I am a true patriot

[lI1|1!]

i am a true

[ivan]

His mother is giving his honor and the memory of his selfless duty a golden shower.

i wrote a real long reply, then decided it'd be simpler to delete it in favor of something you'd more easily understand:

 

you're a dumbass!

 

questioning the goverment is a right, by your own admission, he died to defend

[ivan]

a related story from abc news:

 

"A military panel recommended that an Iraq war veteran who wore his uniform during an anti-war demonstration lose his honorable discharge status, brushing away his claims that he was exercising his right to free speech.

 

Marine Cpl. Adam Kokesh, a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, argued that he did nothing wrong by participating in the March protest in Washington, D.C., because he removed his name tag and military emblems from his uniform, making it clear he was not representing the military."

 

who better than a soldier to criticize a war? do you want a ballerina giving you the play-by-play for a baseball game?

[ashw_justin]

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States [of America] against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States [of America] and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

 

Whether it seems ironic or not, the military oath, with it's direct mention of the U.S. Constitution, protects the very rights that Sheehan exercises in protest to the war. So technically it would be a higher dishonor to her son's sacrifice if she were to suppress her beliefs, forfeiting her rights to free speech, assembly, and peaceful protest.

 

But I guess I'm off topic, since we're just talking about not liking her.

[mattp]

...what I am saying is that he made a choice as an adult to offer up his security, to defend others'.

Whose security is he defending. Surely not yours and mine, as this war has by all accounts made us less secure.

 

His mother is giving his honor and the memory of his selfless duty a golden shower.

I believe she and a large number of other people feel she is honoring her son's memory in speaking out against this war. To ignore the obvious fact that this war is wrong, and to fail to speak out, would be to allow all of these deaths not only to have been suffered in vain, but might be seen as furthering the crime that is this war.

 

I can understand how you may disagree with this outlook; I assumed you would, but I think she is far from pissing on her son's grave.

[Fairweather]

His mother is giving his honor and the memory of his selfless duty a golden shower.

i wrote a real long reply, then decided it'd be simpler to delete it in favor of something you'd more easily understand:

 

you're a dumbass!

 

questioning the goverment is a right, by your own admission, he died to defend

 

I don't see where Scott is questioning anyone's right to speak out against their government. He is simply stating an opinion held by many - that this mother dishonors her dead soldier-son's beliefs. It's quite a jump for you and Matt to imply that Scott would invalidate anyone's free speech rights. The only people you hear that kind of nonsense from are hard-core lefties like Crux and others here on this site who often call for censorship in radio and television media.

[JosephH]

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States [of America] against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

 

At this point many people around the world are threatening the U.S., but none have done the U.S. and everything the Constitution used to stand for more harm than the administration of George W. Bush. The leaders of this administration have collectively done what no other terrorist or enemy of this nation has ever accomplished and by their words and deeds are undeniably treasonous felons to a person.

 

Nixon was a god compared to W...

[ZimZam]

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States [of America] against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

 

 

Nixon was a god compared to W...

 

I would have to agree. Dick Nixon was a "crook", but W.... is a felon. He has sent our country's reputation and prestige down the toilet. the country MF'ing, silver spoon fed, draft dodging criminal.

[Fairweather]

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States [of America] against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

 

At this point many people around the world are threatening the U.S., but none have done the U.S. and everything the Constitution used to stand for more harm than the administration of George W. Bush. The leaders of this administration have collectively done what no other terrorist or enemy of this nation has ever accomplished and by their words and deeds are undeniably treasonous felons to a person.

 

Nixon was a god compared to W...

 

 

 

I guess you must think that if you repeat this enough it will be true? But you're always light on specifics. The Patriot Act? Which sections? The real ones please - not the ones you read about on some leftist website.

 

Are you familiar with Woodrow Wilson's Sedition Act of 1918? Do you really think today's supposed "limits" even compare? Illegal War? How about the concocted Spanish-American War and subsequent occupation of The Philippines? War of 1812? Nicaragua? Invasions (repeated) of Mexico?

 

Again, Joe, your history is very shallow. There's a rock down by The Columbia River that's missing its idiot....

Edited June 6, 2007 by Fairweather

[ivan]

His mother is giving his honor and the memory of his selfless duty a golden shower.

i wrote a real long reply, then decided it'd be simpler to delete it in favor of something you'd more easily understand:

 

you're a dumbass!

