NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031701280.html

It was a great day to be there.

We had permits for all of the ground from Constitution Island to the area across from the Lincoln Memorial, including the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

Guess the anti-war people didn't bother with a permit - they were shocked to find that the police wouldn't let them on the grounds there, and we were permitted to deny them access to the Wall while we were there.

I think they were honestly surprised that we showed up - the anti-war people seem to automatically assume that few, if any, will counter their demonstration, or deny them access to where they want to go.

The Rolling Thunder guys stood shoulder to shoulder across the walkway that leads to the memorial, and refused entry to any of the demonstrators who tried to get in. I was standing next to one of the vets when a woman carrying a peace sign and pulling a suitcase on wheels wanted to get past us.

“Excuse me,” she said, with a thick European accent.

“You can’t come in here,” he told her. “You’re not wanted.”

“What do you mean?” she exclaimed in outrage. “This is America! You can’t stop me going in there.”

“Oh, yes I can. Go back down there —” he pointed towards the Lincoln Memorial — “that’s where you’re wanted. And we’ll stay down here.”

He never did let her get by.

There were several DC cops opposite the vets, watching impassively from across the sidewalk next to Constitution Avenue. I asked one of them if the checkpoint was OK with him. He shrugged. “They’re not blocking the sidewalk. That’s all I care about.”

I actually saw this happen nearly continuously for a few hours.

Essentially, you can protest. But you had better have a permit for the location (the cops want to keep people apart), or you'll go straight to jail after the police pepper spray you.

So don't protest in the wrong place. Sorry, we were there first.

Ah, meaningless shouting, meaningless symbols and meaningless polarization. Makes one proud to be American. *wipes a tear from one eye*

;)

Many booed loudly as the protesters passed, turned their backs to them or yelled, "If you don't like America, get out!"
...
The vets turned both sides of Constitution into a bitter, charged gantlet for the war protesters. "Jihadists!" some vets screamed. "You're brain-dead!" Others chanted, "Workers World traitors must hang!" -- a reference to the Communist newspaper. Some broke into "The Star-Spangled Banner" as war protesters sought to hand out pamphlets.


How can you not just laugh? Or maybe cry a little...

How can you not just laugh? Or maybe cry a little...

Why do you hate freedom?....:p

How can you not just laugh? Or maybe cry a little...
Neither laugh nor cry, just hand out pity.

Are people who protest against wars anti-war protesters or war protesters?

Dammit, Londim, I intended to be the first to post "Why do you hate freedom"!

Haha I beat you! But yeah anyway this protest and counter protest is all good apart from the whole "Jihadists" shout which don't even make sense in this context..at all or "Get out of America." Hooray for freedom of speech.

Are people who protest against wars anti-war protesters or war protesters?

Dammit, Londim, I intended to be the first to post "Why do you hate freedom"!

As war protesters marched toward Arlington Memorial Bridge en route to the Pentagon yesterday, they were flanked by long lines of military veterans and others who stood in solidarity with U.S. troops and the Bush administration's cause in Iraq. Many booed loudly as the protesters passed, turned their backs to them or yelled, "If you don't like America, get out!"

Several thousand vets, some of whom came by bus from New Jersey, car caravans from California or flights from Seattle or Michigan, lined the route from the bridge and down 23rd Street, waving signs such as "War There Or War Here." Their lines snaked around the corner and down several blocks of Constitution Avenue in what organizers called the largest gathering of pro-administration counter-demonstrators since the war began four years ago.

The vets turned both sides of Constitution into a bitter, charged gantlet for the war protesters. "Jihadists!" some vets screamed. "You're brain-dead!" Others chanted, "Workers World traitors must hang!" -- a reference to the Communist newspaper. Some broke into "The Star-Spangled Banner" as war protesters sought to hand out pamphlets.
Some people just don't get it, do they?

you guys are great! its so much better to go to a protest where you get some conflict than to just walk along chatting about the weather. i bet this was the best anti-war protest ever!

Some people just don't get it, do they?
waving signs such as "War There Or War Here."
Judging by the level of stupidity required to believe that, it's obvious they don't learn.

ah...how wonderful.
Defending America's freedoms but not allowing people to go where they want. Blocking a single woman's path, hurling abuse and intimidating her.

"We're gonna defend the rights of freedom - as long as it's the freedom to agree with us!"

Bet that makes you proud to be an American, don't it?


I love how the reporter felt the necessity to make mention of the woman's accent. why was that? To imply she was somehow non-American? surely not! People who hurl abuse at and agressively intimidate a woman would surely not stoop so low as stereotype someone into being a weirdo commie foreigna type not from round these parts, yah?

Actually it was, like the protestors, pathetic.

They wanted 100,000. they got less than 10,000, the Eagles outnumbered them by 3:1.

http://www.gatheringofeagles.org/

The papers are reporting "hundreds of thousands"...which is a laugh, and as usual the mainstream media got it wrong.

And in other news, that f course the media buries on page three or four, Al Qaeda are now using chemical weapons (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...22-401,00.html)

The gas attack yesterday was the seventh this year in which insurgents have used chemical gas bombs on civilians and security forces in what appears to be a new terror tactic for al-Qaeda militants.

But of course, this isn't really news, is it.....nothing's a crime unless its committed by the United States of America.

Actually it was, like the protestors, pathetic.

They wanted 100,000. they got less than 10,000, the Eagles outnumbered them by 3:1.

http://www.gatheringofeagles.org/

The papers are reporting "hundreds of thousands"...which is a laugh, and as usual the mainstream media got it wrong.

And in other news, that f course the media buries on page three or four, Al Qaeda are now using chemical weapons (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...22-401,00.html)



But of course, this isn't really news, is it.....nothing's a crime unless its committed by the United States of America.
The chemical weapons were not found! :D

Protesting against the war = accepting al-Qaida's right to use chemical weapons? :confused:

Please elaborate.

That report said nothing of any abuse.
The vets turned both sides of Constitution into a bitter, charged gantlet for the war protesters. "Jihadists!" some vets screamed. "You're brain-dead!" Others chanted, "Workers World traitors must hang!"
gee...sure sounds like abuse to me. But apparently not to you.

Right = responsibility to use it wisely.
And threatening, intimidating and abusing a woman is responsible?

Glad I don't live in a world of your making.

Defending America's freedoms but not allowing people to go where they want. Blocking a single woman's path, hurling abuse and intimidating her.

That report said nothing of any abuse.

"We're gonna defend the rights of freedom - as long as it's the freedom to agree with us!"

They are free to use paint bombs and acid to attack the memorial?Thats what they threatened to so.

Bet that makes you proud to be an American, don't it?

Right = responsibility to use it wisely.

The chemical weapons were not found!

If this had been reported that US troops had used chlorine gas, would we be seeing this smartass reply?

I think not.

Protesting against the war = accepting al-Qaida's right to use chemical weapons?

Please elaborate.

Love to.

Soldiers get into a firefight and a civilian is killed accidentally...media goes berserk.

Al Qaeda uses chemical weapons against US troops and Iraqis.....dead silence, or buried on the back page.

Colour me surprised.

Actually it was, like the protestors, pathetic.
Yep, those pathetic first amendment rights.

They wanted 100,000. they got less than 10,000, the Eagles outnumbered them by 3:1.

http://www.gatheringofeagles.org/
And? The fact remains that the American public do not give their quote to the Iraq war. "Nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting", to quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html

The papers are reporting "hundreds of thousands"...which is a laugh, and as usual the mainstream media got it wrong.
Who to trust, biased right wing neoconservative vitriol, (which uses Fox as a reliable source - ha!) or the media. Hmm.

And in other news, that f course the media buries on page three or four, Al Qaeda are now using chemical weapons (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...22-401,00.html)
Because it's like, old. That might have been newsworthy when the war started, but since coalition forces needlessly die every day, it regrettably becomes old, tired and repeated news.

But of course, this isn't really news, is it.....nothing's a crime unless its committed by the United States of America.
I rank that with the "you hate freedom" and "but I have black friends!" lines.

Actually it was, like the protestors, pathetic.

They wanted 100,000. they got less than 10,000, the Eagles outnumbered them by 3:1.

http://www.gatheringofeagles.org/

The papers are reporting "hundreds of thousands"...which is a laugh, and as usual the mainstream media got it wrong.

And in other news, that f course the media buries on page three or four, Al Qaeda are now using chemical weapons (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...22-401,00.html)

But of course, this isn't really news, is it.....nothing's a crime unless its committed by the United States of America.

Yes, the fact that insurgents in Iraq (are you even sure it's Al Qaeda and not one of the OTHER factions fighting against our occupation of Iraq?) are using chlorine gas - using it very badly mind you, I understand they're building these bombs in a manner that causes the explosion to consume most of the gas and that the deaths are being cause mainly by the explosions themselves - is entirely relevant to this thread. :rolleyes:

i don't plan on wasting my time debating you, anyway.This forum and its members are leftist, biased, and when anyone dares disagree with them stick their fingers in their ears and go lalalala

And as for those "freedoms"..shall we discuss the death threats and abuse heaped upon any who dare question the Holy Writ of Saint Gore??

No?

Didn't think so.

If this had been reported that US troops had used chlorine gas, would we be seeing this smartass reply?

I think not.



Love to.

Soldiers get into a firefight and a civilian is killed accidentally...media goes berserk.

Al Qaeda uses chemical weapons against US troops and Iraqis.....dead silence, or buried on the back page.

Colour me surprised.
Maybe you missed that, but it was a reference to your link not working and coming up with "Page Not Found" which you haven't rectified. And yes, you would. I provide equal-opportunity smartass replies.

I still don't see how this links in with the protestors.

And in other news, that f course the media buries on page three or four, Al Qaeda are now using chemical weapons
Of course they didn't mention it was Al-Quieda, because it is the insurgents. And do you even know what chemicals they are using? Doubtful, that would require you to do something other than spout off uninformed emotional statements.

They are free to use paint bombs and acid to attack the memorial? Thats what they threatened to so.
No, that is what the veterans accused them of threatening.

i don't plan on wasting my time debating you,
Why would you? That would require you having the capacity to be able to intelligently reply to some one.

i don't plan on wasting my time debating you, anyway.This forum and its members are leftist, biased, and when anyone dares disagree with them stick their fingers in their ears and go lalalala

Well, people like you keep telling me "America, love it or leave it!" How about "Nationstates General, love it or leave it"?

i don't plan on wasting my time debating you, anyway.This forum and its members are leftist, biased, and when anyone dares disagree with them stick their fingers in their ears and go lalalala

And as for those "freedoms"..shall we discuss the death threats and abuse heaped upon any who dare question the Holy Writ of Saint Gore??

No?

Didn't think so.

Source?

i don't plan on wasting my time debating you, anyway.

Wait, does this mean that you're cutting and running and that we win this debate?

Hey --

If CRIMEfighters fight CRIME,

And FIREfighters fight FIRE,

What do FREEDOM fighters fight?

I'll take my answer off the air, Rush.

Who to trust, biased right wing neoconservative vitriol, (which uses Fox as a reliable source - ha!) or the media. Hmm.

I am quoting people who were there.And as for first amendment rights, a right is also a responsibility.Or did you miss that bit?

As opposed to biased left wing vitriol?

And threatening, intimidating and abusing a woman is responsible?

Glad I don't live in a world of your making.

Re read the article.

Oh yeah

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21401822-401,00.html

* Seventh chemical attack this year
* Iraq television reports six deaths
* Increased use of dirty bombs on soft targets

AT least 350 Iraqi civilians needed hospital treatment after insurgents detonated three trucks filled with toxic chlorine gas, killing two policemen.

The gas attack yesterday was the seventh this year in which insurgents have used chemical gas bombs on civilians and security forces in what appears to be a new terror tactic for al-Qaeda militants.

The attacks were carried out between 4.11pm (12.11am AEDT Saturday) and 7.13pm on Friday, two of them just south of the town of Fallujah and one northeast of the nearby city of Ramadi, both hotbeds of al-Qaeda militants.

“Approximately 350 Iraqi civilians and six coalition force members were treated for chlorine gas exposure,” Lieutenant Roger Hollenbeck of the US-led Multinational Division West said.

Iraqi state television reported that at least six people were killed in the blasts, but the US military could initially confirm only the deaths of two Iraqi policemen in the second explosion, in Ameriyah, outside Fallujah.

“Coalition forces confirmed that the Ameriyah citizens exposed to the chlorine were treated locally for symptoms ranging from minor skin and lung irritation to vomiting,” Lt Hollenbeck said.

In each attack a suicide bomber detonated a vehicle packed with explosives and gas canisters near police and civilian targets.

Iraqi interior ministry operations director Brigadier-General Abdel Karim Khalaf confirmed the bombings and suggested they may have been carried out to avenge recent government successes against insurgents in Ramadi.

The attacks brought to five the number of such bombings since January 28 in western Iraq's Anbar province - the heartland of the insurgency.

Two similar dirty bomb blasts been reported in the capital, Baghdad.

Iraqi and US forces have launched a large-scale operation in and around Baghdad to root out insurgents and quell sectarian violence.

A coalition of Sunni tribes from Anbar have united in opposition to al-Qaeda, sending thousands of young men to join the government security forces and cooperating with US and Iraqi commanders.

In response, the insurgents have modified their tactics, adding gas bombs to their arsenal and striking soft targets in the belt of small towns around the capital that are thus far beyond the reach of the security plan.

Can you read it now?

No, when we disagree with you we point out that you are wrong. And use things like 'facts', 'reason' and 'reality' to do so, rather than hyperbole and hearsay.


That's the problem you have to use hyperbole and hearsay or neo-cons don't understand. They don't seem to speak fact, reason, or reality.

Actually it was, like the protestors, pathetic.

They wanted 100,000. they got less than 10,000, the Eagles outnumbered them by 3:1.

http://www.gatheringofeagles.org/

The papers are reporting "hundreds of thousands"...which is a laugh, and as usual the mainstream media got it wrong.

Well, if the Gathering of Eagles said it, it must be true, since they have no stake in it.

The sight is priceless. The armbands (http://www.freeandeasyfundraising.com/goe_store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=5&zenid=202cc9rqln0j4p04hcc70c1n51)? Really? Priceless. Oh, and The KickAss Song (http://www.freeandeasyfundraising.com/goe_store/images/wallmusic.jpg). Delightful.
And in other news, that f course the media buries on page three or four, Al Qaeda are now using chemical weapons (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...22-401,00.html)



But of course, this isn't really news, is it.....nothing's a crime unless its committed by the United States of America.
Ah yes, when I get my copy of The Media I always flip to the fourth or fifth page to see whats up in the 'other news...'

