Say Anything Blog

He’ll have that sign taken away from him by the large number of patriotic peace protestors who love America and support the troops.

What’s really pathetic is that so many people have accepted their idiotic rambling as a valid viewpoint that they are now confident enough to spew it at wounded soldiers and during the funeral processions of soldiers killed in action.

So long as people and the media spins all of this as acceptable, they won’t be deterred. If there is no one to call a duck a duck, it will continue to believe it’s a swan.

Hey I was born there, and had my final physical there before they put in boot camp across the damn street.

What’s really pathetic is that so many people have accepted their idiotic rambling as a valid viewpoint that they are now confident enough to spew it at wounded soldiers and during the funeral processions of soldiers killed in action.

Yeah, these people pestering soldier funerals are disgusting.

OOOOooooo Big crowd! Sounds like they had a turn out problem…

From the pictures displayed here, it looks like these protests in front of hospitals are also very small.  Yet, they are an example of “targeting the soldiers”?

MI, they’re protesting outside of hospitals where wounded soldiers are being cared for.  If that’s not targeting (regardless of the number of protesters), I don’t know what is.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

And you still won’t give up on this “they’re targeting the soldiers” meme, huh?  Faulty characterizations like this, and partisans’ continous repeating of them, does as much to foster dissent as anything else might.

About 10 church members protested near Smyrna United From MI’s article:

About 10 church members protested near Smyrna United Methodist Church and nearly 20 stood outside the National Guard Armory in Ashland City. Members have demonstrated at other soldier funerals across the nation.

OOOOooooo Big crowd!  Sounds like they had a turn out problem…

Seems that the opposition didn’t!

Hundreds of Smyrna and Ashland City residents and families of other soldiers turned out at both sites to counter the message the Westboro Baptist members brought.

I don’t like these asswipes anymore than I do the ones protesting the war.  But, I guess that your point was to show that there are asshats on both sides, right?

Seth Yantiss said, I don’t like these asswipes anymore than I do the ones protesting the war. But, I guess that your point was to show that there are asshats on both sides, right?

No Seth, it’s the same side. The left.

That was a good set up to the analogy, MI.  But you leave out an important part.  Jefferson is dead.  Any rhetoric or negative depictions will not slow his recovery. 

Now, apply that template to these protestors: the subject of their protest is the war and its real-world impact. The object, or the audience, is the general populace. The target is the American public; the hospitals and soldiers are, if you will, visual aids.

Now imagine that you’re inside the hospital being used as a prop in the rhetoric driven swill that our “tour guides” are spewing.

Let them do this stuff at a grave yard.  Your analogy would be more apt then.

And you don’t think its disrespectful to use wounded soldiers as “visual aids?”

And the target is very much the soldiers.  Part, if not all, of their intent is to demoralize the soldiers.  Otherwise the signs wouldn’t read “Maimed For A Lie” and “Sign Up Here To Die For Halliburton.”

You’re splitting hairs, but I don’t I’ll convince of that.  We’ll have to agree to disagree.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Ok, let me see if I can find a good analogy.

I gave tours at Monticello for a couple of years.  I would guide groups of people through the house, pointing out articles of interest or works of art, and discussing Jefferson’s life and works.  The subject of my tour, the matter being discussed was Jefferson and his home.  The object of my tour, the audience to whom my talk was directed, was the tour group.

Now, apply that template to these protestors: the subject of their protest is the war and its real-world impact.  The object, or the audience, is the general populace.  The target is the American public; the hospitals and soldiers are, if you will, visual aids.

Seth…a “far, far right value” is total freedom and no government.

ree-hee-HEEALLY? Oh that such were true...the far right is all about los federales. The far left is all about los federales...because the actual people in charge are making it so. Ideology behind any governing system is an abstract until actual people are in position and the ball is rolling...otherwise you can be talking about Nazism under fuhrer Gandhi just the same. Your idea of the quintesential right is open for interpretation once someone’s in a position of interpreting it and physical mandates are in effect...this is why left/right liberal/conservative talk is all bullshit distraction from addressing specific people doing specific things on all “sides”.

Likwid, are we talking the same thing? 

No Seth, it’s the same side. The left.

The people in MI’s link appear to be espousing a far, far right value.

The people in MI’s link appear to be espousing a far, far right value.

Seth...a “far, far right value” is total freedom and no government. In no way does bigotry become a “right value”. It seems that you’ve let people like “that colored fella” and Don Myers define your political spectrum. Don’t give them that pleasure. They’re wrong.

Anyways...these guys are Democrats. The leader of the “church” was invited to and attended both of Bill Clinton’s inaugurations. Some of the other “church” members (which are mostly the guy’s family) were involved with Al Gore’s campaign.

ree-hee-HEEALLY? Oh that such were true…the far right is all about los federales. The far left is all about los federales…because the actual people in charge are making it so.

What? The further right you move, the less and less government there is. It’s as simple as that Mr. “keep it simple”. No need to complicate things.

Mark? What does any of that have to do with antis targeting wounded soldiers in their “Protests”. For that matter carl B and Lik, what does either of your comments at the end of this thread have to do with the subject at hand?

I’ve seen you post a number of times on this issue, Likwid, and after repeatedly trying to stop myself from entering a debate with you on it, I just couldn’t resist anymore.

In suggesting that “Left” and “Right” correspond to “presence of government” and “absence of government” you are equivocating between two meanings.

In the former meaning, “right”, as far as I am aware, stands for conservatism. Stasis. Now that is obviously a good place to be if the status quo is good; bad if the status quo is bad. Conversely, “left” stands for reforming, radical views (reverse the above).

