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

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: dyna
When you burn the flag you denounce all things American. From there on why should you be protected by the amendents it represents? You just denounced it. You just burned an American solider in effigy. You have denounced the US military. If you get captured by a terrorist why should they risk their lives to save you?

If you want to overthrow the American government burn the flag on public American soil. That is a good place to start.

I only suggest that flag burning be restricted in a public venue. In your own private property you can have a bonfire of all the things American, I could care less.

GUYS YOU HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH UNTIL YOU SAY SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T LIKE. I AM SURE THAT THIS IS A WELL THOUGHT OUT POINT OF VIEW THAT WILL NEVER COME BACK TO HAUNT ME LATER.

YOU MUST HAVE A BROKEN CAPSLOCK.

Ok I can't tell if you intentionally missed the point of my post or not.

Anyways, I was making fun of you.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: JD50


I completely disagree. The flag is a symbol of our country, not our government and/or what they may be doing that you or someone else disagrees with.

It is a piece of cloth that represents the government, not the people who have many opinions of the state of our country, I would sure like you to point out the US flag birthmark that is on my body. I sure have not seen it yet.

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Burning the flag is not denouncing the good things about being American, it is the opposite, the system/what the military is being used for does not represent America nowadays in many ways, it is a denunciation of what is wrong with the country.

Once you figure this out get back to us, till then foolish blind patriotism like this is one of the concepts of why people torch silly jingoistic symbols, deal with it.

Burning the flag is patriotic?

When it is done as a sign of distress that our govt is not representing what is good about America, yes.

The flag is the symbol of that country, yet you somehow separate it and make it a symbol of your ideals. Thats strange thinking.

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: JD50


I completely disagree. The flag is a symbol of our country, not our government and/or what they may be doing that you or someone else disagrees with.

It is a piece of cloth that represents the government, not the people who have many opinions of the state of our country, I would sure like you to point out the US flag birthmark that is on my body. I sure have not seen it yet.

The constitution is just a piece of paper with some ink on it?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: JD50


I completely disagree. The flag is a symbol of our country, not our government and/or what they may be doing that you or someone else disagrees with.

It is a piece of cloth that represents the government, not the people who have many opinions of the state of our country, I would sure like you to point out the US flag birthmark that is on my body. I sure have not seen it yet.

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about, but whatever, the flag means something different to everyone. I would think that to most people the flag represents our country and the principals that it was founded on (freedom, democracy, bill of rights, etc..), I doubt people think about Nancy Pelosi and George Bush when they see the flag waiving. But I could be wrong.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: dyna

The constitution is just a piece of paper?

Yes it is, and if people do not stand up to protect what is on that paper instead of worshiping some vague idea the words are lost.

The constitution does not say we should worship the military and make a mockery of the document by empty nationalism, matter of fact the founders saw this as poison to a free society.

(And history since has shown them to be very correct.)

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
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?

Try to explain this away please.
From Business Week, written in December of 2000 while Clinton was still President.
link

Talk about the Grinch who stole Christmas. Until recently, it was possible to indulge in some humor about the decline in the stock market and shortfalls in corporate earnings. No longer, it seems. Signs that the economy is weakening are cropping up everywhere: Consumer confidence has tumbled during the holiday season, and government statisticians report that retail sales fell sharply in November. The unemployment rate has ticked up, and housing activity has slumped. So a growing number of Wall Street traders and analysts are convinced (mistakenly, I believe) that the recent decline in the stock market is forecasting a recession for next year.

I suppose Bush spent part of that $10 million on a time travel machine so he could 'plant' this story?
And here, from February 2, 2001 a whole 12 days after Bush took office.
link

The U.S. unemployment rate edged up to 4.2 percent last month, its highest level in 16 months, as the slowing economy triggered big layoffs in the auto and other manufacturing industries, the government reported Friday.

For the last 6 months of 2000 there were only 191,000 jobs created, that compares to an average of 153,000 per month last year (and people complained about how low that rate was.)
Do you still deny that the economy was on the way down before Bush took office?

Clinton was probably the luckiest President in history when it comes to the timing of economic cycles. When he took office the US was on the way out of a mild recession and when he left office the country was heading towards a recession which means his entire 8 year occurred during an economic up-turn.

You forgot to blame Jr.s ineptness on the Clinton tax increase.

 

[m1ldslide1]

As a Portland resident I can tell you that there are nearly weekly demonstrations of some sort or another, and they are all peaceful and focused towards ending a war of aggression. If some jackasses burned a soldier in effigy, they definitely do NOT represent the vast vast majority of folks in this city.


