is a war criminal because they did not conscientously object to commiting war crimes.

I know this will offend Americans, but when your blatently wrong on all counts of a phoney war, you've got no comeback.

"Sweeping negative generalization of liberals/leftists for August the 25th by Eutrusca? Check"

Easiest. scavenger. hunt. ever.
Poor baby.

I often find myself wondering just how many of the lefties truly feel this way:

"I hate to say this to Iraqis, but I pray for chaos and civil war: it's the only way to stop Bush's policies and show that peace can never come through force. If Iraq gets peace, Bush wins credibility. It cannot be allowed to happen." - Nina, Toronto Canada

No no no no no... That's the wrong stance entirely. As a leftie, I EXPECT chaos and civil war. I HOPE for peace and prosperity for Iraq, but there's frankly no real chance of it.

Who Cares? All Soldiers who participate in this so called "War" (Military action is more appropriate) is a WAR CRIMINAL!!

War Criminal Definition: A war crime is a punishable offense, under international law, for violations of the law of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war is a war crime.

The U.S. and Britian singlehandedly lied, cheated and dodged international law at every turn, not to mention the Baghdad Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal. The U.N. never sanctioned military action (which you can blame France for, but their right!! Hmmh where are those WMD'S?)

Yes I am saying every British, American, Polish etc. etc. Soldier is a war criminal because they did not conscientously object to commiting war crimes.

I know this will offend Americans, but when your blatently wrong on all counts of a phoney war, you've got no comeback.
There ya go! The left has spoken! :D

Poor baby.
Personal insult.

Just to clarify a point here: I was retired in May of 2000, because of disability incurred as a result of a military parachuting accident. Not quite the "40 years" you seem to have assumed.

Aren't you about sixty-ish about now? I thought they had an age limit on infantry and airborne infantry for front line deployments.

Who Cares? All Soldiers who participate in this so called "War" (Military action is more appropriate) is a WAR CRIMINAL!!

Now I find this insulting. 100% insulting. This is also flamebaiting and 100% inaccurate as well!

War Criminal Definition: A war crime is a punishable offense, under international law, for violations of the law of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war is a war crime.

Where did we violate international law? Those that have have already been or in the process of being punished.

The U.S. and Britian singlehandedly lied, cheated and dodged international law at every turn, not to mention the Baghdad Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal. The U.N. never sanctioned military action (which you can blame France for, but their right!! Hmmh where are those WMD'S?)

1) Bush did not intentionally lie. Faulty intel =/= lying. We've already have this tap dance and I'm getting really tired of setting the record straight.

2) Those responsible for Abu Ghraib have either been demoted and forced to retire or have been court martialed, tossed in the brig and have been dishonorablly discharged.

3) The intel was faulty and now the Intelligence Agencies is getting an overhaul and are now under one roof.

Yes I am saying every British, American, Polish etc. etc. Soldier is a war criminal because they did not conscientously object to commiting war crimes.

I know this will offend Americans, but when your blatently wrong on all counts of a phoney war, you've got no comeback.

Sir, may I say something? GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE POSTING

You know, Eutrusca, you never met the man. You DIDN'T know him, and you don't know if he would have found his mother's actions to be right, wrong, or dishonerable.

Why the hell, no, by what RIGHT do you set yourself up as being better than her, and more knowledgable about how Casey felt about things?

Yes, yes, you were in the military as you remind us all every single damn day on this forum, but how is military service seperated by almost 40 years give you more heart knowledge than the man's own mother?

You rant and moan about Sheehan, you make statments that sound more like borderline threats, and always keep going back to the idea that since you were in the military you, and those who agree with you, have the right to honor Casey's sacrifice. That only you know what it truely meant.

If you're THAT sure, sir, go to California, and meet with her. I'd love to hear your report about how telling a mom that you, a total stranger, knew her own son better than she did went.

Quick one...Casey's father, siblings, and other family members have stated that he did not share his mother's views and would not want his memory used as a tool for her political activism. No, we don't know the man, but I would tend to develop an idea of his opinions and beliefs based on his family's portrayal of him. I cannot say that she is disrespecting her son's memory with her protest, but I do believe she is being manipulated by some radical, unethical groups that have no regard for Mrs. Sheehan or the rest of Casey's family.

Back to the original topic of this thread, just as no one outside of family has the right to criticize Sheehan's use of her son's memory, why is it acceptable that Sheehan's supporters have the right to use the memory of others in direct opposition to their families' wishes?

Wow! Talk about going off on a tangent! All I know about the entire matter is that her son was a soldier, what that means, and how she's dishonoring his memory. Other than that, I have never met either of them.
Well, this is the, what, fifth thread on this and your comments have been rather uniform throughout. And like I said, you assume he would feel dishonored by his mother's actions and have since called her a number of highly uncomplimentry things.