The gas attack yesterday was the seventh this year in which insurgents have used chemical gas bombs on civilians and security forces in what appears to be a new terror tactic for al-Qaeda militants.
The only person suggesting this is al-Qaeda is Dave Clark.
Every credible news source isn't speculating about who is doing it, which makes them real reporters.
Also note, he got that link from FOX news as it is the only information they have about the attack. FOX fails credibility check again.

i don't plan on wasting my time debating you, anyway.This forum and its members are leftist, biased, and when anyone dares disagree with them stick their fingers in their ears and go lalalala
No, when we disagree with you we point out that you are wrong. And use things like 'facts', 'reason' and 'reality' to do so, rather than hyperbole and hearsay.

And as for those "freedoms"..shall we discuss the death threats and abuse heaped upon any who dare question the Holy Writ of Saint Gore??

No?

Didn't think so.
Go on then. I'm game.

Well, people like you keep telling me "America, love it or leave it!"

Well...

1. I'm not an American

2. I never said that.

How about "Nationstates General, love it or leave it"?

Ah yes..."free speech for me and none for thee".I see you don't practise what you preach.

I am quoting people who were there.And as for first amendment rights, a right is also a responsibility.Or did you miss that bit?
No, I didn't miss it, and yes, I think it is bogus. Were they damaging property? No. Were they harming any person? No. Were they saying anything offensive about any person? No. There is no constitutional responsibility in order to say only what others agree with.

As opposed to biased left wing vitriol?
I don't link to it or use it as a source, do I?

No, when we disagree with you we point out that you are wrong.

Where am i wrong.

There were only 10,000 odd at the Memorial protest.

And use things like 'facts', 'reason' and 'reality' to do so, rather than hyperbole and hearsay.

Like the news article I just posted stating the facts of a chemical weapons strike in Iraq and the failure of any of the other media to even report it??And the factual observation that had this been the US troops this would be screaming headline news worldwide??

It isn't a fact that the media is slanted, biased, are liars and routinely distort the facts to suit their own agenda?

You're kidding, right?

Well...

1. I'm not an American

2. I never said that.



Ah yes..."free speech for me and none for thee".I see you don't practise what you preach.

Just attempting to turn a typical argument from right wingnuts on it's head. Also if you're not an American why do you care so much about our anti/pro war protests?

Ah yes..."free speech for me and none for thee".I see you don't practise what you preach.
Nationstates is a private members-only forum. Capitol hill isn't.

And as for those "freedoms"..shall we discuss the death threats and abuse heaped upon any who dare question the Holy Writ of Saint Gore??

No?

Didn't think so.

Let me try this again, a bit louder:

Source?

Like the news article I just posted stating the facts of a chemical weapons strike in Iraq and the failure of any of the other media to even report it??
Bullshit. I saw it on the news yesterday, which is why I am calling you on your link to a bullshit report by a guy with an agenda.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/17/iraq.main/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17659270/

The only information FOX News has on it is the link to the Australia news.com. And that required me to look for it. CNN and MSNBC have a link to the story on the front page. Reconcile that.

Like the news article I just posted stating the facts of a chemical weapons strike in Iraq and the failure of any of the other media to even report it??And the factual observation that had this been the US troops this would be screaming headline news worldwide??

Failure of other media to report it? I heard about it on ABC's world News Tonight a few nights ago. Unlike you I also heard that these gas bombs are poorly made and consuming most of their gas in the explosion.

<Edit: as for being screaming headline news if America had been using chemical weapons: America is signatory to a ban on the use of such weapons. Can someone point me to a source showing that Iraq signed a similar treaty?>

Ah, meaningless shouting, meaningless symbols and meaningless polarization. Makes one proud to be American. *wipes a tear from one eye*

;)

*cries with pride*

Nationstates is a private members-only forum. Capitol hill isn't.

No one limited their "right to free speech", what WAS limited was access to a Memorial the protestors themselves had threatened to deface.

Oh and, yeah I will take the word of the Eagles. Of their integrity I have no question.

No one limited their "right to free speech", what WAS limited was access to a Memorial the protestors themselves had threatened to deface.
Wrong. The veterans accused them of threatening to deface it. They denied it.

No one limited their "right to free speech", what WAS limited was access to a Memorial the protestors themselves had threatened to deface.

Oh and, yeah I will take the word of the Eagles. Of their integrity I have no question.

I do. I have LOTS of questions about their integrity.

Where am i wrong.

There were only 10,000 odd at the Memorial protest.
I was talking about in general, your opinions about the Iraq war. There could well have been only 10,000 people at the protest. There could have been only one for all I know or care. What I do know and care about is that a good majority of the American (and British) people no longer support this madness in Iraq. That sounds more than 1,000,000,000 protectors.


Like the news article I just posted stating the facts of a chemical weapons strike in Iraq and the failure of any of the other media to even report it??And the factual observation that had this been the US troops this would be screaming headline news worldwide??
BBC reported it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6385033.stm

CNN even tells you where it might have come from
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/22/iraq.main/index.html

Yahoo even reported it in February:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070222/ts_nm/iraq1_dc

It isn't a fact that the media is slanted, biased, are liars and routinely distort the facts to suit their own agenda?
Yes - but some less than others, and most less than blogs.

You're kidding, right?
Nope, whatever it is you're going on about.

No one limited their "right to free speech", what WAS limited was access to a Memorial the protestors themselves had threatened to deface.

Oh and, yeah I will take the word of the Eagles. Of their integrity I have no question.

Judging by the fact you are lying about what the protesters "threatened", I must question their integrity.

Source??

Sure.Here

http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=179899

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

http://www.iowavoice.com/2007/03/11/scientists-who-challenge-global-warming-ideology-threatened/

Theres more if you like...but I am sure you can find it.
So threats only count when they are against some one you agree with? Why arn't you deriding the Eagles? Or the other anti-protest protesters?

No one limited their right to free speech because they are not in a private, members only forum. Emphasis on the word private.

Nor did I limit his rights to free speech. I simply suggested that he might find another forum more to his liking; just as several American right wingnuts have suggested I might prefer moving to Iran (although really Canada would be my preference if I had enough money to emigrate).

No one limited their "right to free speech", what WAS limited was access to a Memorial the protestors themselves had threatened to deface.
No one limited their right to free speech because they are not in a private, members only forum. Emphasis on the word private.

Oh and, yeah I will take the word of the Eagles. Of their integrity I have no question.
A very poor decision, to judge bias based only on whether you agree with it.

This forum is fucking ridiculous. They need to upgrade or downgrade the software to something fucking stable.

Source??

Sure.Here

http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=179899

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

http://www.iowavoice.com/2007/03/11/scientists-who-challenge-global-warming-ideology-threatened/

Theres more if you like...but I am sure you can find it.

Source??

Sure.Here

http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=179899


Reliable source?

When discussing war, I tend to listen to the warriors.
http://www.ivaw.org/
What do I win?

FORUM WARP EDIT: Oh for fuck's sake.

This forum is fucking ridiculous. They need to upgrade or downgrade the software to something fucking stable.

Agreed, we're in server hell these days.

Source??

Sure.Here

http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=179899

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

http://www.iowavoice.com/2007/03/11/scientists-who-challenge-global-warming-ideology-threatened/

Theres more if you like...but I am sure you can find it.
Even if it were true (and from your unreliable sources I doubt it), does that hardly reflects upon the large majority of people who believe in climate change. Saying so is like saying all Iraq war supporters are torturers because of Abu Ghraib.

Really, to attack anti-war campaigners you'll have to do better than that.

When discussing war, I tend to listen to the warriors.When discussing Iraq, I talk with Iraq vets both past and present.When discussing Vietnam, I talk tio Vietnam vets.

<nods> Because these are all unbiased sources who have never done anything wrong and certainly none of them have anything to hide or cover up. Also no one else knows anything about the subject.

A very poor decision, to judge bias based only on whether you agree with it.

When discussing war, I tend to listen to the warriors.When discussing Iraq, I talk with Iraq vets both past and present.When discussing Vietnam, I talk tio Vietnam vets.

When discussing the Gathering, I ask people who were there.

I have found that when I ask for facts, I get them.

When i want hyperbole, lies, distortions, I read the papers.

In all honesty, most of the details I get on Iraq are from people who are there...and you know what? They're asking what the hell is going on.

No one is asking them what they think.Why don't you, personally, ask a soldier in Iraq what he or she thinks of this war?? The answer may surprise you.

Source??

Sure.Here

http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=179899

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

http://www.iowavoice.com/2007/03/11/scientists-who-challenge-global-warming-ideology-threatened/

Theres more if you like...but I am sure you can find it.

Okay. Here's the ACTUAL source of the "Liberty Post" link:

http://newsbusters.org/node/11345

A site created by Noel Sheppard.

Noel Sheppard
History
Blog:
view recent blog entries
Private messages:
login or register to send private messages to this user
Member for:
1 year 33 weeks
About Me
Profile:
Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and a featured writer at the prestigious American Thinker. He is also a contributing writer to the Business and Media Institute and a contributing editor for NewsBusters. He welcomes your feedback at nsheppard@costlogic.com.

My Other Sites:
Besides the American Thinker and the Business and Media Institute, Noel's work can often be seen at Chronwatch.com, The Rant.us, OpEds.com, and other right-thinking webjournals.


Here's the text from their "ABOUT" section.

About NewsBusters.org
Posted by Brent Baker on August 1, 2005 - 07:35.
Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.

In August of 2005, with the guidance of Matthew and Greg Sheffield, the creators of RatherBiased.com, the MRC launched the NewsBusters blog to provide immediate exposure of liberal media bias, insightful analysis, constructive criticism and timely corrections to news media reporting.

Taking advantage of the MRC's thorough and ongoing tracking of liberal media bias, including a wealth of documentation and an archive of newscast video dating back 18 years, we aim to have NewsBusters play a leading role in blog media criticism by becoming the clearinghouse for all evidence of liberal media bias by joining to this formidable information store the contributions of already-established netizens as well as those who want to join in the web revolution.

Contacting Us

If you are a blogger and would like to contribute commentary, contact Managing Editor Ken Shepherd. News media inquiries about NewsBusters.org should be directed to the MRC's Director of Communications, Michael Chapman. For technical issues, send an e-mail to Matthew Sheffield, Executive Editor, at: newsbusters@mediaresearch.org

Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's mission is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. The MRC was founded on October 1, 1987 by a group of young, determined conservatives headed by L. Brent Bozell III who set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that this bias exists, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene.

NewsBusters.org is a project of the MRC's News Analysis Division, led since 1987 by Brent Baker, the MRC's Steven P.J. Wood Senior Fellow and Vice President for Research and Publications. The division produces daily, weekly and special reports that document and counter liberal bias from television network news shows and major print publications. Tim Graham serves as Director of Media Analysis and Rich Noyes is the Director of Research.



I ask you, does ANY of this sound like UNBIASED sources?

I'm going with "not no, but HELL no."

And who is Brent Bozell?

According to SourceWatch: (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brent_Bozell)

Brent Bozell is the founder and President of the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog organization.

Bozell is also the founder and President of the Parents Television Council, a self-described "only Hollywood-based organization dedicated to restoring responsibility to the entertainment industry."

"In June 1998, Mr. Bozell launched the Conservative Communications Center (C3) to provide the conservative movement with the marketing and public relations tools necessary to deliver its message into the 21st century. C3's online news division, the Cybercast News Service at www.CNSNews.com, has become a major internet news source with a full staff of journalists in its Washington, DC metro bureau, and operates bureaus in London and Jerusalem, with other correspondents around the world," his biographical note states.

Bozell is a nationally syndicated writer whose work has appeared in a wide range of publications.

"Mr. Bozell is Executive Director of the Conservative Victory Committee (CVC), an independent multi-candidate political action committee that has helped elect dozens of conservative candidates over the past ten years. He was National Finance Chairman for the 1992 Buchanan for President campaign, and Finance Director and later President of the former National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC). He currently belongs to the Council for National Policy (CNP) and sits on the Board of Directors of the American Conservative Union (ACU)," his biographical note states.

Media Transparency describes L. Brent Bozell III as "a zealot of impeccable right-wing pedigree. He is the nephew of columnist William F. Buckley and the son of L. Brent Bozell, Jr., who assisted Barry Goldwater with the writing of Conscience of a Conservative. He was the chief fund-raiser behind Pat Buchanan's unsuccessful bid for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1992.

According to Media Transparency, Bozell helped orchestrate the smear campaign directed at the opposition to Clarence Thomas's appointment to the Supreme Court in 1991. During the 2004 elections Bozell launched a 2.8 million dollar campaign to discredit the "liberal media". His column on the eve of the Republican National Convention attempted to smear John Kerry by accusing him of "soldier-smearing", for having reported, during his 1971 Congressional testimony, on atrocities being committed in Vietnam.

So at the very least, this is boiling down to a whole lot of "Right said, Left said", which is not prove, but polemic. If HALF the things SourceWatch reports are true, I wouldn't be too smug in posting things from his site as being "unbiased".

Free Pacific Nations, your source is made of fail. Nice try, though.

Even the ones that are against the war?


The people who are least likely to tell you the undistorted truth.


See above.


Ah, I see. You believe this "evil liberal media - only Fox tells the truth" bollocks.

In all fairness, biased reporting isn't solely a Fox News attribute. They just get tagged because they're more obvious about it. You can't tell me CNN doesn't have a left-leaning agenda....

When discussing war, I tend to listen to the warriors.When discussing Iraq, I talk with Iraq vets both past and present.When discussing Vietnam, I talk tio Vietnam vets.
Even the ones that are against the war?

When discussing the Gathering, I ask people who were there.
The people who are least likely to tell you the undistorted truth.

I have found that when I ask for facts, I get them.
See above.

When i want hyperbole, lies, distortions, I read the papers.
Ah, I see. You believe this "evil liberal media - only Fox tells the truth" bollocks.

When discussing war, I tend to listen to the warriors.When discussing Iraq, I talk with Iraq vets both past and present.When discussing Vietnam, I talk tio Vietnam vets.
And everyone knows that going to war makes you incable of lying.

When discussing the Gathering, I ask people who were there.
Again, I'm sure none of them owuld ever dare to lie.
I have found that when I ask for facts, I get them.
Ah, well if you asked them to tell the truth I'm sure they did.
When i want hyperbole, lies, distortions, I read the papers.
Can't fault you on that one though :(

nods> Because these are all unbiased sources who have never done anything wrong and certainly none of them have anything to hide or cover up.

Oh I see..so if I was to talk to a veteran of Long Tan I wouldn't get accurate information, but if I was to ask someone who wasn't there..they'd know much more.

Got it.

Also no one else knows anything about the subject.

I have not been to Iraq.Those who have been there , know more than I do...hence I listen to them.

You know more about whats going on in Baghdad than General Petraus does?.

Wow.

In all honesty, most of the details I get on Iraq are from people who are there...and you know what? They're asking what the hell is going on.