In the latter meaning, “right” can mean a government run on capitalist principles; and “left”, a government run on socialist-leaning principles.

Now, even if I accept your assumption (implicit in your claims that right=freedom) that economic freedom is the only form of freedom there is (it isn’t) you are ignoring the fact that being ‘left’ can also mean advocating the absence of government - a clear example is a group of dissatisfied left-leaning citizens who live in a capitalist, ‘rightist’ state wishing to disassociate themselves from that country in order to form their own (anarchist) ‘state’ (I put state in inverted commas because naturally there would be no rule of law or leader in the area they create).

By no means should these people be forced to define themselves as ‘right’, as your claims suggest they should do.

I’m sorry, 2H9 - is there a rule here that says we have to stick to the subject at the top of the thread?

If there is, I was unaware of it.

Naw, just trying to bring us back to battery. The curse of being an arty FO. Target, no matter what happens behind, target. I am as guilty of wondering of subject as any.

Hey, 2H9, if you want to change your name back to your own while using the “Wifey’s” computer just scroll to the very bottom of the page and change the infromation there before you submit a comment.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Mark said, Now, even if I accept your assumption (implicit in your claims that right=freedom) that economic freedom is the only form of freedom there is (it isn’t)...

Economic freedom is only one part of freedom. Nowhere have I suggested that it is the only form of freedom.

...a clear example is a group of dissatisfied left-leaning citizens who live in a capitalist, ‘rightist’ state wishing to disassociate themselves from that country in order to form their own (anarchist) ’state’ (I put state in inverted commas because naturally there would be no rule of law or leader in the area they create).

Well then they are changing their stance from one that has a lot of government in all levels of life to one that is absence of government totally. They would be no longer “left leaning”.

By no means should these people be forced to define themselves as ‘right’, as your claims suggest they should do.

Nobody is forcing anything Mark.

2Hotel9 said, Mark? What does any of that have to do with antis targeting wounded soldiers in their “Protests”. For that matter carl B and Lik, what does either of your comments at the end of this thread have to do with the subject at hand?

Nothing. Does it matter?

"Well then they are changing their stance from one that has a lot of government in all levels of life to one that is absence of government totally. They would be no longer “left leaning”.”

Incorrect. One can be left-wing, or left-leaning, and still stand for absence of government. A good example, of the top of my head, is Murray Bookchin.

It makes a lot more sense if we assume that all the individuals concerned surrender control of property voluntarily.

If that happens, then a left-wing libertarian utopia makes precisely as much sense as a right-wing one in which people (voluntarily) retain control of property, but still submit themselves to a ‘state’ to settle disputes.

The state is just as large in both the right-wing and left-wing anarchist ‘states’. In the former, the state ensures that property is maintained (the voluntary choice of the vast majority of citizens) - in the latter, it ensures it is not (the voluntary choice of the vast majority of citizens).

Simple.

And why are you advocating Marxist Socialism? Have not enough people died and been tortured for that failed nightmare?

Forgive me, perhaps you could quote me advocating it?

I don’t seem to remember doing so.

Incorrect. One can be left-wing, or left-leaning, and still stand for absence of government. A good example, of the top of my head, is Murray Bookchin.

That just makes no sense. It is like the term “libertarian socialist” of which Murray Bookchin is often referred to as. It is a contradiction in terms. The “libertarian” part professes to be about individualism, so long as that individualism doesn’t own anything. You can’t be both against the government and then be advocating for the collectivization of control and property and then turn around and say that the collectivism isn’t a de facto government.  It is all one big illogical circle that makes no sense.

Yep! That is me. Just a big ole commie warmonger.

No, 2H9, no problem with my memory. Even if I did, the words are right there in front of me.

Rather I think the problem lies with your inability to distinguish between someone ‘talking about’ X from someone ‘advocating’ X.

Let me test you on this.

Johnny says - “In a police state, citizens are under constant surveillance.”

Is Johnny

A) advocating a police state?
B) not advocating a police state?
C) licking his testicles?

Incidentally, I couldn’t help but notice that the words ‘Marxism’ and ‘Socialism’ appear in your post.

You Commie!

2Hotel9; Not remembering what you just posted? That is a bad sign, Mark. Read it one more time.

Mark said, The state is just as large in both the right-wing and left-wing anarchist ’states’. In the former, the state ensures that property is maintained (the voluntary choice of the vast majority of citizens) - in the latter, it ensures it is not (the voluntary choice of the vast majority of citizens).

Hmmm...never heard it explained quite that way. I’ll have to think about it. I’ll still maintain the right/left pendulum way of thinking (separate from the more involved grid), but I will probably come to see the idea of a “libertarian socialist” making sense using logic you stated here.

*Tips hat*

I already can figure out about where it fits in the grid. As for the pendulum, which is very basic by its nature, a “libertarian socialist” is leaning to the left. (But then again, it is left of me and probably right of you, so this has more to do with perception. For me, I maintain that property is one of the main bedrocks of freedom and anything that abdicates and subjugates that to the level of outside control that socialism does is “to the left”.) In the pendulum, the farthest right you can go you have no government at all. For some reason, some people put anarchists on the “left”. That’s not true if they are true anarchists (which almost nobody is except for a few confused and/or naive young kids for the most part). I think you already know that though..because I see that you said, “left-wing anarchist ’states’”.  If it was pure anarchism, there would be no state.

So I guess in the end, the “absence of government” just depends on where the absence of government lies.

Alright...I think I got you now.

Sorry if I rambled...I was working that one out and resisted editing this one too much.