Just to clarify a point here: I was retired in May of 2000, because of disability incurred as a result of a military parachuting accident. Not quite the "40 years" you seem to have assumed.
Ah, my apologies then. You might want to update your sig file as that's what I was going off of. :)

There ya go! The left has spoken! :D

Now all we need is for someone on the right to Godwin, and this thread will be nicely ended.

Can Godwin be a verb? It is now!

Then, by all mean, stop your hippocrisy and stop asking people to show some respect to you because you're older or were in the military. If you attack the left, every single leftie (as you call it) should have the right to attack you.

Respect has to be earned. You haven't earned any respect in this thread so far. In fact, you've lost some.
So far as I know, I have never demanded anyone respect me for anything. To do so, especially on here, would be futile. As far as I'm concerned now, whether you or anyone else has any respect for me, for whatever reason, is a matter of total indifference.

So far as I know, I have never demanded anyone respect me for anything. To do so, especially on here, would be futile. As far as I'm concerned now, whether you or anyone else has any respect for me, for whatever reason, is a matter of total indifference.

You, sir, are worse than Hitler.

[/Godwinned]

Personal insult.
Sue me.

No. I won't "back off." Sheehan is a sanctimonious bitch who not only dishonors the memory of her own son, but who, as the article points out, is a lier and decietful.

I will not back off. As a matter of fact, I will do my best to come up with more ways of pointing out that this lying, decietful, dishonorable bitch is exactly that.

Eutrusca, where exactly do you think you're doing Soldier Sheehan a favor by insulting his mother?

How many guys in the military do you know that would appreciate you calling their mother a bitch?

Of course, he's dead, so I guess you can get your delightful opinion in without repercussion. How nice that works.

Back to the original topic of this thread, just as no one outside of family has the right to criticize Sheehan's use of her son's memory, why is it acceptable that Sheehan's supporters have the right to use the memory of others in direct opposition to their families' wishes?
For that question, I don't see that they do. Nor do I find it acceptable. Reading the article though, it does not state whether the father actually ever ASKED the protesters to take down the crosses.

Aren't you about sixty-ish about now? I thought they had an age limit on infantry and airborne infantry for front line deployments.
I turned 62 last May 27th. When I was almost killed in that military parachuting accident, I was 53. I am not aware of any age limitations on continued service until the age of 62, and there are exceptions to that as well.

Eutrusca, where exactly do you think you're doing Soldier Sheehan a favor by insulting his mother?

How many guys in the military do you know that would appreciate you calling their mother a bitch?

Of course, he's dead, so I guess you can get your delightful opinion in without repercussion. How nice that works.
You have a point. I will no longer refer to Ms. Sheehan as "a bitch" out of respect for her son. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

Eutrusca is actually human and is wrong at times? :eek:

What is this world coming too!

So far as I know, I have never demanded anyone respect me for anything. To do so, especially on here, would be futile. As far as I'm concerned now, whether you or anyone else has any respect for me, for whatever reason, is a matter of total indifference.

I refer you to post 17 of this very thread:

Obviously, no one taught you to have any respect for your elders, even when it's painfully obvious they are smarter and more knowledgeable than you. But that really doesn't surprise me, since being disrespectful is a mark of the new left. Seems they've developed being disrespectful of anyone with whom they disagree into an art form.

Now I can honestly say that you are lying and spinning to try to win the debate.

For that question, I don't see that they do. Nor do I find it acceptable. Reading the article though, it does not state whether the father actually ever ASKED the protesters to take down the crosses.

Well, it would seem to me that if the parents remove the crosses and the anti-war protestors immediately replace them, they are doing so fully aware that it is in opposition to the fallen soldier's family's wishes. (apostrophes are running rampant). They don't care about the "loss" of military families...they care about pushing their agenda no matter who it hurts.

I refer you to post 17 of this very thread:

Now I can honestly say that you are lying and spinning to try to win the debate.
Read it again, please. That was a statement, not a request.

Eutrusca is actually human and is wrong at times? :eek:

What is this world coming too!
Heh! I'm only human. :p

Well, it would seem to me that if the parents remove the crosses and the anti-war protestors immediately replace them, they are doing so fully aware that it is in opposition to the fallen soldier's family's wishes. (apostrophes are running rampant). They don't care about the "loss" of military families...they care about pushing their agenda no matter who it hurts.
Yes, but that wouldn't support the contentions of the left. How dare those parents resent the unauthorized use of their dead children's names! :rolleyes:

Heh! I'm only human. :p

:cry::cry::cry:

My faither is shattered! Now whatever will I do?

LOL! Sorry Eutrusca! Couldn't resist.

Keep up the good work dude and once again, thanks for serving in our nation's military.

Well, it would seem to me that if the parents remove the crosses and the anti-war protestors immediately replace them, they are doing so fully aware that it is in opposition to the fallen soldier's family's wishes. (apostrophes are running rampant). They don't care about the "loss" of military families...they care about pushing their agenda no matter who it hurts.
or it can be interpreted as replacing a fallen cross that was removed by vandalist in the counter-protest crowd.

