Say Anything Blog

So you ignore the fact that these guys are in fact not “taunting” the soldiers, but rather the administration that sent them off to be killed. I am sure the Politburo will award you well for this toeing of the party line and ignorance in the service of the Republican party.

You’re right, Rob.  I may have overreacted a bit.  I tend to get my hackles up when this kind of shit happens.

I have this sort of fantasy, you know?  One of those wounded guys’ parents are visiting him.  He looks out the window and sees the protesters.  On crutches he comes out the front door of Walter Reed.  Hobbles over to the faux-coffins, surrounded by the sign-wavers.  Faces one of them and softly says, “Hey, man.  My folks walked by here on their way up to see me.  You can say, do, whatever you want with me, fella.  But you made my mama cry.” And then he knocks the fucker on his ass.

Regards…

So you ignore the fact that these guys are in fact not “taunting” the soldiers, but rather the administration that sent them off to be killed. I am sure the Politburo will award you well for this toeing of the party line and ignorance in the service of the Republican party.

Blah blah blah blah.

Point taken, LTM, but where did I say that they should be stopped?  Seems to me I was just criticizing them for all the reasons you just mentioned.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Did you not read the story?  The soldiers see these coffins, and it hurts them.  Their families see the signs, and it hurts them.  These people are trying to recover, yet these asshole protesters won’t let them be.

But hey, the ends justify the means right?  As long as these protesters are sticking it to the man who cares how it makes the soldiers feel, right?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob, you’re wrong on this one, my friend.

Is their protesting in front of Walter Reed in bad taste?  Yes.  Is it incredibly insensitive?  Yes.  Is it deplorable when you consider who walks by (families) and who looks out the windows (the wounded)?  Yes.  Do I think they’re flaming assholes for doing it?  Yes.

But part of the reason the wounded serve in the military is to protect the right of flaming assholes to be flaming assholes.  Most GIs (not all, but most) take pride in the fact they make it possible for tasteless idiots to exercise that right.

Regards…

Rob said, As long as these protesters are sticking it to the man who cares how it makes the soldiers feel, right?

Naw...Oliver just wanted to be an insulting ass and used this story as yet another instance of insulting you. Right Oliver? (We’re on to you bro. You don’t fool us.)

No problem, LTM.  That seems to happen a lot.  People confuse criticism of protests with wanting to stop protest.  I think the same thing is happening to the American Legion folks right now.

And I understand raised hackles on this issue.  My hackles are up as well, if you couldn’t tell.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Faces one of them and softly says, “Hey, man. My folks walked by here on their way up to see me. You can say, do, whatever you want with me, fella. But you made my mama cry.” And then he knocks the fucker on his ass.

I know you’re speaking fantastically, but how would physical violence be better than the non-violent protest?

And, again, the protestors are not taunting soldiers.  You are purposefully using that word to conjure up images of Vietnam-era anti-troop protestors, and it is simply not true.

"We support the troops. Except for when we don’t.”

modern instances said, And, again, the protestors are not taunting soldiers. You are purposefully using that word to conjure up images of Vietnam-era anti-troop protestors, and it is simply not true.

They aren’t? Those tactics sure look like taunting to me. Maybe you just have a different definition from the one most of us use.

modern instances,

You cannot possibly be as dense as you portray yourself.  First of all, I didn’t say the protesters were taunting the soldiers, so don’t tar me with thst brush.

Second, it doesn’t matter that they avoid taunting the soldiers cuz they are protesting in front of Walter Reed.  Families have to walk right by them on their way in to see their sons/daughters/etc.  The mother of some kid who doesn’t have all his/her body parts anymore has to pass by those faux-coffins, see the anti-war signs, and listen to the anti-war chanting.  The protesters have a perfect ‘right’ to do what they’re doing.  And the kid, who sees mama come into the room crying because she doesn’t like/understand/agree/whatever with what she had to walk past, has the natural inclination to knock somebody on their ass.

That cannot possibly as difficult to understand as you make it out to be.

Regards…

It’s not like there is a White House or a Capitol Building they could protest at. 

