People (Not Leftists) Supporting the Troops

They're pictures of a rally. I have no special attachment to the rally, and I'm neither offended nor delighted by the images.

Well, turns out that lobotomy went well. : )

A lobotomy is necessary to neither be horribly offended by flag-burning nor cheerleading it?

It was a joke. I was implying that those pictures should illicit some response. Apparently not.

It was a joke in ill taste. And those pictures won't stir the same response in everyone. Again, I don't need to be offended or delighted by them. I can be interested or stirred in a different sense.

I am more offended by an illegal justifibless war than a few idiots burning flags and holding signs.
Yeah that guy holds a sign that says @!$%# our troops, but bush is actually doing that.
that sign didnt hurt anyone, didnt embolden anyone. Bush on the other hand....

That was a Blackwater uniform, not an American one. American troops don't get nice body armor.

And you're smoking what? Every single US soldier, sailor, airman and Marine has the latest in modern body armor. They didn't have it at the beginning of the war because it wasn't purchased by the previous administration. It takes time to design, test, contract out and produce the stuff. You think it was just sitting on the shelf at Wal-Mart?

They have body armor, but the ceramic plates used in their issued armor are subject to fatigue and failure after a few hits, which is worlds away from Dragon Skin which most people regard as the very best body armor you can buy. Dragon Skin allows more mobility and performs much better after repeated hits. Soldiers however were first told that their death benefit would not be paid if they wore Dragon Skin (the insurance company hasn't approved it), and then later forbidden from taking it with them at all.

Having said that, that looks like an Army uniform to me, and I don't see whatever body armor Jimmy is talking about. Body armor is expensive, you don't casually set it on fire.

http://www.sftt.org/bodyarmor.html
http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/soum-response.php
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/48/16999

Yeah, there's nothing more American than murdering people we disagree with.

Amen

Nothing more 'Human' than murdering people you disagree with. Take a close look at history and a couple instances might pop out at you.

I really hope you can tell that I was joking.

I hope you can tell that I am not

I'd suggest you get some professional help then.

who needs to offer professional help when you got the ignore button. Enjoy your stay, Richard.

Check.

Jingoism is my mantra!

A-frigging-mazing.

grey,
I couldn't agree more!

Thank goodness for the First Amendment that allows kooks like LGF and kooks like the people in these photos the same rights.

You can't say that democracy is dull...

I would expect nothing more from the left in attributing problems that have been common for generations and attaching those problems to their political opponents at that time, all the while doing NOTHING to help remedy the situation.

Not to deviate too far from the pictures themselves, but your counter is surprising considering the "rotting, cockroach infested hospitals" are a prime example of the universal health care lefties are so fond of.

But they are government run hospitals with government funding. Just like the plans for universal healthcare that Hillary wants to give you. Remember, if it is government, it has to be good, right?

But they are government run hospitals with government funding.

You don't have to have government run hospitals to have universal healthcare. France has universal healthcare with hospitals run by private industry.

You're free to manage your post as you want, but I find it interesting that we have a string of people shouting "leftist" (read: Communist) at everyone and that's deemed fine and yet if somebody questions someone condoning murder as a "human" activity we cannot raise the spectre of Nazism as a legitimate concern. It's a typical tactic of the far right - shout and scream at anyone who opposes you as a caricature of extremism and yet suppress any discussion of the far right's affinity for values that drove Adolph Hitler's killing machine. I agree that name-calling is not a good thing, but the post that you point to at LGF is hardly gentle in this regard. You claim to be against hate speech and yet LGF is all about promoting hate speech and hate thinking.

Do I agree with the banners in that parade? No. I don't think that many would. But am I glad that we live in a country where people can speak their mind? Yes. But speaking your mind does bear responsibilities.

Who is calling you stalin, Mao?

Who is calling you stalin, Mao?

Tell me what you know of McVeigh and how that would even be a possibility. Chances are you know nothing of the man.

Please, my post was a straw-man, to illustrate that the article above is a straw-man. That should have been obvious.

The 3 or 4 idiots burning US flags do not represent all "leftists", no matter how much you'd like to believe it.

Hey! I have been dying to ask ... How's Jim-Jim?

Using the same logic, you can assume that Richard Odessa, AJS and LGF are representatives of the right.

OMFG, Richard Odessa doesn't speak for the entire Republican Party?!

[worldview shatters]

Speaking of over-generalizing...aren't most democrats on welfare?

aren't most republicans members of the KKK or some other neo-nazi group?

Republicans support the troops by blaming them for following orders, as evidenced by the soldiers in prison for torturing people at abu ghraib.

The sad thing is that there is absolutely NO attempt to contextualize these pictures. I'm certain somebody asked these people what they were thinking, what the burning and the sign was meant to symbolize or provoke.

Give me a quote, did any one of these people in the pictures comment?