So long as they do not request that their son's cross be removed, it's pure partisan hackery.

or it can be interpreted as replacing a fallen cross that was removed by vandalist in the counter-protest crowd.

So long as they do not request that their son's cross be removed, it's pure partisan hackery.
Oh brother. :rolleyes:

Read it again, please. That was a statement, not a request.
:rolleyes:

Everybody knew what you meant when you said that statement. You even continued to respond as if you asked for respect. Please, save the spin for some dupe who hasn't read the thread.

or it can be interpreted as replacing a fallen cross that was removed by vandalist in the counter-protest crowd.

So long as they do not request that their son's cross be removed, it's pure partisan hackery.

Excuse me, but if a family member of a dead soldier removed a cross with their child's name on it, I'll take that to mean they don't want their child's name used to make a statement.

I don't call it vandalism, I call it trying to get their wish honored. Something that Sheehan's people don't want to do.

Yes, but that wouldn't support the contentions of the left. How dare those parents resent the unauthorized use of their dead children's names! :rolleyes:

If I had lost a child, removed a cross with their name from the Sheehan camp, and someone immediately replaced it...I would pull up the new cross and proceed to smack them with it while I again informed them of my wishes. Just keep smacking that mule between the eyes until they understand. Also, how does exhibiting crosses pay respect to the wishes and beliefs of fallen soldiers of non-Christian faith?

Excuse me, but if a family member of a dead soldier removed a cross with their child's name on it, I'll take that to mean they don't want their child's name used to make a statement.

I don't call it vandalism, I call it trying to get their wish honored. Something that Sheehan's people don't want to do.
A man walks up to a cross. He removes it.

How are we supposed to know it's his son's name on the cross? Has he said anything? Without some sort of verbal exchange, there's no way to know if the guy's just antagonizing the Sheenan protester or if he has a specific beef with this specific cross.

How are the protesters supposed to know?

Excuse me, but if a family member of a dead soldier removed a cross with their child's name on it, I'll take that to mean they don't want their child's name used to make a statement.

I don't call it vandalism, I call it trying to get their wish honored. Something that Sheehan's people don't want to do.

It's simple. If the parent identified themself as the soldier's parent and said they did not want it used and then took it, then whoever replaced it is an asshat. If said parent just went up and took it, can you blame the protestors for replacing it?

I, for one, would like more info. How about you, would you like more info?

If I had lost a child, removed a cross with their name from the Sheehan camp, and someone immediately replaced it...I would pull up the new cross and proceed to smack them with it while I again informed them of my wishes. Just keep smacking that mule between the eyes until they understand. Also, how does exhibiting crosses pay respect to the wishes and beliefs of fallen soldiers of non-Christian faith?
So violence is the solution? Simply amazing. :rolleyes:

It's simple. If the parent identified themself as the soldier's parent and said they did not want it used and then took it, then whoever replaced it is an asshat. If said parent just went up and took it, can you blame the protestors for replacing it?

I, for one, would like more info. How about you, would you like more info?

We're assuming they are. But yea I would but if they continue to do it after they identified themself as a family member of said name on cross and continue to do it, then they aren't honoring the family's wishes.

Well, it would seem to me that if the parents remove the crosses and the anti-war protestors immediately replace them, they are doing so fully aware that it is in opposition to the fallen soldier's family's wishes. (apostrophes are running rampant). They don't care about the "loss" of military families...they care about pushing their agenda no matter who it hurts.
I wish the news article was actually clearer on this one. Crosses were removed, did the removers ID themselves as family members? We don't know. Since someone decided to mow them down with his truck, it would seem logical to assume that the crosses were being removed to stop the protest.

But again, we do not know. Now, if they DID ask, and DID ID themselves, the protesters are... being dumb asses? Sorry, it's late in Japan and my brian just fried for words.

However, I would say that BOTH sides are using this to push their political agendas, without really caring about the real people caught in the middle.

COMMENTARY: I don't blame these families at all for not wanting their sons or daughters used as propaganda tools by Cindy Sheehan.

Good for them. I would hope that they would extend that and not want their sons or daughters used as propaganda tools by George Bush, but I have doubt that they are doing anything about that.

It doesn't cease to be propaganda just because you agree with it.

We're assuming they are. But yea I would but if they continue to do it after they identified themself as a family member of said name on cross and continue to do it, then they aren't honoring the family's wishes.

I agree. Another possibility is that the person who replaced the cross is just a jerk (they seem to pop up everywhere, regardless of race, creed, gender or political affiliation,) and doesn't really represent the dozens of people there. We don't know.

I agree. Another possibility is that the person who replaced the cross is just a jerk (they seem to pop up everywhere, regardless of race, creed, gender or political affiliation,) and doesn't really represent the dozens of people there. We don't know.

