U.S. SOLDIER BURNED IN EFFIGY AT PORTLAND ANTI-WAR PROTEST...

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I really don't see what the issue is here... who cares... It doesn't offend me... it doesn't make much sense to me either, but it doesn't offend me. So I find no reason to "condemn" a misguided burning of an effigy...

are/were you a soldier?

Huh? Did my point blow right over you? What is there to condemn? I don't "condemn" nazi groups or the kkk either... it isn't necessary. As long as they are expressing themselves legally, I simply don't pay attention-which is what they want.

In this situation burning an effigy of a soldier is misguided.. they should be burning one of bush and cheney if they want to protest the war.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
No, I think the troops were used by Bush to further his political career...

Please explain to me how invading Iraq was going to help Bush further his career.

1. He is already President, how can he further that?
2. He was very popular coming off the success of Afghanistan, therefore the safe thing to do would have been to sit back and bask in the glory of what he had already achieved.

Going into Iraq was a risky thing to do, which implies to me that he was not doing it for political reasons, but for ideological ones. I.E. it was the right thing to do at the time. Didn't the Washington Post just write an editorial that said going into Iraq was the right thing to do as well? hmmm

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I really don't see what the issue is here... who cares... It doesn't offend me... it doesn't make much sense to me either, but it doesn't offend me. So I find no reason to "condemn" a misguided burning of an effigy...

are/were you a soldier?

Remind me, what is it soilders fight for?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
No, I think the troops were used by Bush to further his political career...

Please explain to me how invading Iraq was going to help Bush further his career.

1. He is already President, how can he further that?
2. He was very popular coming off the success of Afghanistan, therefore the safe thing to do would have been to sit back and bask in the glory of what he had already achieved.

Going into Iraq was a risky thing to do, which implies to me that he was not doing it for political reasons, but for ideological ones. I.E. it was the right thing to do at the time. Didn't the Washington Post just write an editorial that said going into Iraq was the right thing to do as well? hmmm

How can he politically further his career? Jeez.. people just don't have a brain. How bout fame and prestige? He wants to be remembered as a great.... The joke is on him and you.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
No, I think the troops were used by Bush to further his political career...

Please explain to me how invading Iraq was going to help Bush further his career.

1. He is already President, how can he further that?
2. He was very popular coming off the success of Afghanistan, therefore the safe thing to do would have been to sit back and bask in the glory of what he had already achieved.

Going into Iraq was a risky thing to do, which implies to me that he was not doing it for political reasons, but for ideological ones. I.E. it was the right thing to do at the time. Didn't the Washington Post just write an editorial that said going into Iraq was the right thing to do as well? hmmm

How can he politically further his career? Jeez.. people just don't have a brain. How bout fame and prestige? He wants to be remembered as a great.... The joke is on him and you.

You obviously missed my point then. After the victory in Afghanistan he was on his way to being 'great' (although that is a stronger word than I would use.)
Look at his favorable ratings, via USA Today, from 2002. They ranged from 83-68 and they were on the way down before the war in Iraq started. Now if all he wanted to do was be known as a great President he could have backed off the war talk, seeing that it was hurting his ratings, and look for other ways to improve his standing.

 

[ProfJohn]

For the first time ever I am going to post a DailyKos entry and actually agree with what this person says 100%. Maybe some of the excuses makers on here like Harvey and Steeple need to read this and they?ll get a clue as to why this type of action is so bad.

There is a story of the war protests in Portland burning a soldier in effigy... posted all over the right wing sites and yet I come here and there is nothing. Do the peace protesters not realize that this type of activity is a shameful act of cowardice and against the very nature of peace? Do that not realize that Peace is about loving our fellow humans, not burning them in effigy?

I urge each and every one of you to object when such a horrendous act occurs at a so-called peace protest, people who do such things are only rowing the boat backwards. Peaceful protesters who allow their protests to be hijacked by such maliciousness make a black mark against every reasonable Democrat and peace lover everywhere.
Above all I'd like someone to stand up and tell me that we at least tried to prevent this disgusting act.
Lame Diary I know, but the stupid act of a few ensnared hundreds if not thousands to the right wing, and quite frankly, having seen those pictures, I can understand why. It's truly an embarrassment that we would let this sort of thing go on.
Please don't allow fringe elements to hijack reason!

link
BTW you have to love the way the people start to respond to this post by trying to blame the right for these guys...

