This is too far...@(*#&%
VIP Member
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 10,133
From: Lastweek Lane - Watertown, NY
Car Info: 02WRXpseudoSTiWannabeWagon
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?
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?
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,661
From: location location
Car Info: 98 Impreza Outback Sport
Originally Posted by gpatmac
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?
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?

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...
VIP Member
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 10,133
From: Lastweek Lane - Watertown, NY
Car Info: 02WRXpseudoSTiWannabeWagon
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.

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.
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,661
From: location location
Car Info: 98 Impreza Outback Sport
Originally Posted by gpatmac
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.

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]

---tell me if I misinterpreted anything, I did my best...
Last edited by scoobsport98; Feb 12, 2005 at 07:17 PM.
VIP Member
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 10,133
From: Lastweek Lane - Watertown, NY
Car Info: 02WRXpseudoSTiWannabeWagon
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.
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.
Last edited by gpatmac; Feb 12, 2005 at 07:40 PM.
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.
Dahveed aka Robin Hood
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,793
From: Robbin' the Hood (Claycord)
Car Info: (RIP) '04 STi Silver
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 will shat on these people, this has gone too far...
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,661
From: location location
Car Info: 98 Impreza Outback Sport
Originally Posted by Group B
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 will shat on these people, this has gone too far...
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.
Thread Starter
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
The Pearcy's just don't get it.
Well, at least they didn't wad up the Stars & Stripes again.
Well, at least they didn't wad up the Stars & Stripes again.

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.
"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.
Originally Posted by gpatmac
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.
), but where there's a will there's a way.
I actually agree with gpat and scoob on this one for the most part. So there!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
texomobile
Engine/Power - non turbo (All non turbo Imprezas)
0
Aug 8, 2007 12:34 AM
nachomc
Bay Area
16
Feb 18, 2004 01:06 PM