I agree. Jerks are everywhere and spread across every social strata and political affiliations.

I'm glad we can finally agree on something :)

Sue me.
Don't tempt me.

Good for them. I would hope that they would extend that and not want their sons or daughters used as propaganda tools by George Bush, but I have doubt that they are doing anything about that.

It doesn't cease to be propaganda just because you agree with it.
One man's "propaganda" is another man's "gospel." :)

1) Bush did not intentionally lie. Faulty intel =/= lying. We've already have this tap dance and I'm getting really tired of setting the record straight.

You can't really set the record straight, because you don't actually know the truth. Bush might have lied. He might have known that the intel was bad but used it as an excuse anyways. He might have suspected that the intel was faulty, but wanted to go ahead anyways and acted like he didn't.

In truth, I don't think Bush actively lied. But I do know that he intentionally surrounds himself with incompetence if the competent don't say what he wants to hear. I have no reason at all to believe that he doesn't do this with all of his advisors. Thus, while he may have truly been given faulty intel, I have no reason to believe it wasn't his own fault for only surrounding himself with those who would give him such information.

Quick one...Casey's father, siblings, and other family members have stated that he did not share his mother's views and would not want his memory used as a tool for her political activism.

You are going to have to source this. Everything I have read - even articles that Eutrusca himself has posted - have stated that neither Casey Sheehan's father, nor his siblings have said any such thing. In fact, everything I have seen has said they have all been silent on the matter of whether or not they agree with Cindy Sheehan's actions.

Hmm. So let me see if I've got this straight:

I served in the US Army. At least one of the reasons for my having done so was to ( in some small way ) protect the right to free speech.

Now I find that I disagree with someone who is exercising that right to free speech.

( With me so far? )

Now ... somehow ... because I disagree with what someone says, I don't have the right to protest that what they are saying is contrary to what I believe? Even though I fought for that right? Or perhaps, in some demented lefty way, because I fought for that right???

So although it's ok for me to fight for someone else's right to free speech, doing so means that I can't excercise that same right?

Hello? What's wrong with this picture???
This is what is wrong with this picture (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9488752&postcount=78):

'George Bush and his neo-conservatives killed my son,' she said tearing up a bit. 'America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for.'"

Verbatim, word for word.
It is this kind of bullshit/slander that makes your country, and people such as yourself, look real bad, as in intolerant, and against freedom of speech. Because people have a different view than yours, then it is okay to slander them? Disagreeing is one thing, slander, well that is a whole new ball game.

What did Sheehan really say? (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm)

”I’m going all over the country telling moms: “This country is not worth dying for. If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq.”

Your posts on these types of situations seem to fuel the divide amongst your people and IMHO promotes hatred.

I agree. Jerks are everywhere and spread across every social strata and political affiliations.

I'm glad we can finally agree on something :)

And to think someone once listed me as one of the most partisan posters here (when I was just plain old Gymoor.) :D

One man's "propaganda" is another man's "gospel." :)

Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

Again, it doesn't cease to be propaganda just because one agrees with it. It is still propaganda. I agree that families should be opposed to their sons' and daughters' deaths being used in propaganda, but they should be opposed to all such use, not just use in the propaganda they don't like.

A man walks up to a cross. He removes it.

How are we supposed to know it's his son's name on the cross? Has he said anything? Without some sort of verbal exchange, there's no way to know if the guy's just antagonizing the Sheenan protester or if he has a specific beef with this specific cross.

How are the protesters supposed to know?

You have been there and know that they are doing this without identifying themselves or expressing their wishes? It seems as if the media knows the names and family connections of these parents, then the Sheehanians can't help but know. Also, as they seem to have more crosses to replace each one removed, they fully understand that not all of the families agree with them...they just don't care.

So violence is the solution? Simply amazing.

If reason doesn't work, then yes, I would resort to violence to protect my child or the memory of my child in the face of a bunch of leeches.

And to think someone once listed me as one of the most partisan posters here (when I was just plain old Gymoor.) :D
[ Presents Gymoor II with the "Most Partisan Fruit & Nut Award." ]

There ya go, dude. We even named it after your favorite State! :D

You have been there and know that they are doing this without identifying themselves or expressing their wishes? It seems as if the media knows the names and family connections of these parents, then the Sheehanians can't help but know. Also, as they seem to have more crosses to replace each one removed, they fully understand that not all of the families agree with them...they just don't care.--snip--

Well yeah, they know now, do you have any information that states that this is continuing?

You are going to have to source this. Everything I have read - even articles that Eutrusca himself has posted - have stated that neither Casey Sheehan's father, nor his siblings have said any such thing. In fact, everything I have seen has said they have all been silent on the matter of whether or not they agree with Cindy Sheehan's actions.

http://sacunion.com/pages/sacramento/articles/5895

“The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son’s good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.”

