|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
News :: Protest Activity |
|
Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
Current rating: 0 |
by Jan Kruse
Email: durljan (nospam) earthlink.net (unverified!) |
03 May 2003
|
|
At 3:45 PM, just 15 minutes before the final Pro War rally was scheduled to conclude Saturday May 3 the Buffer Zone was breached! |
|
After enduring the usual vulgarities both verbal and visual 2 bikers for war passed throught the buffer zone on Prospect Avenue today to enter the Prospect for Peace area. They were intent to take photos of our group and to make threatening statements as they passed by each person. A WW II Veteran against war was told that his sign was offensive to the Pro War group. Earlier a van of flag wavers had assulted him by throwing a condom filled with a disgusting brown fluid as he stood with our group.
The picture takers seemed intent upon making threats and provking a reaction as they ventured passed the mutually agreed buffer area on Prospect. One person in our group asked not to be photographed , but to no avail. The bikers for War snapped pictures and made insults. A struggled insued. All parties were involved yet to the witnesses "shock and awe" there was only police intervention against the person from our group. She was forced to the ground, face to the ground, arm and shoulder clamped and knee to the back. Cuffs were put on as the bikers were only directed away.
The Pro war bikers had entered the mutually agreed buffer area and proceeded in the street, in front of us as traffic moved behind them, yet the police asserted force only towards our friend. All parties were involved equally in the insuing struggle.
As Rick Winkel had just finished his speech in praise of those who support the Governmment NO Matter What!, I was getting a sick feeling. Their red, white and blue ballons released to heavens seemed to quickly be caught up in a blast of hot air hovering over the area near the Pro war group and quickly disapearred from sight. Their loud speaker blasted "This Land Is Our Land" and the day quickly became a day to remember.
Today I witnessed a one sided overreaction from a police officer, a government spokesperson praise those who insinuate that freedon of speech is not for everyone. I observed the mutually agreed to rules not to matter if you have a flag to wave.
Last week they held a sign that read "Jail the Peace Protesters": This week they tried to help make it happen!
Freedom of Speech may be slowly dying in our nation. I could literally feel our civil liberties being smothered today by a flag so huge.........a flag that no longer stands for Freedom and Justice for All! |
Comments
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Shayn
the_discount_barber9357 (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 2
03 May 2003
|
|
I definantly feel for you, America. Our thoughts and prayers are for you, as your nation is slowly strangled from within. Do whatever you can to hold out. The world supports "We the people" of the US. Not the hijackers in power. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -5
04 May 2003
Modified: 09:32:31 PM |
To Little Ricky and Friends,
You pretend that what you do is so courageous. Yet, with Saddam gone, there is no one around anymore who will take comfort in your actions. Face it, You are either with us or your with the terrorists. BTW, did you see we uncovered, yet another mass grave in Iraq yesterday? This would still be going on had you gotten your way. It is okay for you to continue to lie to us, but to continue to lie to yourselves in unforgivable.
Finally, no one is pro war. Did it occur to anyone of you leftists that this war, in fact, brought peace? I think this what your goal was, was it not? The fact is, that you are all nothing more than a bunch of socialist or communists, leftys who history has passed by. We know this is simply an anti- Bush rally from week to week. You know that a popular President will most hopefully be reelected and your handouts that you receive from working people may force you into the working world. You continue to protest a war which was won in 21 days. When I have time, I am going to go back and grab some of your predictions as to what would happen in Iraq. So far none of it has come to fruition.
Would anyone of you have the courage to admit that you were wrong? Would you at least acknowledge the fact that the Iraqi people are better off today than they were three months ago? It is going to take some courage from one of you. I have to believe there is one among you with the courage to see the truth.
Jack |
|
Call For Documentation Of Events Described |
by Paul Kotheimer for UC IMC
herringb (nospam) prairienet.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 4
04 May 2003
Modified: 10:15:51 PM |
Does anybody associated with AWARE or UC IMC have photos, audio, or video of the events described in this article?
Let's bring all the documentation together and mobilize in support of the peace demonstrator who was arrested--not to mention in defense of everybody's right of Peaceable Assembly!!
Also, let's try to have video cameras at next weekend's Prospect for Peace, AND let's make it a habit to document EVERY instance of abuse against Prospect for Peace participants, so that the intimidation and selective arrests are at least a LITTLE bit less likely to take place with the utter impugnity which seemes (by this account) to have prevailed this past Saturday.
We have an IMC. Let's use it!
|
|
Free Speech And The Anti-war Movement - The Big Lie |
by bfd
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
05 May 2003
Modified: 10:08:15 AM |
|
For a group of people so quick to assert your constitutional rights, you're not very good at interpreting them (or, for that matter, standing up for the place that affords them to you). The right to free speech is not the right to speak without criticism; your right to express your opinon is no more or less protected than my right to tell you to go to hell in the strongest terms. That doesn't excuse behavior that crosses the line, but on the other hand, it's quite clear that the "peace" crowd is very interested in provoking a reaction from people. It's part of the psychological reward that these peple seek: advocate a political position that is impossible to achieve; incite inevitable opposition; then validate your belief that you are subject to unsurmountable oppression, and not at fault for personal shortcomings. Don't complain when you succeed at what you really intend to achieve - getting flipped off by passing drivers, so that you can gripe about it on the IMC. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
05 May 2003
Modified: 10:24:53 AM |
> The right to free speech is not the right to speak without criticism; your right to express your opinon is no more or less protected than my right to tell you to go to hell in the strongest terms.
Nobody disputes that.
> That doesn't excuse behavior that crosses the line, but on the other hand, it's quite clear that the "peace" crowd is very interested in provoking a reaction from people. It's part of the psychological reward that these peple seek: advocate a political position that is impossible to achieve;
Actually, it would have been quite easy to avoid going to war in Iraq. And the political support for a peaceful solution, worldwide, was there.
> incite inevitable opposition; then validate your belief that you are subject to unsurmountable oppression,
I don't believe that.
> and not at fault for personal shortcomings.
Which personal shortcomings are you referring to, or is that just kind of a generic ad hominem against anti-war protestors?
> Don't complain when you succeed at what you really intend to achieve - getting flipped off by passing drivers, so that you can gripe about it on the IMC.
How disingenuous. I, for one, hope to change people's minds and raise awareness that not everyone supports the war. You can deny that if you want to, but that discredits you, not us. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Anon
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 5
05 May 2003
Modified: 07:11:42 PM |
You know, bfd, your argument only works if you assume that peace is impossible, that man is so inherently an animal that it is impossible for him to solve his problems without resorting to violence. That is a false argument in as far as it ignores the the real facts of human history by turning violence into destiny. Indeed, were that true than we would have killed ourselves soon after the invention of the atomic bomb. If it is true, as I suspect it is, that man is NOT an inherently violent animal (something implicit in your claim that there is some "behavior that crosses the line"), then it does not follow that the demand for peace is impossible. Thus what you claim to be the psychology motivating peace protesters is indeed disingenuous.
You also make a similar sort of error in suggesting that those who protest against war must somehow be necessarily anti-American. Or perhaps I read too much in your comments? If so, I invite your clarification. In any event, your comment suggests that patriotism requires support and obedience as against criticism. Why else would you claim that anti-war demonstrators are not "standing up for the place that affords" freedom of speech? At the very least, your comment suggests that you know what proper support for the U.S. is and what those on prospect do isn't it.
Against such a problematically individual definition of what constitutes proper support for our government, I would ask why then would the rights to speech, assembly, the press, among others, be seen as inalienable rights? I would submit that on its face, the consitiution seeks to embody a government and a society in which ideas contest in public forms. Is this not precisely what you claim in suggesting that "The right to free speech is not the right to speak without criticism; your right to express your opinon is no more or less protected than my right to tell you to go to hell in the strongest terms"? I would suggest then that your assertion that anti-war demonstrators do not know how to interpret their constitutional rights is false and it is you who does not stand up for the U.S. as you would rather dictate than discourse. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Jazzbo Depew
jazzbo8 (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 5
05 May 2003
Modified: 10:04:48 PM |
Dear Rusty Nail,
I have a hypothetical question for all you loud-mouthed, jingoistic,flag wavin,self-righteous name-callin jackinapes..no offense jerkwads! just good ole two way free speech...
Here's the question;Now be your usual fair minded selves...
I'm sure you are all wound up to a patriotic ferver cause of the celebration..Must get you all real American feelin to be celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the formation of;
"The House Committee on Un-American activities'
I tribute the hero and mentor of your quest to purify The United States of it's rabble-rousing trouble makers in my question asking style...Here's to you Senator McCarthy! I love ya man!Well not as much or in the same way as your assistant Mr.Cohen(esquire) but in a more fraternal manly-man sort of way...I know you are dead Senator and cant offer you answer to my fair mindedd question here;Unless ,of course, you can channel one of your politico-descendants like that cool talk show guy on WLS..
Now the question SIR! And I demand the answer which I seek!
Don't play games with me you commi-bastard..Anybody offended by my question in definately Un-American!
First I will setup the question;
1. There are twenty Political issues on the table.
2. There are only two ways to percieve these issues.
a. the wrong way.[Let's call this "Your way" or the Conservative way"]
b. and the God approved,Founding-Father
intended,politically correct,constitutional(with no ammendments),Terroist-killin,Nation-freein,world lovin,mudrace hatin way.[Let's call this "My Way"Or The Liberal Way"]
Now Senator ,I mean Anti-Anti-War friends;The senario is set here's the question.
On Ten of these twenty issues I take the Liberal viewpoint.
On the other ten issues I take the Conservative viewpoint..
Ie.)(ie. means "therefore";
AM I A LIBERAL OR A CONSERVATIVE?
Please keep your answer to less than two words.....Or else!
Now come on sean,aint that a question the Senator,rest his soul, would be proud of?
Of course the point of this exercise is not to poll opinions on the proper way to catagorize pundits.
Point is to advise the "tone of discourse is the spirit of discourse".(T.Jefferson)
If I demean your effort,belittle your opinion,preface my tolerance off you with bile,tilt my opinion while feigning the pretense of freedom and do all sorts of other naughty-naughty things to make it seem like you Americans ,who have a slightly different opinion than me are somehow "Less patriotic" than me............................
You just can't win!
But then Neither can I.
My advice?
Remember;That constitution ,ou beat me on the head with,was INDEED drawn by 13 colonies about to come to blows with each other...Brought together by broad minded men in a last ditch effort to come to a state of unity..A "UNITED STAES".
United thru their differences against a greater power....
That would be our best ally England.....
Get it?
No I mean Get it!
~ ~
O O
-----oooO--(_)---Oooo-------
Outgoing mail is certified Virus,Anthrax and Doghair Free
.oooO Oooo.
( Y ) ( Y )
jazz--\ (-----) /--aka--DenB
\_) (_/
**********************USA***********************************
|
|
Veterans Being Abused? |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
06 May 2003
|
It's an old story for those courageous veterans who oppose war. They've been spit on before and now have to endure the abusive activities of sunshine "patriot" thugs on North Prospect. Read the story at this link for background:
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/11665/index.php |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Hobbes
celtic_hobbes (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 2
06 May 2003
Modified: 08:16:05 AM |
Your love and your love of peace will alway prevail. There are difficult days ahead for everyone in the US but we must continue to 'walk our talk' or we give away our power to those full of hate. There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people (or any killing as far as I'm concerned).