By the way, nobody in the country "doesn't support the troops". It's just that most people think that bringing them home is more supportive than asking them to kill and die for a cause that's just as bogus as spreading democracy in SE asia.

In fact I'd say that those people who want to keep funding American aggression "don't support the troops".

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Burning the flag is not denouncing the good things about being American, it is the opposite, the system/what the military is being used for does not represent America nowadays in many ways, it is a denunciation of what is wrong with the country.

Once you figure this out get back to us, till then foolish blind patriotism like this is one of the concepts of why people torch silly jingoistic symbols, deal with it.

Burning the flag is patriotic?

When it is done as a sign of distress that our govt is not representing what is good about America, yes.

The flag is the symbol of that country, yet you somehow separate it and make it a symbol of your ideals. Thats strange thinking.

I think you're confused. He's talking about the act of burning the flag. You seem to think that he's making the flag itself a symbol of his ideals. Strange thinking on your part? Or just confusion?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

listen here homie, I am intimately familiar with "grunts," and their pay - and I still contend that I've never met one in it for the money. Eskimo is flat wrong in his assessment. After 10 years, even as an E6 I take a VERY substantial paycut whenever I am mobilized, and even with tax exemption in the combat zones, my pay si far from stellar. So who got "neutered" again? ya... right.

Second, What is I believe? If you were paying attention (doubtful), you'd see that I said that I agree that these protesters have the right to do what they did, but that does not make what they did any less disgusting.

consider yourself "neutered"

g'day.

I'm not talking about these protesters, I'm talking about you getting put in your place for, again, having absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The grunts you talk to clearly don't exist because it's well known that federal pay, be it military, intelligence, or any other federal agent is quite usually very good, especially when benefits are taken into account, and studies have been done proving that those monetary concerns are a major reason people take those jobs. You're clueless whether you're talking about hard evidence or anecdotal evidence.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: palehorse74

listen here homie, I am intimately familiar with "grunts," and their pay - and I still contend that I've never met one in it for the money. Eskimo is flat wrong in his assessment. After 10 years, even as an E6 I take a VERY substantial paycut whenever I am mobilized, and even with tax exemption in the combat zones, my pay si far from stellar. So who got "neutered" again? ya... right.

Second, What is I believe? If you were paying attention (doubtful), you'd see that I said that I agree that these protesters have the right to do what they did, but that does not make what they did any less disgusting.

consider yourself "neutered"

g'day.

I'm not talking about these protesters, I'm talking about you getting put in your place for, again, having absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The grunts you talk to clearly don't exist because it's well known that federal pay, be it military, intelligence, or any other federal agent is quite usually very good, especially when benefits are taken into account, and studies have been done proving that those monetary concerns are a major reason people take those jobs. You're clueless whether you're talking about hard evidence or anecdotal evidence.

Nah, military pay sux for MOST of our troops...yes, once you have 20 years in, (or are an officer) it gets relatively decent, but overall, (even counting benefits) is still sux...

http://www.dod.mil/dfas/militarypay/2006militarypaytables/2007_Web_Pay_Table.pdf

 

[cwjerome]

The military pays quite decently now, as it should, and as it should have before. Bottom line is they have to compete with the civilian sector... and it's about time. What is wrong with that?

I don't get this cynicism. So a big reason a Joe joins is because he'll get college money. Or something to that effect. WTH is wrong with trying to attract "employees" with good benefits and rewarding people who serve? It's a particular business -and regardless if a guy has only a HS diploma- if he's a good soldier he deserves everything he gets.

I guess some of you believe people have to sacrifice all and serve purely for altruistic reasons :roll:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: palehorse74

listen here homie, I am intimately familiar with "grunts," and their pay - and I still contend that I've never met one in it for the money. Eskimo is flat wrong in his assessment. After 10 years, even as an E6 I take a VERY substantial paycut whenever I am mobilized, and even with tax exemption in the combat zones, my pay si far from stellar. So who got "neutered" again? ya... right.

Second, What is I believe? If you were paying attention (doubtful), you'd see that I said that I agree that these protesters have the right to do what they did, but that does not make what they did any less disgusting.

consider yourself "neutered"

g'day.

I'm not talking about these protesters, I'm talking about you getting put in your place for, again, having absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The grunts you talk to clearly don't exist because it's well known that federal pay, be it military, intelligence, or any other federal agent is quite usually very good, especially when benefits are taken into account, and studies have been done proving that those monetary concerns are a major reason people take those jobs. You're clueless whether you're talking about hard evidence or anecdotal evidence.