The letter is attributed to “Casey Sheehan’s grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins

Not to mention that her husband is divorcing her and both have contributed Casey's death and the difference in ideologies surrounding it as the main cause of the breakdown of their marriage.

You have been there and know that they are doing this without identifying themselves or expressing their wishes? It seems as if the media knows the names and family connections of these parents, then the Sheehanians can't help but know. Also, as they seem to have more crosses to replace each one removed, they fully understand that not all of the families agree with them...they just don't care.
You have been there and know for a fact that they identified themselves before removing the crosses? As previously stated, we lack information to make an informed decision.

As for your statement about violence: go ahead. You'll be arrested and thrown in jail while the protest you were associated with will be disbanded for disturbing the peace. See if that helps your cause. :rolleyes:

http://sacunion.com/pages/sacramento/articles/5895

That's nice. It still doesn't back up your statement. Last I checked, "grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins," do not equate to "father and siblings."

Not to mention that her husband is divorcing her and both have contributed Casey's death and the difference in ideologies surrounding it as the main cause of the breakdown of their marriage.

Actually, from what I have seen they have contributed to a difference in how they are dealing with their son's death, which is not the same as conflicting ideologies. Cindy Sheehan herself has said that her husband's views are less extreme than her own, but that they fall along the same lines. He has said nothing to contradict this.

I think Bush is right for not meeting with sheehan again. she had her chance and I don't want my President wasting his time meeting with her again merely because she has had a moment of esprit d'escalier. her son was a big boy and knew what he was doing when he signed up - whatever his reasons for doing so. We are in Iraq protecting a status quo for the future. Our government's responsibility is to ensure the best quality of life for current and future generations of its citizens. We will not always agree as to exactly what the "best quality of life" is or the manner of ensuring it - I don't care who is in the whitehouse or on the Supreme Court or in Congress.

But just because you disagree with someone else's opinion on the matter does not give you the right to personally attack their character or run them down. I am apalled at the personal attacks levied by all sides of the political spectrum regarding this issue both within this forum and without. Has noone any basic human respect for each other anymore?

*Ends Dennis Miller style rant* *pant pant pant*

We are in Iraq protecting a status quo for the future.Status quo? Huh? You've got to be kidding.

No - status quo in this case refers to oil and power or influence in the middle east. It's not pretty, but it is at the heart of our reason for being in Iraq.

No - status quo in this case refers to oil and power or influence in the middle east. It's not pretty, but it is at the heart of our reason for being in Iraq.That's actually a better answer than I thought I would get. It really does show that you've put more thought into it than I expected. (I tip my hat to you)
I'd disagree on the moral validity of how that status quo is being achieved, though.

I do too. But I'm too lazy to get off my Monday-morning-armchair-quarterback ass to do something about it.

George W Bush has handled the situations of his Presidency better than Al Gore and John Kerry both would have. He has taken a stand and will not back down because he gets a little criticism and I think that he was Re-Elected so at least half the country thinks he doing a good job.

I wish to call bullshit, although I know that in ten pages of post, this has probably already been brought up (you'll forgive me for not examining every page of this debate):

Kerry and Edwards lost because most thought that he was incompetent. Keep in mind, that if it were Clinton or some other smarter Democrat running, Bush wouldn't have stood a chance. It was all, therefor, about picking the lesser of the two evils: a stupid democrat or a stupid president who already knew a little bit of what he was doing. He didn't win out of a popularity contest, so you can pull that over cooked chicken out of your ass now.

When you disagree with a war many people forget that a war does not happen without people therefore if you protest the war you protest the people fighting the war. A better point would be the exact reason why we are fighting even in Iraq that is the day of September 11, 2001 when 21 attempt terrorist attacked the World Trade Centers and killed upwards of 3,000 people form almost 90 different countries if that is not an attack on the world then what is? These soldiers who have died do not deserve to be dishonored by a grieving mother even with the parent’s permission to place their crosses in a ditch, but what just appalling are the protesters taking the crosses of soldiers whose parents have not granted permission. What continues to distress me is that after the parents have come and taken the children’s crosses down the protester go back and replace them with more. This is not only dishonoring the parents and the soldiers this is showing us that these people are not really grieving for their children they are out with an agenda to destroy the president not peace in fact I would like to add personally I do not believe that a soldier would down with this and leave his fellow men and women who he or she is fighting with alone to fight the war. These brave people fight for one another before their country it is about the person beside them. Oh by the way the President of this country is the President of the United States meaning that we are all Americans if you do not believe that he is your President then leave and go where you think that your president reside. That is what the Presidential elections are for, and no matter how much the media coats a Democratic nominee the people will decide try to make sure that the media does not decide for you. also an add on if Clinaton (uh) would have been in office he would have said "OH well lets talk to them some more and see what happens" or he would have shot missiles at them you want to know why i can say this because that is exactly what he did in the past the man was and is a coward nothing more. And if you call me a liar just remember what happened in Yaman like the USS Cole you tell me if that was not a direct attack agaisnt our nation. You know what lets put you on the USS Cole and see what you think after the explosive went off and your dying just after eating. Thats what happened to those severice man and women. Think about it may be you might see that all of the extremeist Islamic groups want us dead and that's all they want and if they killed us all off they would just turn on one another just like what they are doing know in Iraq. The insurgants are going after Iraqies and not only the military also the civilans answer that and why. :(

Really should do something about that martyr complex.