How have we come to a time where praying and marching for peace and love is a bad thing? You have a right in this country (at least for the moment) to hold a sign that expresses your opinion. If others don't like it, they are free to go and live somewhere else. Somewhere where they make no pretense of loving liberty with such hypocrisy as you have illustrated in the recent events of your community.
|
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
06 May 2003
Modified: 08:52:17 AM |
Dear Hobbes,
No one questions your right to assemble. I do question why you do. Anon claims it is both Patriotic and Heroic. I'm not seeing it. Look at some of the past comments on why we should not support our Armed Forces. Some of you, not all, were hoping for our men and women to be chewed up in a ground war. Now you cannot deny this. It is to those people that I refer. You are not courageous, or patriotic. You take advantage of the memories of those who have paid for your right to protest.
Your love of liberty is admirable. Are the Iraqis any less deserving?
Jack |
|
Words Of Peace"The Sampler" |
by jazzbo depew
jazzbo8 (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 5
06 May 2003
Modified: 10:30:20 AM |
It is time for words of peace.
Greetings to all reading this citizens of; the USA,America,at large,Iraq,and all the rest who are fortune enough to have access to forum powers.
The day of the 2000 election the internet mesage boards were so filled with hatred and contempt that I,jazzbo depew,decided to comment on the election outcome before it was official.Here's a sample of that ramble;
------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Neighbors! I hate to do this but my connection is timing out ,time
is short,I'll share this and be gone...............
It is Friday,Nov 10,2000 This still applies.
Here it is the day after the election and we don't yet know who will be our President.
"Greetings Neighbors! Now it is time for Jazzbodepew
to pontificate.For many weeks now I have come to this arena of
debate.I've heard much of what makes our country great.I have heard much
that bothers me. The negative name callin,the hate,the patented
rejection of other folks opinions. I call on each of you again to give
the greatest of respect to ALL who seek to do the work of our country."
I am sleepin well cause as I've said ,again
and again and again......."We Americans all win when we step alone into
the voter booth.Even if your big 'butt sticks out from under the curtain
,like mine!"-------!
. As I have Proudly proclaimed for some time now;
"I JAZZBODEPEW WILL WHOLE HEARTEDLY SUPPORT WHOMEVER IS
CHOSEN TO BE MY PRESIDENT."
Can ya see how hate for the opposing pundit
has brought us all down.All of you!Well both of you anyway..
The commercial media in thier quest to 'sell
soap' has turned our noble process into a pitched battle between Good and Evil.
They create a civil war in our nation where civil union should prevail. ...
Try out this anology if you would neighbors.
Elections ARE a contest,a battle to be sure. Thing is though they are NOT a world ending battle of Good vs. Evil.
We're all on the same team here.
I think of my high school friend Steve . He was on the wrestling team with me. He was two years younger and the 'heir-apparent to my heavyweight success story.Every week he had the right to challenge me to a
wrestle-off to see who would represent our school.Every single week he challenged.Every single week I prevailed. Steve and I were on the same team... We are all on the same
team here in The U.S.A. Like my friend Steve we truely win when we step up to the mat,or the voting booth!
We win again when we root the loudest
for the guy who beat us out for the job. This Constitution was'nt made by people who agreed.It was made by folks who were on the verge of grappling.We opted to wrassle for the team(insert your country).
It's unsure now but if the fella I voted for wins or loses me and my little 'team U.S.A. are winners.Please join me ...
But Steve kept commin back for
more.When I,inevitably, won he congradulated me ,he ask for my advice on how to do
better,and he started right in practicing to beat me" next week.His concern was for the team.
Back then I thought beating him made me a better man.
Now I know it was his 'tryin and never giving up and comin
back every week in the face of almost certain defeat,and being there the loudest for me in the match,that made me a better man. ...
I have said from the beginning ;"Respect your neighbor" Being in favor of a candidate is good.It's the 'American' way. However;hating the 'other guy is NOT the American way!When we call names and question the patriotism
of the other guy,we we drive another nail in the coffin of ourDemocray. ...
I love what this election has done.We may finally be able to retrieve ourselves from the jugernautic control of the 'Soap Selling Commercial News Media'.While I don't fault the indivdual
correspondent,the fact remains that the 'media' must by thier very nature,sell soap. To get ratings they collectively dwell on the worst in
mankind.
"If it bleeds it leads".
Since 1924 when the first 'time slot'(AM Radio lol) was purchased for political purpose(and before that in a lesser
way with the papers)the commercial media has guided our precious election process.
Oh I believe in free speech very much! However I hope we can differentiate twixt news and a concerted effort to 'maximize profits'.
Now it's 5:00am the morning after election day and we don't know who has won...
But I,jazzbodepew,am sleeping well.
P.S May6,2003
We have a president and he "Did not steal the election"!
G.W.(Jr.) Bush won ,fair and square, in an overtime match.
Big Al did his best and accepts the results of said election.
Let's move on. all of us .....together.
Day after the election I,jazzbodepew,did what I always do day after the election,since Nixon.I wrote to my new President and sent my congradulations and asked for a picture of the newest in a distinguished line of Great U.S. Americans......Well I was a little dissapointed;This is tthe first time ,in 30 years,I havent gotten my picture requested..But the white house web site was being re-designed and re-directed.Can't hold a grudge for that.Think I'll try again later..Meantime I still very much enjoy the picture of my previous president W.J.(The "slickster")Clinton...Like "Jr.Bush " "The Slickster" is one more Great American doin the work of our country..
Don''''t know what happened to Steve.
I do know;He is a winner!
Gotta go,now, need to figure out what I,jazzbodepew,have done lately to make this a better place to live...Not just My Country but The World too.....
Neighbors!
Ponder please;
"ALL CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES WERE AT ONE TIME LIBERAL IDEAS"
IE.)the right to independence,the right to vote,the right to property,the right for women to vote,the right to not be a slave,the right to peacefully protest
jazz......................aka...........................DenB |
|
Words Of Peace"The Sampler" |
by jazzbo depew
jazzbo8 (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 1
06 May 2003
Modified: 10:31:11 AM |
It is time for words of peace.
Greetings to all reading this citizens of; the USA,America,at large,Iraq,and all the rest who are fortune enough to have access to forum powers.
The day of the 2000 election the internet mesage boards were so filled with hatred and contempt that I,jazzbo depew,decided to comment on the election outcome before it was official.Here's a sample of that ramble;
------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Neighbors! I hate to do this but my connection is timing out ,time
is short,I'll share this and be gone...............
It is Friday,Nov 10,2000 This still applies.
Here it is the day after the election and we don't yet know who will be our President.
"Greetings Neighbors! Now it is time for Jazzbodepew
to pontificate.For many weeks now I have come to this arena of
debate.I've heard much of what makes our country great.I have heard much
that bothers me. The negative name callin,the hate,the patented
rejection of other folks opinions. I call on each of you again to give
the greatest of respect to ALL who seek to do the work of our country."
I am sleepin well cause as I've said ,again
and again and again......."We Americans all win when we step alone into
the voter booth.Even if your big 'butt sticks out from under the curtain
,like mine!"-------!
. As I have Proudly proclaimed for some time now;
"I JAZZBODEPEW WILL WHOLE HEARTEDLY SUPPORT WHOMEVER IS
CHOSEN TO BE MY PRESIDENT."
Can ya see how hate for the opposing pundit
has brought us all down.All of you!Well both of you anyway..
The commercial media in thier quest to 'sell
soap' has turned our noble process into a pitched battle between Good and Evil.
They create a civil war in our nation where civil union should prevail. ...
Try out this anology if you would neighbors.
Elections ARE a contest,a battle to be sure. Thing is though they are NOT a world ending battle of Good vs. Evil.
We're all on the same team here.
I think of my high school friend Steve . He was on the wrestling team with me. He was two years younger and the 'heir-apparent to my heavyweight success story.Every week he had the right to challenge me to a
wrestle-off to see who would represent our school.Every single week he challenged.Every single week I prevailed. Steve and I were on the same team... We are all on the same
team here in The U.S.A. Like my friend Steve we truely win when we step up to the mat,or the voting booth!
We win again when we root the loudest
for the guy who beat us out for the job. This Constitution was'nt made by people who agreed.It was made by folks who were on the verge of grappling.We opted to wrassle for the team(insert your country).
It's unsure now but if the fella I voted for wins or loses me and my little 'team U.S.A. are winners.Please join me ...
But Steve kept commin back for
more.When I,inevitably, won he congradulated me ,he ask for my advice on how to do
better,and he started right in practicing to beat me" next week.His concern was for the team.
Back then I thought beating him made me a better man.
Now I know it was his 'tryin and never giving up and comin
back every week in the face of almost certain defeat,and being there the loudest for me in the match,that made me a better man. ...
I have said from the beginning ;"Respect your neighbor" Being in favor of a candidate is good.It's the 'American' way. However;hating the 'other guy is NOT the American way!When we call names and question the patriotism
of the other guy,we we drive another nail in the coffin of ourDemocray. ...
I love what this election has done.We may finally be able to retrieve ourselves from the jugernautic control of the 'Soap Selling Commercial News Media'.While I don't fault the indivdual
correspondent,the fact remains that the 'media' must by thier very nature,sell soap. To get ratings they collectively dwell on the worst in
mankind.
"If it bleeds it leads".
Since 1924 when the first 'time slot'(AM Radio lol) was purchased for political purpose(and before that in a lesser
way with the papers)the commercial media has guided our precious election process.
Oh I believe in free speech very much! However I hope we can differentiate twixt news and a concerted effort to 'maximize profits'.
Now it's 5:00am the morning after election day and we don't know who has won...
But I,jazzbodepew,am sleeping well.
P.S May6,2003
We have a president and he "Did not steal the election"!
G.W.(Jr.) Bush won ,fair and square, in an overtime match.
Big Al did his best and accepts the results of said election.
Let's move on. all of us .....together.
Day after the election I,jazzbodepew,did what I always do day after the election,since Nixon.I wrote to my new President and sent my congradulations and asked for a picture of the newest in a distinguished line of Great U.S. Americans......Well I was a little dissapointed;This is tthe first time ,in 30 years,I havent gotten my picture requested..But the white house web site was being re-designed and re-directed.Can't hold a grudge for that.Think I'll try again later..Meantime I still very much enjoy the picture of my previous president W.J.(The "slickster")Clinton...Like "Jr.Bush " "The Slickster" is one more Great American doin the work of our country..
Don''''t know what happened to Steve.
I do know;He is a winner!
Gotta go,now, need to figure out what I,jazzbodepew,have done lately to make this a better place to live...Not just My Country but The World too.....
Neighbors!
Ponder please;
"ALL CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES WERE AT ONE TIME LIBERAL IDEAS"
IE.)the right to independence,the right to vote,the right to property,the right for women to vote,the right to not be a slave,the right to peacefully protest
jazz......................aka...........................DenB |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 9
06 May 2003
Modified: 09:35:52 AM |
> Some of you, not all, were hoping for our men and women to be chewed up in a ground war.
... and what about all the hawks who were hoping for Iraq's troops to be "chewed up" in a ground war? Are you defending that position? Talk about moral relativism. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
06 May 2003
|
Joe,
If it is a choice between the two, than yes, I would rather that enemy die as opposed to our own forces. Why is it that you folks hope for a fair fight? Secondly Joe, I think you will agree that Saddam killed far more of his own people than we could have ever hoped to. US forces did more to avoid civilian deaths than any other military force in history.
We had complete air supremecy. We could have flown large formations of bombers over Baghdad at will and leveled the place, yet we chose not to. Had the situation been reversed, do you think Saddam would have been so merciful?