No, they have to protest at the hospital.

Of course I expect my post will be deleted by the internet police as it might offend those that offend me.  (A little tongue-in-cheek for the benefit of the libs.)

First of all, I didn’t say the protesters were taunting the soldiers, so don’t tar me with thst brush.

Sorry, my bad pronoun reference without the proper antecendent.  That was to Rob re: the title of the string.

Second, it doesn’t matter that they avoid taunting the soldiers cuz they are protesting in front of Walter Reed.

I have written here that I, too, question the wisdom of this move, though I now realize that it was in the other string on this topic, so don’t blame you for missing it.  Really, there’s more we agree on re: this issue than may appear, though I still don’t think that a violent reaction does anybody any good, as natural a reaction as wanting to do it may be.

“We support the troops. Except for when we don’t.”

Who’s saying that?

With all your claims of the monumental seriousness and importance of these overseas “operations” or whatever you want to call them, I’d think it’d occure to you that there are people who see it with the same degree of seriousness however based on a foundation of alterior motives. It is serious enough to speak your peace where you feel it will have effect. What line of thinking has you questioning trite crap like the appropriateness of these protestor’s location...It’s a serious matter; real people are dying and lives are being thrown to wreck. I think a more appropriate location for the “war” is the living rooms of the corporate billionaires who find themselves juggling newfound stock options after operations like this. I think the only people weilding the guns should be the one’s calling the shots. Questioning the appropriateness of protesting in front of a hospital? jebus chrystler…

Its the location, more than anything else MI, that leads me to use the word taunting.  There are plenty of other places to do this sort of thing.  Goverment buildings.  Military headquarters.  But these people are targeting battle-wearied soldiers who are just trying to get better.  That choice, to me, is a taunt.  Maybe you want to get all nuanced about it (you usually do, see: Hitler comparisons) but this behavior is inexcusable.  Perfectly legal, of course, but morally repugnant.

Maybe if we spent a little more time condemning what is wrong and a little less time splitting hairs this left/right debate wouldn’t be so hostile.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

keep it simple,

Here’s a buck, buy a clue.  Btw, does mommy know you’re playing on the computer instead of doing your homework?

Regards…

this protest is not targeting the soldiers.

Then why are they standing outside a hospital filled with recovering soldiers?

I will question the protestors’ judgement, but I cannot go to the point of questioning their morality.

Fair enough.  I do, but I think we agree that this isn’t a good thing.

The fact that we do not agree to the same extent does not mean that our debate must be hostile.

The problem I have is every time something like this happens we get the “Yeah, but” routine.  Examples:

Me:  Randi Rhodes did a tasteless skit where the President gets shot.

Leftist Commenter:  Yeah, but Rush Limbaugh is an asshole!

Me:  A Senator just insinuated that the Bush administration is like Hitler and his goons.

Leftist Commenter: Yeah, but that’s sorta true if you squint your eyes and ignore about 8 million dead Jews.

This stuff infuriates me, and it happens all the time.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

But these people are targeting battle-wearied soldiers who are just trying to get better.

Looks like this is the central issue we’re not going to get over (like our Sunni and Shia brethren debating federalism): this protest is not targeting the soldiers.  The protestors are not standing out there saying “You soldiers are bad”, they are saying “Look, America, at the cost of this war.”

I will state again that I personally believe that this is insensitive and unwise.  I will question the protestors’ judgement, but I cannot go to the point of questioning their morality.

Maybe if we spent a little more time condemning what is wrong and a little less time splitting hairs this left/right debate wouldn’t be so hostile.

I think this debate illustrates the fact that this issue, like most others, is not black and white.  I believe that everyone who has commented about it here recognizes their right to protest, but most (perhaps all) have criticized it to one degree or another.  The very duality of these positions reveals the nuances of the situation.  The fact that we do not agree to the same extent does not mean that our debate must be hostile.

Because they want to bring attention to the fact that there are thousands of maimed soldiers because of this war. “See, this is the cost of the war.” They think that the numbers and seriousness of the casualties is downplayed, and want to draw attention to them. They figure the best way to do this is to park themselves in front of the hospital.