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
No, I think the troops were used by Bush to further his political career...

Please explain to me how invading Iraq was going to help Bush further his career.

1. He is already President, how can he further that?
2. He was very popular coming off the success of Afghanistan, therefore the safe thing to do would have been to sit back and bask in the glory of what he had already achieved.

Going into Iraq was a risky thing to do, which implies to me that he was not doing it for political reasons, but for ideological ones. I.E. it was the right thing to do at the time. Didn't the Washington Post just write an editorial that said going into Iraq was the right thing to do as well? hmmm

How can he politically further his career? Jeez.. people just don't have a brain. How bout fame and prestige? He wants to be remembered as a great.... The joke is on him and you.

You obviously missed my point then. After the victory in Afghanistan he was on his way to being 'great' (although that is a stronger word than I would use.)
Look at his favorable ratings, via USA Today, from 2002. They ranged from 83-68 and they were on the way down before the war in Iraq started. Now if all he wanted to do was be known as a great President he could have backed off the war talk, seeing that it was hurting his ratings, and look for other ways to improve his standing.

Bush's ratings were on their way down before 9/11. Without that event he probably wouldn't even have managed to get re-elected. I do think that 9/11 gave Bush a chance to be a great POTUS, a chance most Presidents never get, but he mucked it up. That seems to be the story of his life and I think that's exactly what the historians will say too.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

You obviously missed my point then. After the victory in Afghanistan he was on his way to being 'great' (although that is a stronger word than I would use.)

There was no victory in Afghanistan, and things are still far from great

If there was no war in Iraq, some dumbass would be doing this in regard to Afghanistan

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Bush's ratings were on their way down before 9/11. Without that event he probably wouldn't even have managed to get re-elected. I do think that 9/11 gave Bush a chance to be a great POTUS, a chance most Presidents never get, but he mucked it up. That seems to be the story of his life and I think that's exactly what the historians will say too.

Actually... without 9-11 Bush would have most likely followed in the foot steps of Clinton.

1. A decent part of our deficit is related to the war and the economic impact 9-11 had, take 9-11 away and the deficits never get as big and the economy most likely recovers faster, the budget might even be balanced again by now.
2. The condition of the economy today is very similar to how it was during most of Clinton's time in office, and he is remembered for having such a great economy. Take away the Iraq war and Bush is judged on the economy first.
3. Take away Iraq and Afghanistan and you see that the major events of the world today are almost the same as when Clinton was in office. North Korea and nukes, Iran and Nukes and the Israel-Palestinians conflict.

 

[Steeplerot]

And with a bit more reading these are local anarchists at it once again, not the peace protesters.

The right let the radicalization genie out of the bottle with so many years of hate radio etc. It is only a matter of time before a new generation of the far left to fight back against the fascism with their own special blend.

Expect far more of this as the centrists get their voices drowned out.

The far right lean of this country in the past 2 decades is going to topple soon, and it will not be pretty seeing the hole they have dug themselves into.

 

[Moonbeam]

Where are you palehorse, hiding under the bed? I called you a pynofian sartumtive gafpocket whose unmackrious penjavaleva fisonates to multabrian nalpantoism. You get yourself worked up over being burnt in effigy and you let this slide. What a complete and total nactofalian wapok you are!

 

[bamacre]

lmao

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre
lmao

What can I do, bamacre? The guy actually thinks it's the protesters burning a fake soldier that is the source of his outrage when actually all that happened was that they touched his inner feelings of worthlessness that are repressed out of consciousness in him. My words did nothing because they triggered no self contempt and because he doesn't associate my words with his self hate. My words are just sounds regardless of what I may mean. We carry our own hurt and self hate within us and are disgusted by anything that reminds us of what we really feel.

It is this hidden reality that is the source of all human misunderstanding.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Bush's ratings were on their way down before 9/11. Without that event he probably wouldn't even have managed to get re-elected. I do think that 9/11 gave Bush a chance to be a great POTUS, a chance most Presidents never get, but he mucked it up. That seems to be the story of his life and I think that's exactly what the historians will say too.