I suspect not,
Jack |
|
Anon: History Denialist |
by bfd
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
06 May 2003
Modified: 10:20:45 AM |
Anon (whichever version),
Scholarly tones aside, you should be aware that your interpretation (ahem) of history and sociology isn't very widely held. The reason we haven't destroyed ourselves with nuclear weapons is precicely the same reason why we often engage in violence - necessity. You could stand to take a cue from Hobbes - the real one, not the one borrowing his name above.
Saying that all war protestors are anti-American is kind of like saying that all white people like country music; not all of them are, of course...but somebody's buyin' them Travis Tritt CD's, and it ain't my neighbor Julio. You're judged by the company you keep, and to a person, the organizers - not necessecarily all of the participants - but the organizers of this so-called "anti-war" malarkey are beligerant, anti-America activists, with a long pedigree of hating their home country. The rest of the public has your number - you may as well wave that flag high.
And for this guy Joe at the bottom - a whole bunch of Iraqi soldiers had the right idea and refused to fight to keep Saddam in power. They'll live to see their country free from self-destruction and torture and dictatorship. Those that made another choice won't. If you have a problem with our military not engaging in a "fair fight" - it's probably fair to say that there's a reason why people like you plan the peace rallies and you should defer to others who plan the wars.
Whatever. If you're so unhappy, Elian Gonzalez's inner tube is free for your use. Scram. Or shut up. |
|
Strange Ideas About What Constitutes "anti-americanism" |
by Robert Porter
rporter (nospam) newtonbigelow.com (verified) |
Current rating: 8
06 May 2003
Modified: 12:40:52 PM |
The idea that anti-war protesters are "anti-american" makes no sense at all. Since when does disagreeing with the policies of the president -- whoever that happens to be at any given time -- make you unpatriotic? Were Americans who disagreed with Clinton unpatriotic?
I would argue that anyone who takes to the streets in protest is merely showing their commitment to the principles of democracy. It's a lot more patriotic to take a stand for what you believe in than to blindly accept the notion that whatever the government is doing must be the right thing.
As for the "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" arguement, that's just nonsensical. People who protest do so because they care about what happens to this country. They are far more likely to stick around and work for change than they are to turn tail and run. |
|
Five Bonus Points |
by bfd
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -4
06 May 2003
Modified: 01:29:43 PM |
You clearly get credit for being stupid rather than evil - good for you. Since you obviously don't interpret these issues on a broader level, you're one of the bystanders that enable those that do, in fact, have an anti-American agenda, and are involved in "anti-war" activities for the sole purpose of furthering it. See Brian Becker, Leslie Cagan, Larry Holmes, Ramsey Clark, Shaun Richman, etc, etc, etc.
This is probably waaaay over your head, I know. I hate to break it to you, but what you say is more important than how you speak. Speaking to speak is neither "patriotic" nor "unpatriotic". Is Matthew Hale merely showing his commitment to the principles of democracy?
People remember when "anti-war" protestors, like you, tried to break the country's political will to fight and see you coming again despite very different circumstances. They've seen the playbook and recognize it when they see it. This is why they throw condoms full of brown liquid at you. |
|
Additional Info |
by bfd
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -4
06 May 2003
|
I re-read the above story, and did a little digging. Turns out that the struggle ensued because one of these little Gandhi-juniors got pissed and took it upon herself to take away someone's camera, at which point she was promptly, and predictably, taken to the concrete by a cop.
And you have the audacity to claim that you're being "smothered by the flag" and that your civil liberties are being taken away? I can see why Sean Penn was so drawn to your cause. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
06 May 2003
|
bfd,
It is no surprise, that the story turned out to be false. These people, rather than seek the truth, seek ways to make stories fit into their arguments.
They tape and photograph the entire protest, yet, do not feel others should have that right.
Keep after em,
Jack |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by babs
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 6
06 May 2003
Modified: 03:27:49 PM |
So, let me get this straight. The aforementioned vetran, who was called upon to fight in WWII and did so, can't use the rights that he fought to preserve without being harrassed? What kind of sense does that make?
|
|
Actually, Jack... |
by 5
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
06 May 2003
|
Two weeks ago, pro-war protesters stopped a journalism student from doing what these "bikers" did---take pictures---and then the cops helped the pro-war protesters by telling the student she couldn't take any pictures in a public place, on publicly funded, publicly built sidewalks by a publicly paid civil servant. According to the sargeant on duty at the time, this a violation of the law.
I agree, if you want to take pictures, everyone should be allowed to do so. Pro-war folks have no "special privileges" under the law.
In addition, I believe that the buffer zone should be removed---then the true violent nature of the pro-war protesters will shine through.
So to be fair, it's ok if you are for killing to take pictures and harass, but if you are for peace, it isn't, is that what you are saying, Jack? |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
06 May 2003
|
Dear 5,
Not at all. You are free to take pictures as our the Pro America supporters. I think that there are two sides to every story and that the Anti American side told theirs and as is typical, it turned out to be innacurate.
BTW, Babs, the WWII veteran can do whatever he pleases, no matter, how misguided. He's earned it. I suspect that when he was overseas, the assemblys of people where doing so to help him and buddies return home. i.e. Rubber and Steal Drives etc. He should take a lesson from them.
Jack |
|
Read Again |
by bfd
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
06 May 2003
|
5,
Note that it was already qualified above that behavior that crosses the line isn't excusable. But you all seem to be of the opinion that uneven enforcement of the law is okay, so long as it goes your way. She took away someone's camera and tried to break it. Are you saying that it's okay?
Hey, Joe, about those shortcomings I mentioned. Try reading jazzbo whatever's remarks here. That's kind of what I'm talking about. It's not ad hominem if it's true all the damn time. Loser. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 9
06 May 2003
Modified: 05:26:02 PM |
America stands for human rights. This administration has committed a series of human rights abuses, including racial profiling of Arab-Americans, the suspension of due process rights, and numerous war crimes. It has also lied about the reasons for going to war and awarded contracts to politically-connected companies to rebuild Iraq--both actions that have destroyed its credibility.
I therefore consider the administration to be anti-American.
See how this works? I decide what "American" is, and if my opponents criticize it I call them "anti-American". But the truth is, unfortunately, we all love America, we just don't agree on what it stands for.
Slander is a political strategy that may, in some cases, achieve medium-term tactical advantages. But in the long run, the only effective and morally defensible political strategy is to be right. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Publius
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 7
06 May 2003
Modified: 07:38:10 PM |
bfd aka Jack,
Your understanding of Hobbes is as narrow as your view of the world. The necessity for self-preservation dictates that reason seek PEACE when possible as people cannot "expect any lasting preservation continuing thus in the state of nature, that is, war." Not to mention which the framers of the Constitution saw the need to prevent the kinds of abuses that come from autocratic pronouncements on what is and isn't necessary in human history, views espoused by monarchs who based their power in divine right and not, to quote the Declaration of Independence, "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." That's why we have periodic elections. DUH!
So I suppose in that sense, necessity finds its form(s) (which is a kind of content by the way) in expressions of dissent, or acceptance, in as far as one says yea or nay to the government in power in voting. Could the need for expressions of dissent as a check on the abuse of power have something to do with the status of free speech, the press, and assembly, among others, as inalienable? Is this why the preamble to the Bill of Rights expresses "a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added" to the Constitution? Face it, you Big Fascist D*ckhead, if anyone should be leaving this country it should be you. You're too stupid to understand what you claim to love and too solipsistic to be a good citizen in any society except Nazi Germany or an absolutist monarchy. Hey, maybe you could use Joe McCarthy as your handle!
|
|
Re: Five Bonus Points |
by Robert Porter
rporter (nospam) newtonbigelow.com (verified) |
Current rating: 5
06 May 2003
Modified: 07:10:27 PM |
"Since you obviously don't interpret these issues on a broader level, you're one of the bystanders that enable those that do, in fact, have an anti-American agenda, and are involved in "anti-war" activities for the sole purpose of furthering it. See Brian Becker, Leslie Cagan, Larry Holmes, Ramsey Clark, Shaun Richman, etc, etc, etc. "
By citing Ramsey Clark, Brian Becker, etc., I assume you're trying to equate the motives of anti-war protesters like me with the agenda of International A.N.S.W.E.R. Although that particular group has gotten a lot of attention, mostly from right-wingers who miss the days of the Red Scare, they actually represent a pretty small percentage of the anti-war movement.
"I hate to break it to you, but what you say is more important than how you speak. Speaking to speak is neither "patriotic" nor "unpatriotic". Is Matthew Hale merely showing his commitment to the principles of democracy? "
So, if you lock yourself in the bathroom and mutter "Bush is wrong" under your breath, that's just as valid as making a public statement? My point was that protesters are actively engaged in the democratic process. How Matthew Hale got in there, I'm not sure, but it is a fact that he had the Contitutional right to speak his opinions, disgusting as they were. It was when he got involved in violence that he crossed the line. He's currently in jail for attempting to have a judge assassinated.
"People remember when "anti-war" protestors, like you, tried to break the country's political will to fight and see you coming again despite very different circumstances."
What you call trying to "break the country's political will to fight", I call "healthy skepticism of the wisdom and motives of the current administration." That's really all there is to it, but you're welcome to your conspiracy theory if it makes you feel better .
|
|
Try Reading The Signs... |
by 5
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 8
06 May 2003
Modified: 07:08:25 PM |
Dear bfd, (and Wacko Jacko)
bfd says:
"But you all seem to be of the opinion that uneven enforcement of the law is okay, so long as it goes your way. She took away someone's camera and tried to break it. Are you saying that it's okay?"
Actually, I was pointing out the unequal enforcement of the law as something that ISN'T ok. In addition, I was responding to the following point by Wacko Jacko:
"They (anti-war) tape and photograph the entire protest, yet, do not feel others should have that right."
My point is that anti-war folks weren't allowed this right---and it IS a right---a week ago. Here is an instance were pro-war folks were given special treatment by the police. Dissent may not be popular, but it is a constitutionally protected right whether you agree with the message or not.
I also don't believe violence solves any problem. I know it is a foreign concept for some, but please understand that this is the main point of many anti-war demonstrators. Violence, war, aggression, hostility introduced into a disagreement or argument always worsens the situation---as it has here. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 May 2003
Modified: 08:44:10 PM |
Joe,
You refer to those of us who are behind the liberation of Iraq and the security of America: Pro War. I refuse to let you and your unwashed brothers and sisters to control the language.
You then go on to speak of Human Rights. Joe, with all due respect, have you seen the mass graves uncovered by our troops? What kind of Human Rights did they have three months ago?
You said: Slander is a political strategy that may, in some cases, achieve medium-term tactical advantages. But in the long run, the only effective and morally defensible political strategy is to be right.
I suppose that you are upset that I referred to the protesters and Anti American? Let's try a test, next week, we should ask 20 passers by (random) who is Anti American? I bet you that I will win hands down, or hands up in the case of all of you surrender Monkeys.
Dissent is an American right, which from time to time must be defended.
Jack |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -4
06 May 2003
Modified: 08:57:37 PM |
Dear 5,
It is always good to hear from you regardless of the message.
You said:I know it is a foreign concept for some, but please understand that this is the main point of many anti-war demonstrators. Violence, war, aggression, hostility introduced into a disagreement or argument always worsens the situation---as it has here.
Violence, war, and aggression have won for us, our freedom, saved the Jews from extinction, liberated most of the communist world, and not to mention saved tens of thousands of Iraqi's from Saddam's torture chamber.
My point is 5, there is a time to fight and unfortunately, this was one of them. Our troops and our policies have accomplished an honorable goal. We did it with minimal loss of life (although tragic) and have probably scared the shit out of many future adversaries. All of this was accomplished with the authority of Congress and was therefore legal. Despite your best efforts to provide aid and comfort to our enemies, and demoralize our troops, I can only say, Thank God you were unsuccessful.