And you think their intent has nothing to do with demoralizing the soldiers themselves?  What with signs like “sign up here to die for haliburton” and the like?

But I cannot ascribe the motivation of those protestors to ill will, but poor judgement.

Again, see the signs aimed at the soldiers.  They’re targeting the soldiers.  That’s ill will.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Then why are they standing outside a hospital filled with recovering soldiers?

Because they want to bring attention to the fact that there are thousands of maimed soldiers because of this war.  “See, this is the cost of the war.” They think that the numbers and seriousness of the casualties is downplayed, and want to draw attention to them.  They figure the best way to do this is to park themselves in front of the hospital. 

Fair enough. I do, but I think we agree that this isn’t a good thing.

Yes, I think we do; like I said, it’s a matter of extent.  As I said in the other thread, I’ve known someone who struggled with survivor’s guilt, and seeing coffins out front can’t help.  Personally, I’m quite sensitive to the soldiers’ needs: my wife just quit her career to go to nursing school because she wants to help wounded vets.  But I cannot ascribe the motivation of those protestors to ill will, but poor judgement.  I also feel that characterizing them as being hostile toward the patients is not only incorrect, but is not as persuasive as appealing to their sensitivities, since they won’t hear a word you’re saying if it’s in an aggressive manner.

This stuff infuriates me, and it happens all the time.

Yeah, but righties do it too!

The protesters are using brute force to get what they want.

The protesters are using brute force to get what they want.  Force of any kind can be “violent”.  It just depends on the application of that force.  I don’t have to actually physically harm someone to commit violence; I just have to force them to submit to my will.  Brute force is the hallmark of fanaticism and primitivism.  The irony is that when confronted, the protesters screech that you are using force against them, and that you should be stopped.  Even if all you do is criticize them.

They are very selfish and want to force their morality on others.  They are like the anti-abortion protesters who accost women going into the clinic.

Simple:  Socialism is a dying religion, I suggest you take your proselytizing of the “evils” of capitalism and take it where people are stupid and brainless enough to believe in that crap.

FYI LTM, keep it simple is also Carl B.  He had taken to using a variety names on this blog until I made him stop switching and settle on this one.

He’s an adult, as far as I can tell, though apparently quite stoned (or something) right now.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I linked to this, but Haloscan is refusing to ping. This makes me sick.

You obviously do not understand the concept of “brute force”.  It has nothing to do with whether or not they have a permit, but with their desire to ram their political agenda down everyones throat.  The soldiers are not asking for these protesters to speak for them.  Most of the soldiers find it highly offensive.  To the soldiers, what the protesters are doing is akin to the KKK burning a cross on a black person’ lawn.  Burning a cross to make a political point is not protected speech.

modern instances said, I will state again that I personally believe that this is insensitive and unwise. I will question the protestors’ judgement, but I cannot go to the point of questioning their morality.

Then by definition, you are questioning their morality.

Carl B. holier than thou holier than marty get a grip keep it simple said, What line of thinking has you questioning trite crap like the appropriateness of these protestor’s location…It’s a serious matter; real people are dying and lives are being thrown to wreck.

“Trite crap”? How about people protest in front of your house. If you disagree, I’ll ask the same question.

I think the only people weilding the guns should be the one’s calling the shots.

Yeah...that always has worked well throughout history, huh?

Questioning the appropriateness of protesting in front of a hospital? jebus chrystler…

Uh..yeah ya dingleberry, that’s what we’re doing.

I’m stoned?

Maybe if we spent a little more time condemning what is wrong and a little less time splitting hairs this left/right debate wouldn’t be so hostile.

you’re right, maybe people wouldn’t be scraping the remains of their mutilated relatives off the walls while they gather stuff out of their destroyed homes to move nowhere...all for the profit motive to remain business as usual in the otherwise free world. But let’s not split hairs about that either, this is about protesting all that in front of a hospital!? Like I said: as important as you say the war is for “the forces of good”, it is seen as the opposite by a huge number of people...some much more upset about it than others. It is as serious as relatives burying their mutilated kin. The motives are very important in that respect, and I think you’re really losing scope if you’re sincerely saying “protesting the war is one thing, but...” because that’s what they’re doing in a manner as extreme as the law will allow.

modicum of sense...here
waste of space.......here

respond as you see fit.

whatever, likwid “muslims stole my baby” shoe…

Here’s a free tip: if you want your insults to have any “punch” to them, they have to make at least a modicum of sense.

whatever, likwid “muslims stole my baby” shoe...

