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.

 

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 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.

 

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'....

 

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.. ).