You're against the war?
Fine.
You wanna protest?
Again, fine.
You want to lynch, in effigy, a US soldier? (www.kirotv.com/news/4181394/detail.html)
Not fine.

http://images.ibsys.com/2005/0209/4181411_200X150.jpg

Not shown in the pictures are the two huge Iraqi flags hanging in the windows.
BTW, the homowners live in Berkeley. :rolleyes:

Discuss.

I'd teepee thier house. I'm not surprised it's berkley. What's thier address? The article says sac...

Yea I thought it was in Land Park.

What a disgusting display. Unfortunately these clowns are protected under the first amendment.

I would die for their right to be able to do that. However, it would probably turn into an ugly situation if I happened to be visiting that area.

Yea I thought it was in Land Park.

The offensive display is on a unoccupied house in Land Park.
The owners live in Berkeley.


What a disgusting display. Unfortunately these clowns are protected under the first amendment.

In general, I'd agree with you, but there are restrictions on what you can "say'.

That doll is in Land Park, Sacramento about 10miles away from me.

I bet if you hung a cabbage patch kid by a hanger they'd tear the doll down in rage. Sorta gets back to my whole argument on a Solider's freewill as opposed to a Mother taking the will of her baby into her own hands. The Soldier's freewill far surpasses the child’s for those of you that are prior service. Otherwise you'd be zip-tied for weeks until you got on that plane for the desert.

Although this and abortion make me severely upset, I’m going have to agree with gpatmac on this one in both situations. It's gotten to the point where I don't even view people with such idiotic, hypocritical statements as people and it makes it a little easier to swallow.

The offensive display is on a unoccupied house in Land Park.


Can they make it any easier?

I'm up for a little black-Ops in Land Park this weekend. ;)

Someone bring a towel to wrap around the current dolls head and I’ll bring the hanger and cabbage patch kid.

When are extremist-liberals going to learn that this makes them look very bad and ignorant?

Don't stoop to their level, dude. Your better than them.

The constitution won't protect the person who did that from gettin his ass kicked.

Don't stoop to their level, dude. Your better than them.

Of course.

But it would be funny as hell to do it.

Funny, how if you put a turbin on it's head it would be a hate crime.

The thing about this display that really pisses me off is that it looks as though it's attacking soldiers. If these people really wanted to make the statement I think they want to make (that they are against the war), they would recognize that individual soldiers have no sway over the decision to go to war. They don't like a gov't decision, so they hang a fake soldier...definatly some misplaced anger.

Torn Down....thankfully
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/12283344p-13147214c.html

Video at the
bottom of the page
http://www.news10.net/storyfull1.asp?id=9267

Shhhhhh...opsec.....;)

they must be canadiens. or islamic separatists



aloha from the summit of *-^-Mauna Kea-^-*

they must be canadiens. or islamic separatists



aloha from the summit of *-^-Mauna Kea-^-*

Even worse... they're Berkeleyites

As far as I'm concerned, they're insurgents. Combatants.

....who have a right to free speech that I'd kill or die for.:rolleyes:

Dip****s....complete dip****s...totally amazing.

When are extremist-liberals going to learn that this makes them look very bad and ignorant?
As soon as extreme righties learn their equivalent.....so, erm, never.

As soon as extreme righties learn their equivalent.....so, erm, never.

Hmmmm...don't recall seeing any right-wing equivalent to this expression of free speech.
I've never done any research into the matter, but to my untrained eye, Socialists seem to have perfected the annoying art of in-your-face, and sometimes life threatening, protesting.
A few notable mentions are paint-throwing PETA freaks, ELF members that use arson to make a statement, the old school members of Earth First that would spike trees, etc.

but to my untrained eye, Socialists seem to have perfected the annoying art of in-your-face, and sometimes life threatening, protesting.


Thank You, Paul.

I can easily picture Craig Rosebraugh or another political equivalent getting into some type of pissy-fit rage over these issues.

I think that y'all are a little misdirected.

On issues like this, I have a very hard time pointing my finger beyond immature, attention-starved, zealous-for-no-good-reason, spoiled American children (of all ages.)

I personally don't care much for any ideological groups, if truth be told. They all seem to have their warts.

It's easy for the addle-brained to take 'action' and then give credit towards a group of people that neither had any idea that the person was going to do it, let alone endorse it.

I believe that the character that idiots like these are lacking usually is best administered by a punch in the face. At least, I know that it would make me feel better. I'd imagine that convincing someone of the error and shortsightedness of their views is largely a waste of breath (that's why I gave up on Unregistered;)), but where there's a will there's a way. Like I said in another thread, 9 times out of 10, if you were to sit down with someone who's views differ from you own and they are conscientious and you are patient; you will find that their real views are probably the same as your own, but the degree of activism of a particular group has appealed to them more so they easily align themselves with that group. In doing that, they espouse by default many other issues on that platform that they wouldn't normally give a care about...but grow to accept.