Nah, military pay sux for MOST of our troops...yes, once you have 20 years in, (or are an officer) it gets relatively decent, but overall, (even counting benefits) is still sux...

http://www.dod.mil/dfas/militarypay/2006militarypaytables/2007_Web_Pay_Table.pdf

Did you even read my postings before?

Base pay accounts for only about half of a soldier's income unless he is a new recruit... and even if he is he is still getting free housing that is not included in that pay estimate. An E-5 in my position was making more then $55,000 a year with only a high school diploma. That doesn't even count the fact that 100% free health care is thrown in as well which is worth thousands more.

I know these facts because I have personally experienced them.

Boomer, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop posting misleading information until you have educated yourself.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
The military pays quite decently now, as it should, and as it should have before. Bottom line is they have to compete with the civilian sector... and it's about time. What is wrong with that?

I don't get this cynicism. So a big reason a Joe joins is because he'll get college money. Or something to that effect. WTH is wrong with trying to attract "employees" with good benefits and rewarding people who serve? It's a particular business -and regardless if a guy has only a HS diploma- if he's a good soldier he deserves everything he gets.

I guess some of you believe people have to sacrifice all and serve purely for altruistic reasons :roll:

My point was that everyone puts "The Troops" up on a pedestal because they think they are performing some noble sacrifice for the US... and in reality they are doing it for the money. (and the HS diploma was only relevant because they would be hard pressed to make that much money on the outside without more education) I don't hold that against them in any way... I think it's great that they are in the military, it keeps me out of it. I'm just saying that you can keep the halos you keep trying to put on them.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: cwjerome
The military pays quite decently now, as it should, and as it should have before. Bottom line is they have to compete with the civilian sector... and it's about time. What is wrong with that?

I don't get this cynicism. So a big reason a Joe joins is because he'll get college money. Or something to that effect. WTH is wrong with trying to attract "employees" with good benefits and rewarding people who serve? It's a particular business -and regardless if a guy has only a HS diploma- if he's a good soldier he deserves everything he gets.

I guess some of you believe people have to sacrifice all and serve purely for altruistic reasons :roll:

My point was that everyone puts "The Troops" up on a pedestal because they think they are performing some noble sacrifice for the US... and in reality they are doing it for the money. (and the HS diploma was only relevant because they would be hard pressed to make that much money on the outside without more education) I don't hold that against them in any way... I think it's great that they are in the military, it keeps me out of it. I'm just saying that you can keep the halos you keep trying to put on them.

Well I guess because they get paid a fair price we shouldn't admire them then... right.

They ARE sacrificing... in many ways, particularly timewise. I know a First Sergeant who has spent a total of 1 Christmas, 1 anniversary, and 2 Birthdays with his family over the past 5 years. I know Sergeant Major who cried in conversation about his upcoming retirement because he hardly knows his teenage daughters. You think this isn't commonplace? In the Army, it's the rule.

Not to mention the hazardous duty they perform day in and day out, putting their health and lives on the line. Generally speaking they should be on a pedestal... just like cops and firefighters. Oh wait, cops and firefighters get paid pretty well also... guess they don't deserve our admiration either :roll:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

My point was that everyone puts "The Troops" up on a pedestal because they think they are performing some noble sacrifice for the US... and in reality they are doing it for the money. (and the HS diploma was only relevant because they would be hard pressed to make that much money on the outside without more education) I don't hold that against them in any way... I think it's great that they are in the military, it keeps me out of it. I'm just saying that you can keep the halos you keep trying to put on them.

Well I guess because they get paid a fair price we shouldn't admire them then... right.

They ARE sacrificing... in many ways, particularly timewise. I know a First Sergeant who has spent a total of 1 Christmas, 1 anniversary, and 2 Birthdays with his family over the past 5 years. I know Sergeant Major who cried in conversation about his upcoming retirement because he hardly knows his teenage daughters. You think this isn't commonplace? In the Army, it's the rule.