No one is asking them what they think.Why don't you, personally, ask a soldier in Iraq what he or she thinks of this war?? The answer may surprise you.

Okay, Professor, I'll ask Washington State Senator Steve Hobbs (D-Lake Stevens), who served 10 years in the active duty US Army in Kosovo and Iraq after rising to the rank of infantry captain from buck private. He has two words: CLUSTER FUCK.

Now sit down, before the weight of your own horseshit causes you to fall down.

In all honesty, most of the details I get on Iraq are from people who are there...and you know what? They're asking what the hell is going on.

No one is asking them what they think.Why don't you, personally, ask a soldier in Iraq what he or she thinks of this war?? The answer may surprise you.
I don't give a flying fuck about what they might think about the war. That's the most appalling red herring I've seen today. Never mind there are plenty that don't support it, most are going to support it because they're soldiers - it's what they do, for crying out loud. They are the last people I'd ask whether we should be in Iraq - the most would be with officers to ascertain whether it is technically possible.

Man, you're really making some wild assumptions. What makes you think I even watch Fox news?



As opposed to Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore??? Right, they're really what I'd call accurate and unbiased.



Yes.

God...I'm laughing so hard here...the idea that the media ISN'T biased...you really don't believe that, do you???

Say hi to Dan Rather for me....:p :p

Hey, coward.

I call you that because you haven't refuted my complete discrediting of your "sources" on your death threat lie.

In all honesty, most of the details I get on Iraq are from people who are there...and you know what? They're asking what the hell is going on.

No one is asking them what they think.Why don't you, personally, ask a soldier in Iraq what he or she thinks of this war?? The answer may surprise you.

you are talking to american soldiers in iraq but you arent an american?

are you being facile because you LIVE in the us as a non-citizen (making the "america love it or leave it" comment appropriate) or are you just trolling this topic?

Ah, I see. You believe this "evil liberal media - only Fox tells the truth" bollocks.

Man, you're really making some wild assumptions. What makes you think I even watch Fox news?

The people who are least likely to tell you the undistorted truth.

As opposed to Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore??? Right, they're really what I'd call accurate and unbiased.

Even the ones that are against the war?

Yes.

God...I'm laughing so hard here...the idea that the media ISN'T biased...you really don't believe that, do you???

Say hi to Dan Rather for me....:p :p

Oh I see..so if I was to talk to a veteran of Long Tan I wouldn't get accurate information, but if I was to ask someone who wasn't there..they'd know much more.

Got it.
So, you don't believe in courts? Or Judges? Or Juries? They weren't present at the scene of a crime, but deal out legal judgement. Or should we just ask the accused whether they are guilty or not?

I have not been to Iraq.Those who have been there , know more than I do...hence I listen to them.

You know more about whats going on in Baghdad than General Petraus does?.

Wow.
We aren't talking about goings on in Baghdad. We're talking about whether we should be in Iraq. Don't shift the goal posts.

Correct.



I don't live in the US at all.



I posted comments that are apropos to this topic.Ah I see...because I post an opposing viewpoint I'm a troll.

So how are you talking to the US soldiers? Is there a US army base nearby or something?

you are talking to american soldiers in iraq but you arent an american?

Correct.

are you being facile because you LIVE in the us as a non-citizen (making the "america love it or leave it" comment appropriate)

I don't live in the US at all.

or are you just trolling this topic?

I posted comments that are apropos to this topic.Ah I see...because I post an opposing viewpoint I'm a troll.

And I trust them to give me information that is not slanted or biased.

Why do you trust them?

Man, you're really making some wild assumptions. What makes you think I even watch Fox news?
It's the same "evil liberul media" conspiracy. I wouldn't have been surprised.

As opposed to Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore??? Right, they're really what I'd call accurate and unbiased.
Did I ever say they weren't.

Yes.
And...

God...I'm laughing so hard here...the idea that the media ISN'T biased...you really don't believe that, do you???

Say hi to Dan Rather for me....:p :p
No, I said the media is less biased than random blogs you sourced. That should be obvious - even the media has to have some underlying truth as to what they are reporting. Blogs don't even have to do that.

So, you don't believe in courts? Or Judges? Or Juries? They weren't present at the scene of a crime, but deal out legal judgement. Or should we just ask the accused whether they are guilty or not?

Okay. I'll make this simple.

If I want a good idea of what is happening in Iraq, I will talk to a number of people who either are there or have come back. I listen to them. They have been there.

I have not.

Ergo they know more than I do.And I trust them to give me information that is not slanted or biased.

We're talking about whether we should be in Iraq. Don't shift the goal posts

The topic is the protest.

In all fairness, biased reporting isn't solely a Fox News attribute. They just get tagged because they're more obvious about it.

And because of their oh-so-funny claim to be "Fair and Balanced".


Today on Fox news: "Are Liberals really comy mutant traitors?" Remember, we're Fox News, Fair and Balanced!

Correct.



I don't live in the US at all.



I posted comments that are apropos to this topic.Ah I see...because I post an opposing viewpoint I'm a troll.

no you are trolling because you are posting AS IF you had these opinions, AS IF you were an american for the purpose of riling people up.

That should be obvious - even the media has to have some underlying truth as to what they are reporting.

Media "credibility" is a joke.

Blogs don't even have to do that.

Yet it was a blog that brought Dan Rather down.The days of big media are over

It's the same "evil liberul media" conspiracy..

Do I really need to paint you a picture of just how much of the media are lies, distortions and exaggerations?? I never said there was a conspiracy, I said they are LIARS.

And they are.

Oh, and The KickAss Song (http://www.freeandeasyfundraising.com/goe_store/images/wallmusic.jpg). Delightful.Not so very delightful, clicking on it borked my computer for the better part of half an hour. Grrr.

no you are trolling because you are posting AS IF you had these opinions,

I have whatever opinions I please.And dear dear me, god forbid I should have an opinion different to yours......

AS IF you were an american for the purpose of riling people up.

At no time and in no sense did I ever intimate I was an American..and as for "riling people up", I tend to find that that the Left, for all its claims of tolerance, is very very intolerant when dealing with an opposing viewpoint.

Okay. I'll make this simple.

If I want a good idea of what is happening in Iraq, I will talk to a number of people who either are there or have come back. I listen to them. They have been there.

I have not.

Ergo they know more than I do.And I trust them to give me information that is not slanted or biased.
So, you don't believe that we should have judges, juries, or courts, then, since they weren't at the scene of a crime?

The topic is the protest.
And the protest was about...?

I have whatever opinions I please.And dear dear me, god forbid I should have an opinion different to yours......
Ironic hypocrisy? Yes.

Not so very delightful, clicking on it borked my computer for the better part of half an hour. Grrr.

Haha, your computer has a taste filter...

In all honesty, most of the details I get on Iraq are from people who are there...and you know what? They're asking what the hell is going on.

No one is asking them what they think.Why don't you, personally, ask a soldier in Iraq what he or she thinks of this war?? The answer may surprise you.
http://www.ivaw.org

I have whatever opinions I please.And dear dear me, god forbid I should have an opinion different to yours......



At no time and in no sense did I ever intimate I was an American..and as for "riling people up", I tend to find that that the Left, for all its claims of tolerance, is very very intolerant when dealing with an opposing viewpoint.
*Sigh*

More "lefties hate freedom" shite, I see.

So, you don't believe that we should have judges, juries, or courts, then, since they weren't at the scene of a crime?

Non sequitur.

No, actually "lefties claim to practise freedom of speech" but dont practise it.

Huffington Post
Daily Kos
Democratic Underground

Universities that welcome anti war protestors yet condemn veterans as "hate speech"

Dissenters of global warming hounded as "holocaust deniers"

Theres lots more.

Actual examples with reliable sources please.

Non sequitur.
No. I am trying to point out that the very idea that "we should only listen to those who were there" to ascertain facts is flawed - the system used in the courts to ascertain facts is different - opposing viewpoints are presented and judged according to facts and their reliability.

I was trying to get you to admit it.

More "lefties hate freedom" shite, I see.

No, actually "lefties claim to practise freedom of speech" but dont practise it.

Huffington Post
Daily Kos
Democratic Underground

Universities that welcome anti war protestors yet condemn veterans as "hate speech"

Dissenters of global warming hounded as "holocaust deniers"

Theres lots more.

Universities that welcome anti war protestors yet condemn veterans as "hate speech"

I'm pretty sure calling war protesters "jihadists" and "brain-dead" is hate speech.

Which one would be more accurate.

Cindy Sheehan on Falluja?

Or a soldier who was there?

http://www.ivaw.org ?

No. I am trying to point out that the very idea that "we should only listen to those who were there" to ascertain facts is flawed

Which one would be more accurate.

Cindy Sheehan on Falluja?

Or a soldier who was there?

And again (I love this, so many things I am supposed to have said and didnt) I said I find that they are MORE ACCURATE.

I read a book on Long Tan..I then went to talk to a man who had been there.He told me things the book didnt cover, or was wrong on, or had missed.

I accept nothing as "gospel"... and consult numerous sources.The newspaper is for wrapping fish.

Sorry, I don't have all night.

Suffice it to say that you should go see for yourself.
Stopped reading here, and I'm not the only one. Provide your own evidence or accept that nobody will believe you, it's the unwritten law of NSG.

No, actually "lefties claim to practise freedom of speech" but dont practise it.

Huffington Post
Daily Kos
Democratic Underground

Universities that welcome anti war protestors yet condemn veterans as "hate speech"

Dissenters of global warming hounded as "holocaust deniers"

Theres lots more.

Freedom of Speech is not an abcense of criticism, it is in fact there to protect criticism. Calling someones ideas stupid isn't restricting or 'not practicing' freedom of speech, it's calling something stupid-which again, is what freedom of speech is really there to protect. None of these examples have sought to limit freedom of speech but instead to call a certain idea stupid, which by the way, the people they're criticizing say as well. So, um...no.

Actual examples with reliable sources please.

Sorry, I don't have all night.

Suffice it to say that you should go see for yourself.

DU especially is infamous for banning anyone who doesn't walk in lockstep. They're the ones with the forum that suggested a nuke was used on the WTC.

And it is a fact that the sites I have mentioned will refuse to post comments from conservatives or any9one else that doesn't agree with them.

Which one would be more accurate.

Cindy Sheehan on Falluja?

Or a soldier who was there?
People who were there can lie just as those who weren't, and get things wrong. Just because someone who was there was there does not mean that they are telling the truth, saw everything that an afterwards analysis would pick up or doesn't have a vested interest.

And again (I love this, so many things I am supposed to have said and didnt) I said I find that they are MORE ACCURATE.
You don't know it's more accurate at all, if you weren't there.

I read a book on Long Tan..I then went to talk to a man who had been there.He told me things the book didnt cover, or was wrong on, or had missed.
Doesn't mean that he is right.

I accept nothing as "gospel"... and consult numerous sources.The newspaper is for wrapping fish.
You seem to accept the word of soldiers as gospel, as opposed to reliable mews sources that can be verified.

http://www.ivaw.org

Right.

The same people that used Jesse MacBeth as a poster boy.:rolleyes:
Oh of course, I forgot, you're a fucking hypocrite. It only counts if it agrees with your position.

http://www.ivaw.org

Right.

The same people that used Jesse MacBeth as a poster boy.:rolleyes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031701280.html

It was a great day to be there.

We had permits for all of the ground from Constitution Island to the area across from the Lincoln Memorial, including the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

Guess the anti-war people didn't bother with a permit - they were shocked to find that the police wouldn't let them on the grounds there, and we were permitted to deny them access to the Wall while we were there.

I think they were honestly surprised that we showed up - the anti-war people seem to automatically assume that few, if any, will counter their demonstration, or deny them access to where they want to go.



I actually saw this happen nearly continuously for a few hours.

Essentially, you can protest. But you had better have a permit for the location (the cops want to keep people apart), or you'll go straight to jail after the police pepper spray you.

So don't protest in the wrong place. Sorry, we were there first.

You son of a bitch. I thought this was about an Eagles comeback tour (again). Oh well. Yeah, pretty cool, though. Not in a "yeah, those protesters got what was coming" sorta cool. More of a weird kind of cool.

No, actually "lefties claim to practise freedom of speech" but dont practise it.
Right.

Huffington Post
Daily Kos
Democratic Underground
...your point?

Universities that welcome anti war protestors yet condemn veterans as "hate speech"
What on earth are you on? How on earth does inviting an anti war protester count as denying free speech, and how does not calling anti war protesters jihadists not count as hate speech?

Dissenters of global warming hounded as "holocaust deniers"
Really? I thought that was the usual line used against anyone who dared to criticise Israeli foreign policy by the right. Either way, it's just as silly, but I've never seen a heroic "dissenter" called a holocaust denier. Source, please.

Please..don't use reliable and news in the same sentence.

And seeing as how the major media have been proven to be majorly biased with their own agenda, that they edit, amend, or twist facts to suit themselves...they have little credibility left.

There is a famous quote that says it all "never let the truth get in the way of a good story".

Prove it.

You seem to accept the word of soldiers as gospel, as opposed to reliable mews sources that can be verified.

Please..don't use reliable and news in the same sentence.

And seeing as how the major media have been proven to be majorly biased with their own agenda, that they edit, amend, or twist facts to suit themselves...they have little credibility left.

There is a famous quote that says it all "never let the truth get in the way of a good story".

Oh of course, I forgot, you're a fucking hypocrite. It only counts if it agrees with your position.

The fact that they didnt bother to check his bona fides and then ran like hell when his lies were uncovered BY BLOGS, and not by the media, says volumes.

Their screwup.

And you have never asked me what my position is.

The fact that they didnt bother to check his bona fides and then ran like hell when his lies were uncovered BY BLOGS, and not by the media, says volumes.

Their screwup.

And you have never asked me what my position is.

Oh yeah, that's real hard to deduce. Align yourself completely and without question to the hardcore American right-wing and attack anyone who opposes their positions and defend anything they do. And flat out say you would take the opinion of the Eagles over contrary evidence. Yeah, who knows what your position is on anything :rolleyes:

It is now almost 3am (2:52am actually) here, and I need sleep.

I am sure that I will hear of "ah ha he ran away" sooner or later...doesn't matter to me.For those who have a clock, check the time in Australia right now.

G'night

Please..don't use reliable and news in the same sentence.

And seeing as how the major media have been proven to be majorly biased with their own agenda, that they edit, amend, or twist facts to suit themselves...they have little credibility left.

There is a famous quote that says it all "never let the truth get in the way of a good story".
Some do this more than others, which means that facts and stories can be verified between them, and if misrepresented, challenged in a court of law. Some media outlets, like the BBC, and most major broadsheets, can be taken as accurate so long as you remember their political affiliation.

Prove it.
Ifreann impresses me with his warping skills yet again.

Ifreann impresses me with his warping skills yet again.