Take my wife for example. When I married her, she was a pretty outspoken liberal. She was anti-war and is the same type of person who would transfer her anti-war sentiment towards the Army and individual soldiers, versus the responsible party; our government. Early into our relationship, I unknowingly took her to an Amnesty Int'l film on Operation Just Cause. I had no idea what Amnesty International was and ended up leaving mid-film as fired up as I've ever been. It wasn't too difficult to convince her naive-but-unwavering liberal butt that they were spewing lies and that the thesis of the movie libelously paints a picture towards soldiers that is not only hurtful but potentially harmful to the lives of soldiers.

Since then, without any overt programming on my part, she has slowly saw the error in her liberal reasoning and while she doesn't care much for the current President and his staff, nor for the war and the administration of it; she now sees the sacrifice and honor of the soldiers, and how the fragile public opinion of soldiers is so critical.

I'm not saying that my wife would have ever hung anything in effigy, but I am saying that I'd imagine that whoever hung that dummy just doesn't know. Allow them to walk in a soldier's shoes. Deny them their rights and priveledges that we provide. Make them live as a Iranian citizen for a while. Or just punch them in the face. There is SOME way that you can get through to the irrational.

I believe that every American should have a voice, and as long as the constitution protects folks' rights to 'say' anything they want then I'm fine with it. It irks me, but I'm not willing to change the constitution.

Hmmmm...don't recall seeing any right-wing equivalent to this expression of free speech.
I've never done any research into the matter, but to my untrained eye, Socialists seem to have perfected the annoying art of in-your-face, and sometimes life threatening, protesting.
A few notable mentions are paint-throwing PETA freaks, ELF members that use arson to make a statement, the old school members of Earth First that would spike trees, etc.
By the way, I am not 'armed' with facts and figures, but my opinion is that conservatives AND liberals (at least of the American genus) are equally as guilty of propaganda, hate, and their fair share of idiots.

I guess John Birch and the KKK would be considered American conservatives, right?

In this case, liberals hang a soldier in effigy; the KKK used to hang blacks for real. If it were legal, I've got a large box of bullets set aside for each side equally.


.....but it's not.

I guess John Birch and the KKK would be considered American conservatives, right?

In this case, liberals hang a soldier in effigy; the KKK used to hang blacks for real. If it were legal, I've got a large box of bullets set aside for each side equally.


.....but it's not.

I agree

Interesting fact: The original KKK was started by the southern democrats(not liberals, to clarify this). The Republicans, ie. Linclon were the ones who decided to go to war because of unjust persicution.

Strage how the tables have turned over a couple hundred years. Now it seems the southern extreme religous zealots are the ones carrying on the origional kkks work.

You are correct, however the terms democrat and republican have taken on new definition through the years.

As far as I'm concerned, they're insurgents. Combatants.

....who have a right to free speech that I'd kill or die for.:rolleyes:


I wouldn't go that far. It seems they are upset with the current ineptitude of our own military to prevent beheadings, hangings, etc, and they decided the shock value of this ay have an effect. I seroiusly don't think they are condoning the hangings, etc.- they are merely expressing their frustration with the admin's handling of the war... I completely agree that this is definitely not the way to express themselves, and it definitely might offend those with family in the war. However, those families might be similarly disgusted with the efforts of our admin, and might even share the sentiments expressed by the effigy. I'm sure that one executed soldier's dad (forgot his name) would agree with it.

Salty, before you consider these people as inhuman, I'd like for you to explain why their statements are 'so idiotic and hypocritical'.

I'm walking on nails here, so please dont bite my head off :)- and bear with me...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning this act in any way- I just thought their was a side to this some of you were missing. So, why would you die for the right to do this, and then want to tear it down? That sounds hypocritical to me, and I think your urge to tear it down is fueld at least in part by your seeming hate for the far left. If these people felt we were ina quagmire, and this extreme act was merely a plea to bring the troops home, why would you be so disgusted? I guess I'm missing how this personally offends an individual soldier (please, I know some of you have been in service and would really like to know. They didn't make up the idea of soldiers being excecuted... it's actually happening over there. So, I see tearing this down as an effort to conceal the truth of what's really happening over there. I guess this goes back to my argument about the drawbacks of 'blind optimism'....

You are correct, however the terms democrat and republican have taken on new definition through the years.

Everyone has their own definition for these, and whatever they are, neither does one bit for the good of our political process (the definitions, not the parties themselves.. ;)).