Right wing fanatical extremists have that problem don't they?

Chocolate Jesus on a peppermint cross! Why do so many people have such sand in their crack about Cindy Sheehan?

Some of the same people whining here about Ms. Sheehan's opinions routinely waive the bloody flag when it suits their cause -- i.e., pro-war. They routinely claim we can't disagree with them because it would insult soldiers or their families. That has always been bullshit.

One woman raised an Eagle Scout and a soldier. She doesn't think she has been given a good reason for why he had to fight and die in Iraq. She isn't the only grieving mother or widow to feel that way. Get over the fact that she won't just quietly go away so Bush can have a nice vacation during his war.

You can criticize the war without criticize the troops. In fact, you can value the lives of our soldiers enough to not want to see them die unless absolutely necessary to further a compelling cause.

Many families of servicemen think this war was ill-started or ill-waged. Many military officials and ex-military officials have agreed.

I'm not particularly obsessed or care about Ms. Sheehan's opinion. I have always thought the test for going to war ought to be a necessity and compelling justification for the loss of American lives and killing of others.

COMMENTARY: I don't blame these families at all for not wanting their sons or daughters used as propaganda tools by Cindy Sheehan. As far as I'm concerned this is a continuation of the disrespect of deceased military personnel which began with Ms. Sheehan's disrespect for her son. I regard this as a serious breach of ethics on the part of the "anti-war protestors."

Meh. 13 crosses out of over 600 allegedly removed by "friends or relatives." (one person said that their were 12 other families) Not exactly an overwhelming objection.

You have strongly supported the use of crosses as public war memorials, but now they are suddenly disrespectful?

These people can use their sons or daughters as "propaganda tools" by erecting the crosses in a "pro-war" camp, but any mother, father, or widow of a deceased military member is showing disrespect if they question why their loved one had to die?

Your hypocrisy is a serious breach of ethics. Shame.

--snip--

While I support your right to have an opinion, it'd be nice if you actually read the thread before submitting to it, as a number of things you brought up have already been commented on by both sides.

Also, what does 9/11 have to do with Cindy Sheehan or the Iraq War?

Welcome to the forum though. Please heed my advice in the 1st paragraph, otherwise you might be in for a hard time.

Right wing fanatical extremists have that problem don't they?

On the contrary, I think they don't have that problem enough. Martyrs have to die, after all... :D

I am just kidding folks. Have a beer and relax.

If I had lost a child, removed a cross with their name from the Sheehan camp, and someone immediately replaced it...I would pull up the new cross and proceed to smack them with it while I again informed them of my wishes. Just keep smacking that mule between the eyes until they understand. Also, how does exhibiting crosses pay respect to the wishes and beliefs of fallen soldiers of non-Christian faith?

I am glad to see that you agree with me -- and disagree with an opinion Eutrusca has stated many times -- that giant public crosses are not particularly appropriate war memorials.

Or, did you just say that to attack the protestors?

A better point would be the exact reason why we are fighting even in Iraq that is the day of September 11, 2001 when 21 attempt terrorist attacked the World Trade Centers and killed upwards of 3,000 people form almost 90 different countries if that is not an attack on the world then what is?

Two things.

1: Iraq has no evident link to the events that led to the hijacking and subsequent crashes in 2001. Get your facts straight.

2: World Trade Centers do not equate the world. They equate a business center in New York City. An attack on American soil against America. Not against the world.


What continues to distress me is that after the parents have come and taken the children’s crosses down the protester go back and replace them with more.

Insufficient information to determine whether said parents identified themselves as such when removing crosses. Also insufficient information to determine whether all crosses were removed by respective parents or not.


This is not only dishonoring the parents and the soldiers this is showing us that these people are not really grieving for their children they are out with an agenda to destroy the president not peace in fact I would like to add personally I do not believe that a soldier would down with this and leave his fellow men and women who he or she is fighting with alone to fight the war.


Both sides are using the memory of fallen soldiers to attack an opponent politically. Where's the honoring in that?


That is what the Presidential elections are for, and no matter how much the media coats a Democratic nominee the people will decide try to make sure that the media does not decide for you. also an add on if Clinaton (uh) would have been in office he would have said "OH well lets talk to them some more and see what happens" or he would have shot missiles at them you want to know why i can say this because that is exactly what he did in the past the man was and is a coward nothing more.

It's Clinton. And your opinion does not translate to a prediction of the future. Particularly when talking about human behavior. Given the scale of damage done, there is a likely chance that things might have turned out differently from what you think might have happened.