I actually made that post next Friday.

Oh yeah, that's real hard to deduce. Align yourself completely and without question to the hardcore American right-wing and attack anyone who opposes their positions and defend anything they do. And flat out say you would take the opinion of the Eagles over contrary evidence. Yeah, who knows what your position is on anything :rolleyes:
Apparently, he doesn't watch Fox. But that's because he's Australian, apparently.

"If you don't like America, get out!"War There Or War Here." Jihadists!" "Workers World traitors must hang!"

All we're missing there is "Get a job hippy". Dear me. It seems more like a gathering of stupid Bustards and hawks than any 'Eagles".

* Seventh chemical attack this year
* Iraq television reports six deaths
* Increased use of dirty bombs on soft targets

So as a result of the Amerikan invasion, groups are now using chemical weapons. Great.

So what's "a thick European accent" anyway? :confused:

Oh, and this thread wins the prize for most random hijacks ever! (in the last 48 hrs.)

Apparently, he doesn't watch Fox. But that's because he's Australian, apparently

No,it's because I don't have cable TV. I watch very little TV these days, it's virtually all crap, the TV "news" is a sick joke and the papers aren't much better.

All we're missing there is "Get a job hippy". Dear me. It seems more like a gathering of stupid Bustards and hawks than any 'Eagles".

I doubt very much you'd have the nerve to say that to the face of a veteran.You do realise that the vast majority of the Eagles are veterans?? And that the others are their friends, their families....were I you. I'd speak of these people with a little more respect, these are the people who have defended the freedom you have to say the things you do with their very lives.

So have a little respect, hmm?

Neither laugh nor cry, just hand out pity.

Something tells me this guy isn't looking for a lot of pity.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/postphotos/orb/asection/2007-03-18/index.html?imgId=PH2007031701428&imgUrl=/photo/2007/03/17/PH2007031701428.html

[edit]
That link didn't work very well. But it's the guy shouting on the linked article.

You seem to accept the word of soldiers as gospel, as opposed to reliable mews sources that can be verified.

<pictures a cute little kitten in a reporters outfit>

This thread needed some humor anyway.

If you don't like America, get out!
We're like what they used to call the silent majority.


I didn't know there were over 150,000 military veterans in America.

Don't think we aren't considering it...

Jihadists!

Oh, not YET...

They showed they were willing to desecrate something that's sacred to the American soul.


Like, say, freedom? Human rights? Not that I'm implying anything here.

We believe in freedom of speech. We're here to defend the right of people to say whatever they want.

Wow. It's one thing to be hypocritical. But wow, at least some people realize they're being hypocritical...

I think beating the shit out of these people, given their intellect, would fall more under cruelty to animals then assault...

I'm not in favor of desecrating monuments. But I'm also not in favor of idiotic ex-military types who think they have some kind of moral high ground because they shot people in a stupid, poorly planned war.

They "defended" our freedom of speech how exactly? By killing Iraqis that were no threat me? Besides what's the point of them "defending my rights" in Iraq if they don't want me to use them here?

*Men in Black Suits come and drag you off.*

I saw nothing about eagles there, just a bunch of angry humans.

You wasted ten non-bird-related seconds of my life and I want them back.

I doubt very much you'd have the nerve to say that to the face of a veteran.You do realise that the vast majority of the Eagles are veterans?? And that the others are their friends, their families....were I you. I'd speak of these people with a little more respect, these are the people who have defended the freedom you have to say the things you do with their very lives.

So have a little respect, hmm?

They "defended" our freedom of speech how exactly? By killing Iraqis that were no threat me? Besides what's the point of them "defending my rights" in Iraq if they don't want me to use them here?

All we're missing there is "Get a job hippy". Dear me. It seems more like a gathering of stupid Bustards and hawks than any 'Eagles".


Heyheyhey. I like hawks. They're an important part of the eco-system, good for falconry, and entertaining to watch.

Don't degrade them by comparing them to aggressive right-wing nutjobs.

"Is that a guy or a girl? I can't tell!"
"KENT STATE: LET'S DO IT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


I guarantee these were said at least once each during this protest.

Wave upon wave of demented avengers
March cheerfully into the dream...
-Pink Floyd, "Sheep"

*Men in Black Suits come and drag you off.*

<fights off the MIB's with secret alien technology and my tinfoil hat>

I doubt very much you'd have the nerve to say that to the face of a veteran.You do realise that the vast majority of the Eagles are veterans?? And that the others are their friends, their families....were I you. I'd speak of these people with a little more respect, these are the people who have defended the freedom you have to say the things you do with their very lives.

So have a little respect, hmm?


The people who fought for my 'freedom' are long dead, and have far more in common with the poor sods in Iraq and the occupied territories, thanks bunches. As I said, "stupid Bustards and hawks".

This whole mess makes me sad.

I know that a lot of the "Eagles" meant well, but this entire thing was trumped up and bunk from the get-go. Anti-war protests and demonstrations happen in DC all the damn time, and the Vietnam memorial is not spray-painted or defaced by protesters. The very notion that anti-war protesters are anti-troops is pure bunk, and the idea that they would want to insult the memory of those who have died in the service is another hawkish lie that some very, very scummy individuals use for their own personal gain.

The "Gathering of Eagles" was a blatantly partisan effort to use a phony threat to trump up pro-war support. It's the same exploitative BS that has been used ad nauseum for the last 5 years.

I can understand why good, honorable, decent individuals would want to protect the Vietnam memorial. I would. But, sadly, these days you have to question every fucking thing you hear. We can no longer trust when we are warned about a "threat," because we've got so many liars crying wolf 24/7.

Personally, I wish that the people who stood to protect the Vietnam Memorial would have chosen to spend their time protesting the many ways our government continues to fail our troops and veterans. It's all about personal priorities, I guess. For me, memorials for the dead must wait in line behind the needs of the living.

This whole mess makes me sad.

I know that a lot of the "Eagles" meant well, but this entire thing was trumped up and bunk from the get-go. Anti-war protests and demonstrations happen in DC all the damn time, and the Vietnam memorial is not spray-painted or defaced by protesters. The very notion that anti-war protesters are anti-troops is pure bunk, and the idea that they would want to insult the memory of those who have died in the service is another hawkish lie that some very, very scummy individuals use for their own personal gain.

The "Gathering of Eagles" was a blatantly partisan effort to use a phony threat to trump up pro-war support. It's the same exploitative BS that has been used ad nauseum for the last 5 years.

I can understand why good, honorable, decent individuals would want to protect the Vietnam memorial. I would. But, sadly, these days you have to question every fucking thing you hear. We can no longer trust when we are warned about a "threat," because we've got so many liars crying wolf 24/7.

Personally, I wish that the people who stood to protect the Vietnam Memorial would have chosen to spend their time protesting the many ways our government continues to fail our troops and veterans. It's all about personal priorities, I guess. For me, memorials for the dead must wait in line behind the needs of the living.

When I saw the protesters carrying eggs I didn't think they brought them to eat raw for breakfast. Some of them also had containers of paint.

At that point, the "rumor" appeared "real" to me.

When I saw the protesters carrying eggs I didn't think they brought them to eat raw for breakfast. Some of them also had containers of paint.

At that point, the "rumor" appeared "real" to me.

eggs? paint?

Well Easter is coming. :p

When I saw the protesters carrying eggs I didn't think they brought them to eat raw for breakfast. Some of them also had containers of paint.

At that point, the "rumor" appeared "real" to me.
Funny, I didn't see any of that at all.

When I saw the protesters carrying eggs I didn't think they brought them to eat raw for breakfast. Some of them also had containers of paint.

At that point, the "rumor" appeared "real" to me.

Why is it when I read your claims, I hear echoes of "anti-war protesters spit on returning Vietnam Vets," something that, if it happened at all, was an extraordinarily rare occurrence? Probably because you have the credibility of Charles Johnson or Michelle Malkin.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031701280.html

It was a great day to be there.

We had permits for all of the ground from Constitution Island to the area across from the Lincoln Memorial, including the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

Guess the anti-war people didn't bother with a permit - they were shocked to find that the police wouldn't let them on the grounds there, and we were permitted to deny them access to the Wall while we were there.

I think they were honestly surprised that we showed up - the anti-war people seem to automatically assume that few, if any, will counter their demonstration, or deny them access to where they want to go.



I actually saw this happen nearly continuously for a few hours.

Essentially, you can protest. But you had better have a permit for the location (the cops want to keep people apart), or you'll go straight to jail after the police pepper spray you.

So don't protest in the wrong place. Sorry, we were there first.

Well done on a peaceful protest EO.

Part of the problem these pro-war people have is that they are confusing events that happened more than 30 years ago with events that are happening now. They imagine that someone may have spit on them when they returned from Vietnam, so now they concoct some hallucination about modern anti-war protesters being against the troops.

When it's fairly clear that the real people who are against the troops are the fools who sent them into an unnecessary war with insufficient numbers and insufficient equipment, and who now refuse to take responsibility for or adequate care of the resulting wounded.

But never mind all of that. It's far more important, or at least easier, to hurl abuse at innocent people for imagined offences than it is to deal with reality.

:rolleyes:

And in other news, that f course the media buries on page three or four, Al Qaeda are now using chemical weapons (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...22-401,00.html)



But of course, this isn't really news, is it.....nothing's a crime unless its committed by the United States of America.

Chemical attacks on civilians. What a waste of good chemicals when they could be used to clean my dorm :(

Why is it when I read your claims, I hear echoes of "anti-war protesters spit on returning Vietnam Vets," something that, if it happened at all, was an extraordinarily rare occurrence? Probably because you have the credibility of Charles Johnson or Michelle Malkin.
I live very close to the National Mall, so I tend to go to a lot of the demonstrations and marches. Sometimes it's because I am personally involved in a particular cause, but many times it is simply because I like to see my fellow citizens being active and vocal and exercising their freedoms. That just makes me feel good. I go to marches and demonstrations even for things I don't support, because I like the fact that I can do this. I like the fact that we can disagree openly, publicly, and pretty damn loudly.

So I've got a good taste of what the demonstrations and marches have been like in recent years. I absolutely will not dispute that there has been hostility and unpleasantness between the pro-war and anti-war demonstrators. Both sides have behaved badly on occasion, and I make no excuses for that bad behavior.

What pisses me off, though, is the constant accusations that the anti-war folks deface national monuments. I have NEVER seen any evidence that anti-war demonstrations do this any more than the pro-war demonstrations do. I've seen some bad apples do things like spray paint slogans on the sidewalks near monuments, but it's been BOTH sides that have done this. I've seen people "decorate" statues with hats or garlands or signs (even a t-shirt was put onto a statue, once), but again...BOTH sides have done this where I could see.

It usually seems to be more about acting out than it is about actually sticking up for the particular cause. There are some people who just like to vandalize stuff, and they use marches as an excuse to indulge in their urges.

No one limited their "right to free speech", what WAS limited was access to a Memorial the protestors themselves had threatened to deface.

Oh and, yeah I will take the word of the Eagles. Of their integrity I have no question.

Oh brother. :rolleyes:

Now prove that the protestors wanted to deface the memorial.

Why is it when I read your claims, I hear echoes of "anti-war protesters spit on returning Vietnam Vets," something that, if it happened at all, was an extraordinarily rare occurrence? Probably because you have the credibility of Charles Johnson or Michelle Malkin.

You won't be able to deny the spitting nowadays.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/launchPage.html?013007/013007_ff_sparling&%27Peace%27%20Rally%3F%20&FOX_Friends&Protesters%20rage%20at%20U.S.%20soldier%20at%20anti-war%20protest&US&-1&%27Peace%27%20Rally%3F%20&Video%20Launch%20Page&News

You won't be able to deny the spitting nowadays.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/launchPage.html?013007/013007_ff_sparling&%27Peace%27%20Rally%3F%20&FOX_Friends&Protesters%20rage%20at%20U.S.%20soldier%20at%20anti-war%20protest&US&-1&%27Peace%27%20Rally%3F%20&Video%20Launch%20Page&News

I didn't see any spitting on that video. Did you? Seems to me that a guy who's made this claim before would have had people around him with cameras to document the hate speech and threats and spitting, even volunteers like Malkin readers who support him. And you know that if Fox could have gotten video of someone spitting on a vet, they'd have it on 24-7 loop, especially given the blowjob that was that interview.

And even if you did find some, you'd still have a long way to go before you have anti-war protesters doing any wholesale spitting on veterans.

I didn't see any spitting on that video. Did you? Seems to me that a guy who's made this claim before would have had people around him with cameras to document the hate speech and threats and spitting, even volunteers like Malkin readers who support him. And you know that if Fox could have gotten video of someone spitting on a vet, they'd have it on 24-7 loop, especially given the blowjob that was that interview.

And even if you did find some, you'd still have a long way to go before you have anti-war protesters doing any wholesale spitting on veterans.

Keep denying it. He has the nice hate cards (I've seen quite a few sent to friends of mine).

There is a permanent group of anti-war protesters at Walter Reed, who spit on every soldier that goes in and out the door.

Keep denying it.

Keep denying it. He has the nice hate cards (I've seen quite a few sent to friends of mine).

There is a permanent group of anti-war protesters at Walter Reed, who spit on every soldier that goes in and out the door.

Keep denying it.

Well, if they are there "permanently", wheres the photgraphic evidence? I mean I know brains are in short supply on the "war is good" side but seriously, somebody must have access to a camera....or do they only come out for trophy photos?

Keep denying it. He has the nice hate cards (I've seen quite a few sent to friends of mine).

There is a permanent group of anti-war protesters at Walter Reed, who spit on every soldier that goes in and out the door.

Keep denying it.

Then why isn't there any footage of it? If it's as common as you say, then it should be no big deal to get some guy with a camera phone to tape it. Hell, a kid got tasered in the UCLA library and there were half a dozen camera phone versions of it, but you can't get a Freeper to wait outside Walter Reed with a camera phone to film these abusive anti-war protesters? You know damn good and well that if there were video, it would be available all over the internet--Drudge would host it. And yet all we have are claims.

Oh, and the cards prove nothing. Anyone could send those--you know, like someone hoping to make the anti-war movement look bad?

Well, if they are there "permanently", wheres the photgraphic evidence? I mean I know brains are in short supply on the "war is good" side but seriously, somebody must have access to a camera....or do they only come out for trophy photos?

We can go there together if you like. I'm sure that if I posted a photo, Nazz would say I Photoshopped it.

We can go there together if you like. I'm sure that if I posted a photo, Nazz would say I Photoshopped it.

Video--harder to fake, and no harder to get these days, thanks to the price of things like camera phones.

Video--harder to fake, and no harder to get these days, thanks to the price of things like camera phones.

No, I want you to come personally and video it yourself.

I'm sure that otherwise, you or someone else here would claim it was faked or staged.