In any case 5, before you guys jump on the BFD, Jack Ryan bandwagon, I am not him and he is not me. He/She does write pretty darn well though.
Jack |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by WWII vet
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 19
06 May 2003
Modified: 10:51:31 PM |
|
As a vet I fought to have a right to disagree and have a drawer full of battle stars and a discharge to prove it but one thing is for cetain I am not a coward I stand up publish my picture and take the heat how about the rest of you cowards will you send in your picture or will you continue to hid and holler about someone else who beleived the Boston tea party started it. How many of you had buddies die in your arms and felt life leave them is that what you consider good have you smelled the sweet smell of buring bodies 60 years later I still awake seeing and smelling. I never did belive in sending someone else I went myself where were you |
|
What Does Bfd Stand For? |
by Anon
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 9
06 May 2003
Modified: 11:31:20 PM |
bfd, you realize that what you claim in no way undercuts my position. If, as you claim, "The reason we haven't destroyed ourselves with nuclear weapons is precicely[sic] the same reason why we often engage in violence - necessity" it is precisely because we recognize that violence is not necessary. Hobbes would make the same claim as his system depends upon man being a rational, not a violent, creature. Thus reason for Hobbes declares "peace to be good," it following "by the same reason that all the necessary means to peace be good also; and therefore that modesty, equity, trust, humanity, mercy (which we have demonstrated to be necessary to peace) are good manners or habits, that is, virtues." Had you read your Hobbes, you would know that he explicitly disavows the irrational. So yeah, whatever names you call me, you 'psychology' of protest is disingenuous and wrong by whatever standard you choose. The fact of government for Hobbes proves man is more than an animal driven by purely base and violent instincts.
I would reply to your second paragraph but frankly it makes little sense to me. You analogy is racist and your logic non-existent. I judge people by their actions and character, not by making some sort of hasty generalization based on where they happen to be standing. I guess you are always on the look out for someone wearing an "I'm with stupid" shirt huh?
As for leaving, my family has been in this country for 350 years and actually fought to make this country a country. So why don't you beat it chump?
|
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by bfd
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
07 May 2003
Modified: 09:59:02 AM |
Joe,
That's a cute little device there. Problem is, it only
works when it's acutally genuine. Be sure to profess your love of America at the next Socialist reading room meeting. I'm sure it will go over really well.
Anon,
You're reeeely stretching things here. Clearly, Hobbes advocated the foundation of liberal democracy in defense against the goals of evil men. To try to imply that that equates to the creation of a society that won't defend its interests is interests is absurd. Regadless of your interpretation, the system of laws that we have developed don't do us a lick of good if they allow our undoing by the goals of evil men - the Bill of Rights aren't a suicide pact, as Chief Justice Jackson said, and that's how are laws are being asserted in these times. All of which should be obvious to reasonable people, which those of you on the receiving end of the brown liquid filled condoms aren't. But I did misspell "precisely", so I guess we're even. Wanker.
|
|
2. "That Dog Won't Hunt" |
by jazzbo depew
jazzbo8 (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 5
07 May 2003
Modified: 12:52:04 PM |
Greetings neighbors!
1. "There he goes again"...
Two of my favorite quotes came from two great guys.
Gonna use em to "reach out to all.
"1."= "There he goes again".
"2."= "That dog won't hunt".
"1."
"Would anyone of you have the courage to admit that you were wrong? Would you at least acknowledge the fact that the Iraqi people are better off today than they were three months ago? It is going to take some courage from one of you. I have to believe there is one among you with the courage to see the truth.
Jack"
"2."
That dog won't hunt JACK!
Cuz I don't think you could site'cite incitu' anyone who ever said that Iraq was better off with Sadaam in power.Unless,of course, you qoute the Iraqi minister of Information .
The Iraqi people are better off without S.H.
Now would any of you in the "anti-war"[aka. pipe dream] camp care to disagree? Did'nt think so.
Any in the "pro-war"[aka.Bush-buttkiss] camp care to contra-vent? Did'nt think so..
Any of you "mugwumps"(:to sit with ones' mug on one side of the fence and ones' wump on the other side),like me,care to take issue here?
Thought so!
Jack Jack Jack
Jack;I am often wrong about sooo many things.
In this war thing I was certainly wrong about the idea that I thought ,for sure, we would easily find W.O.M.D. in Iraq.
I was wrong, butt Rumsfeld promises we will...
If I were a cynic I might think"yea soon as the multi-gabillion dollar/dinar defense contract can slip thru congress and shipment can be secured;I'm sure we will Donald.
DUCK!
But JACK! Ole jazz ain't here to throw condoms full of brown stuff on your ideas..
Stead of trying to explain your words/deeds I'd rather spout my own.
"1."
The ouster of S.H. was ;
"the right thing to do".
It was ;
"Done for the right reason".
It was;
"Done in the WRONG way".
Should have worked in the framework of the United Nations.
Painfull it would be.More painfull still is the"bitter harvest" we will now reap in the wake of ,so called, war.
"1."
"Dear 5,
Not at all. You are free to take pictures as our the Pro America supporters. I think that there are two sides to every story and that the Anti American side told theirs and as is typical, it turned out to be innacurate.
BTW, Babs, the WWII veteran can do whatever he pleases, no matter, how misguided. He's earned it. I suspect that when he was overseas, the assemblys of people where doing so to help him and buddies return home. i.e. Rubber and Steal Drives etc. He should take a lesson from them.
Jack "
Long as I am rattlin JACKs' cage.............
That dog won't hunt..... JACK!
The WW2 vet IS taking a lesson from the people who sacrificed so billions could go to defense dept. spending in WW2.......Back then anti-war protesters were doing as they do now....WW2 vet is honring ALL by trying to percipitate a world where peace rules and ,meantime, not sending their Grandchildren to die on foriegn soil.
Mis-guided? Man! That's a "Smart Weapon".......
Don't think I am singling you out JACK.Just cause ;I am!
You just have that "universal name thing" goin and that "dedicated decisiveness.....Most admirable!
"2."
from R.Porter;Well spoke.
"The idea that anti-war protesters are "anti-american" makes no sense at all. Since when does disagreeing with the policies of the president -- whoever that happens to be at any given time -- make you unpatriotic? Were Americans who disagreed with Clinton unpatriotic? "
Well??????????????????????
JACK!
"1."-----or------"2."
Now neighbors all;
I have been picking on Jack.Did ya notice?
Hope I havent crossed the line.I suspect Jack can take it and hold his own too.Makin a point I know.Gettin to the point I am working on that.....
If I was on one side of the line and Jack on the other and I saw some chicken-shit miscreant trying to throw a condom full of brown goo on Jack for his beliefs;I would definitely cross the line.
to give the "rubber-tosser a taste of his/her own medicine/brown goo and send the "un-american bastard" who would do something like this away with a broken throwing hand and a "condom cap"!
I'd dust off Jack, make sure he is OK ,point him back to his position,have a laugh,with him, about how the brown goo must've tasted and how the busted condom-cap looks on a fool, then point him back to his own side of the issue so's I could go back to mine...Agreein to disagree without being disagreeable?
How bout it neighbors?
"Here he goes one more time"
"That ain't no huntin dog".
quoting"bfd"
"Whatever. If you're so unhappy, Elian Gonzalez's inner tube is free for your use. Scram. Or shut up."
Can't remember if I agree or not with your post old chap/chappette but this gets the ;
"Jazzbos' quote of the day door hittin you in the ass "prize".
You make your point but I suspect if you wear a hat no one will notice it.
Elians inner tube IS free.
That's cause "E" is now happy in the arms of his family,where he always wanted to be. Don't worry bout the boy.I'll bet his dad will get him another inner tube to play with..Maybe when Elian grows up he will remember the kind Americans who let him go home and Maybe he will forget about the inner tube and find a way to build a bridge accross the 90 miles of los aqua .....
signed;
jazzbodepew Greetings neighbors!
1. "There he goes again"...
Two of my favorite quotes came from two great guys.
Gonna use em to "reach out to all.
"1."= "There he goes again".
"2."= "That dog won't hunt".
"1."
"Would anyone of you have the courage to admit that you were wrong? Would you at least acknowledge the fact that the Iraqi people are better off today than they were three months ago? It is going to take some courage from one of you. I have to believe there is one among you with the courage to see the truth.
Jack"
"2."
That dog won't hunt JACK!
Cuz I don't think you could site'cite incitu' anyone who ever said that Iraq was better off with Sadaam in power.Unless,of course, you qoute the Iraqi minister of Information .
The Iraqi people are better off without S.H.
Now would any of you in the "anti-war"[aka. pipe dream] camp care to disagree? Did'nt think so.
Any in the "pro-war"[aka.Bush-buttkiss] camp care to contra-vent? Did'nt think so..
Any of you "mugwumps"(:to sit with ones' mug on one side of the fence and ones' wump on the other side),like me,care to take issue here?
Thought so!
Jack Jack Jack
Jack;I am often wrong about sooo many things.
In this war thing I was certainly wrong about the idea that I thought ,for sure, we would easily find W.O.M.D. in Iraq.
I was wrong, butt Rumsfeld promises we will...
If I were a cynic I might think"yea soon as the multi-gabillion dollar/dinar defense contract can slip thru congress and shipment can be secured;I'm sure we will Donald.
DUCK!
Butt JACK! Ole jazz ain't here to throw condoms full of brown stuff on your ideas..
Stead of trying to explain your words/deeds I'd rather spout my own.
"1."
The ouster of S.H. was ;
"the right thing to do".
It was ;
"Done for the right reason".
It was;
"Done in the WRONG way".
Should have worked in the framework of the United Nations.
Painfull it would be.More painfull still is the"bitter harvest" we will now reap in the wake of ,so called, war.
"1."
"Dear 5,
Not at all. You are free to take pictures as our the Pro America supporters. I think that there are two sides to every story and that the Anti American side told theirs and as is typical, it turned out to be innacurate.
BTW, Babs, the WWII veteran can do whatever he pleases, no matter, how misguided. He's earned it. I suspect that when he was overseas, the assemblys of people where doing so to help him and buddies return home. i.e. Rubber and Steal Drives etc. He should take a lesson from them.
Jack "
Long as I am rattlin JACKs' cage.............
That dog won't hunt..... JACK!
The WW2 vet IS taking a lesson from the people who sacrificed so billions could go to defense dept. spending in WW2.......Back then anti-war protesters were doing as they do now....WW2 vet is honring ALL by trying to percipitate a world where peace rules and ,meantime, not sending their Grandchildren to die on foriegn soil.
Mis-guided? Man! That's a "Smart Weapon".......
Don't think I am singling you out JACK.Just cause ;I am!
You just have that "universal name thing" goin and that "dedicated decisiveness.....Most admirable!
"2."
from R.Porter;Well spoke.
"The idea that anti-war protesters are "anti-american" makes no sense at all. Since when does disagreeing with the policies of the president -- whoever that happens to be at any given time -- make you unpatriotic? Were Americans who disagreed with Clinton unpatriotic? "
Well??????????????????????
JACK!
"1."-----or------"2."
Now neighbors all;
I have been picking on Jack.Did ya notice?
Hope I havent crossed the line.I suspect Jack can take it and hold his own too.Makin a point I know.Gettin to the point I am working on that.....
If I was on one side of the line and Jack on the other and I saw some chicken-shit miscreant trying to throw a condom full of brown goo on Jack for his beliefs;I would definitely cross the line to give the "rubber-tosser a taste of his own medicine/brown goo and sendd the "un-american bastard who would do something like this away with a broken throwing hand and a "condom cap"!