And if you call me a liar just remember what happened in Yaman like the USS Cole you tell me if that was not a direct attack agaisnt our nation. You know what lets put you on the USS Cole and see what you think after the explosive went off and your dying just after eating.

Attack on naval ship in foreign land =/= attack on civilian commercial center on homeland. Just like an aluminium tube =/= ICBM.

I've said it before, but this guy says it better. A pacifist is as much a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most evil wrongdoer.

[img=http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/2008/bumpr2bq6wj.th.gif] (http://img203.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bumpr2bq6wj.gif)

Attack on naval ship in foreign land =/= attack on civilian commercial center on homeland. Just like an aluminium tube =/= ICBM.

But it is considered an attack on that nation the ship belongs too! A naval ship is considered soil of said nation. Just like an attack on an embassy is an attack on that nation that the embassy belongs too.

I've said it before, but this guy says it better. A pacifist is as much a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most evil wrongdoer.

[img=http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/2008/bumpr2bq6wj.th.gif] (http://img203.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bumpr2bq6wj.gif)

Congrats. You've just sent Einstein to his death. You've also disqualified yourself from the Anti-Idiot party. :D Roosevelt was a great man, but he was also a whackjob sometimes.

COMMENTARY: I don't blame these families at all for not wanting their sons or daughters used as propaganda tools by Cindy Sheehan. As far as I'm concerned this is a continuation of the disrespect of deceased military personnel which began with Ms. Sheehan's disrespect for her son. I regard this as a serious breach of ethics on the part of the "anti-war protestors."


Pro-war kin take down crosses at Sheehan site (http://www.military.com/earlybrief/0,,,00.html)


By Joyce Howard Price
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
August 25, 2005

Military families disturbed by a sea of crosses erected by anti-war protesters near President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, have removed crosses bearing the names of their fallen children and transferred them to another site to show support for American troops in Iraq. ~snip~

To these people, I say bravo. Cindy is actually doing a very bad, and possibly illegal, thing here by setting up these things with other peoples names without their families permission. Forget anything else, this is the real bad thing here. I must say that I support those people who are going down and taking them back. We should not be criticizing Bush like this. No one recognizes how hard it is to act in the face of such criticism, and he is very brave for never wavering in his stance on the war, no matter what anyone says. He deserves more respect than this. Those in Cindy's camp are just being bad people, carrying on like this. I recently saw President Bush speak at the 2005 National Boy Scout Jamboree in Virginia, and I must say, that he is by far the most intelligent and poised speaker that I have ever seen. Every word he said made my respect for him greater. So forget the war, the people there should be ashamed for disrespecting him so.

And one last thing, that flag they unfurl down there....it better be one damn big flag. ;)

To these people, I say bravo. Cindy is actually doing a very bad, and possibly illegal, thing here by setting up these things with other peoples names without their families permission. Forget anything else, this is the real bad thing here. I must say that I support those people who are going down and taking them back. We should not be criticizing Bush like this. No one recognizes how hard it is to act in the face of such criticism, and he is very brave for never wavering in his stance on the war, no matter what anyone says. He deserves more respect than this. Those in Cindy's camp are just being bad people, carrying on like this. I recently saw President Bush speak at the 2005 National Boy Scout Jamboree in Virginia, and I must say, that he is by far the most intelligent and poised speaker that I have ever seen. Every word he said made my respect for him greater. So forget the war, the people there should be ashamed for disrespecting him so.

And one last thing, that flag they unfurl down there....it better be one damn big flag. ;)

Just one thing: Have you or anyone else actually seen Cindy herself putting up the crosses?

Also, you can't be expected to be taken seriously if you honestly believe Bush to be the most intelligent and poised speaker you've ever seen, unless you grew up in a society/commune/village where a vow of silence was the norm. Even Bush backers who are honest with themselves and others admit that Bush mangles the english language.

I'm sorry, but by any impartial criteria, Bush is not a particularly intelligent speaker (which does not mean he isn't intelligent...an important distinction.) I do admit that Bush does an excellent job appealing emotionally to those inclined to side with him.

Congrats. You've just sent Einstein to his death. You've also disqualified yourself from the Anti-Idiot party. :D Roosevelt was a great man, but he was also a whackjob sometimes.

He loved hunting and was a great outdoorsman. Einstein would have never qualified as a grunt, his academic credentials would have made that an impossibility.

Just one thing: Have you or anyone else actually seen Cindy herself putting up the crosses?

Also, you can't be expected to be taken seriously if you honestly believe Bush to be the most intelligent and poised speaker you've ever seen, unless you grew up in a society/commune/village where a vow of silence was the norm. Even Bush backers who are honest with themselves and others admit that Bush mangles the english language.