Actually... without 9-11 Bush would have most likely followed in the foot steps of Clinton.

1. A decent part of our deficit is related to the war and the economic impact 9-11 had, take 9-11 away and the deficits never get as big and the economy most likely recovers faster, the budget might even be balanced again by now.
2. The condition of the economy today is very similar to how it was during most of Clinton's time in office, and he is remembered for having such a great economy. Take away the Iraq war and Bush is judged on the economy first.
3. Take away Iraq and Afghanistan and you see that the major events of the world today are almost the same as when Clinton was in office. North Korea and nukes, Iran and Nukes and the Israel-Palestinians conflict.

Actually no. The economy started tanking the minute Bush was elected (even the people who voted for him didn't have any confidence in what he would do) and it's been in the crapper ever since. Only massive spending by the goverment has finally pushed the stock market back to the level it was pre-Bush, but I feel sorry for the next poor bloke who get's elected. I just hope one of the partied comes up with a decent canidate this time..... somebody the whole country can get behind.

And you need to remember, it was Bush's idea to invade Iraq. he's the decider, so he's the man responsible for the consequences.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre
lmao

What can I do, bamacre? The guy actually thinks it's the protesters burning a fake soldier that is the source of his outrage when actually all that happened was that they touched his inner feelings of worthlessness that are repressed out of consciousness in him. My words did nothing because they triggered no self contempt and because he doesn't associate my words with his self hate. My words are just sounds regardless of what I may mean. We carry our own hurt and self hate within us and are disgusted by anything that reminds us of what we really feel.

It is this hidden reality that is the source of all human misunderstanding.

Yeah, but when you said it the first time I thought it was funny. 😛

 

[bamacre]

Would the protesters' message been different if they had all dressed up as GWB as they burned the effegy of the soldier?

What if they had dressed up like Hillary Clinton, who supported the war?

What if they dressed up as the American voters who voted for Bush and/or Hillary Clinton? Oh wait, that is how they dressed.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Actually no. The economy started tanking the minute Bush was elected (even the people who voted for him didn't have any confidence in what he would do) and it's been in the crapper ever since. Only massive spending by the goverment has finally pushed the stock market back to the level it was pre-Bush, but I feel sorry for the next poor bloke who get's elected. I just hope one of the partied comes up with a decent canidate this time..... somebody the whole country can get behind.

And you need to remember, it was Bush's idea to invade Iraq. he's the decider, so he's the man responsible for the consequences.

The economy was on the way down before Bush took office. The third quarter of 2000 actually had a negative growth rate...
link

The last recession may have started in the last months of the Clinton administration rather than at the beginning of the Bush administration.

The panel of economists that serves as the official timekeeper for the nation's recessions is considering moving the starting date for the most recent economic decline back to November or December of 2000, a member of the group said today, confirming a report that appeared in The Wall Street Journal.

It really all started in March of 2000 when the tech bubble bust, it just took a while for the effects to hit the entire market.

 

[tomywishbone]

Better than burning Real Soldiers in real life, as bushler does.

 

[kedlav]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: alien42
who cares, it is a couple of 'nobodies'. congratulations on giving the attention they are seeking.

I'd say Facebook is doing that.

Otherwise, way to go (golf clap) attack the OP instead of those idiots or Facebook for allowing the photos to remain up.

Fern.

the protestors have freedom of speech to do what they please, which is purely symbolic. making a big deal out of it is the problem i see here.

Freedom of Speech does not mean a lack of responsibility for your moronic statements/actions. While they are legal actions, legal is not moral, nor is it acceptable within mainstream society. These are the same actions we deride many other protest groups for...

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Actually no. The economy started tanking the minute Bush was elected (even the people who voted for him didn't have any confidence in what he would do) and it's been in the crapper ever since. Only massive spending by the goverment has finally pushed the stock market back to the level it was pre-Bush, but I feel sorry for the next poor bloke who get's elected. I just hope one of the partied comes up with a decent canidate this time..... somebody the whole country can get behind.

And you need to remember, it was Bush's idea to invade Iraq. he's the decider, so he's the man responsible for the consequences.

The economy was on the way down before Bush took office. The third quarter of 2000 actually had a negative growth rate...
link

The last recession may have started in the last months of the Clinton administration rather than at the beginning of the Bush administration.