I'd dust off Jack, make sure he is OK ,point him back to his position,have a laugh,with him, about how the brown goo must've tasted and how the busted condom-cap looks on aa fool the point him back to his own side of the issue so's I could go back to mine...Agreein to disagree without being disagreeable?
How bout it neighbors?
"Here he goes one more time"
"That ain't no huntin dog".
quoting"bfd"
"Whatever. If you're so unhappy, Elian Gonzalez's inner tube is free for your use. Scram. Or shut up."
Can't remember if I agree or not with your post old chap/chappette but this gets the ;
"Jazzbos' quote of the day door hittin you in the ass "prize".
You make you point but I suspect if you wear aa hat no one will notice it.
Elians inner tube IS free.
That's cause "E" is now happy in the arms of his family,where he always wanted to be. Don't worry bout the boy.I'll bet his dad will get him another inner tube to play with..Maybe when Elian grows up he will remember the kind Americans who let him go home and Maybe he will forget about the inner tube and find a way to build a bridge accross the 90 miles of los aqua .....
signed;
jazzbodepew
A pacifist.........till it's time to "pass-a-fist"
Greetings neighbors!
1. "There he goes again"...
Two of my favorite quotes came from two great guys.
Gonna use em to "reach out to all.
"1."= "There he goes again".
"2."= "That dog won't hunt".
"1."
"Would anyone of you have the courage to admit that you were wrong? Would you at least acknowledge the fact that the Iraqi people are better off today than they were three months ago? It is going to take some courage from one of you. I have to believe there is one among you with the courage to see the truth.
Jack"
"2."
That dog won't hunt JACK!
Cuz I don't think you could site'cite incitu' anyone who ever said that Iraq was better off with Sadaam in power.Unless,of course, you qoute the Iraqi minister of Information .
The Iraqi people are better off without S.H.
Now would any of you in the "anti-war"[aka. pipe dream] camp care to disagree? Did'nt think so.
Any in the "pro-war"[aka.Bush-buttkiss] camp care to contra-vent? Did'nt think so..
Any of you "mugwumps"(:to sit with ones' mug on one side of the fence and ones' wump on the other side),like me,care to take issue here?
Thought so!
Jack Jack Jack
Jack;I am often wrong about sooo many things.
In this war thing I was certainly wrong about the idea that I thought ,for sure, we would easily find W.O.M.D. in Iraq.
I was wrong, butt Rumsfeld promises we will...
If I were a cynic I might think"yea soon as the multi-gabillion dollar/dinar defense contract can slip thru congress and shipment can be secured;I'm sure we will Donald.
DUCK!
Butt JACK! Ole jazz ain't here to throw condoms full of brown stuff on your ideas..
Stead of trying to explain your words/deeds I'd rather spout my own.
"1."
The ouster of S.H. was ;
"the right thing to do".
It was ;
"Done for the right reason".
It was;
"Done in the WRONG way".
Should have worked in the framework of the United Nations.
Painfull it would be.More painfull still is the"bitter harvest" we will now reap in the wake of ,so called, war.
"1."
"Dear 5,
Not at all. You are free to take pictures as our the Pro America supporters. I think that there are two sides to every story and that the Anti American side told theirs and as is typical, it turned out to be innacurate.
BTW, Babs, the WWII veteran can do whatever he pleases, no matter, how misguided. He's earned it. I suspect that when he was overseas, the assemblys of people where doing so to help him and buddies return home. i.e. Rubber and Steal Drives etc. He should take a lesson from them.
Jack "
Long as I am rattlin JACKs' cage.............
That dog won't hunt..... JACK!
The WW2 vet IS taking a lesson from the people who sacrificed so billions could go to defense dept. spending in WW2.......Back then anti-war protesters were doing as they do now....WW2 vet is honring ALL by trying to percipitate a world where peace rules and ,meantime, not sending their Grandchildren to die on foriegn soil.
Mis-guided? Man! That's a "Smart Weapon".......
Don't think I am singling you out JACK.Just cause ;I am!
You just have that "universal name thing" goin and that "dedicated decisiveness.....Most admirable!
"2."
from R.Porter;Well spoke.
"The idea that anti-war protesters are "anti-american" makes no sense at all. Since when does disagreeing with the policies of the president -- whoever that happens to be at any given time -- make you unpatriotic? Were Americans who disagreed with Clinton unpatriotic? "
Well??????????????????????
JACK!
"1."-----or------"2."
Now neighbors all;
I have been picking on Jack.Did ya notice?
Hope I havent crossed the line.I suspect Jack can take it and hold his own too.Makin a point I know.Gettin to the point I am working on that.....
If I was on one side of the line and Jack on the other and I saw some chicken-shit miscreant trying to throw a condom full of brown goo on Jack for his beliefs;I would definitely cross the line to give the "rubber-tosser a taste of his own medicine/brown goo and sendd the "un-american bastard who would do something like this away with a broken throwing hand and a "condom cap"!
I'd dust off Jack, make sure he is OK ,point him back to his position,have a laugh,with him, about how the brown goo must've tasted and how the busted condom-cap looks on aa fool the point him back to his own side of the issue so's I could go back to mine...Agreein to disagree without being disagreeable?
How bout it neighbors?
"Here he goes one more time"
"That ain't no huntin dog".
quoting"bfd"
"Whatever. If you're so unhappy, Elian Gonzalez's inner tube is free for your use. Scram. Or shut up."
Can't remember if I agree or not with your post old chap/chappette but this gets the ;
"Jazzbos' quote of the day door hittin you in the ass "prize".
You make you point but I suspect if you wear aa hat no one will notice it.
Elians inner tube IS free.
That's cause "E" is now happy in the arms of his family,where he always wanted to be. Don't worry bout the boy.I'll bet his dad will get him another inner tube to play with..Maybe when Elian grows up he will remember the kind Americans who let him go home and Maybe he will forget about the inner tube and find a way to build a bridge accross the 90 miles of los aqua .....
signed;
jazzbodepew
sometimes conservative havin sympathy
sometimes liberal havin empathy
A pacifist.........till it's time to "pass-a-fist"
Location: 40.136976 N, 87.621737
|
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Anon
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 5
07 May 2003
Modified: 11:26:32 AM |
bfd,
I never claimed that anyone doesn't have the right to defend himself or herself. Indeed, Hobbes Right of Nature makes it plain that one has an inalienable right to defend themselves ONLY when confronted by a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. Given that Bush claimed Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction without any credible evidence (other than, of course, Saddam's use of them in the Iran/Iraq war and against his own Kurdish population, events which occurred, without interference, during the administration of Cowboy Ronnie and Daddy Dudya respectively), a claim that the U.S. forces in complete control of the country have yet to find any hard evidence of, there is real reason to doubt whether or not the threat Iraq presented constituted a clear and present danger in the manner Hobbes defined it. I would point out to you as well that Hobbes saw a situation requiring violence as an exception, the desire of reason for PEACE having the force of a law of nature in his system.
Now, it is also true that Hobbes saw the sovereign as immune from prosecution as, for Hobbes, a sovereign cannot commit injustice if the peace of a society is to be assured. This creates however, the paradox in Hobbes society that it can be immoral prosecute some immoral acts. It was precisely the recognition of this fact that lead the framers of the Constitution to the series of checks and balances that are enshrined in the population with, as Publius (a reference to the Federalist Papers, which you should probably try giving a read) so helpfully points out, the periodic election of government officials by the population (which I believe on of the framers refered to as institutionalized revolutions. But as I don't have the direct source I won't quote) as the ultimate check on the power of the sovereign. So Hobbes only goes so far as an explanation of/foundation for American government.
So, you warmonger, you are the one really stretching it. Violence is necessary in Hobbes' system but only when a sufficient threat to the peace, which reason dictates is the law of nature and what each individual as a rational creature seeks out, exists. In any event, the U.S. is not an absolutely Hobbesian state, which if you understood U.S. history and government, not to mention philosophy, you might know. So you might want to write the correspondence school that sold you your degree and ask for your money back, assuming you have one that is. Your ability to read without reading into is questionable and your understanding of Hobbes abysmal. Clearly the "b" stands for "big," the "d" for "dummy," and the "f" for what evolution won't allow you to do so as to prevent a further dilution of the gene pool.
|
|
Finally, The Truth Come Out |
by bfd
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
07 May 2003
Modified: 12:03:55 PM |
As your first paragraph reveals, your rambling diatribe has less to do with political theory (yawn) and more to do with your own uninformed and/or intentionally misleading read on current events (I'll refer you to another thread on this site, titled Mayday something or other, on clear and present danger and the Iraq war). You'll notice, contrary to your claim, nowhere did I state that the US is a purely Hobbesian state; the Framers borrowed from the acknowledgement of the human tendency self-interest as a source of social good of Hobbes and Locke (and not from Buddha or Gandhi as you first seemed to imply) when forming the Republic, which, if you'll care to remember, is why we're talking about this in the first place. Trying to wrap your obvious political interests with kinda-sorta scholarship is not very flattering behavior, nor is your elitist "correspondence degree" remark, and I'll remind you that you go to a state school, so don't take yourself too seriously. Please feel free to keep burninshing this unless you're out of turd polish.
|
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -4
07 May 2003
|
Dear WWII vet,
First, let me thank you on behalf of all Americans for your service in WWII. I certainly meant no disrespect to you. I merely disagree with your stance against your brothers in arms.
As you know better than most, prior to WWII, America was very isolationist and was hesitant to get involved in foreign wars. After Pearl Harbor was attacked, America became united in defeating the axis powers.
I think it is a disgraceful act to protest a war when our troops are in the field. You have every right to do it. You fought for it, and I have every right to disagree with you. I would caution you that you are being used as a propoganda tool, just as the minister was several weeks earlier. If you did not have this sign, I would suspect, that you would not have made it into the photo.
Finally, as for the smell of burning flesh, I suppose the survivors of 9/11 can smell the same thing.
Once again thank you for your service,
Jack |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 5
07 May 2003
Modified: 04:14:13 PM |
> You refer to those of us who are behind the liberation of Iraq and the security of America: Pro War. I refuse to let you and your unwashed brothers and sisters to control the language.
I am glad to absolve myself of responsibility for what you say.
> You then go on to speak of Human Rights. Joe, with all due respect, have you seen the mass graves uncovered by our troops? What kind of Human Rights did they have three months ago?
Saddam Hussein and his regime committed horrible human rights abuses. That in no way excuses the US for committing horrible human rights abuses. No abuse of human rights is acceptable, under any circumstances.
>I suppose that you are upset that I referred to the protesters and Anti American? Let's try a test, next week, we should ask 20 passers by (random) who is Anti American? I bet you that I will win hands down, or hands up in the case of all of you surrender Monkeys.
I don't care how popular your opinions are. What matters to me is if they're right.
> Dissent is an American right, which from time to time must be defended.
Here I agree with you, except that I believe that defending rights never requires violence. |
|
Gosh, Bfd, All I Did Was What You Said... |
by Anon
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 4
07 May 2003
Modified: 06:31:52 PM |
You did tell me that I "could stand to take a cue from Hobbes - the real one, not the one borrowing his name." And so I did. All those statements that I quote do come from Hobbes, not "not from Buddha or Gandhi." But, oh, I forgot, you haven't actually read Hobbes so you wouldn't recognize what he actually says, let alone Buddha or Ghandi. You seem rather like a parrot; you can say the words, but damn if you can understand them.
But maybe you’re right. Perhaps I am uninformed. Well then you have every opportunity to teach me. Let's see some evidence. Let's hear an argument that doesn't drop down to the level of ad hominem and actually engages with the issues in a logical and factual manner. You don't want to be dismissed, then don't be so quick to dismiss others as you did with that inane first post of yours.