Not to mention the hazardous duty they perform day in and day out, putting their health and lives on the line. Generally speaking they should be on a pedestal... just like cops and firefighters. Oh wait, cops and firefighters get paid pretty well also... guess they don't deserve our admiration either :roll:[/quote]

All eye rolling aside, if you know what you're getting into and choose to get into it anyway out of reasons of self interest, don't expect me to be bowled over by your amazing sacrifice. I knew plenty of people who had been in for 20 years and barely knew their kids too. You know what? Instead of admiring their sacrifice, I pitied their stupidity for allowing a job to remove them from those they cared about because they were too afraid to take a chance in the real world. (and no, those lifers aren't all hard core America loving Defenders Of Freedom or something... that's not why they stayed in.)Again, that sacrifice is one of the reasons their income is disproportionately high as compared to their education level.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: cwjerome

My point was that everyone puts "The Troops" up on a pedestal because they think they are performing some noble sacrifice for the US... and in reality they are doing it for the money. (and the HS diploma was only relevant because they would be hard pressed to make that much money on the outside without more education) I don't hold that against them in any way... I think it's great that they are in the military, it keeps me out of it. I'm just saying that you can keep the halos you keep trying to put on them.

Well I guess because they get paid a fair price we shouldn't admire them then... right.

They ARE sacrificing... in many ways, particularly timewise. I know a First Sergeant who has spent a total of 1 Christmas, 1 anniversary, and 2 Birthdays with his family over the past 5 years. I know Sergeant Major who cried in conversation about his upcoming retirement because he hardly knows his teenage daughters. You think this isn't commonplace? In the Army, it's the rule.

Not to mention the hazardous duty they perform day in and day out, putting their health and lives on the line. Generally speaking they should be on a pedestal... just like cops and firefighters. Oh wait, cops and firefighters get paid pretty well also... guess they don't deserve our admiration either :roll:

All eye rolling aside, if you know what you're getting into and choose to get into it anyway out of reasons of self interest, don't expect me to be bowled over by your amazing sacrifice. I knew plenty of people who had been in for 20 years and barely knew their kids too. You know what? Instead of admiring their sacrifice, I pitied their stupidity for allowing a job to remove them from those they cared about because they were too afraid to take a chance in the real world. (and no, those lifers aren't all hard core America loving Defenders Of Freedom or something... that's not why they stayed in.)Again, that sacrifice is one of the reasons their income is disproportionately high as compared to their education level.[/quote]

Take a chance in the real world?

Pity their stupidity?

Reasons of self interest?

Disproportionately high as compared to their education level?

Wow, you sound like a real elitist prick. Cold man. Sorry about your perspective... a prison cell of stereotypes and deformed psychological development that it is.

That's all I needed to hear. Cheers.

 

[fskimospy]

It's from personal experience, genius. I could go on for hours about all the people from which I am basing those statements... but I just don't have it in me to do that. I do pity their cowardice and stupidity though.

Isn't it funny? The some of the same people who can have bullets whizz by their head all day are deathly afraid of life outside of the military. I view it as very similar to the mentality of people who have been in prison for a long time. You go from a very controlled environment into one that is very uncontrolled where there are no guarantees. It's interesting to see how many people when they get out of the service go back in. (or chicken out at the last minute)

Those are just anecdotes though.. (although I don't know how you would quantify sadness... if you've got a way I'd give it a shot).

Reasons of self interest? Yeah.. of course. Why do you do your job? Chances are pretty good it's for reasons of self interest. As for the pay, that's just a fact. You make more in the military with only a high school diploma then you would at most other jobs that you could get.

Are you mad that I'm using generalizations in a discussion about literally every person who is in the military? How else would you suggest doing it? I took the statistics on why people joined provided by the DoD and found that more then 2/3rds had joined for selfish reasons. This is not bad, it's just true. The amount that listed "sense of national duty" were 11%. That is hardly representitive.

I liked that insult though... it was pretty hilarious. If only I had known that I was supposed to be idolizing people based on their job description maybe I could have escaped the prison cell that my deformed psyche and bigoted nature has cemented me into. ahahahahaha.

You can insult me all you want, what you have to say has very little meaning to me because I know you're speaking from a position of ignorance. If you want to idolize people in the military, be my guest. I'll never understand it. Maybe it's because I don't watch enough TV.