Yes they did,

They said they support Barak Obama - kidding

I agree that "number of leftists in agreement" isn't clarified, but simply leaving the seed with its original title strongly implies that you're maligning the entire group.

Yawn.

Conservatives Rally for Peace

It's bull@!$%# plain and simple. LGF found a few photos of a few asshats and now LGF (and you by proxy) is (are) pretending that they represent the approximately 240,000,000 Americans (rough number) who think that Bush has squandered American lives in a pointless war over lies and idiocy.

Yea - A stunning and vital contribution to the community. Thanks.

Let's play....

Change the inflammatory headline

That's right Alex! It's change the inflammatory headline! The game where you, the viewer, get to suggest a headline that's not manipulative propaganda. The stakes couldn't be higher and you're in the driver's seat!

Will you pick...

A. "Peace Rally Defamed By Vapid Media Whores"

B. "LGF (once again) Engages In Irresponsible Journalism (check the headline)"

C. "A Few Bad Apples Spoil The Bunch - The Worst of the Worst At The Portland Peace Rally"

But AJS -- I thought the Left was the Ideology of "Big Government." The Communists were "Left" the, the Democrats (who are the Party of Big Government) are "Left." Hell, Europe is "Left" when we talk about its big social programs and whatnot.

But Anarchists want LESS government... less government in the extreme. They want no government. "The Government that governs best governs least" would be a statement they'd agree with 100% and they'd take that to it's logical conclusion.

So let's call them what they are. Anarchists aren't "Leftists." Indeed, being an anarchist pretty much makes you the anti-thesis of everything the Left stands for.

Now less government, smaller government, less government intrusion into our lives.....

That sounds like a political ideology I've heard of... it's on the tip of my tongue. Ribosomes? No... Rice? Rigatoni? No....

It'll come to me...

Should I run all my headlines by you kill before I seed them to make sure they have your stamp of approval?

You're certainly under no obligation to clear them with me AJS, but I'm under no obligation not to object to your complicity in a blatant smear campaign which is neither accurate nor contributory to the community. Since you've admitted that you're willing to twist headlines to make a political point I see no reason why I shouldn't call you on it.

Suicide bombing is an evil currently attributed to terrorists.

The Japanese in WWII were probably much more successful in their suicide bombing, anyway.

Do you mean because they used planes? Wait a minute...

The Japanese also used suicide boats and manned torpedoes.

Brush up on your history, kid, before attempting to be clever about things you apparently know little about.

JH...if not referring to methods, instead suggesting terrorist/terrorist nations should be addresed as the WWII Japanese were?

The problem is that there are no "terrorist nations" or well-defined borders that you can draw and say "everyone within this area is a terrorist."

We had a nice solid enemy with well-defined national borders in the Pacific Theater.

We tried doing the same thing in Vietnam, where there were at least two defined factions. How well did that work out?

It'd be great if it were possible to simply point at a place and say "They're terrorists. Bomb the s--- out of them."

But, you can't, because every bombing you undertake produces scores of new terrorists. You're simply compounding the problem if you stick with just bombs and bullets.

Suicide boats? Like the USS Cole bombing? I am also fairly certain Huang that most of the man torpedo boats did nothing but drown the pilots.

Kaiten Suicide Boats

The American sources state that the only sinkings achieved by kaiten attacks were the tanker USS Mississinewa on November 20, 1944, and the USS Underhill on July 24, 1945.Wiki

Most certainly a turning point in the victory for the Japanese. Wait a minute...

Let me tell you a little secret. Are you ready for it?
The Japanese crashed more than three planes into US ships. Shocking, I know.
In the battle for Okinawa alone, there were 1,465 planes.

Before you try to play the "oooh, how much of each were there" game, it pays to cover your biggest base.

Anyway, the original point is that suicide bombing isn't attributable to any major world religion (incl. Islam).
Care to refute that, or do you want to keep playing pseudo-intellectual word games?

So you're saying that suicide bombers today are not Islamic?

How about 4 planes...was it more than 4 planes?

BIG difference RO. The Japanese where using Kamikaze pilots as a military strategy against US military. Aside from the USS Cole and a few other low profile targets (ie. check posts, even some of those where going for civilian targets and wussed out), these suicide bombers almost exclusively attack civilians.

In a democracy there are no innocence except children...like it or not, we are all targets.

+ I wasn't the one who brought the Japanese into this argument.

So you're saying that suicide bombers today are not Islamic?

For the most part, they're probably Islamic fundamentalists.

But, there's a difference between "most suicide bombers now are Islamic" and "Suicide bombing is an evil attributed to Islam."

That's like saying, because most white Americans were Christian during slavery times, "slavery was an evil attributed to Christianity." I bet that sounds good, don't it?

How about 4 planes...was it more than 4 planes?

Last I recall, 1,465 > 4.