Face it, the only person engaging in “kinda-sorta” scholarship here is you. The only thing you've offered even remotely factual is some paraphrase of a quote you found in Bartlett's, though it seems clear you’ve done a good job of reflecting points others made first (Publius’ comment about what the Framers borrowed, and more importantly, modified from Hobbes for instance). You threw out Hobbes' name like he (and you, or are you like Jack and have ghosts following you around speaking in your name?) had something to say relevant to the issue. Yet rather than actually making an argument, you gesture broadly towards something or nothing specific, which amounts to the same thing. Then when your ignorance inevitably begins to show when you’re confronted with actual evidence (like Hobbes' actual language), you run like a coward. Your point is, and always was (this is beside the one on your head), that you don't have one. So next time you want to act smart, stick to something you know like how to make the safety scissors work. Putz.
Oh, hey, by the way, wouldn't it be "elitist" to put down a public school? Kind of sucks when your own double standard cuts you doesn't it? |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Reva
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
07 May 2003
Modified: 06:40:42 PM |
|
Ok, so one of your people physically attacked a woman (from BEHIND) for taking pictures of your group? You said she made statements to you that you found offensive? Did that justify your attack? Oh my.... well, given that... why were you against the war? I would think that attacking a woman from behind would be considered violent and against your nature as peaceniks. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
07 May 2003
|
Dear Joe or should I say Ghandi,
Spare me your non-violent approach to everything. You said "(Here I agree with you, except that I believe that defending rights never requires violence.") Let's see let me kind here: That's first rate bologna. If your Mom or your girlfriend (Same Person in Anon's case)were being assaulted, would you not use whatever means possible to prevent it? Or would you simply protest the action.
You admit that Saddam was a horrible tyrant and yet you say we should have waited 12 more years to stop this? How much time would you have given him?
I guess I am glad that most of the US agrees with me.
Jack
|
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
07 May 2003
|
Reva,
No, No, attacking men and women from behind is all the courage these folks can muster. Read on, you will be stunned.
Jack |
|
Re: Jack's Courage |
by Publius
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
07 May 2003
Modified: 10:46:57 PM |
Jack, I can't honestly believe you would compare your momma with Saddam. That's about what you stupid analogy comes down to. So spare us your idiocy.
Reva, you should be aware that Jack is a proven liar. He claimed to be both a veteran of the marines and to be shipping off for Iraq, neither of which proved to be true unless of course the marines changed their motto to Semper Phi without telling anyone. Given the furor that the issuing of black berets to regular army troops caused I doubt such a thing would have gone unnoticed. So unlike a good marine, one can never count on Jack to be faithful to the truth or otherwise.
In addition, Jack has continued to hide his identity, which perhaps helps to mark the difference between himself and real veterans like the one pictured above. Like the coward he is, he uses his anonymity to make threats of violence against those he is unable to best in argument, which is pretty much everybody.
This is just in the interest of giving you a real picture of this American patriot who believes in free speech as long as he's the one doing the speaking. Which is not to imply that he would besmirch his good name with any sort of factual evidence or logical argument. Far be it from me to drag Jack's name through the mud by implying that he makes rational arguments.
|
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by John
STSWVer (unverified) |
Current rating: 3
08 May 2003
|
|
I have been proud to take a stand against this unjust war. I was proud to stand with you all on N Prospect. However, I was deeply saddened at the events of last Saturday. I stood five feet from where our friend-who shall remain nameless- beat the biker girl and attempted to destroy her camera. I am ashamed to admit, that I - along with many of you- did not come to the bikers defense but meerly watched as our friend struck her over and over. I am opposed to all violence and this event left me with a sick feeling. How can we feel good about what we did? We don't need to apologize for our stance against this war, but we should all be sorry for attacking another human. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Reva
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 May 2003
|
|
Publius, I don't care who Jack is or who he says he is. I saw the attack and wonder why so many key details were left out of the above account. Like, the biker was attacked from behind. The biker showed restraint and did not throw a punch even though she was struck several times. There was an attempt to destroy the bikers camera. I did see her taking pictures and while you might not have liked having your picture taken it is perfectly legal. You also left out that pictures have been taken by BOTH sides since the start. Not one of you was ever attacked for taking pictures, you left that out too. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Reva
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 May 2003
|
|
John thank you for your honest portrayal of the event. I saw it too. I don't agree with your stance on the war, but appreciate your honesty. |
|
Anon - Misdirection Befitting Penn And Teller |
by bfd
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 May 2003
Modified: 09:39:36 AM |
Let's go back to where this began. You stated that my assertion that the activities of "anti-war" activists are intentionally futile was incorrect because "peace was possibe" (awwwww...), to which I directed you to: 1)the example set by human history; and 2)Hobbes, in which I really intended to refer to Hobbes most famous quote. You used this opportunity to spout off some pretty rote and ungermane critical theory that you read somewhere in an effort to obscure the original argument, which is that the activities of leftist/progressive/flavor of the week activists are actually successful where they seemingly fail, as their constant failure allows them to externalize the causes of their personal shortcomings, and as such, their failure is emotionally satisfying. (crickets)
You eventually worked yourself into such a tizzy that you reinforce the point I initially made when you said, "Violence is necessary in Hobbes' system but only when a sufficient threat to the peace, which reason dictates is the law of nature". So, thanks for the infield fly ball there.
You later tipped your hand and showed us that your tweedy, elbow patched tones are really just a vehicle for old timey 80's leftie carping (you're actually the dad on 'Family Ties', aren't you?) when you spouted off about Bush, Reagan (gotta work him in here somehow) and no "credible" evidence of WMDs in Iraq - I'll let the events of the coming days speak to that stupid remark - and US reluctance to intervene in their use in the Iran-Iraq war. This ignores the remark at the very tippy-top of all of this; back in the day, we had a few thousand nuclear warheads pointed in our direction, and necessity dictated our actions. That we're won the Cold War, removed that threat, taken mankind back from the brink of self-destruction, and are now righting wrongs by removing Hussein is apparantly not enough for you.
The issue raised about anti-Americanism and the "peace" movement's involvement with types like Cagan, Becker et al, was pretty much met with "oh no we're not". I held that straw man up to be knocked it down, but you treated it as you have since 9-11, and instead just hoped that it would go away. They haven't, but soon, you and they all will, to which you'll go back to sulking in the cafe, pissing about how the man keeps you down. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Wow
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 4
08 May 2003
Modified: 10:04:04 AM |
|
Hey, bfd, Anon is right. You really are stupid. That has to be on of the most insubstantial responses I've ever read and I've been teaching composition for the last ten years. If you took out all the stuff that is attacking his person, you'd have nothing. He says you can't reply to Hobbes and he's right. You don't even offer this "most famous qoute" you were supposedly refering to. Speaking as a teacher, I'd have to say that you've probably both missed each others points, but I'd have to give him credit for as least making a substantial effort to explain the nuance of his where as all you've done is call him names. Way to go! |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 6
08 May 2003
Modified: 11:19:44 AM |
If someone attacked someone else just for taking photographs, that's just reprehensible, no matter the political positions of anyone involved.
Breaching an agreed-upon "buffer zone" may be dishonorable, but it's not a threat.
Disregarding someone's wish not to be photographed may be insensitive, but it's not a threat.
Yelling insults may be obnoxious, but it's not a threat.
Verbal threats, unless they are serious ones, don't justify violence and I've heard nothing in this thread to suggest that the threats that allegedly provoked the violence were serious ones. For instance no one has quoted any of the alleged threats.
If there was an attempt to destroy the biker's camera, that can't be justified on any self-defense grounds.
If the police selectively enforced a ban on photography in favor of the pro-war faction, that strikes me as wrong; I am not aware of any law against taking photographs of people in a public place. But no matter how unfair that is, it doesn't justify attacking a photographer or attempting to destroy their camera.
I do not know what happened in the incident, but there is every indication based on what's in this thread to suggest that the biker, however obnoxiously they were acting, was the victim of an unjustified attack. |
|
Why Childen Graduate School Without Being Able To Read Or Write |
by bfd
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 May 2003
|
|
I don't know if this is a joke or something - I think it might be - but I'll just say that the quote I was referring to was Hobbes' assertion about life being brutish, nasty and short. |
|
Hmmmm |
by bfd's girlfriend
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
08 May 2003
|
"brutish, nasty and short"
I've been calling you that for years and it has nothing to do with philosophy. |
|
Wow, In Other Words |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 May 2003
|
Wow,
In other words, bfd sounds a lot like Jack Ryan...
Do all conservatives write that way due to some inate failure to grasp any issues beyond their own agenda or is it simply less than coincidental? |
|
ML |
by bfd
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 May 2003
|
I'm not Jack (your logs, which you're surely monitoring should reveal that). But talk about the pot and the kettle! Your stylings surely seem to have graced more that one post here that wasn't identified with your initials.
I want you to tell me what it is that I'm not "grasping" to your satisfaction.
|
|
Why Bfd Is An Idiot |
by Anon
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 7
08 May 2003
|
Ok, to use your summation of my argument, yes, I did claim peace was possible. You find such a thing surprising. Like you, I made my claim by pointing out that human history is not one of uninterrupted warfare by making use of a rather extreme analogy and by pointing out (your misquote of me notwithstanding) that for Hobbes, who you so kindly directed me to, peace is not only possible but a law of nature. Man, being a rational creature bound by the necessity for self-preservation, desires peace as the best way to achieve it. So as peace is possible in the historical case AND a law of nature according to Hobbes (remember Hobbes disavows the irrational, which means that no man, for Hobbes, would act against the necessity for self-preservation peace tends toward), the actions of the protestors cannot then by definition be “intentionally futile.”
Leaving aside your "historical" argument for the moment, what the protestors’ express following Hobbes, in desiring peace is their essential nature as human beings. This is especially true in light of Hobbes’ assertion that peace being “good” it follows "by the same reason that all the necessary means to peace be good also; and therefore that modesty, equity, trust, humanity, mercy (which we have demonstrated to be necessary to peace) are good manners or habits, that is, virtues." Now I realize that virtues are a difficult thing for you to grasp, but in Hobbes’ system what the protestors do is act in a virtuous manner in as far as there actions are motivated by virtues (and I might add that if what Reva and John say is true, I think the action of the woman who attacked the bike rider wrong and those who did not come to the bike rider’s defense cowardly). But the fact of the matter is that such is true not only for Hobbes, but doubly so in America, where the Framers insured the ability of individuals to act virtuously by making free speech, assembly, the press, etc. inalienable rights. So yes, protest is emotionally satisfying in as far as one not only acts virtuously, according to Hobbes, but exercises their rights as an American. So I will give you that you have the right conclusion but your premises are absolutely fucked up. Not to mention that you make a hasty generalization in moving from the actions and words of a few to the character of all. That’s called a logical fallacy. Frankly though, such a confusion of the specific and the general is of a part with your poor grasp of philosophy and so hardly surprising.
Philosophy, like logic, is a system of thought. I realize you, like most, can only understand the sound bite, but there is this thing called context into which you have put statements in order to glean there meaning. If you had the slightest understanding of Hobbes, aside from what you can gleam from a quote in Bartlett’s, you would understand that the necessity for self-preservation in Hobbes isn’t some two dimensional thing. That’s why the “passions” (note the plural) that “incline men to peace are; fear of death; desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a hope by their industry to obtain them.” Thus it is not simply violence (nasty, brutish and short was what you were referring to right?) that drives people or drives them to form governments. Further, for Hobbes the necessity for self-preservation tends towards peace for its achievement and not violence. Thus “the first and fundamental law of nature, which is: to seek peace and follow it” and the “second, the sum of the right of nature, which is: by all means we can to defend ourselves.” Now you might note here Hobbes’ numbering. The right of defense is quite literally secondary to the command to seek peace. Indeed, if you read Hobbes you would know that law trumps right, which is the basis for government in his system and why our inalienable rights are given the force of law by being made a part of the Constitution. But I digress.