The soldiers are not asking for these protesters to speak for them.

Where did the protesters say that they were speaking for the soldiers?

To the soldiers, what the protesters are doing is akin to the KKK burning a cross on a black person’ lawn. Burning a cross to make a political point is not protected speech.

And Bush = Hitler.

Some soldiers might not be happy with it.  But, and I’ll keep saying it if I have to, the soldiers are not the objects of the protest.  It is for these very rights for which they have been fighting.  If we’re so eager to spread freedom around the world, isn’t it important that we promote it at home as well?

Then by definition, you are questioning their morality.

The word “judgement” doesn’t even appear on the page you linked to.

But, and I’ll keep saying it if I have to, the soldiers are not the objects of the protest.

If the soldiers are not the object of their protests, then why protest outside a hospital full of soldiers?  Come on modern, think. 

Not all of the protestors have noble intentions.  These protestors, in fact, have a political agenda that seeks a form of governance which runs counter to freedom.  They are socialists and as such they despise individual liberty, because they seek complete domination of society by the proletariat.  They follow an evil ideology/religion which has more in common with radical Islam than with a liberal, pluralist and capitalist society.  Their commonality is their hatred for the West

In WWII, Nazi sympathizers were not allowed to propagandize, precisely because their alternative sought to strip people of their freedoms.  Not to mention that they could wage a propaganda war on the homefront and hurt the war effort.  Are not these “protesters” doing the same thing?

If the soldiers are not the object of their protests, then why protest outside a hospital full of soldiers? Come on modern, think.

I guess I’m going to have to paste this into every post I write:
Because they want to bring attention to the fact that there are thousands of maimed soldiers because of this war. “See, this is the cost of the war.” They think that the numbers and seriousness of the casualties is downplayed, and want to draw attention to them. They figure the best way to do this is to park themselves in front of the hospital.

They follow an evil ideology/religion which has more in common with radical Islam than with a liberal, pluralist and capitalist society. Their commonality is their hatred for the West.

All right, so let me get this straight:  it’s not Ok to say Bush is like Hitler, but it is Ok to say that the protestors are like the KKK and terrorists?  The first comparison is unreasonable, but the second is reasonable? 

In WWII, Nazi sympathizers were not allowed to propagandize, precisely because their alternative sought to strip people of their freedoms.

Oh, yeah that’s right, they’re like Nazi sympathizers too.  Anything else to add to the list?

But judgment doesn’t exist in a vacuum.  Moral character is a large part of what forms your judgment.  One can’t (on the one hand) say, “I am a moral person,” then (on the other hand) exercise morally suspect judgment.  One’s decisons, the judgments one makes, are a reflection of one’s moral character.

Regards…

I agree with LTM, MI.  The reason these protesters are at Walter Reed is because the soldiers are there.  And with the protesters holding up signs like “sign up here to die for halliburton” I just don’t see how you can say that they’re not targeting the soldiers.

Maybe these protesters don’t mean to cause the soldiers anguish.  Maybe the honestly think they’re enlightening people, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are causing the recovering soldies a lot of pain.

That’s just not right.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Fine.  Pick nits.  What these protesters are doing is still atrocious.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

What the protesters are, however, is incredibly rude, crude, and insensitive.

Maybe these protesters don’t mean to cause the soldiers anguish. Maybe the honestly think they’re enlightening people, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are causing the recovering soldies a lot of pain.

That’s just not right.

Agreed, it’s just that I see it as a flaw in judgement, not moral character.

As for me, modernistances, no, the protesters are not like the KKK or terrorists or Nazi sympathizers, and anyone who says they are is an idiot.