We can go there together if you like. I'm sure that if I posted a photo, Nazz would say I Photoshopped it.

According to your post they are there "permanently". Why has somebody not filmed them? Why have they not been subject to attacks by relatives of wounded soldiers/soldiers? Why have the cops not moved them on?

Those, and other questions.

We can go there together if you like. I'm sure that if I posted a photo, Nazz would say I Photoshopped it.

Video.

And if this was the case there would be footage. If it happens to all the soldiers entering the facility.

Go on...video it. Make sure you have easily identifiable footage of the hospital that can be verified.

Bet you can't.

No, I want you to come personally and video it yourself.

I'm sure that otherwise, you or someone else here would claim it was faked or staged.

:rolleyes:

Keep denying it. He has the nice hate cards (I've seen quite a few sent to friends of mine).

There is a permanent group of anti-war protesters at Walter Reed, who spit on every soldier that goes in and out the door.

Keep denying it.
When did this group of spitters set up camp? I've been to Walter Reed a number of times in the last few years (work-related stuff), and I haven't seen them. At various times I've seen or read about protests by Walter Reed, but I've never seen or read about this non-stop spitting you are talking about.

When did this group of spitters set up camp? I've been to Walter Reed a number of times in the last few years (work-related stuff), and I haven't seen them. At various times I've seen or read about protests by Walter Reed, but I've never seen or read about this non-stop spitting you are talking about.

I'm sure Eve will show you ;)

When did this group of spitters set up camp? I've been to Walter Reed a number of times in the last few years (work-related stuff), and I haven't seen them. At various times I've seen or read about protests by Walter Reed, but I've never seen or read about this non-stop spitting you are talking about.

There are a group of people from ANSWER who are there every day. They've identified one of the side entrances where soldiers come in and out (outpatients who are living on the ground or nearby who go in and out of the main building).

The small signs they hold up are also quite vitriolic. Yet, if you're not a soldier, and you ask them if they support the troops, they say "Yes, of course!".

They have something quite different in store for soldiers.

So no spitting then?


But...they had signs with big mean nasty letters on them. :(

There are a group of people from ANSWER who are there every day. They've identified one of the side entrances where soldiers come in and out (outpatients who are living on the ground or nearby who go in and out of the main building).

The small signs they hold up are also quite vitriolic. Yet, if you're not a soldier, and you ask them if they support the troops, they say "Yes, of course!".

They have something quite different in store for soldiers.

And not one of these soldiers has the intelligence to get some evidence of this assault in order to prosecute the person involved?

There are a group of people from ANSWER who are there every day. They've identified one of the side entrances where soldiers come in and out (outpatients who are living on the ground or nearby who go in and out of the main building).

The small signs they hold up are also quite vitriolic. Yet, if you're not a soldier, and you ask them if they support the troops, they say "Yes, of course!".

They have something quite different in store for soldiers.
Again, I have seen protesting at Walter Reed, and at many other places, but I haven't seen any of this spitting that you describe. When did the spitters show up? When did this practice start?

I haven't been by WR since the recent stories about the horrid conditions for veterans in the hospitals, but several of my coworkers were there for a meeting. They actually came back with stories about a large group protesting the horrible conditions in there. The signs and slogans were very hostile and angry, because so many people (myself included) are enraged at how our leaders are so blatantly abusing the soldiers who they are deliberately putting in harm's way. But the hostility is not aimed at the troops. Perhaps you misunderstand where people are aiming their anger.

Spitting. Throwing eggs. A few actual unprovoked assaults (throwing bricks).
Again, have not seen any of this. Have not read any of this. What are your sources? If you are seeing this in person, why are you not documenting it and getting information to the press? This is a major story, if true, and Fox News in particular will treat you like a goddam king if you can bring them photos or footage of it.

There are a group of people from ANSWER who are there every day. They've identified one of the side entrances where soldiers come in and out (outpatients who are living on the ground or nearby who go in and out of the main building).

The small signs they hold up are also quite vitriolic. Yet, if you're not a soldier, and you ask them if they support the troops, they say "Yes, of course!".

They have something quite different in store for soldiers.

So no spitting then?

So no spitting then?

Spitting. Throwing eggs. A few actual unprovoked assaults (throwing bricks).

Spitting. Throwing eggs. A few actual unprovoked assaults (throwing bricks).

And that was just the doctors.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/october17/gifs/Alumni_laughing_300.jpg

Again, I have seen protesting at Walter Reed, and at many other places, but I haven't seen any of this spitting that you describe. When did the spitters show up? When did this practice start?

I haven't been by WR since the recent stories about the horrid conditions for veterans in the hospitals, but several of my coworkers were there for a meeting. They actually came back with stories about a large group protesting the horrible conditions in there. The signs and slogans were very hostile and angry, because so many people (myself included) are enraged at how our leaders are so blatantly abusing the soldiers who they are deliberately putting in harm's way. But the hostility is not aimed at the troops. Perhaps you misunderstand where people are aiming their anger.

I've been there almost every day to visit a few friends who are currently in the ortho ward as patients.

Even I get spit on, because of my haircut and appearance.

I've been there almost every day to visit a few friends who are currently in the ortho ward as patients.

Even I get spit on, because of my haircut and appearance.
I haven't noticed anybody having this kind of trouble when I went there. I've seen individuals in uniform coming and going without harassment. When did this start? When are the spitters there? Perhaps they aren't there on certain days or at certain times? Where do they stand? Might I miss them going in through a different entrance or something?

Honestly, you seem to really believe this, so I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. This is completely different from what I have seen and heard about, so much so that it almost sounds like a different hospital entirely. I would really appreciate it if you took some pictures or something the next time you were there. I find it very hard to believe that people would be behaving that way at WR, but if it's true then I want to know about it.

If anybody is treating wounded troops or their families or their doctors in this manner, I want to know about it. It seems that nobody else has been willing to come forward about this harassment, so I will do it myself if I can just get some evidence to work with.

Spitting. Throwing eggs. A few actual unprovoked assaults (throwing bricks).

I've been there almost every day to visit a few friends who are currently in the ortho ward as patients.

Even I get spit on, because of my haircut and appearance.

And yet no one has ever managed to catch this on tape. How...convenient.

And yet no one has ever managed to catch this on tape. How...convenient.

Didn't you know? All video recorders in the US are equipped with a special chip that prevents them from filming acts of violence or harassement perpetrated by liberals. No matter how hard EO and his friends try to film their humiliation, the tape never shows it when they play it back. :rolleyes:

Ah, nothing better than a star-spangled banter. :D

Didn't you know? All video recorders in the US are equipped with a special chip that prevents them from filming acts of violence or harassement perpetrated by liberals. No matter how hard EO and his friends try to film their humiliation, the tape never shows it when they play it back. :rolleyes:
Honestly, seriously, if I went to WR and saw people spitting on soldiers or doctors or visitors, I would get a freaking camera right then and there, and I'd spend the rest of the day documenting what I saw. I would follow the spitters back to their cars and get their plate numbers. I would be on my cell to the local media instantly, telling them exactly what was going on and informing them that I would be documenting everything and sending images to their competitors if they didn't show up NOW.

That's exactly what I did when I first started volunteering at a free clinic back in the day. I went in for my interview with them, and I encountered protesters who were physically harassing anybody who tried to go into the clinic. So I started taking pictures of them and writing down their plate numbers, calling the cops and the media in alternating shifts, and piling up all the evidence I could.

What was cool is that pretty much the moment I started doing this, other people came out and helped. A lot of people don't feel comfortable being the first one to start doing this stuff, but once somebody else starts it they will feel that it's safe to help.

The other great thing is that the cowards who do things like spit on hospital/clinic patients are ALWAYS panicked by the idea of having their photo taken. They hiss like vampires you doused with holy water, I shit you not. They like being anonymous while they hate, probably because they know damn well that their behavior is nothing to be proud of.

Honestly, seriously, if I went to WR and saw people spitting on soldiers or doctors or visitors, I would get a freaking camera right then and there, and I'd spend the rest of the day documenting what I saw. I would follow the spitters back to their cars and get their plate numbers. I would be on my cell to the local media instantly, telling them exactly what was going on and informing them that I would be documenting everything and sending images to their competitors if they didn't show up NOW.

That's exactly what I did when I first started volunteering at a free clinic back in the day. I went in for my interview with them, and I encountered protesters who were physically harassing anybody who tried to go into the clinic. So I started taking pictures of them and writing down their plate numbers, calling the cops and the media in alternating shifts, and piling up all the evidence I could.

What was cool is that pretty much the moment I started doing this, other people came out and helped. A lot of people don't feel comfortable being the first one to start doing this stuff, but once somebody else starts it they will feel that it's safe to help.

The other great thing is that the cowards who do things like spit on hospital/clinic patients are ALWAYS panicked by the idea of having their photo taken. They hiss like vampires you doused with holy water, I shit you not. They like being anonymous while they hate, probably because they know damn well that their behavior is nothing to be proud of.

I've got a collection of "die fucking now" cards that were sent to some of my friends at Walter Reed (names of wounded soldiers are published in the press, so they get some cards) by the group ANSWER.

I'll scan them in tonight. Beautiful examples of people who hate the troops.

I've got a collection of "die fucking now" cards that were sent to some of my friends at Walter Reed (names of wounded soldiers are published in the press, so they get some cards) by the group ANSWER.

I'll scan them in tonight. Beautiful examples of people who hate the troops.
As Nazz pointed out, those actually don't really help with anything. They also don't apply to what I was saying.

If you experience harassment going into WR, but you don't feel comfortable personally coming forward about it, please take pictures (or, better yet, video) of what happens and pass it off to me or to somebody else who is willing to come forward about it. It is very important to stand up against people who engage in that type of behavior and to make sure that patients, doctors, and their family members can be safe.

As for cards that have been received, I strongly urge you to take them to the police. You may be surprised at how law enforcement now deals with these kinds of problems. People have all these horror stories about the cops turning away victims of stalking, but I've found that things have improved a ton in recent years. Police take threats very seriously these days, and at the very least you should have an official paper trail on any harassment you've been receiving.

I've got a collection of "die fucking now" cards that were sent to some of my friends at Walter Reed (names of wounded soldiers are published in the press, so they get some cards) by the group ANSWER.

I'll scan them in tonight. Beautiful examples of people who hate the troops.And they couldn't have been put together by Freepers who wanted to make ANSWER look bad? Yeah, ANSWER has some assholes in it, but those cards won't prove dick and you know it.

And they couldn't have been put together by Freepers who wanted to make ANSWER look bad? Yeah, ANSWER has some assholes in it, but those cards won't prove dick and you know it.

As far as you're concerned, nothing would prove it.

Even if I did video, you would say they were freepers.

As far as you're concerned, nothing would prove it.

Even if I did video, you would say they were freepers.
Personal experience speaking, here:

If you come forward as the victim of harassment or abuse, there are always going to be people who don't believe you. The key is to not be scared of them, and to not let what other people think deter you from standing up for yourself.

If you really believe this stuff is happening, then why are you letting other people's OPINIONS stop you from doing something about it? Seriously, the opinion of a stranger on an internet forum is stopping you from taking photos and confronting the harassers? You need to develop a thicker skin.

Take photos, take video, call cops, call media, make noise. If, as you claim, every solider going into WR is being spit on, every day, then this is a huge fucking deal. If family, friends, doctors, and patients are being physically harassed every day, this is a huge fucking deal. Treat it as such. Don't dick around bitching to random strangers on the internet. Quit posting 10 threads every 3 hours in NS General. Get out to WR with your camera and SUPPORT THE DAMN TROOPS.

As far as you're concerned, nothing would prove it.

Even if I did video, you would say they were freepers.

Not true--unless there were some reason to do so, like if the people doing the spitting were also found as young Republicans at a convention.

Get out to WR with your camera and SUPPORT THE DAMN TROOPS.

Gee, I already host soldiers' families living in my home while their sons are in the hospital, and I have bought a lot of things for the soldiers themselves to help in their adjustment to civilian life post-treatment.

I also host dinners for them (there's one on the 21st).

I'll video it, even though Nazz will automatically require proof that none of the protesters were young Republicans.

Most of the soldiers I've talked to have decided that most of America hates them - the ones who are overseas especially. They have no faith at all that someone who says they "support the troops" actually does so anymore, without seeing for themselves the actual support directed at them.

They've seen people talk out of both sides of their mouths too often - "I support you, but you're a fucking babykiller" is the usual tirade.

Gee, I already host soldiers' families living in my home while their sons are in the hospital, and I have bought a lot of things for the soldiers themselves to help in their adjustment to civilian life post-treatment.

I also host dinners for them (there's one on the 21st).

I'll video it, even though Nazz will automatically require proof that none of the protesters were young Republicans.

Most of the soldiers I've talked to have decided that most of America hates them - the ones who are overseas especially. They have no faith at all that someone who says they "support the troops" actually does so anymore, without seeing for themselves the actual support directed at them.

They've seen people talk out of both sides of their mouths too often - "I support you, but you're a fucking babykiller" is the usual tirade.
Do I have some sort of hold over you? Why do you even care what I have to say on this subject if you're so positive you're right?

Do I have some sort of hold over you? Why do you even care what I have to say on this subject if you're so positive you're right?

Oh, I know I'm right. It's you that require convincing about protesters today being assholes towards the soldiers. And your constant denials.

Oh, I know I'm right. It's you that require convincing about protesters today being assholes towards the soldiers. And your constant denials.
But according to you, there's nothing you could provide that would be considered good enough. If you really believe that, then why even keep going along this vein?

Do I have some sort of hold over you? Why do you even care what I have to say on this subject if you're so positive you're right?
I've gotta say, the pro-war side is strongly inclined toward crybaby behavior lately.

But maybe I just feel this way because harassment and violence at medical facilities is nothing new to me. I've seen doctors, nurses, patients, employees, and visitors physically assaulted, stalked, harassed, spit on, and more. Clinics have been bombed, doctors shot, countless acts of harassment and vandalism reported, and countless perps set free with taps on the wrist.

I'm a youngin', only on the scene for a handful of years, and I've been personally threatened and harassed simply for entering a clinic. I've been called the worst names you can imagine for daring to go see a doctor about my birth control prescription.

I'm not a particularly brave or energetic person, all things considered. I certainly am not the sort of person who would volunteer to put my body on the front lines in combat. Yet I can stand up to people who harass me. I think it is insulting IN THE EXTREME to imply that veterans and US soldiers who go to WR aren't willing or able to stand up in a similar manner. That is what I find most unbelievable about this. Soldiers and vets chose to put their lives on the line, yet EO wants us to believe that not a single one of them can snap a picture or call a newspaper about what is supposedly happening at WR every single day?

Sorry, but I just don't buy that. I don't buy the image of our troops and vets as cowards who are too scared of criticism to speak the truth.