I'm sorry, but by any impartial criteria, Bush is not a particularly intelligent speaker (which does not mean he isn't intelligent...an important distinction.) I do admit that Bush does an excellent job appealing emotionally to those inclined to side with him.

Hey, only speech of his I ever saw live. But yes, he was preceeded by Senator Frist, and I thought Bush was a much better speaker, and I do believe that he was an intelligent speaker, because I saw many televlised speeches, and they were all quite well done. But enough of that.

I used Cindy as general term for her and her supporters. The fact is, though, that whatever they're doing is possibly illegal, and she, as the leader, would have to take some of the blame. So I'm not accussing Cindy herself, of whom we have no evidence that she did that, but those who really did. I just used her name to keep things simple.

Just one thing: Have you or anyone else actually seen Cindy herself putting up the crosses?

Also, you can't be expected to be taken seriously if you honestly believe Bush to be the most intelligent and poised speaker you've ever seen, unless you grew up in a society/commune/village where a vow of silence was the norm. Even Bush backers who are honest with themselves and others admit that Bush mangles the english language.

I'm sorry, but by any impartial criteria, Bush is not a particularly intelligent speaker (which does not mean he isn't intelligent...an important distinction.) I do admit that Bush does an excellent job appealing emotionally to those inclined to side with him.

Bush is Smart (Graduated from Yale with much better grades than Kerry), intelligent, but like most Southerners, he speaks like we do (Southern Drawl) and that doesn't make him the greatest speaker. Leave the speaking To Condi or Little Mclelan.

Bush is Smart (Graduated from Yale with much better grades than Kerry), intelligent, but like most Southerners, he speaks like we do (Southern Drawl) and that doesn't make him the greatest speaker. Leave the speaking To Condi or Little Mclelan.

It's not his Southern accent, it's his word (or lack of word) choice. Other than that, you basically restated what I said.

Oh, and Bush's grades were only marginally better than Kerry's, and unlike Kerry, he was unable to make it into Law School.

So back the fuck off of Cindy Sheehan. She's bringing respect back to troops who have been disrespected by their Commander.
In other words" Don't use your freedom of speech to attack a liar using her's"
:rolleyes:

What those who have allied themselves with Ms Sheehan are doing thier damnest to disrespect every soldier who has served in the war on terror.

I'm encouraging every family who son or daughter has died over there to sue for using thier names and likenesses without permission.

Nothing in this country is more dangerous than a lawyer who smells money.

Why don't you just have a civil war and get it over with?

Wow is this deja vu?

People arguing that one idiot is smarter then another idiot.

Did anyboy mention Clinton? :)

Why are people screaming "That liar is using her sons death for propaganda purposes! What a bitch!"

Ok. How many times has the shrub referenced 9/11? A bazillion!

What's that saying about stones and glass houses?

Keep complaining about her! Bad publicity is still publicity. More people know about her because of all the complaining and vilification.....

Why don't you just have a civil war and get it over with?

You sure you want that? Think of all the refuges coming over to your area. ;)

You sure you want that? Think of all the refuges coming over to your area. ;)

I'm pretty sure we'd win this time. Where do you think most of the 270 milllion guns in American hands are?

I'm pretty sure we'd win this time. Where do you think most of the 270 milllion guns in American hands are?

Just because they're liberal; don't think they all hate guns.

My buddy did two tours in Nam with the rangers. He is uber-liberal and can probably outshoot most people.

I remember a woman I worked with who was uberliberal. Abortion rights protestor, peta protestor. She used to carry 2 uzi's in her car. Why? She lived in Oakland and needed the protection :)

Don't forget the two coasts have the gangs in New York and LA :p

Why don't you just have a civil war and get it over with?

Because we already learned our lessons for the civil war of the mid 1800s. I don't think we'll see another one.

But it is considered an attack on that nation the ship belongs too! A naval ship is considered soil of said nation. Just like an attack on an embassy is an attack on that nation that the embassy belongs too.

Key difference is the scale of damage done and to who it is done to, not to mention where. Nothing as of yet had produced the kind of mob fear and hatred that spread so quickly before.

Example.

Case #1
A gang has a shootout with the police before while robbing a bank near the borders before being killed. Little real media publication and concern. Easily forgotten soon enough by the majority of the public.

Case #2
A gang acquires a small arsenal of full sized assault weapons, full body armor even anti-tank weapons and an armored combat vehicle (don't ask how). They storm the National Bank in Washington DC, killing dozens of people before professionally demolishing the vault doors. They steal nearly a billion dollars while holding against anything and everything the police and SWAT can throw at them. They later escape, adding to the carnage when they break through a blockade with their heavy weapons. Only when the national guard is called in are they finally stopped and killed.

Which one do you think is going to last longer in the memories and provoke a stronger response?


Because we already learned our lessons for the civil war of the mid 1800s. I don't think we'll see another one.

I have faith in the ability of humanity to forget their lessons when it is convenient. Time will tell.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=440467&page=1&pp=15

Enough said.