In a democracy there are no innocence except children...like it or not, we are all targets.

Are you saying that what suicide bombers do is really not that different from what any army killing enemy soldiers does? Ahem, Geneva would disagree. So would the US throughout its history.

I just didn't know where the 3 planes came from.

Sure...back then slavery could have bee attributed Christianity. I have no problem saying that.

Our enemy at this point time doesn't agree with Geneva...so in this war, I wouldn't restrict myself to fight under those guidelines.

I just didn't know where the 3 planes came from.

Ah. 4 planes were used on 9/11. My error.

Our enemy at this point time doesn't agree with Geneva...so in this war, I wouldn't restrict myself to fight under those guidelines.

"Hey, they're blowing up soldiers and civilians, so let's just blow s--- up." Right?

Well a little more tact than that...our equipment is pricey.

I guess the only connection is the shock value these groups are trying to use to support their causes.

OK AJS, If I remember correctly, things didn't go well the last time I commented on one of your posts.

I'm sorry you don't understand my comment, it's really not that difficult to comprehend. I'll ask you a similar question, are you shocked by what you seeded, or do you feel that what the people in those pictures are doing is normal and reasonable behavior?

To answer your question, a picture of an aborted fetus is shocking to me - however, that does not mean I am pro-life. It causes the same kind of knee-jerk reaction that a picture of an amputated leg or Nell Carter naked would cause. The pictures that you have seeded cause a reaction too, (otherwise you would not have posted them) - the fact that a person might be shocked by these photos does not make them liberal or conservative, left or right.

My point is, the behavior of the pro-lifers with their graphic pictures, billboards, etc. is the same as the behavior of the people portrayed in your seeded photos.

Shocked in the same way you would be if you saw a picture of a doctor removing someones spleen. Doesn't mean you agree with it or not, its simply a reaction to a visual. Hence people use strong visuals to get reactions/promote their cause.

Shouldn't pictures of aborted fetuses be worn as badges of honor, a job well done, a mission completed?

Should field medics wear gangrenous, amputated legs as badges of honor?

Sometimes your partisanship blinds you.

And the goal of family doctors willing to prescribe abortion pills isn't to create dead fetuses.

Both scenarios are about medical personnel performing procedures that, if successful, result in "a job well done."

Heck, nurses standing by at childbirth should wear placentas around their necks, cardiovascular surgeons should pin faulty heart valves on their lapels, and neurosurgeons should clip little jars full of brain tumors to their belts.

After all, these are all the results of "job[s] well done." Let's universally encourage such showmanship instead of using it as an empty talking point, shall we?

neurosurgeons should clip little jars full of brain tumors to their belts.

Your neurosurgeon doesn't do that? I knew there was something wrong with my doctor....

There was a kid in my 3rd grade class who ate his own scabs.

They are Anarchists - the little circle with the A in it on the black flag is a dead giveaway. They are no more representative of the majority of those on the left than neo-nazi's are representative of the majority of those on the right. But you know that.

This entire piece is disingenuous and inflammatory - the number of posts to votes ratio is a good indicator of that. It would appear to be nothing more than a troll.

right on, Sprydle.

But doesn't liberal thought eventually lead down the road of anarchy / communism?

Sprydle made the point I was after better.

But doesn't liberal thought eventually lead down the road of anarchy / communism?

In exactly the same way that conservative thought eventually leads down the road of fascism. Exactly.

i'm pretty sure Richard is yanking everyone's chain here.

Oh, he's yanking a chain alright, but I don't think it's everyone's. ;)

No, I am not kidding. I may even concede the point that conservative thought leads to Fascism...but I am not so sure that it does. If anything, conservative thought is only a delaying mechanism in the fight against liberal/communist/anarchy. It will eventually succumb to it as well. But if it makes you feel better to say that it leads to fascism...then I am OK with that.

I will have to research some things when I get home so I can clarify where my thought process is based (I set myself up here) but I am a firm believer that liberal thought leads to communism which eventually leads to anarchy.

Richard, of all of the countries in the world that have had a communist government, none of them ever developed an anarchist system afterwards. Your claim has no basis in reality.

It's pretty simple. There's right and far right and there's left and far left. Far left is socialism and far right is fascism. This doesn't mean that everyone who leans left is a closet socialist and everyone who leans right is a closet fascist.
Anarchism can sometimes seem similar to Socialism because both of them are against the idea of a "ruling class" per se, but the difference is that Anarchists don't want any government control of people whatsoever. Some form of government is a necessary part of socialism because there must be systems in place to equally distribute the wealth, etc. Anarchists reject these systems too and don't think anyone should have to be subservient to any kind of system.
Of course, there's many many different varieties of socialism and anarchism to the extent where most anarchists these days have no idea what they're even talking about.