Scoobsport, you're doing a pretty good imitation of Bill O'Reilly.

Are you telling me that you've been in communication with those that hung the doll and know their motivation? Or are you giving me 'what could be' their motivation? Or are you giving me your own?

Also, I CAN prove that the democratic party was 180 degrees ideologically and there was NO republican party back then. I've got my own opinion about a lot of things, but in this case, no one's opinion has any bearing. Fact is, for the first 100 years or so of our country, the democratic party was essentially more ideologically aligned with todays republican party.

Next?

Scoobsport, you're doing a pretty good imitation of Bill O'Reilly.

Are you telling me that you've been in communication with those that hung the doll and know their motivation? Or are you giving me 'what could be' their motivation? Or are you giving me your own?

Also, I CAN prove that the democratic party was 180 degrees ideologically and there was NO republican party back then. I've got my own opinion about a lot of things, but in this case, no one's opinion has any bearing. Fact is, for the first 100 years or so of our country, the democratic party was essentially more ideologically aligned with todays republican party.

Next?

Wait a second, you forgot the damn ketchup again! :) :D

I'm not saying I know what thier motivation was, I was simply offering a possibility which you seemingly haven't considered. And yes, I seriously think that their intentions were in no way to disrespect or offend people, which is all you've given them credit for. Do you seriously think their goal was to offend people? No, more realistically, I think it was to get people's attention and get them to think about their 'message.' Unfortunately, this stuck the wrong chord with many individuals, who were so taken back by such a flagrant act, and who were consequently unable to see the message contained within the dispicable form of expression. Now that I have stated 'what I think,' I'd like for you to tell me what you think their motivation was, and whether you still put these people on the same level as the insurgents in Iraq. It's pretty clear to see, they simply don't want any more soldiers to be killed. Is this the sentiment of the 'insurgents'? I don't think so.

And hey, I agree with your assessment of the dems and reps, my post in no way was disagreeing- it was making an alternative point.


PS, I'd save your little quips at the end of your posts "next..." "let's see what you've got..." for when you actually have a soild argument to stand on...

Hey, you can't accuse me of not having a solid argument. I accused you first!;)

My point with your first post that I was referring to was that we are in an adult world where adults are responsible for their actions.

My first thoughts when people do something that a large majority consider it to be stupid is intended and unintended consequences.

I just doubt that they intended anything more than be inciteful.

Hey, you can't accuse me of not having a solid argument. I accused you first!;)

My point with your first post that I was referring to was that we are in an adult world where adults are responsible for their actions.

My first thoughts when people do something that a large majority consider it to be stupid is intended and unintended consequences.

I just doubt that they intended anything more than be inciteful.


Fair enough...So they're not insurgents? That was the only point of yours I was disagreeing with. I am fully aware that people need to take responsibility for their actions, and I fully agreed that this was not the best way to express their message. So, if they only intended to be insightful, how does that make them insurgents in your eyes?

have you been drinkng? [grammar] ;):D ---tell me if I misinterpreted anything, I did my best...

That was words of passion. A flippant remark.

What I was really saying was that they SHOULD be treated as insurgents and face the full spectrum of the law.

I don't drink. My parents just showed up before I wrote that so I was a little distracted. (unable to do two things at once.)

I re-read and feel I need to be a little clearer.



So long as the constitution stands as written, I fully support (I'm not willing to take them to court) the actions of those 'protesters'. I'm not willing to do anything, but I have the right to say what I want to say about it. I am a soldier and I resent their 'demonstration'. I am saying what I WISH would happen to them.

In the US we can say whatever we want, no matter how stupid it is. People like this take thier right for granted. They probably never have fought nor will fight for this right. They expect someone else to, and then slam him every chance they get. They have a right to disagree with policy, however ther need to be smart enough and mature enough to go about it in the right way. Instead of just doing something because they can.

My family lineage has fought and died for this country going back before my ancestor, John Adams, 2nd. president of the United States.....

I will shat on these people, this has gone too far...

My family lineage has fought and died for this country going back before my ancestor, John Adams, 2nd. president of the United States.....

I will shat on these people, this has gone too far...

I really don't think they were trying to undermine the efforts of your ancestors by doing this. I guess you are one of the people so disgusted by the from of expression, you can't hear the message within it. I'm sorry you take offense, but, like I said before, these people didn't make up the idea of soldiers being killed.
This doesn't mean they shoud go and hang an effigy, but obviously these people are upset with the downside of our efforts in the mideast. Yes, there is no reason to focus on the negative, but these people probably thought that this kind of strong message was missing. Their message (my best guess) is: Get our troops home before any more atrocities like this happen. If you felt their message was something differnet and somehow offended those that were in service, please explain...