What the protesters are, however, is incredibly rude, crude, and insensitive.  Sluggo pointed out they are just like the right-wing loons who protest outside abortion clinics, and he’s right.

Yes, they have a perfect ‘right’ to do what they’re doing.  That doesn’t take away from the pain they’re inflicting on those are already in pain.  I deplore them and urge them to find a less intrusive way to protest.  To say they protest outside a hospital because that’s where the wounded are is both gratuitous and self-serving.

Regards…

Regards…

[...] Marc Morano, author of the CNSNews story I posted about here, and Code Pink’s Laura Coulter were interviewed on Hannity & Colmes last night about the on-going protest outside Walter Reed Hospital. [...]

I really don’t understand what you’re trying to achieve in deciding whether or not Bush is like Hitler...I don’t see what coming to any comparative conclusions is gonna do other than settle some vocabulary in your head for like minded wannabe intellectuals looking to debate. You like what’s going on or you don’t...the reasons for not liking the “war” are clear as day but you drive down the resentment with your own based on equal figures of speach. Pan back with the telescope: you’ve got people commiting a war whether anybody likes it or not, because a WHOLE LOTTA PEOPLE DON’T and it’s not because thye haven’t formulated the golden paragraph of reason to explain why it should stop.

Thanks for clearing that up for us, Carl.  I, for one, am really happy when you’re able to so succinctly clarify things.  You took the words right out of my mouth.  [/sarcasm]

Do you ever re-read what you write?  Not for grammar or sentence structure or verb/tense agreement or anything.  But just to see whether the individual words you’ve strung together make any fucking sense?

Regards…

moderninstances wrote, The word “judgement” doesn’t even appear on the page you linked to.

It doesn’t have to. As LoadTheMule said,

But judgment doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Moral character is a large part of what forms your judgment. One can’t (on the one hand) say, “I am a moral person,” then (on the other hand) exercise morally suspect judgment. One’s decisons, the judgments one makes, are a reflection of one’s moral character.

[...] My question is this: Why does Phelps and his brand of loonies warrant mainstream coverage from the likes of the Associated Press, yet Code Pink and their band of loonies protesting outside of Walter Reed hospital gets next to no coverage? And what little coverage they do get certainly doesn’t highlight their over-the-top rhetoric (”Enlist Here To Die For Halliburton“ which is every bit as ugly and distasteful as what Phelps and his crowd engage in. [...]

[...] No suspense today, as Rob, of Wizbang and Say Anything, blogged about Cindy Sheehan for the sixth day in a row after declaring it a non-story.  He was kind enough on me to write it first thing this morning, so as not to keep me waiting. [...]