Oh, I'm sure that I could convince quite a few with a video.

But you don't believe that there's an anti-war protester on the face of the planet who would ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, diss the troops.
Guess you missed that post earlier where I noted that ANSWER has more than a few assholes as members. Not a surprise, as you're always out to make me look as extremist as possible, even though it's not true. My contention has always been that if it happens, it doesn't happen much. You make it sound like a daily occurrence, and yet can't provide anything that proves that. I'm not the one who has a reputation for overstating my case and misstating the opponent's case around here--that's you.

But according to you, there's nothing you could provide that would be considered good enough. If you really believe that, then why even keep going along this vein?

Oh, I'm sure that I could convince quite a few with a video.

But you don't believe that there's an anti-war protester on the face of the planet who would ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, diss the troops.

Oh, I know I'm right. It's you that require convincing about protesters today being assholes towards the soldiers. And your constant denials.
EVERYBODY requires convincing about this sort of thing, because it is (frankly) completely outrageous. This is not to say that it's impossible, since a lot of horrible and outrageous things are happening of late, but it does mean that you can't make outrageous claims and expect people to automatically believe you.

Again, maybe it's because I've dealt with this sort of thing in the past, but you're just gonna have to toughen up if you want to do anybody any good. Yes, you will be doubted. Yes, people will not automatically believe you. Boo fucking hoo. That's how the world is. People want evidence. You should know this by now, so quit crying and wasting time about it. Just get the evidence and shut them up.

Oh, I'm sure that I could convince quite a few with a video.

But you don't believe that there's an anti-war protester on the face of the planet who would ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, diss the troops.


I don't think that anyone implied that, just that your declarations on the subject are dubious, if not derisable.

I've been there almost every day to visit a few friends who are currently in the ortho ward as patients.

Even I get spit on, because of my haircut and appearance.

I'd like to distance myself now, from any such harrasement. The squat and rednecked are entitled to walk free of harrassment same as everybody else.

I've been there almost every day to visit a few friends who are currently in the ortho ward as patients.

Even I get spit on, because of my haircut and appearance.

Maybe they just recognize you from Nationstates General.

I've been there almost every day to visit a few friends who are currently in the ortho ward as patients.

Even I get spit on, because of my haircut and appearance.

Got a video camera to take with you and record it? Anything short of that will surely be suspect, especially coming from YOU.

I've been there almost every day to visit a few friends who are currently in the ortho ward as patients.

Even I get spit on, because of my haircut and appearance.

An old man in line at a supermarket told me, "You know, they're shooting people with beards, now." Can I start blaming that on you?

I've been there almost every day to visit a few friends who are currently in the ortho ward as patients.

Even I get spit on, because of my haircut and appearance.

see its not the spitting that makes this story completely unbelievable. after all, assholes exist everywhere there is no reason that some cant congregate at walter reed.

it is completely unbelievable that they would spit on YOU and you would do nothing.

i would expect a man like you to knock anyone who spit on you to the ground (at least). if you found a way to restrain yourself you would certainly press charges against the asshole who spit on you.

and you would certainly not stand idly by while such scum dishonored wounded soldiers.

i know i wouldnt.

What surprises me is the fact that you had two polarized groups on the same feild but NOTHING happened. that is what makes me proud to be an American.

What pisses me off, though, is the constant accusations that the anti-war folks deface national monuments. I have NEVER seen any evidence that anti-war demonstrations do this any more than the pro-war demonstrations do. I've seen some bad apples do things like spray paint slogans on the sidewalks near monuments, but it's been BOTH sides that have done this. I've seen people "decorate" statues with hats or garlands or signs (even a t-shirt was put onto a statue, once), but again...BOTH sides have done this where I could see.

It usually seems to be more about acting out than it is about actually sticking up for the particular cause. There are some people who just like to vandalize stuff, and they use marches as an excuse to indulge in their urges.I agree with Bottle. I've never heard of any legit group and/or honest protest defacing any national monuments or memorials.

However, I can see where one man's decoration can be another man's defilement. One person can find the southern flag to be a great peice of decoration, but others can find it insulting. so I can see the Eagles getting the permits to deny anyone to decorate or deface the monuments/memorials. and I am glad they were firm but also non violent.

I've got a collection of "die fucking now" cards that were sent to some of my friends at Walter Reed (names of wounded soldiers are published in the press, so they get some cards) by the group ANSWER.

I'll scan them in tonight. Beautiful examples of people who hate the troops.sent? via Mail? then check out the return address... send those cards over to the police. that's terroristic threatening of Federal Employees. (yes, I believe military does fall under the guidlines for Federal Employees.) Let the Police handle it. if they are still getting those cards, alert the police. use the system!

as for ANYONE questioning the authenticity... everyone can question the authencitiy of anything. from CNN to Fox, from a video to blogs. and frankly, it's downright tiring when the only response someone can come up with to a web article is "Biased site" or "consider the source". To me, those posters put that up when they cannot find anything to contradict or to refute what those sites claim.

All forms of the media has proven they will fake reports (wall street journal) be bias (all NEWS MEDIA OUTLETS) and spin things any way they want (blogs) and we can spend years and gigabytes arguing just who is more honest or not.

attack the article, prove the article is either wrong, faked or bias. but not the source, that only shows that you cannot prove what they are saying are lies, mistakes or spun.

people who only say that the news is faked without backing it up is only showing their bias towards the source.

as for Nazz questioning the authenticity... everyone can question the authencitiy of anything. from CNN to Fox, from a video to blogs. and frankly, it's downright tiring when the only response someone can come up with to a web article is "Biased site" or "consider the source". To me, those posters put that up when they cannot find anything to contradict or to refute what those sites claim.

All forms of the media has proven they will fake reports (wall street journal) be bias (all NEWS MEDIA OUTLETS) and spin things any way they want (blogs) and we can spend years and gigabytes arguing just who is more honest or not.

attack the article, prove the article is either wrong, faked or bias. but not the source, that only shows that you cannot prove what they are saying are lies, mistakes or spun.

people who only say that the news is faked without backing it up is only showing their bias towards the source.Hold on a second. I didn't claim bias--I claimed lack of evidence. There's a significant difference, especially when the only proof offered that a soldier was spit on by protesters is the claim of the soldier himself and those close to him. In this world where there are people with cameras everywhere--especially if you're a guy who is claiming to ahve been attacked before--it shouldn't be difficult to find some objective proof that this stuff happens. But Eve wasn't satisfied with that--he made it into a daily occurrence at Walter Reed hospital, and an inability to get evidence of something that's supposedly happening daily smells of utter bullshit to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

What surprises me is the fact that you had two polarized groups on the same feild but NOTHING happened. that is what makes me proud to be an American.

I agree with Bottle. I've never heard of any legit group and/or honest protest defacing any national monuments or memorials.

However, I can see where one man's decoration can be another man's defilement. One person can find the southern flag to be a great peice of decoration, but others can find it insulting. so I can see the Eagles getting the permits to deny anyone to decorate or deface the monuments/memorials. and I am glad they were firm but also non violent.

sent? via Mail? then check out the return address... send those cards over to the police. that's terroristic threatening of Federal Employees. (yes, I believe military does fall under the guidlines for Federal Employees.) Let the Police handle it. if they are still getting those cards, alert the police. use the system!

as for Nazz questioning the authenticity... everyone can question the authencitiy of anything. from CNN to Fox, from a video to blogs. and frankly, it's downright tiring when the only response someone can come up with to a web article is "Biased site" or "consider the source". To me, those posters put that up when they cannot find anything to contradict or to refute what those sites claim.

All forms of the media has proven they will fake reports (wall street journal) be bias (all NEWS MEDIA OUTLETS) and spin things any way they want (blogs) and we can spend years and gigabytes arguing just who is more honest or not.

attack the article, prove the article is either wrong, faked or bias. but not the source, that only shows that you cannot prove what they are saying are lies, mistakes or spun.

people who only say that the news is faked without backing it up is only showing their bias towards the source.

QFT

Hold on a second. I didn't claim bias--I claimed lack of evidence. There's a significant difference, especially when the only proof offered that a soldier was spit on by protesters is the claim of the soldier himself and those close to him. In this world where there are people with cameras everywhere--especially if you're a guy who is claiming to ahve been attacked before--it shouldn't be difficult to find some objective proof that this stuff happens. But Eve wasn't satisfied with that--he made it into a daily occurrence at Walter Reed hospital, and an inability to get evidence of something that's supposedly happening daily smells of utter bullshit to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

sorry, I was reacting to what EO was saying...

I should've said... "Anyone" instead of names.


My mistake. THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK ON NAZZ NOR ON EVE ONLINE!

sorry Nazz. I'll edit my post to reflect non identity as it was supposed to be.

sorry, I was reacting to what EO was saying...

I should've said... "Anyone" instead of names.


My mistake. THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK ON NAZZ NOR ON EVE ONLINE!

sorry Nazz. I'll edit my post to reflect non identity as it was supposed to be.

De nada. S'okay.

I was born on April 26, 1962.

The Vietnam War ended in 1975 - I was 13 years old.

I personally witnessed troops being spat on, abused, assaulted, screamed at, called "baby killer". I saw them being assaulted with red paint or even pigs blood.

No I do not have "photos " or "links"..I saw it with my own eyes.

Now you have two choices: call me a liar and be wrong

Or accept what I say as truth.

I don't give a fuck for NSG "unwritten rules"..I saw what I saw and I say it is so.

I saw it happen.

Simply because you do not believe me does not make you right.

It happened. I witnessed it.

I was born on April 26, 1962.

The Vietnam War ended in 1975 - I was 13 years old.

I personally witnessed troops being spat on, abused, assaulted, screamed at, called "baby killer". I saw them being assaulted with red paint or even pigs blood.

No I do not have "photos " or "links"..I saw it with my own eyes.

Now you have two choices: call me a liar and be wrong

Or accept what I say as truth.

I don't give a fuck for NSG "unwritten rules"..I saw what I saw and I say it is so.

I saw it happen.

Simply because you do not believe me does not make you right.

It happened. I witnessed it.


youre not an american, you live in australia or in an australian time zone, but you were hanging out somewhere where US servicemen returning from vietnam got abused by protestors...

ive heard your story before on this forum, who did you used to be?

Most of the soldiers I've talked to have decided that most of America hates them - the ones who are overseas especially. They have no faith at all that someone who says they "support the troops" actually does so anymore, without seeing for themselves the actual support directed at them.
's about bloody time they stop trusting the current administration, then!
QFT

Really? All of it?

Now you have two choices: call me a liar and be wrong

Or accept what I say as truth.
I choose... neither.

I was born on April 26, 1962.

The Vietnam War ended in 1975 - I was 13 years old.

I personally witnessed troops being spat on, abused, assaulted, screamed at, called "baby killer". I saw them being assaulted with red paint or even pigs blood.

No I do not have "photos " or "links"..I saw it with my own eyes.

Now you have two choices: call me a liar and be wrong

Or accept what I say as truth.

I don't give a fuck for NSG "unwritten rules"..I saw what I saw and I say it is so.

I saw it happen.

Simply because you do not believe me does not make you right.

It happened. I witnessed it.

At least some of the time, that's true. The bolded bit.


Also, we don't give a shit that you witnessed it. I can say I witnessed the holocaust not happening, but that doesn't mean it didn't.

youre not an american, you live in australia or in an australian time zone, but you were hanging out somewhere where US servicemen returning from vietnam got abused by protestors...

My my,you do need convincing,don't you?

Yes. I did see it. Repeatedly.

I live in Sydney, Australia. I have done since I was four.

We have this thing called an airport (actually we have several of them),the one in Sydney is called Mascot(also known as Kingsford Smith) we have one in Melbourne called Tullamarine... we have these people who wear these green clothes and carry guns, they're called the Australian Army, and, shock horror surprise, they went to this place called Vietnam.

As a matter of fact, over a ten year period, FIFTY THOUSAND Australian troops were in Vietnam. And you may even find out, if you look it up, that American servicemen came here for R and R....thousands of them.

Both Australian and American servicemen and women were abused in this fashion.

And I was not "hanging out", I was with my family meeting someone at the airport. The incident happened as I stood there and watched.

I also witnessed the same thing on the streets of Sydney.

Why don't you go down to your local vets hall; and ask them if US military personnel during the Vietnam War ever came to Australia?

ive heard your story before on this forum, who did you used to be?

That is more than likely, since I have been here before.

Also, we don't give a shit that you witnessed it. I can say I witnessed the holocaust not happening, but that doesn't mean it didn't.

I simply state the truth.

What you choose to believe is your problem.

Do you actually believe that everyone who doesn't support the war hates the troops because of what a tiny, albeit vocal, minority did towards Vietnam veterans?

At least some of the time, that's true. The bolded bit.

All of it.

Do you actually believe that everyone who doesn't support the war hates the troops because of what a tiny, albeit vocal, minority did towards Vietnam veterans?

I never said that.

My response was specifically aimed at those who claim that troops were never abused or spat on by protestors.

I saw it happen.

But apparently, according to some, no one was born prior to the end of the Vietnam War, hence no one ever saw it happen, and that makes me a liar.

But apparently, according to some, no one was born prior to the end of the Vietnam War, hence no one ever saw it happen, and that makes me a liar.

Who said that? Where? Do you have a source, or was it just something you saw, and therefore none of us can question?

All of it.



I never said that.

My response was specifically aimed at those who claim that troops were never abused or spat on by protestors.

I saw it happen.

But apparently, according to some, no one was born prior to the end of the Vietnam War, hence no one ever saw it happen, and that makes me a liar.

so youre saying that there were large numbers of australians who protested their country's involvement in vietnam by abusing their own troops coming home and american troops in australia on leave?

that these people were allowed to congregate at the airport for the purpose of spitting on servicemen?

should be easy enough to find an article on it as proof.

My my,you do need convincing,don't you?

Yes. I did see it. Repeatedly.

I live in Sydney, Australia. I have done since I was four.

We have this thing called an airport (actually we have several of them),the one in Sydney is called Mascot(also known as Kingsford Smith) we have one in Melbourne called Tullamarine... we have these people who wear these green clothes and carry guns, they're called the Australian Army, and, shock horror surprise, they went to this place called Vietnam.

As a matter of fact, over a ten year period, FIFTY THOUSAND Australian troops were in Vietnam. And you may even find out, if you look it up, that American servicemen came here for R and R....thousands of them.

Both Australian and American servicemen and women were abused in this fashion.

And I was not "hanging out", I was with my family meeting someone at the airport. The incident happened as I stood there and watched.

I also witnessed the same thing on the streets of Sydney.

Why don't you go down to your local vets hall; and ask them if US military personnel during the Vietnam War ever came to Australia?



That is more than likely, since I have been here before.



I simply state the truth.