To borrow from Publius’ quote of Hobbes, the use of violence is made secondary to the search for peace in Hobbes because people cannot "expect any lasting preservation continuing thus in the state of nature, that is, war." In fact, Hobbes states plainly “it can never be that war shall preserve life, and peace destroy it.” That’s why Hobbes finds “all the necessary means to peace” to be “good” as peace tends more to self-preservation than war. It’s not simply the threat of violence embodied in nuclear weapons that keeps the peace you idiot.
Turning to the historical, if your point were true, that the peace was kept because “we had a few thousand nuclear warheads pointed in our direction, and necessity dictated our actions,” than this war wouldn’t be happening. If you were in touch with reality you would know that the former Soviet Union still possesses enough weapons to eradicate all life on this planet, as do we. Indeed, the DOD’s own Nuclear Posture Review in 1993, the first one conducted after the so-called end of the Cold War, determined that force levels needed were those sufficient “to handle the most stressing case that could develop -- deterring a hostile Russia.” Sure, they aren’t targeted at the U.S. or ours at Russia; but that hardly matters when when it only takes the push of a button to determine targeting anyway. What’s more now India, Pakistan, and probably North Korea, have nuclear weapons as well too. If anything, your claim of necessity fails on the world stage if this is the way you want to use it. But I don’t expect that you will be able to understand that given you such a ham-fisted boob.
Given that you provide NO credible evidence (other than to claim I should wait. Geez, bfd, we’ve had twelve years. Nothing to show for all that time?) to counter any of my “old timey 80's leftie carping” (gosh, those were the days weren’t they Jack, I mean bfd…Say did you ever find the note I left you? I guess not. Oh well.) other than name calling, I want to thank you for proving my point about your lack of factual and logical evidence to back up the claims you make. Oh, wait, I will agree with you that we are righting wrongs in getting rid of Hussein. But let me see now, who was it who left him in power when he had a chance to get rid of him? Hey, I saw this great picture the other day. It was Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam when he worked for Bechtel. He just looks so pleased to be doing business with him. Now who was it that just got the $680 million dollar contract to rebuild what we’ve destroyed in Iraq…?
Finally, as you seem to take such pleasure in your “straw man” and think it so clever to have made use of such a thing, let me offer you the following entry from the dictionary, which is “apparantly" something you don’t make much use of. Straw man is defined by Webster’s as “1: A weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted 2. a person set up to serve as cover for a usually questionable transaction.” So I’m sorry that no one rose to your bait, though you perhaps got a nibble when Robert Porter pointed out that Cagan, Becker et al. “actually represent a pretty small percentage of the anti-war movement.” I suppose in your guilt-by-standing-next-to-somebody mind that equates to something. So you should probably start looking around for that “I’m with stupid” t-shirt because clearly you are stupid. If you want to argue, get serious. Otherwise fuck off.
|
|
Didn't I Mention "rote And Ungermane" Before? |
by bfd
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
08 May 2003
Modified: 03:07:28 PM |
Again, I'll remind you that we're discussing a war that ended, what, two weeks ago? Not exactly a winning streak for the up with people crowd. Nothing succeeds like success - if mankind had all of this capacity for blissed-out groovin' around the campfire, surely it would have happened by now. Your remarks downplaying the presence of conflict in human affairs are absurd on their face.
There's something just a little "open book" about your diatribes on political theory, but it's telling how they differ in tone (that's almost a compliment, but don't get too excited, because your erudite readings of Hobbes will get you a free cup of coffee, so long as they are accompanied with 89 cents) from your other comments on contemporary events, which quickly descend into conspiracy theory, obvious falsehood, and petty sniping (and "apparantly" you left an "are" out of "given you such a ham-fisted boob", you snotty asshole), which I'll elaborate on some other time.
Again, I held up the (yeah) straw man of the long pedigree of hate-America activists as the core organizers the "peace" movement to see who would knock it down, since what's being portrayed here is good ol' Americans exercising free speech as some sort of virtue in and of itself (hoo boy, here we go). Despite the unqualified "only represent a pretty small percentage of the anti-war movement", no one even took a swat, including you.
More on this later.
|
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Reva
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 May 2003
|
|
Excellent post Joe regarding the "problem" last Saturday. Again, I was there and witnessed the entire incident. The bikers did not yell, make threats or verbally abuse anyone. Quite the contrary... while photographing the Peaceniks they were also getting their photo taken. I saw them smile for the camera and even pose. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Anon
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
08 May 2003
|
Yeah, there would be something open book about it as I happen to make use of one. I'll wait for you to catch up if I can manage to stay alive that long. I'll bet you'll probably hand it off to someone else with more intelligence than you though. And if you bothered to read, you might notice that I never denied the presence of conflict in human affairs, only that it is not the only, or even the major, factor in human afffairs. Hobbes doesn't either. That's why there are multiple passions for peace.
Maybe if you didn't act like such a dick you wouldn't get treated like one. I'll leave you to furrow your brow in a vain attempt to understand. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Anon
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
08 May 2003
|
Hey bfd, as I know this is a big fuckin' deal for you, keeping score and all that is you being such a lover of baseball, you should realize that I misspelled "there" in the second sentence of my third paragraph. It should be "their." Just want you to keep your box score straight.
And you should let the family of the soldier killed today in Iraq by a sniper know that the war is over. I'm sure they'd appreciate it.
|
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 6
08 May 2003
|
OK, now I think we have different accounts of what happened:
1. The bikers were verbally abusive: "The picture takers seemed intent upon making threats and provking a reaction as they ventured passed the mutually agreed buffer area on Prospect. One person in our group asked not to be photographed , but to no avail. The bikers for War snapped pictures and made insults." (Jan Kruse)
2. The bikers were not verbally abusive: "The bikers did not yell, make threats or verbally abuse anyone." (Reva)
So which version is correct? |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by observer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
08 May 2003
Modified: 08:47:34 PM |
|
Lots of anger here! WOW, I wouldn't be so quick to judge others. Ten years of teaching composition and you write: "You don't even offer this "most famous qoute" you were supposedly refering to." Wouldn't you grade down a student of yours who misspelled two words in a single sentence? |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Wow
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
08 May 2003
|
Observer, you're right. My bad. Not to excuse my failure to proofread, but I do find the failure to cite a source that is supposedly the basis/support of an argument more egregious than a spelling mistake. Still, I fucked up and take responsibility for my mistake. I stand admonished.
|
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by bfd
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
09 May 2003
Modified: 08:45:09 AM |
I'm not sure how much more I'll get out of arguing about man's inherent desire for peace with an admitted stalker, in a conversation about a "peace" protester jumping a biker; this has become more than a little surreal.
I'm glad, though, that I got you to come around to agreeing with me about the righteousness of defeating the Soviets and advancing the cause of liberty in the Middle East in the post-cold war era (though judging by your Rumsfeld/Bechtel remark you clearly don't get the connection between the two). With you now in line with my position, not to mention Joe professing his love of America, I couldn't have hoped to achieve more. Glad I could help. |
|
Does'nt Anybody Hate Me? |
by jazzbo depew
jazzbo8 (nospam) hotmail (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
09 May 2003
Modified: 09:19:03 AM |
First off ,neighbors;I am sorry for all the double-postings in my name..Obviously I am messin up somewhere..I have focused on tryin to push the button only once..
If you can point me in the right direction on this I would appreciate it..From now on I'll compose off-line to spare you uneeded tedious and boring scrolling..
I have tried to offend and support all in an ecumenical manner.....
How come no one hates me?
I'm feeling left out.......
By promoting to get people in a respectfull communication;Am I then a Liberal or a Conservative ?
I want to be labled too......
Quote:"Decent right thinking people can dissagree without being dissagreeable(Arlin Spector[at the whitewater hearings])
Quote:"All Conservative principles were,at one time,Liberal ideas."(Pat Shcroeder[debating W.Buckly])
"I want a conservative managing my money and a liberal managing my healthcare"
Is that so bad?
jazzbo Depew |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Anon
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
09 May 2003
Modified: 11:36:00 AM |
Oh, yeah hey, I forgot to mention bfd, the DoD's Nuclear Posture Review mandates we keep sufficent force to "“to handle the most stressing case that could develop -- deterring a hostile Russia.” How have we defeated them if we still view them as the "most stressing case that can develop"? You and Jack can ponder that one in the midst of your little celebratory circle jerk. Have fun.
|
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by bfd
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
09 May 2003
|
|
I will refer your questions to the citizens of Warsaw or Prague. What a stupid remark. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Publius
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
09 May 2003
Modified: 12:22:08 PM |
|
To repeat what Joe asked, which version is correct? |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Anon
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
09 May 2003
Modified: 01:08:40 PM |
|
Hey bfd, let me give you two additional words you should look up; sarcasm and irony. My suggestion was not that we had removed a corrupt regime as much as replaced it with another and those we "defeated" still appear as a threat, thus raising the question of whether or not we really "defeated" them. After all, when someone is defeated they are no longer a threat right? Then why do we treat them as one? So you can go back to your little pretend victory now. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by winston smith
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
11 May 2003
|
|
One word: PROPAGANDA
They don't care who you are. If you support the war, you're American. That's what they tell you to believe. Do you have to? Absolutely not.
Are people really that afraid of looking into other media? Can you even trust the news anymore?
I don't trust anything. Call me a conspiracy theorist. How can you after the Rather incident, the changing of images, the pointless coverage of the Saddam statue? It's like when Hitler has posters all over Germany demanding support.
I feel betrayed by my own country, and this is another example of why. As far as I know, there's a law about equality still in effect, but I'm sure that will dissolve someday. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Reva
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
11 May 2003
|
In your article "Pro War hostility on the rise" you talk of Amy Medlin.... a photographer who tried to photgraph the Pro American rally folks. The article states that Amy had full legal right to photograph anyone she wanted.... yet in THIS article you defend one of your 'friends' when she attacked someone for simply taking a picture of her. So what is it? Is taking pictures of people an ok thing to do... or does it depend on WHO is taking the pictures?
In the same article (Pro War Hostility....) the author was quite pleased that no one from the peace movement had acted violently or attacked anyone. Yet, a week later.... you DEFENDED your attack on another person. So, what is it? Is it ok to attack someone who you don't agree with, or not?
Could someone please explain the differences here? It appears you talk out of both sides of your mouth. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Reva
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
11 May 2003
|
WWII Veteran against war....
Shame on you for putting this feeble old man out there with a sign. He clearly has no idea where he is.... after the biker group came in he told my daughter that he, himself, had rode a hog in. He pointed out that his hog was far larger than any of the others that rode in. The man is being taken advantage of, and God have mercy on whoever is doing this to him. Shame on you and may the Lord have mercy on your soul. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Reva
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
11 May 2003
|
|
Oh Winston please... use the brain God gave you. Can you trust these people? They don't know if taking a picture is ok... or an assault. They don't know if physically attacking someone is cool..... or horrible.It is all twisted to fit their agenda... whatever that is. Use your head, read all you can and you can figure it out. Hopefully. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 8
11 May 2003
|
> WWII Veteran against war....
> Shame on you for putting this feeble old man out there with a sign. He clearly has no idea where he is....