Brian White,

Maybe you should read your Marx again my friend. Capitalism is a necessary pre-req for communism to develop. It is because the "communism" that this world has seen has never been legitimate, therefore no legitimate conclusion can come from it. Also, the process is long and drawn out (in my eyes) and would likely take generations to achieve.

Sorry for the wording on that. But can you follow what I was saying?

I repeat, your observation has no basis in reality. Marx was obviously wrong with his theories. When experiment disproves theory, you toss out the theory and move on, you don't keep whining about how the theory must really be true and every single experiment to prove it must have been flawed. In reality, communism leads to a totalitarian state regardless of what theory says.

I agree. As much as many would like us to believe otherwise, Communism and Marxism have been failed experiments when implemented in the real world.

Until you read and understand Marx I can't communicate with either of you. Neither of you have read Marx, how on earth do you find yourself enlightened enough on the subject to comment about it? How do I know you have never read Marx...I think that is obvious.

I've actually read all of Marx. Feel free to communicate.

Well, if you had read Marx you would know that nothing we have seen on this earth has been true communism. Yes? There is no argument here. Communism, as Marx envisioned it, has not shown itself yet. Production must reach a level of automation that even dwarfs today's levels. How could communism have occurred prior to today, if even today we don't meet that standards required?

What we have seen is Stalinism, it's cohort Castroism and whatever it is that China attempted.

As I said, you couldn't have read Marx and agreed that it is a failed theory by pointing to what has been attempted because you would have realised that we have yet to see it in it's true form.
Now you could argue that it is failed theory and will lead to anarchy and the death of civilization but NOT by pointing to so called communist regimes that have appeared thus far.

Um, I DID read Marx.
That's what I mean. It's a failed experiment because despite the attempts to instill it into a society, it always comes out the other end as some twisted perversion of the original idea.
Humans and their corruptness make certain systems impossible. So, if we have a system where everyone shares equally and does their part, that sounds nice, but eventually someone's going to want the power and use those (maybe) good intentions to turn the system on its head and oppress people. That's what screws it up and makes communism (even if it's not TRUE communism) a failed experiment.

That is a weak argument...however it was an excellent reference you made to Das Kapital there, I had to think my way around that.

So communism isn't a failed experiment but perversions of it are. That's how your post reads to me.

Well, I guess we're getting tied up in the wording here. Communism (and Marxism) is a concept and not an experiment per se. My point was that when people try to install that concept into an actual societal system, it fails and actually does the opposite of what the concept proposed (especially in the case of Marxism).

...and once again I am saying that anything that has been implemented TO DATE hasn't even looked or acted even vaguely like communism because the necessary prerequisites have not been met. I can't keep going over this.

But I swear to you...if you have read the Manifesto or Kapital you should reread them (I will now be forced to as well to reaffirm my position) and I think you will come to the same conclusion that I have, in regards to true communism.

There is a spectre haunting the world still to this day, this spectre is liberal thought leading to the death of mankind, i.e. communism.

Richard, that is an incredibly lame excuse. What prerequisites are these exactly? Are they ones that Marx stated? Or just your opinion?

Production must reach a level of automation that even dwarfs today's levels.

Really? Because I doubt Marx would have been able to even imagine the levels of automation and types of machinery we have today, making it unlikely that this is a prerequisite for his theories to be implemented.

If absolutely everything is completely automated, there isn't much need for any economic system or government system, we can all just laze about as robots produce everything we need. Which by the way I am completely in favor of.

Again...you never read Marx.

I am done here until you prove competent knowledge of what you are arguing.

Very well. Just you be sure to not disparage my phlogiston articles. Phlogiston is real dammit!

You're right (as in correct), and i apologize. you didn't attach it.

So who's a leftist then?

Anarchists?
Nihilists?
Fascists?
Fundamentalists?
Peaceniks?
Betniks?
Hippies?
Radicals?
Activists?
Protesters?
Passivists?
Capitalists?
Communists?

Yeah it is apparently either one or the other.

"Education -- if you make the most of it and you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well, If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Vintage Kerry with a large boot in his mouth... nicely done Novanglus.

hehehe... your comment seemed like a perfect Kerry segue to me :)

Except that Kerry is a decorated war veteran and Democrat.

It's really a twist isn't it. A politician that finally states some truth and gets crucified for it.

states some truth and gets crucified for it

That's standard operating procedure.

You do a disservice to the generations before you. My father fought in WWII, lost friends and neighbors in Vietnam and Iraq. I can say honestly that not one of these people I remember were ignorant, racist or jingoistic. Everyone's an @!$%# at some point. You've just proven that.

I guarantee you these so called anarchists want government funding for something

HA HA HA HA HA! Not so much.

OK Lynne, and after that who will we throw out next? Please provide a list so we'll all know.

Oh, and what are the troops fighting for again? Oh yeah, that's right, our freedoms. I almost forgot