[...] faster than me =) When I am commenting on one then you have another one ready =)Have a good night! # posted by caribe : 3:41 PM   Shame on you Caribe I can’t tell you how disappointed I# posted by NYgirl : 3:46 PM   There are no words in the English language - or any languagehas more intrisic decency and worth than they do.Scum of the earth. Absolute scum of the earth. # posted by docjim505 : 3:57 PM   I don’t approve of this particular tactic, so I’m notacting on a hunch that since the Sandinistas were communists, they were automatically the bad guys? # posted by Dan Trabue : 4:40 PM   I was in Santa Barbara last weekend visiting my littleto keep them all in our hearts and minds”, then kneel and say a little prayer and walk away. # posted by Henry : 4:53 PM   Dan Trabue, I don’t claim to know much about the Sandanistaslot more violent and oppressive himself than the Argentinian government he was trying to overthrow. # posted by Henry : 4:55 PM   I had to check you at home I think you are right, peopleto hospitals or something where soldiers need nothing but PEACE (what a wonderful word).Comment# 3 is what makes people see all pro-war people as crazy extremists not open to peaceful discussion,participant #3 keep going that way you help us anti-war people FYI: Somoza was a brutal bloody dictatormodern history and you will find your partial responsibility in the things that happened later on. # posted by caribe : 5:28 PM   By the way, I hate Che’s shirts (thanks to mass productionto overthrow the argentinian president, try not to claim too much about Argentina either.Thanks! # posted by caribe : 5:37 PM   well he expanded from Argentina to other South Americanfreedom fighters behave like terrorists, don’t expect any sympathy from me when they’re killed. # posted by Henry : 6:17 PM   killed by? The CIA The “freedom spreaders” around thedropping a bomb in the wrong place and killing an innocent family, “collateral damages” my a**! # posted by Caribe : 6:44 PM   dt: Do you know anything about what happened in Nicaragua?Dono choir-boys. But saving Central America from the Khmer Rouge’s cousins saved millions of lives. # posted by The Scrutinator : 7:00 PM   of course, but that was under eisenhower’shero worship. Sure, he did fight for what he believed in, but he not only fought, he terrorized. # posted by Henry : 8:26 PM   Henry, what Che believed in was power for Che, pure andbecause they—if given the opportunity—would be just like him… a bunch of murderous bleeps. # posted by bob : 8:34 PM   Right. The Nicaraguan rebels were no choirboys, but there was avery honorable, so he is remembered decently by the citizens.And we didn’t kill anyone. Good grief. # posted by W.F. : 9:03 PM   I think the Code Pink story is about to blow up. Unfortunatelythe NY Post will carry my piece on this Saturday or Sunday. BTW NYGirl we should get in touch # posted by John Byrnes : 11:57 PM   This not about left or right, it is about common senseis watching your “great act of justice”. Let them be communist if they want to for god sake. # posted by caribe : 4:38 AM   Almost forget, Ford’s law is a joke, you may not kill leadersand let them be.And the most important of all.* Don’t leave my questions without an answer.Thanks! # posted by caribe : 4:47 AM   Your premises are all wrong, so why would we answer loaded# posted by W.F. : 5:15 AM   Just to make me feel stupid (you see I answer yours) give it a # posted by caribe : 5:23 AM   Caribe,Yep, the US has done some pretty bad things in thereally seems like it might have been a good idea to let communist regimes crop up in Latin America? # posted by docjim505 : 7:04 AM   You don’t want me to add up numbers in Central America,doubt about evolution, this is the proff of evolution, we keep acting like nothing but animals. # posted by caribe : 7:20 AM   Saddam was never a US “friend.” For a short time he wasPot. And, yes, holding protests against wounded soldiers is a cowardly, nasty, contemptible act. # posted by Abe : 8:31 AM   So how comes that you financed him and gave him weapons thatthat communist governments are crapy but stop being paranoid about socialism and left tendences. # posted by caribe : 8:58 AM   Why isn’t this barbarity by “peace protesters” getting moregreat publicity stunt, but the MSN looks to be protecting these nuts from themselves (media wise). # posted by Zach : 10:44 AM   WF wrote:"The only law we broke was one that was specificallyall, you have to own up to the bad in US history and policy as well as what is great about the US. # posted by Dan Trabue : 4:13 PM   I have always owned up to the bad in U.S. history. Theplease don’t direct your comments at me. Or I may feel the need to say, “Physcian, heal thyself”. # posted by W.F. : 8:24 PM   The main reason for the economy tanking was the dot com bust.it had been during Clinton’s tenure, they would have blamed HW Bush, because his was right before. # posted by Henry : 10:08 PM   True. Tohugh, if you listened to some of the liberals I haveargument pretty well right there. Hence why I always say “Bush caused Pangaea to break apart”. # posted by W.F. : 11:29 PM   W.F. asked me why we liberals don’t own up to “mistakes thatThose are all Conservative Ideals as well as Progressive ones. Let’s live up to them, shall we? # posted by Dan Trabue : 12:59 PM   The world court is a joke. And I am quite fine with myBecause she knows she would never get a chance if she ran as what she truly stands for. # posted by W.F. : 9:11 PM   You’ve not answered my question about our War Crime Conviction,is linked to wanting to see the Truth honored and wanting us to live by the law. You disagree? # posted by Dan Trabue : 6:35 AM   Post a Comment << Home postCount(’112500894409712850’; | postCountTB (’112500894409712850’; [...]