 

[mc00]

this make me wonder about "Land of Free" because some one said few post back "
i would execute my first amendment rights and beat the living sh|it out of him. i would go to jail with a big fricken smile on my face too. "
just because they burn a flag and said this war is BS... honestly I think some people in this country forgot what is land of free and freedom of speech, is not freedom of speech limited only if you got something good to say.. if not I'll beat the sh!t of you because I don't like your opinion... I can't stand religion people on loud speaker and blahing there a$$ off about how wrong gay marriage is and how wrong of you not having god in your heart and abortion blah blah.. you don't see me with bat wanting to break it over there heads. again, I always said I don't owe this solider nothing I didn't hold there hand and walk them to recruiting office , they made choice to join on there own free will and same free will I use refuse to join.. yep they know damn well there chance would lose there life doing this job.. yep I give them respect for having ball to join and doing this job and I give the patriotism(good soldier not trigger happy ones) to them for it, but again I don't owe them nothing for it... if there ever be a TRUE war against our freedom and democracy than all us should pick up a gun and defend.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: palehorse74

listen here homie, I am intimately familiar with "grunts," and their pay - and I still contend that I've never met one in it for the money. Eskimo is flat wrong in his assessment. After 10 years, even as an E6 I take a VERY substantial paycut whenever I am mobilized, and even with tax exemption in the combat zones, my pay si far from stellar. So who got "neutered" again? ya... right.

Second, What is I believe? If you were paying attention (doubtful), you'd see that I said that I agree that these protesters have the right to do what they did, but that does not make what they did any less disgusting.

consider yourself "neutered"

g'day.

I'm not talking about these protesters, I'm talking about you getting put in your place for, again, having absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The grunts you talk to clearly don't exist because it's well known that federal pay, be it military, intelligence, or any other federal agent is quite usually very good, especially when benefits are taken into account, and studies have been done proving that those monetary concerns are a major reason people take those jobs. You're clueless whether you're talking about hard evidence or anecdotal evidence.

Nah, military pay sux for MOST of our troops...yes, once you have 20 years in, (or are an officer) it gets relatively decent, but overall, (even counting benefits) is still sux...

http://www.dod.mil/dfas/militarypay/2006militarypaytables/2007_Web_Pay_Table.pdf

Did you even read my postings before?

Base pay accounts for only about half of a soldier's income unless he is a new recruit... and even if he is he is still getting free housing that is not included in that pay estimate. An E-5 in my position was making more then $55,000 a year with only a high school diploma. That doesn't even count the fact that 100% free health care is thrown in as well which is worth thousands more.

I know these facts because I have personally experienced them.

Boomer, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop posting misleading information until you have educated yourself.

Piss off...I did my 4 for the Corps...and drew combat pay...woohoo...added up to ~$420/month as an E-4 in Vietnam.
My son just got out after serving 4 then 4 more (with about 2 years inbetween) , and his pay including flight pay was under $3K/month

I don't care how you try to spin it, military pay SUX...
You can't compare military pay to civilian pay, because I know of no civilian job in which you are bound by the UMCJ, where you can be tossed in the brig for disobeying an order from your boss, or even shot for walking off the job...(among many other significant differences)

Now maybe, if you sit at a desk all day in some cushy air-conditioned office, you might not think the pay is that bad, but for those we send into harm's way...the pay sux...it's a GOOD thing MOST of those good people ARE NOT doing it for the pay...(BTW, if military pay is so fvcking good, why are the families of so many active duty personel having to collect food stamps nationwide?)

 

[fskimospy]

Ahh there you go, you're trying to compare military pay from the Vietnam era (when it DID suck) to military pay today when it most decidedly does not.

I can't speak for the situation of your son, but I can speak to the facts as provided by the DoD in their pay scales, housing allowances, and BAS tables. If you don't like the conclusions that are drawn from them... then I don't know what to tell you.

Same goes for why people join the military. What I said came straight from the DoD website based on their own figures. If those numbers rob you of your illusions, I am terribly sorry.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: dyna
When you burn the flag you denounce all things American. From there on why should you be protected by the amendents it represents? You just denounced it. You just burned an American solider in effigy. You have denounced the US military. If you get captured by a terrorist why should they risk their lives to save you?

If you want to overthrow the American government burn the flag on public American soil. That is a good place to start.

I only suggest that flag burning be restricted in a public venue. In your own private property you can have a bonfire of all the things American, I could care less.

The amendment protects the speech.. the speech doesn't need to be approved first before having the amendment applied to it.. hence the WHOLE PURPOSE of the amendment!

Hence why I called his views "dangerous." Because they are.

Maybe we can't agree on my opinion but would you agree that if you denounce all the rights available to you by your country that you should no longer be protected by those rights?

Nope. That is the point of freedom of speech.. to be able to denounce the government or anything you want.

It seems like you are speaking from an ideological viewpoint because there would be no way to determine what equates to "denouncing rights." Slippery slope anyone? Ring a bell?