But hey, don't get me wrong, I'd also object at their form of expression, but I believe their message isn't near as flammatory as it might seem on the outside, esp. to someone who has been in service themself.

I'm endin' it there... this isn't gonna turn into another tit for tat bicker basket like my discussion with gpat.

The Pearcy's just don't get it.
Well, at least they didn't wad up the Stars & Stripes again. :rolleyes:

The trouble, some say, is that the image of a uniform, first with a noose at the neck and later without, strikes such a visceral chord that it can only degenerate into ugliness.

"If what they want to do is open an effective dialogue, this won't achieve it," said George Lakoff, a University of California, Berkeley, linguistics professor. "I suspect it merely inflames."

Lakoff's well-known book, "Don't Think of an Elephant," outlines the conflicts between what he describes as progressive and conservative thinking, arguing that conservatives have taken over the national dialogue.

If he could speak directly to the couple who posted the sign, who divide their time between homes in Land Park and Berkeley, Lakoff would tell them, "This is counterproductive."

It makes a crucial point, though, said one of the pair, Stephen Pearcy.

"It's a message of dissent over the war in Iraq. ... The soldiers are being left out to hang" under misguided American policy paid for with U.S. tax dollars, he said.

"We are decent people. We do have reasonable views," said his wife, Virginia Pearcy.

The Pearcys, both attorneys, have placed uniform displays outside their home twice -- and twice they were torn down, most recently on Monday. Stephen Pearcy said they'll keep on mounting displays to provoke important discussion.

An anti-war protester who uses images of soldiers runs the risk of seeming to undermine their activities or threaten their safety, said Leonie Huddy, an associate professor of political science at Stony Brook University in New York.

Huddy, who has researched anger and anxiety as drivers of political action, said those who identify strongly with soldiers are likely to be especially disturbed by such images, reacting as if America's enemy has now moved within.

It's the spotted camouflage uniform, topped with a helmet. The noose that once went around its neck. The perception that this must be an effigy, a hated symbol, caught in the act of doing something vile, even though its creators deny intending that.

Not everyone agrees that the message is too incendiary.

UC Davis professor Clarence Walker, who sometimes uses images of effigies when he teaches America's history, believes it's not just the image but U.S. ambivalence about war that is being tapped.

No sign alone could have delivered that message as forcefully as the empty uniform, Walker said.

"It's not holding the soldiers up to hate or ridicule. It's pointing out that the soldiers are being misused," he said. "They've really brought this thing home."

Still, Deborah Johns of Roseville, co-founder of Marine Moms and Military Families, has asked police to investigate the Pearcy display as a hate crime.

"My son wears that uniform every day. It's an insult to hang it up like that."

Johns said she has never heard an anti-war message that strikes her as truly respectful and kind.

All she wants is to have someone say they respect what her son believes in and is trying to do -- before they tell her they're against the war, or even against all wars and all military forces.

A search for respect and common values is very much what linguist Lakoff counsels.

"Responsibility, empathy, being protective of people who need protection, being fair" are among the values that can help form a common ground for many far apart on the political spectrum, he said.

So far, though, little common ground has been established over the Land Park display.

The Sacramento County District Attorney's Office is reviewing the hate crime allegation and expects to have a decision in a few days.

A man identified by police as Bryan Mathew O'Malley went to authorities with his lawyer Monday to discuss last week's removal of the Pearcys' display, and his name will be forwarded to prosecutors with a vandalism report, said Sacramento Police Sgt. Justin Risley. Police are looking into the second removal.

A Sacramento-based group called Move America Forward, which describes itself as a national movement to support U.S. troops, has called for a candlelight vigil outside the home in the 2700 block of Marty Way at 7 p.m. today to send its own message of dismay. "We believe this family has the right to free speech ... but speaking freely does not mean all sentiments should be warmly embraced," said Siobhan Guiney, executive director.

The Pearcys say they'll be there and hope their friends and allies will be, too.

And Mark Williams, a Sacramento talk radio host whose "Night Talk Live" show airs on KFBK (1530 AM), is offering a $100 reward for information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the vandals -- while still deploring what he considers an attack on America's military, perpetrated by those who hate America.


http://www.sacbee.com/ips_rich_content/866-0215pearcy.jpg

I'd imagine that convincing someone of the error and shortsightedness of their views is largely a waste of breath (that's why I gave up on Unregistered;)), but where there's a will there's a way.

Damn it and here I thought it was me that had given up. :p

I actually agree with gpat and scoob on this one for the most part. So there!

These people understand how I feel about this

You.......

http://www.i-club.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=16794

You.......

edited