 

questioning the goverment is a right, by your own admission, he died to defend

 

I don't see where Scott is questioning anyone's right to speak out against their government. He is simply stating an opinion held by many - that this mother dishonors her dead soldier-son's beliefs. It's quite a jump for you and Matt to imply that Scott would invalidate anyone's free speech rights. The only people you hear that kind of nonsense from are hard-core lefties like Crux and others here on this site who often call for censorship in radio and television media.

that still doesn't make sense - are you saying then that the mother of every soldier has to keep their opinions to themselves when they differ w/ their brave boys? you use this word "dishonor" it seems in place of "disagree."

[ivan]

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States [of America] against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

 

At this point many people around the world are threatening the U.S., but none have done the U.S. and everything the Constitution used to stand for more harm than the administration of George W. Bush. The leaders of this administration have collectively done what no other terrorist or enemy of this nation has ever accomplished and by their words and deeds are undeniably treasonous felons to a person.

 

Nixon was a god compared to W...

 

 

 

I guess you must think that if you repeat this enough it will be true? But you're always light on specifics. The Patriot Act? Which sections? The real ones please - not the ones you read about on some leftist website.

 

Are you familiar with Woodrow Wilson's Sedition Act of 1918? Do you really think today's supposed "limits" even compare? Illegal War? How about the concocted Spanish-American War and subsequent occupation of The Philippines? War of 1812? Nicaragua? Invasions (repeated) of Mexico?

 

Again, Joe, your history is very shallow. There's a rock down by The Columbia River that's missing its idiot....

something's missed in dithering over this superlative of "worst president ever" though - the fact that the guy's bad, period, even if it be the worst, or 10th worst, or whatever. yeah, our country has no doubt done more fucked up things then invade iraq - this doesn't mean right-minded folks ought not disagree w/ what's going on now, express their outrage, and advocate for change. i believe it is generally true that our nation is less secure for having taken this unilateral, aggressive action in the middle east. also, we have sullied the democratic virtues we extoll by maintaining secret prisons and jailing people w/o trial - remember last week when the gitmo folks said another inmate was dead? the cause - suicide. how many times did the apartheid south african government say the same shit? i'm not saying we're as bad as that, but g.w. has certainly created reasons to at least make the comparision.

[joblo7]

in the world community, america/israel is the cancer. it will remain, for 40 more years.

world domination is dirty business......! barbaric humans and their power trips.....

it is our turn to be the victims of shameless greed.there are 10 w's waiting for the chance.... and worse, much worse.

[ivan]

in the world community, america/israel is the cancer. it will remain, for 40 more years.

world domination is dirty business......! barbaric humans and their power trips.....

it is our turn to be the victims of shameless greed.there are 10 w's waiting for the chance.... and worse, much worse.

ummm - stay off my side

[joblo7]

i hope i did not ruin supper...

 

'w' is not the problem. he is the symptom.we, as a race have a long way to go.

 

one race, one goal.

[mattp]

It's quite a jump for you and Matt to imply that Scott would invalidate anyone's free speech rights.

 

Did I imply that he did so?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

i hope i did not ruin supper...

 

'w' is not the problem. he is the symptom.we, as a race have a long way to go.

 

one race, one goal.

 

STFU, you babbling simpleton.

[Fairweather]

His mother is giving his honor and the memory of his selfless duty a golden shower.

i wrote a real long reply, then decided it'd be simpler to delete it in favor of something you'd more easily understand:

 

you're a dumbass!

 

questioning the goverment is a right, by your own admission, he died to defend

 

I don't see where Scott is questioning anyone's right to speak out against their government. He is simply stating an opinion held by many - that this mother dishonors her dead soldier-son's beliefs. It's quite a jump for you and Matt to imply that Scott would invalidate anyone's free speech rights. The only people you hear that kind of nonsense from are hard-core lefties like Crux and others here on this site who often call for censorship in radio and television media.

that still doesn't make sense - are you saying then that the mother of every soldier has to keep their opinions to themselves when they differ w/ their brave boys? you use this word "dishonor" it seems in place of "disagree."

 

No, I think 'dishonor' fits best. Her son, by all accounts, felt honor in wearing the uniform and serving in Iraq. His mother not only feels the cause in which he participated was dishonorable, but has turned her back on the country he fought for by her own words and deeds - not the least which was lending her fleeting "stature" to a thug like Chavez. Just my opinion. The lady's son is gone, her husband has left her, she was savaged by the right, used by the left and then dumped. I truly feel for her.