What you choose to believe is your problem.
ahh... so it's Australians who abuse their troops in that fashion... that clears it up.

the assumption was that you were talking about Americans abusing their troops.

so youre saying that there were large numbers of australians who protested their country's involvement in vietnam by abusing their own troops coming home and american troops in australia on leave?

that these people were allowed to congregate at the airport for the purpose of spitting on servicemen?

should be easy enough to find an article on it as proof.if there were, it would be on Microfiche and the publication may be out of business. if one was found, it would have to be printed and scanned into the computer.

ahh... so it's Australians who abuse their troops in that fashion... that clears it up.

the assumption was that you were talking about Americans abusing their troops.

if there were, it would be on Microfiche and the publication may be out of business. if one was found, it would have to be printed and scanned into the computer.

true. but there could be some documentary that was made in australia or there might be a page of stories by people who were abused by australians when they were on leave.

i had never heard of us soldiers on leave being abused by australians. i have no way of knowing if its true or not. im willing to be convinced by something more than the supposed recollection of an anonymous poster on an internet forum.

youre not an american, you live in australia or in an australian time zone, but you were hanging out somewhere where US servicemen returning from vietnam got abused by protestors...

Go go Gadget irony.


Both Australian and American servicemen and women were abused in this fashion.

But you only have "evidence" of Australians treated like that and treating people like that. I think you are done here.

so youre saying that there were large numbers of australians who protested their country's involvement in vietnam by abusing their own troops coming home and american troops in australia on leave?

YES.

that these people were allowed to congregate at the airport for the purpose of spitting on servicemen?

Yes, and in the streets, and in protests that were called "Moratoriums".

should be easy enough to find an article on it as proof.

Sorry, I don't do your homework for you. Go find out yourself.

true. but there could be some documentary that was made in australia or there might be a page of stories by people who were abused by australians when they were on leave.

Plenty. Newspapers keep copies of old editions on hand(or microfiche..or not...we're talking 30 years or more)...or you could go what I suggested and go talk to veterans who were there.

But then again, there's a problem...they dont have any proof other than their word either.So...yeah....in that case you'd have to stand there, and call them a liar.

The same way you are calling me one.

i had never heard of us soldiers on leave being abused by australians.

And this means absolutely nothing. Had you heard about Juni Morosi either? Or Jim Cairns? How about Mr Brown?

That you have not heard of it, does not mean it did not happen.

i have no way of knowing if its true or not. im willing to be convinced by something more than the supposed recollection of an anonymous poster on an internet forum.

What you choose to believe is up to you. Go talk to people who were there.I am sorry I didn't have a web cam or other physical proof at the time...you see in the 1970's, those things did not exist.

But you only have "evidence" of Australians treated like that and treating people like that.

So if it can't be proven by an internet link it is a lie. Do you really think every singlke thing can be proven "because its on the internet?"

Good lord, that's a fallacy if I ever heard one.

I think you are done here.

Nope. I am not done here by a long shot. Lots to say and do yet.

Sorry, I don't do your homework for you. Go find out yourself.
Anecdotal evidence isn't proof and the burden of proof is on you. Do your own homework.

Anecdotal evidence isn't proof and the burden of proof is on you.

See above.

I saw it happen with my own eyes, at age 13 (and earlier). Sorry I didn't have the whole internet along with me at the time, to chronicle the event for you.

Some things have to be taken on trust. Not every living thing and every event that has happened in the last fifty years is "on the internet"

You do know that, right?

See above.

I saw it happen with my own eyes, at age 13 (and earlier). Sorry I didn't have the whole internet along with me at the time, to chronicle the event for you.

Some things have to be taken on trust. Not every living thing and every event that has happened in the last fifty years is "on the internet"

You do know that, right?

Surely you've heard of 'unreliable witness'? What has been made clear is that your word isn't good enough.

See above.

I saw it happen with my own eyes, at age 13 (and earlier). Sorry I didn't have the whole internet along with me at the time, to chronicle the event for you.

Some things have to be taken on trust. Not every living thing and every event that has happened in the last fifty years is "on the internet"

You do know that, right?
In order to have an argument you have to be able to prove your claims, which on an internet forum, you cannot do with anecdotes. I've no doubt an extremely small minority did spit at veterans, but without evidence, that means nothing. I'm sure google could pull something up pretty quickly.

Some things have to be taken on trust. Not every living thing and every event that has happened in the last fifty years is "on the internet"


I woke up with a sore ass, and nobody believed it was aliens.

You'll believe me, won't you?

Ok, so let's agree on this. the Australians of 30 years ago had absolutely NO respect for their military personnel. Australian Soldiers were spat upon so much back then that they didn't need baths and it was sooo common there that no one felt it was newsworthy (Libraries tend to have past newspapers saved or transferred to Microfiche.)

now for the REST OF THE WORLD... the number of spitting incidents were so small that it wasn't considered a widespread incident... If it happened outside the one or two times it might have actually happened.

Ok, so let's agree on this. the Australians of 30 years ago had absolutely NO respect for their military personnel.

No. I will agree that SOME Australians of 30 years ago had absolutely NO respect for their military personnel.

See above.
I don't have to see shit in any location. The burden of proof is on you and anecdotal evidence isn't proof anywhere.

Anecdotal evidence isn't proof and the burden of proof is on you. Do your own homework.

Why do you only have 23 posts and are a new member as of march 2007? :confused:

Is there something different about your name? I can't see it, and it's driving me bonkers!! GAH!

Why do you only have 23 posts and are a new member as of march 2007? :confused:

Is there something different about your name? I can't see it, and it's driving me bonkers!! GAH!

Used to be "teh" if memory serves.

Used to be "teh" if memory serves.
I got deleted and from everything I saw I made the assumption that it was because I didn't log into nationstates enough and therefore the name got dropped so I changed it with spelling abilities.

Used to be "teh" if memory serves.
Pah! Memory is overrated anyways Mr... uh... Mr. poster sir!

Memories aren't my forté :p

That gives me an idea...
I got deleted and from everything I saw I made the assumption that it was because I didn't log into nationstates enough and therefore the name got dropped so I changed it with spelling abilities.
Yay! :cool:

Go to the "Get Help Page" if you want it restored :) (http://www.nationstates.net/-1/page=help)

No. I will agree that SOME Australians of 30 years ago had absolutely NO respect for their military personnel.
Ok, but you can argue with FPN as to how many. :p

See above.

I saw it happen with my own eyes, at age 13 (and earlier). Sorry I didn't have the whole internet along with me at the time, to chronicle the event for you.

Some things have to be taken on trust. Not every living thing and every event that has happened in the last fifty years is "on the internet"

You do know that, right?

you trust the word of people you know to be reliable. only a fool blindly believes someone on the internet who says they saw something 35 years ago.

in my non exhaustive search of the net i found a few references to some protestors throwing blood or red paint in australian vets but no references to US soldiers on leave being treated badly and not the slightest suggestion of spit. US vets seem to have fairly fond memories of their R&R in sydney.

the impression i got was that since the australian soldiers were by and large draftees the average protestor didnt blame them for the war but pitied them for being forced into it.

the thing is, there are assholes everywhere. as we saw in eveonlines thread about the portland antiwar protest, in any large movement you get at least a few people who do the wrong thing. its not really reasonable to say that no soldier ever got spit on. some drunken protestor whose girlfriend got stolen by a soldier might have spit on some poor guy at an airport somewhere out of misguided revenge. who knows? BUT it was not an every day experience. it was not even talked about before the first rambo movie in the 80s. its a myth used to attack the antiwar movement.

and no i dont believe you and i have no reason to.

I got deleted and from everything I saw I made the assumption that it was because I didn't log into nationstates enough and therefore the name got dropped so I changed it with spelling abilities.

Ah--well, you can always ask to be resurrected, I imagine, if you want to go back to the old ways.

Sorry, I don't have all night.

Suffice it to say that you should go see for yourself.

Corneliu, is that you?

No, I want you to come personally and video it yourself.

I'm sure that otherwise, you or someone else here would claim it was faked or staged.

Translated: I'm lazy and can't be arsed to do this....or....I'm spouting bullshit, so I'm going to make a bunch of stupid conditions that will make it more difficult for people to pin it on me.

its a myth used to attack the antiwar movement.

No, the idea that every little fact of the last one hundred years can be backed up by links on the internet, otherwise its a lie, is a myth.

in my non exhaustive search of the net i found a few references to some protestors throwing blood or red paint in australian vets but no references to US soldiers on leave being treated badly and not the slightest suggestion of spit.

So according to you, if you cant find it on the internet it isn't true???Which one of us did you say has a credibility problem???

US vets seem to have fairly fond memories of their R&R in sydney.

Did you actually GO to them and ASK them if they can ever remember being spat on and reviled and abused by anti war protestors???

This is.... amusing,....it's also a little sad...and more than a little pathetic.

This Net of ours has a lot of good things about it...but it is not, and never will be the be all and end all of all human knowledge, and just because you cant find the reports on the net, doesn't mean they don't exist, it means they are not on the Net.

Did you really believe that the sum total of every day of every year of the last century can be found on a web page???

You have GOT to be kidding.

For example..the newspapers that carried the reports of these incidents went under more than twenty years ago.The reporters are dead, gone, retired, moved overseas...who knows?

The papers themselves, the Sun,the Daily Mirror, the Herald and others have undergone massive changes....and it is a sure bet that a lot of those old records are either lost, fiched, filed and forgotten, or just plain destroyed.

Thousands of tonnes of paper eaten by rats, cockroaches, silverfish... or thrown out as landfill. What..do you think there is some warehouse somewhere where people are busy transcribing every page and every word of every issue of the last 100 years to put on a web page???

Those records are GONE forever.

The cinemas that carried the newsreels of Vietnam are gone, the Dendy, the Rapallo, the city has undergone tumultuous change. The people that ran them, gone, moved, dead...who knows???

I have vivid memories of a shop under where the Hoyts cinema is now, that used to sell record posters in those HUGE cardboard sleeves..or the velveteen and day glo posters that used to be the in thing of the seventies..one of a cobra with its hood up and fangs bared(this is way pre Gi Joe)....I can remember the Hari Krishnas coming down the streets and chanting..none of any of this is on the Net....but those experiences and memories are nonetheless real.

Can you say otherwise?

P.S The Mirror used to have a page 3 girl, usually topless. The bank used to be the Wales, now its Westpac, you used to use passbooks, now its all ATM's.

What has been made clear is that your word isn't good enough.

Than thats just too bad for you.

That is all there is.

But if you doubt me, go see some veterans and ask them.

Oh wait...then you'd be calling them liars to their faces since they don't have internet web pages to back up their stories....to you, their word is also worthless according to your own criteria.

only a fool blindly believes someone on the internet who says they saw something 35 years ago.

Yet it makes what I saw no less real, no less the truth..and simply because your mind is closed to the possibility that you may be wrong, does not make it any less real.

I lived through those times and remember a great deal....the very real fear of massive riots in Nov 75...the exhilaration and astonishment of the entire world when the news of Entebbe broke (I was in NZ with my family to visit relatives and I stopped at a newsagent).....and the entry of what we called the uncertain eighties.......and here you are telling me that none of it happened.???

If my word is not good enough for you, then no one else's will be either, because they don't have the proof either, all they have are their memories.

Does that mean what they say is a lie too?

And the sad part is, that you have no idea of how little you really know. Unlike you, however, I am prepared to say the words "I don't know".

Can you say the same?

Y'know..I think I'll leave this here. If you lot want to rewrite history so that it is "history that can be proven by the internet and nothing else"...then go ahead.

Be my guest.

Meanwhile, I will go to bed soon and I will sit up in bed, and remember what it was like as a fifteen year old to walk down George Street....did you know that back then, adult films were openly advertised in all the cinemas??

That the headline film in 1973 at the Rapallo was "GoodNight Nurse"? And people flew
"TAA the friendly way" on T-Jets

(Gawd..I remember when "Emily" screened here...Andrew(we called him Randy Andy) was dating her and it was all over the papers back then).

(Had to wait till I was 18 to see it....finally got it on VHS and wondered what the fuss was. I'd seen better porn)

(How do I remember this?? It was on the back pages of the Sun newspaper)..the old one used to have a guy driving a chariot as the emblem of the newspaper...and I remember as well that the numberplate of the police car that brought in Mr Brown started with KGB..the papers had a laugh at that.

You wont find that on the net either....but it happened. It is truth, it is fact, I was there.

Homicide, Division 4, Matlock Police..Grigor Taylor in Silent Number...Divorce Court, the Super Flying Fun Show..the Unloved...oh my gawd... I just remembered yoga with Swami Sarasvati...man that lady could wear a leotard....:)

Man did you guys miss out on the best times.....:)

Sure, go ahead, call me a liar. I really don't give a rats ass.

I saw it happen.

Sure, go ahead, call me a liar. I really don't give a rats ass.
.

Its not our fault you've made an entirely unsubstantiated claim. I suggest that acting your age and ceasing the whine-athon.

I've been greatly entertained by the dance routine going on at the Gathering Of Eagles site, in regards to the supposed number of individuals attending their rally. For a while, the site reported that the National Park Service had estimated their turnout at 30,000 strong.

Michele Malkin wrote on Saturday that "Kit at Gathering of Eagles reports on the National Park Service estimate of the GoE turnout: 30,000 strong. The silent majority no more." At some point the attribution was changed to read, "Heidi at Gathering of Eagles reports on the National Park Service estimate of the GoE turnout: 30,000 strong. The silent majority no more."

Funny thing is, here's what the National Park Service had to say when they were contacted about this:

Dear Mr. […]:

I am the spokesperson for the National Park Service in Washington, D.C. I never issued any statement of any kind about anything related to this past weekend’s events, let alone anything about crowd size. In fact, I was never asked that question by anyone.

Anyone who gives any crowd size number or figure for this past weekend is making the figure up and does not have any authorization whatsoever to attribute those figures to the National Park Service. Since I never issued any such statement nor was ever the question raised in the first place, it is impossible to attribute any figures to the National Park Service for this past weekend’s events.

Lastly, Congress prohibits the National Park Service from giving or providing any crowd estimate for any permitted event on the National Mall.

I hope this is of help and clarification for you.

Bill Line
Communications & Tourism Officer
National Park Service
National Capital Region
1100 Ohio Drive, SW
Washington, D.C. 20242


The Gathering Of Eagles site now simply reads, "the first unofficial estimate of the Eagle turn-out today…"

Why do you hate freedom?....

Why does Eve Online hate freedom? And why does he inflict his hatred upon the rest of us?