The panel of economists that serves as the official timekeeper for the nation's recessions is considering moving the starting date for the most recent economic decline back to November or December of 2000, a member of the group said today, confirming a report that appeared in The Wall Street Journal.

It really all started in March of 2000 when the tech bubble bust, it just took a while for the effects to hit the entire market.

Yeah, so say the Bush cheerleaders who were funded with $10 million worth of conservative money. And then they only go so far as to say it could "possiblly" have started then. Keep trying though, with enough money you'll figure out how to get water to flow uphill.

It's just a coincidence that the common man is always struggling under the so called conservatives, but does fine under Clinton, who isn't really even a liberal. You must think most people are quite stupid?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: kedlav

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: alien42
who cares, it is a couple of 'nobodies'. congratulations on giving the attention they are seeking.

I'd say Facebook is doing that.

Otherwise, way to go (golf clap) attack the OP instead of those idiots or Facebook for allowing the photos to remain up.

Fern.

the protestors have freedom of speech to do what they please, which is purely symbolic. making a big deal out of it is the problem i see here.

Freedom of Speech does not mean a lack of responsibility for your moronic statements/actions. While they are legal actions, legal is not moral, nor is it acceptable within mainstream society. These are the same actions we deride many other protest groups for...

And because you are full of derision they can deride you. They make you feel how worthless you were made to feel when you acted in ways that had that effect on others. Now you carry the disease and pass it on to others. We were all forced to think the way we do and hate anybody who was not forced himself to think the same. If you are different your dangerous.

 

[thujone]

i overheard them talking about this on fox news earlier... and they're totally lumping the whole anti-war movement into this to try and make the claim that they've been making all along...


if you're against the war, you're against the troops.

as a stout anti-war activist... i think this was offensive. but mostly... just moronic. i get the feeling that there was probably more to the message that we're not getting in the pictures.

either way... it's not like this actually changes anything for or against the war.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: thujone
i overheard them talking about this on fox news earlier... and they're totally lumping the whole anti-war movement into this to try and make the claim that they've been making all along...


if you're against the war, you're against the troops.

as a stout anti-war activist... i think this was offensive. but mostly... just moronic. i get the feeling that there was probably more to the message that we're not getting in the pictures.

either way... it's not like this actually changes anything for or against the war.

How do we know that these people were not hired by Rove or some dirty GOP supporter.. Just like the swiftboaters?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Can anyone give an argument for why this is not okay? Who cares if they don't like the troops? If I saw one getting burned in effigy today, I wouldn't think twice about it... this halo around our "men and women in uniform" is one I'll never understand. Remember: they are in Iraq not to protect freedom, but because they are getting paid lots and lots of money. (way more then the average for their level of education)

You my friend have no clue what you are talking about several statements you make are totally false...

The enilsted personnel are making nothing.....even people working at places like McDonald`s 40 hrs a week make more than our troops......
We put a Halo around our troops because regardless of if its right or wrong these yourng men and women defend our country and even when the conflict is wrong they still are asked by our government to serve....

I feel sorry for you....

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Can anyone give an argument for why this is not okay? Who cares if they don't like the troops? If I saw one getting burned in effigy today, I wouldn't think twice about it... this halo around our "men and women in uniform" is one I'll never understand. Remember: they are in Iraq not to protect freedom, but because they are getting paid lots and lots of money. (way more then the average for their level of education)

You my friend have no clue what you are talking about several statements you make are totally false...

The enilsted personnel are making nothing.....even people working at places like McDonald`s 40 hrs a week make more than our troops......
We put a Halo around our troops because regardless of if its right or wrong these yourng men and women defend our country and even when the conflict is wrong they still are asked by our government to serve....

I feel sorry for you....

McDonals employees make about 1360/mo here. I made 2000-2400/mo as an E4 in 1992 after less than a year in without even leaving the country, or receiving any kind of hazardous duty pay.

Not saying an E1 is rich, but there is money there if you know how to get at it. And that isn't even considering enlistment bonuses, re-enlistment bonuses, tuition coverage while in, GI Bill, reduced credit costs, veterans hiring preference, medical benefits, etc.