 

 

[Crux]

I don't see where Scott is questioning anyone's right to speak out against their government. He is simply stating an opinion held by many - that this mother dishonors her dead soldier-son's beliefs. It's quite a jump for you and Matt to imply that Scott would invalidate anyone's free speech rights. The only people you hear that kind of nonsense from are hard-core lefties like Crux and others here on this site who often call for censorship in radio and television media.

Fairywhiner, chill out. I've never advocated censorship, and your statements to the contrary are hysterical distortions of the truth at best. I have, on the other hand, advocated the silence of an attacking pit bull by means of shoving my arm down its throat. The later advocacy, of course, might be another that a rabid dog such as yourself will contort personally, and so your intensified snarl and jerking at the chain will be expected.

 

By the way, your boy Bushie just keeps looking better all the time. Just two days ago his former commander in the field, General Ricardo Sanchez, went on record saying the best we can salvage now is a stalemate that might stave off military defeat. As a history buff you will recall when those same words were spoken by the German high command. How ironic this end for people like you, and tragic for Americans all.

 

 

[Fairweather]

On at least two occasions you have called for pulling broadcast licenses of networks who aired programs that cast your ideology in a poor light. On one occasion, you called for the imprisonment of ABC network execs. Recent events in Venezuela reveal you and Chavez would get along well.

[Crux]

You may be right. I understand the station that lost its license in Venezuela also was a station that advocated the unlawful overthrow of the government on a daily basis. If a station did that here, I'd probably support similar actions here. But wait! If a station did that here, there would be no waiting for its broadcast license to expire, it would be shut down immediately, don't you think?

[Fairweather]

So because Chavez says it, you believe it? Do you really believe that RCTV was calling for Chavez' overthrow "on a daily basis"? I believe they called for his overthrow during the 2002 coup after his thugs killed 18 street protesters in cold blood. But you called for similar government action here for a benign ABC docudrama. If anything, you are even more contemptible than the good comrade. I think you are confused about freedom, Mr Crux.

Edited June 6, 2007 by Fairweather

[Fairweather]

Fairywhiner, chill out. I've never advocated censorship, and your statements to the contrary are hysterical distortions of the truth at best. I have, on the other hand, advocated the silence of an attacking pit bull by means of shoving my arm down its throat. The later advocacy, of course, might be another that a rabid dog such as yourself will contort personally, and so your intensified snarl and jerking at the chain will be expected.

 

 

 

You sound like a real tough guy.

[mattp]

Sorry to confirm your suspicions here, Fairweather, but I too would say that where a broadcast network presents a program as "history," knowing it to be false, somebody should probably go to jail - or certainly pay a fine. If they presented commentary that was indicated to be opinion, I wouldn't feel the same way. Our airwaves are a public resource and they are, in my opinion, properly regulated as such. They should not be coopted for propaganda.

 

Maybe you don't agree, but I feel that the American public must have access to accurate information, including the history of our "war on terror," if there is to be any real democracy. And that is with the small "d."

 

Oh: and did I really imply that Scott was against free speech? Where?

[Fairweather]

Sorry to confirm your suspicions here, Fairweather, but I too would say that where a broadcast network presents a program as "history," knowing it to be false, somebody should probably go to jail. If they presented commentary that was indicated to be opinion, I wouldn't feel the same way.

 

Did you feel the same way about "The Reagans" documentary that CBS aired a couple years earlier? I recall right-wingers being pissed off about it, but I don't remember hearing anyone call for censorship or imprisonment.

 

Maybe you don't agree, but I feel that the American public must have access to accurate information, including the history of our "war on terror," if there is to be any real democracy.

As written by whom? You? Those with whom you agree? History isn't often written by the unbiased.

 

Oh: and did I really imply that Scott was against free speech? Where?

A quick review of the thread reveals you did not. You were siding against Scott with one who did and I made an inaccurate connection.

[mattp]

If The Reagans documentary was passed of as history, when the broadcaster knew it to be false, and if it was broadcast on a mainstream media channel, I would have the same opinion.

 

Is it "censorship" to expect (or require if I had the power to do so) that public presentations avoid slander? I realize that our public figures do not have the same rights in a slander case that private citizens do, but don't even you believe that we should be making political decisions based on accurate information?

 

Clearly that "Road to 911" was not based on a simple difference of opinion, but based at least in part on lies. Was Reagans the same?