Y'know..I think I'll leave this here. If you lot want to rewrite history so that it is "history that can be proven by the internet and nothing else"...then go ahead.
If this was as widespread as you claim, then there ought to be at least a sniff of it on Lexis/Nexis. Most newspapers--even those which went out of business and/or were subsumed by other papers--have been archived by libraries and are now available via Lexis/Nexis or Proquest or other archival sources. I spent some time looking just now and found nothing. Now, if you have other search terms you'd like me to use, if you can narrow down the time frame (I used 1968-1976 in my search and still got mostly null returns), I'll gladly run them. I work at a university and have free access.

No, the idea that every little fact of the last one hundred years can be backed up by links on the internet, otherwise its a lie, is a myth.
And despite your beliefs to the contrary, making a positive assertion, especially one that paints other people as evil scumbags, means you have to fucking prove it or shut up when people don't believe you. And given the supposed excessive amount of it, there has to have been proof either from a bystander or in the news, and if it was ever recorded, it can be found on the internet. I vote you start hitting Google like it was the bottle.

I vote you start hitting Google like it was the bottle.
!!!

Don't hit me!!

!!!

Don't hit me!!
Not Bottle, the bottle.

Not Bottle, the bottle.
Whew.

http://www.slapyo.com/wp-content/hitit3times.jpg

Not Bottle, the bottle.

Pfft! As if you really don't want to hit Bottle ;)




...in a good way, I mean :p

*Dodges thrown badger*

Y'know..I think I'll leave this here. If you lot want to rewrite history so that it is "history that can be proven by the internet and nothing else"...then go ahead.

Be my guest.

Meanwhile, I will go to bed soon and I will sit up in bed, and remember what it was like as a fifteen year old to walk down George Street....did you know that back then, adult films were openly advertised in all the cinemas??

That the headline film in 1973 at the Rapallo was "GoodNight Nurse"? And people flew
"TAA the friendly way" on T-Jets

(Gawd..I remember when "Emily" screened here...Andrew(we called him Randy Andy) was dating her and it was all over the papers back then).

(Had to wait till I was 18 to see it....finally got it on VHS and wondered what the fuss was. I'd seen better porn)

(How do I remember this?? It was on the back pages of the Sun newspaper)..the old one used to have a guy driving a chariot as the emblem of the newspaper...and I remember as well that the numberplate of the police car that brought in Mr Brown started with KGB..the papers had a laugh at that.

You wont find that on the net either....but it happened. It is truth, it is fact, I was there.

Homicide, Division 4, Matlock Police..Grigor Taylor in Silent Number...Divorce Court, the Super Flying Fun Show..the Unloved...oh my gawd... I just remembered yoga with Swami Sarasvati...man that lady could wear a leotard....:)

Man did you guys miss out on the best times.....:)

Sure, go ahead, call me a liar. I really don't give a rats ass.

I saw it happen.

are you a little OLD to think that anyone should believe unsubstantiated claims by a stranger on the internet and to get so pissy about it?

at 45 you really should know better.

I've been greatly entertained by the dance routine going on at the Gathering Of Eagles site, in regards to the supposed number of individuals attending their rally. For a while, the site reported that the National Park Service had estimated their turnout at 30,000 strong.

Michele Malkin wrote on Saturday that "Kit at Gathering of Eagles reports on the National Park Service estimate of the GoE turnout: 30,000 strong. The silent majority no more." At some point the attribution was changed to read, "Heidi at Gathering of Eagles reports on the National Park Service estimate of the GoE turnout: 30,000 strong. The silent majority no more."

Funny thing is, here's what the National Park Service had to say when they were contacted about this:




The Gathering Of Eagles site now simply reads, "the first unofficial estimate of the Eagle turn-out today…"

Quality.

Quality.
I would appreciate hearing from one of the Eagles' supporters on this.

Why did the Eagle's site falsely claim that the NPS had provided a crowd estimate for them? Why did they change this information? Why was no explanation provided?

I would appreciate hearing from one of the Eagles' supporters on this.

Why did the Eagle's site falsely claim that the NPS had provided a crowd estimate for them? Why did they change this information? Why was no explanation provided?

They are, as we learned in this thread, a far more reliable source than anything else. Perhaps they have time travelers and the time travelers keep going back to fix things but it only makes these little changes and for some reason you're retaining your alternate time line memory...that must be it, otherwise they would be a horribly unreliable source, and that's not what we learned in the thread...

Do you have a dog named Mr. Peabody? It would explain why you're not affected by their time traveling ways...

I would appreciate hearing from one of the Eagles' supporters on this.

Why did the Eagle's site falsely claim that the NPS had provided a crowd estimate for them? Why did they change this information? Why was no explanation provided?

Why do you dare question the integrity of the Eagles? Are you a commie or something? ;)

I have two spitting videos already.

More on the way.

Oh, and evidently, spitting was covered by the New York Times.

I suppose you won't take that as evidence, either.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0610F73C5B0C7B8EDDA80894DF404482

In Washington, counterprotesters also converged on the mall in smaller numbers, but the antiwar demonstration was largely peaceful.


There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration's policies in Iraq.

Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.

Capitol police made the antiwar protestors walk farther away from the counterprotesters.

"These are not Americans as far as I'm concerned," Mr. Sparling said.

I have two spitting videos already.

More on the way.

Oh, and evidently, spitting was covered by the New York Times.

I suppose you won't take that as evidence, either.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0610F73C5B0C7B8EDDA80894DF404482

Spit on the ground. That's been reported before. It's not common, but it happens. I wouldn't do it personally, but by the same token, I wouldn't spit on Sparling if he were on fire either. Got to be consistent, after all.

I have two spitting videos already.

Then where are they?

Mr. Sparling's last line is rather telling when he said that these people are not American :rolleyes:

Mr. Sparling's last line is rather telling when he said that these people are not American :rolleyes:

Which is why I said what I said about him above.

I have two spitting videos already.

More on the way.

Oh, and evidently, spitting was covered by the New York Times.

I suppose you won't take that as evidence, either.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0610F73C5B0C7B8EDDA80894DF404482

interesting.

i certainly hope you are posting your video to youtube.

remember that what you promised us was video of protestor spitting on wounded soldiers at walter reed. if that it what you have it should make a huge impact. such people should not be allowed to operate without the country knowing about it.

you realize, of course, that the nytimes article as an anti-war protestor spitting in the direction of a pro-war demonstrator. that is not the same as spitting on wounded vets at all.

interesting.

i certainly hope you are posting your video to youtube.

remember that what you promised us was video of protestor spitting on wounded soldiers at walter reed. if that it what you have it should make a huge impact. such people should not be allowed to operate without the country knowing about it.

you realize, of course, that the nytimes article as an anti-war protestor spitting in the direction of a pro-war demonstrator. that is not the same as spitting on wounded vets at all.

The allegation was 'constant spitting' btw...

The allegation was 'constant spitting' btw...

hey, if protestors are contantly spitting on wounded soldiers, i want them hung out to dry. such disgusting dishonorable scummy behavior should not be allowed to go on.

we'll see what eve has, eh?

hey, if protestors are contantly spitting on wounded soldiers, i want them hung out to dry. such disgusting dishonorable scummy behavior should not be allowed to go on.

we'll see what eve has, eh?

I don't disagree.

Mr. Sparling's last line is rather telling when he said that these people are not American :rolleyes:

Well, he's right. Anyone who doesn't agree with shooting people who are browner and poorer than us is not a real American.

hey, if protestors are contantly spitting on wounded soldiers, i want them hung out to dry.

Totally. Although the protestors will probably die of dehydration sometime soon.

Spit on the ground. That's been reported before. It's not common, but it happens. I wouldn't do it personally, but by the same token, I wouldn't spit on Sparling if he were on fire either. Got to be consistent, after all.
I have to agree. Sorry, Eve, but spitting on the ground is worlds away from spitting directly on a person. Also, you were supposed to have images from WR, where you say that protesters are spitting ON soldiers CONSTANTLY.

I remain completely serious in what I said before: if you have evidence that what you claim is really going on, and if you remain unwilling or unable to come forward to the media or authorities about it, I will do so personally. Give me your photos or your footage of the constant spitting and harassment in front of WR, and I will stand forward with it.

I strongly urge you to treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves. If you are really witnessing these kinds of harassment (bordering on assault) constantly occuring in front of WR, then please don't just stand by.

hey, if protestors are contantly spitting on wounded soldiers, i want them hung out to dry. such disgusting dishonorable scummy behavior should not be allowed to go on.

we'll see what eve has, eh?
I feel the same, and that's why I cannot understand why Eve has not taken photos, numbers, and names, and why he has not been contacting every local authority and every media outlet. If that shit is really going down, how the hell could anybody just stand by and watch?! How could you just watch soldiers being abused and do NOTHING, not even snap a damn picture?

Well, he's right. Anyone who doesn't agree with shooting people who are browner and poorer than us is not a real American.

Oh brother :rolleyes:

I feel the same, and that's why I cannot understand why Eve has not taken photos, numbers, and names, and why he has not been contacting every local authority and every media outlet. If that shit is really going down, how the hell could anybody just stand by and watch?! How could you just watch soldiers being abused and do NOTHING, not even snap a damn picture?

So, I found a blog written by a man who is very supportive of the troops and the war. He is very reminiscent of the Eve Online type.

He is regularly at the Walter Reed, and constantly trying to interact with the protesters there. Consequently, I would assume that since he is there often, with a camera, he would record such an event.

He has not recorded such an incident, as far as I can tell. (http://www.indepundit.com/archive2/2006/09/the_cold_should.html)

So, I found a blog written by a man who is very supportive of the troops and the war. He is very reminiscent of the Eve Online type.

He is regularly at the Walter Reed, and constantly trying to interact with the protesters there. Consequently, I would assume that since he is there often, with a camera, he would record such an event.

He has not recorded such an incident, as far as I can tell. (http://www.indepundit.com/archive2/2006/09/the_cold_should.html)
I oppose Bush's War with every fiber of my being, but I support the men and women in the US military just as strongly as I oppose the war. One of my best friends has now done two tours in Iraq, so every time I see a soldier being harassed or abused I have this personal twinge as I imagine my friend being treated that way.

Sadly, our government is doing most of the abusing. I do what I can to put an end to that, but most of what I can do is through the slow, formal machinery of our political system. While I believe that this is very important, I also feel like on an emotional level it is sometimes unsatisfying. You often don't see results, and you NEVER see immediate results, so it usually doesn't satisfy that gut emotional reaction you have to seeing people abused.

Because of this lingering dissatisfaction, I would be particularly delighted to be able to stick it to somebody who was spitting on the troops at WR. That's immediate. That's simple. I see somebody crossing the line and being a dick, and I get to bust them on it right then and there. I would LOVE that.

But all I've seen in person is examples of protesters yelling stuff and holding signs. In my America, that shit is not against the rules. You're allowed to be a dick, up to a point, and the military exists specifically to protect a way of life in which you have the freedom to be a dick. I may not like it, but if I start fucking with the fundamental freedoms of my fellow citizens then I am fucking with the very thing that the soldiers put their bodies on the line to protect. How the fuck do you think it would feel, knowing that you risked life and limb in combat to protect something, and then you find out that people at home are attacking that exact something anyway? I'd be pretty pissed off.

So, I found a blog written by a man who is very supportive of the troops and the war. He is very reminiscent of the Eve Online type.

He is regularly at the Walter Reed, and constantly trying to interact with the protesters there. Consequently, I would assume that since he is there often, with a camera, he would record such an event.

He has not recorded such an incident, as far as I can tell. (http://www.indepundit.com/archive2/2006/09/the_cold_should.html)

interesting link. thanks for posting it.

i was beginning to worry that these people were some kind of westboro baptist types who blame the troops and harass wounded soldiers. i was starting to make plans of my own to go over this summer when ill be in the area and devote one day of my vacaton to busting these assholes.

but i see that they try to avoid unpleasant confrontation with those patients who obviously feel passionately the other way. the blogger doesnt like it but at least they are avoiding unnecessary fights.

I oppose Bush's War with every fiber of my being, but I support the men and women in the US military just as strongly as I oppose the war. One of my best friends has now done two tours in Iraq, so every time I see a soldier being harassed or abused I have this personal twinge as I imagine my friend being treated that way.

Sadly, our government is doing most of the abusing. I do what I can to put an end to that, but most of what I can do is through the slow, formal machinery of our political system. While I believe that this is very important, I also feel like on an emotional level it is sometimes unsatisfying. You often don't see results, and you NEVER see immediate results, so it usually doesn't satisfy that gut emotional reaction you have to seeing people abused.

Because of this lingering dissatisfaction, I would be particularly delighted to be able to stick it to somebody who was spitting on the troops at WR. That's immediate. That's simple. I see somebody crossing the line and being a dick, and I get to bust them on it right then and there. I would LOVE that.

But all I've seen in person is examples of protesters yelling stuff and holding signs. In my America, that shit is not against the rules. You're allowed to be a dick, up to a point, and the military exists specifically to protect a way of life in which you have the freedom to be a dick. I may not like it, but if I start fucking with the fundamental freedoms of my fellow citizens then I am fucking with the very thing that the soldiers put their bodies on the line to protect. How the fuck do you think it would feel, knowing that you risked life and limb in combat to protect something, and then you find out that people at home are attacking that exact something anyway? I'd be pretty pissed off.
QFT.

But all I've seen in person is examples of protesters yelling stuff and holding signs. In my America, that shit is not against the rules. You're allowed to be a dick, up to a point, and the military exists specifically to protect a way of life in which you have the freedom to be a dick. I may not like it, but if I start fucking with the fundamental freedoms of my fellow citizens then I am fucking with the very thing that the soldiers put their bodies on the line to protect. How the fuck do you think it would feel, knowing that you risked life and limb in combat to protect something, and then you find out that people at home are attacking that exact something anyway? I'd be pretty pissed off.

yeah. i hate this stupid war but i have relatives who have and are fighting in iraq. im not happy with anyone allowing wounded soldiers to be abused.

now thats not the same as a disabled vet getting into a fight at a protest and emotions run high and spitting happens. no one is so sacred that they can do anything themselves and are immune to bad reactions from opponents. im talking about people minding their own business and being attacked without provocation for being in the military. thats just wrong. and anyone who would stand by watching our wounded soldiers being spat upon is also wrong.

Our soldiers should be provided with the best care,medication and procedures available.
They should be treated with dignity and respect by their care-givers.

They should expect and recieve the best follow-up care and therapy/rehab.

They should also be able to enter & leave the care facility without being assaulted or harrased.



If anyone opposes the military actions or simply hates the military, take it up with the bosses-not the grunts. Not the ones that REALLY sacraficed.

Your cause will get no positive attention or respect from me,or anyone else with a functioning mind, if you think directing abuse toward a soldier,wounded or not, will further your cause and get your point across.

You're much more likely to bring me down to your level,where I would consider yelling at you,insulting you...and maybe degrade to threats and ultimately violence. Maybe at your home or job. Or likewise a place that makes it more inconvenient or uncomfortable for you.