What are you talking about? What makes you describe him as "feeble"? Who "put him" out there? Didn't he decide himself to stand there with the sign? And finally, what do you mean "he clearly doesn't have any idea where he is"? Why don't you let him speak for himself?
>The man is being taken advantage of, and God have mercy on whoever is doing this to him. Shame on you and may the Lord have mercy on your soul.
You're the one taking advantage of him. It seems to me reasonable to assume that he is responsible for his own actions, and awfully convenient for your condescending, self-righteous rhetoric to assume that he isn't.
It seems disingenuous for either side of this "debate" to accuse the other one of not sticking to the facts. Facts are scarce on this thread, but if you're looking for innuendo, look no further. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
11 May 2003
|
Dear Joe,
Reva merely points out, that if this guy were just standing there with a sign against the war, it never would have been shown. The fact that this man served his country in WWII makes him a propaganda tool of the left.
I am certain that this gentlemen is probably a completely and totally against war. Who knows what horrors he went through? However, the strategic situation has changed and this war had to be fought and won. It was, Thank God.
I don't suppose you would have photographed one of the myriad of the great unwashed that has been there week by week. Why not? Because it does not have the same impact.
That's called propoganda and Adolf and Joe would have been proud of you.
Jack |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 11
12 May 2003
Modified: 09:03:13 AM |
> Reva merely points out, that if this guy were just standing there with a sign against the war, it never would have been shown. The fact that this man served his country in WWII makes him a propaganda tool of the left.
Jack, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that this site contains many, many pictures of protestors at prospect for peace. Your contention that another protestor's picture "never would have been shown," therefore, has no basis.
There's another big problem with your rhetoric, which is to assume that the anti-war movement is "the left", and that this man is not part of "the left". Regardless of this man's other political positions, he opposes this war. No other political positions were attribtued to him.
It is disingenuous to assume that this man does not want his image to be used in this way. After all, the entire reason he's standing there, we can reasonably assume, is to draw attention to his opposition to the war.
Finally, you claim that this picture is propoganda. Propoganda distorts and obscures the truth. This picture does the opposite. Clearly you would rather deny the truth that the anti-war movement includes people other than your stereotype of "unwashed" liberals, than engage with the variety of people in the anti-war movement on any substantive level.
Well that's all for now. I have to go take a shower. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by babs
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 11
12 May 2003
Modified: 11:16:01 AM |
|
Has it occurred to any of the folks on the "right" that the people who choose to protest this war are individuals who have their own reasons for doing so? If you asked 10 different people why they think this war is a bad idea, you would get 10 different answers. People will either come protest a war, or they won't, but this idea that people are manipulated by unnamed forces into making statements against their will is complete hooey. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Reva
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
12 May 2003
|
JOE SAYS:::What are you talking about? What makes you describe him as "feeble"? Who "put him" out there? Didn't he decide himself to stand there with the sign? And finally, what do you mean "he clearly doesn't have any idea where he is"? Why don't you let him speak for himself?"
Joe, read what I wrote again. The man didn't know where he was. He thought he rode his HOG to the location and was quite tickled that he rode the biggest motorcycle in. Did he ride a huge hog to your demonstration Joe? If not, why on earth did he THINK he did? He is obviously out of touch with reality.
JOE SAYS:::"You're the one taking advantage of him."
What in the world are you talking about Joe? I didn't drag that poor old man out to the streets and stick a sign in his hand. Geesh, you seem as confused as the poor old veteran that AWARE is using, I am sure, without his knowledge. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 11
12 May 2003
|
> JOE SAYS:::What are you talking about? What makes you describe him as "feeble"? Who "put him" out there? Didn't he decide himself to stand there with the sign? And finally, what do you mean "he clearly doesn't have any idea where he is"? Why don't you let him speak for himself?"
> Joe, read what I wrote again. The man didn't know where he was. He thought he rode his HOG to the location and was quite tickled that he rode the biggest motorcycle in. Did he ride a huge hog to your demonstration Joe? If not, why on earth did he THINK he did? He is obviously out of touch with reality.
Which proves ... what, exactly?
> JOE SAYS:::"You're the one taking advantage of him."
> What in the world are you talking about Joe? I didn't drag that poor old man out to the streets and stick a sign in his hand. Geesh, you seem as confused as the poor old veteran that AWARE is using, I am sure, without his knowledge.
No one dragged anyone anywhere. The insincerity of your mock concern for this person, who you are using as a means of making accusations against your political opponents, is transparent.
All you're offering the discussion here is innuendo, of which we already have more than enough, thank you. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Anon
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 7
13 May 2003
Modified: 09:32:55 AM |
Reva,
Did you ever stop to think that perhaps the old gentleman was making a JOKE? I realize you don't have much a sense of humor but if the standards for "awareness" that you apply to him were applied to you, based on your posts, you wouldn't seem to be much aware either. Further, I find it interesting that you refer to him without refering to what is purportedly his post on this page. Rather than looking at actual evidence, you infer his behavior from some sort of second hand comment which may or may not be taken out of context. Like Jack and bfd, you ignore what someone actually says in favor of what you want them to be saying. That's not arguemnt as much as it is an expression of frustration that the world isn't going your way.
In any event, from the evidence actually supplied by the man himself, aside from a need for punctuation, I would say that the man seems perfectly in command of reason. But then such reference would undercut the political argument which you are trying, and I emphasize trying, to make so I suppose your ignoring it is not surprising. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 May 2003
Modified: 09:31:50 PM |
First, let me say that I have no doubt that this veteran is against all war. My father, who fought in Korea and was wounded, is very hesitant to commit others to battle as well. However, once the troops were on the ground, he, like most good Americans was behind them 100%.
I think it interesting, that the few photos of individuals, not the crowds of Anti Americans, were a minister and a Vet. Face it, it helped support your, misguided, argument and furthered your cause. He was a tool as much as the minister. I doubt that you would have shown a large group of the mostly great unwashed that was overly represented at your ralies.
This does not mean that I or like minded Americans do not appreciate his sacrifice. I find it hard, that he was protesting against his combat brothers and sisters while they were engaged in a life and death struggle. I find his actions shameful. He should know that support from home is crucial to victory.
As for the cause, we liberated a country and have uncovered thousands of mass graves. We have unearthed bio weapons labs that could have been given to terrorist to use against our own population. I guess it would be okay with you if this were still going on and we simply did not know about it.
Reva and BFD, I salute your courage and hope that you continue the fight.
Jack |
|
Mass Graves: Just For The Record |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 6
14 May 2003
|
There have been thousands of bodies recovered from mass graves in Guatemala and El Salvador, the sad result of US-sponsored death squads in Central America.
But not a peep about them from the likes of Jack and his ilk...
It must be because he is very selective about his mourning of the people who end up in mass graves.
US-sponsored
Jack ignores them.
Conveniently serving his rhetoric.
Jack makes cheap propagnada and sheds crocodile tears.
BTW, many of the people in mass graves in Iraq got there when Saddam was a US client.
Is Jack only mourning those in the post-1990 mass graves of Iraq?
No doubt about it. |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by babs
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 14
14 May 2003
|
I always thought good Americans believed that it was ok to question the actions of their government without a lot of stupid flak.
We have freedom of speech. Are we, instead of using it, going to put it up on a shelf and slap each other's hands when we try to get it down? And if we aren't going to actually use it, and look down on others who do, how dare we think we deserve to have it? |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
15 May 2003
Modified: 10:53:45 PM |
ML,
The reason I did not mention the mass graves in South America, is because it was off topic and you would have sent my article to the "adult time out" section better known as hidden articles section. Apparently that does not prevent you from changing the subject though. Considering the weakness of your position, I might try the same thing.
As for the recently found mass graves coming from when Saddam was a client, did you get the autopsy reports already or is this merely the same bullshit we have come to expect from you.
Put that in your censored article column and smoke it.
Jack |
|
Don't Blame ML, Jack |
by 5
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 5
16 May 2003
|
You know the policies of this open-pulishing website---no threats, no racist/sexist/homophobic slurs, no libel, no random insults. No newspaper in the land would publish the hidden posts either.
If you stick to discussion and post something useful for once, your posts wouldn't be hidden.
I have said this before but you never respond.
You simply make those who hold your point of view (conservatives) look like hateful bigots. Please stop with the slurs and insults and threats. While I do not personally agree with most "conservative" positions, most conservatives, my family included, would write you off as a wacko. Not the impression you are hoping for, I think.
Your "sense of humor" as you call it comes off as obnoxious and rude. Blaming ML for the consequences of you actions seems a little disengenuous for a conservative. You broke the rules, you pay the price. Isn't that what conservatives believe in---personal responsibility?
|
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 May 2003
|
Dear 5,
I am pretty sure I respond to you on most occasions. If I missed a few, I am sorry. As for ML, I have no problem with censorship if it were applied in a even handed fashion.
Look at what he/she let's Anon write on any given day. I have grown accustomed the additional scrutiny and the unbalanced rules in my case. No problem, it's your site.
Question: What happened to the substitute teacher turned pizza deliveryman article? I know ML had a major disagreement with that guy and it appears that he was wiped of the fact of the earth?
Just Curious,
Jack |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by WWII VET
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 10
16 May 2003
Modified: 11:54:25 PM |
This is an open note to the person who signs hersalf Reva. I was standing in the midst of the struggle and your account is not true you must have been in left field or sitting on one of the flag poles its one thing to be truthful and another to outright lie I will be out sat. come have your picture taken with me and we can talk about all thoe people who rushed up with their flag poles sticking them in our face while the fat person in the yellow shirt tackled the wrong one the real trouble maker got off free And yes they drove past several times on a nice looking bike before walking by with the camera honesty is a virtue. some have it some don't
|
|
Fact Not Fiction, Jack |
by 5
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
16 May 2003
|
Please check the hidden articles. Below is the "Deleted/Purged Articles" list.
Article:"A Day In The Life Of A Substitue Teacher; Or,"Lamentations Of A Pizza Guy."
Deleted by sascha with code:
byDavid Teitelbaum
Requested by author
Mystery solved in 30 sec. flat.
|
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
17 May 2003
|
Dear 5,
Actually, I solved the problem of the substitute teacher by finding this info myself. I orginally saluted his courage for actually explaining his problems. Since he has chosen to withdraw this article, now I think as a kid I would have led everyone in a quick change of seats just to screw up the seating chart. I have done this and it kills.
5, you did not respond to any of my other points. Either you could not or simply have run again.
Let me know,
Jack |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
21 May 2003
|
Dear 5,
Several times now you have accused me of running and I have always responded. I now check after several days and you have run again. I am here, where are you?
Jack |
|
Re: Prospect For Peace Buffer Zone Breached |
by Reva
reva1808 (nospam) aol.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
25 May 2003
|
WWII vet.... first off, it is funny that you sound like a 20 year old punk and yet claim to be a WWII vet...odd, I would think someone in their eighties would sound more mature. Oh well..... the flag carriers who rushed over to the altercation did so because the woman who attacked the biker looked like a man. Unlike yourself, not many MEN can watch another man attack a woman and do nothing about it. You know... in your day it was called chivalry. None of the "flag wavers" as you called them attacked nor tackled anyone however. The policeman took the handsome-though slighltly butchy- woman attacker down rather quickly. (I did so love that part!)
As far as the bikers riding back and forth a time or two, so what? Was that illegal? I don't get the problem with that.
You are correct in that it was a very nice back, and yes some have it (they did) and some don't (like you)Oh wait... since you are the WWII vet that means you also rode in on a huge Harley. I would love to see it next Saturday. |
|
