http://www.tomeaker.com/FReep/NIN/NIN.htm

Good post , I didn't read the whole thing, but I get the idea.

Great article Dave. Thank you for posting it.

Nice. Be sure to share it outside of the forum. I have.

I am seriously tiring of the assertion that Saddam Hussein is our "hero", or that we support him. WE DO NOT. Can't someone oppose a war led by one's country without supporting the other side?

Not really. You are aiding the other side if you oppose the US. Call it what you will though.

LOL!

Dave, you can't really believe that. It's ok to protest any policy you don't like. Breaking the law while exercising your right to free speech is another story. Any individual in the public eye needs to understand that simple facial recognition doesn't equate with expertise in any category of government. They need to remember that they got fame because they can sing, dance, chew gum, and pat themselves on the back while entertaining us, not because of any other reason.

So you deny that trying to prevent a war in Iraq aids Saddam? It may not mean you like him, but it means you are helping him whether you like it or not.

Nope, not going to accept that at face value. Until there is some type of law broken, there is no solid legal ground to stand on to stop the protest. I've seen a Klan recruitment rally held in the blackest part of Augusta, GA, cops lined up at double-arms lengths for a quarter mile on each side of that fiasco, those klanners doing nothing but inciting & taunting the area, and not one thing could be done to stop them. They're as protected as anyone else. It's all covered under free speech.

What about protestors who block the entrance of trucks carrying military cargo from going into docks to ship their cargo to the troops, that is sabatoge.

Originally posted by Travh20
What about protestors who block the entrance of trucks carrying military cargo from going into docks to ship their cargo to the troops, that is sabatoge. Actually i think that would be breaking the law, therefore the "protesters" should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But overall, i have to agree with es347fan on everything he said in the earlier post. It is not illegal to protest if you are not infringing on someone else's rights. This is a democracy guys.

This is a democracy guys.
Republic.

duck season

lol

It's a Republic. I see us choosing for representatives, and them making choices for our lives. Thats a republic. A little bit off of Plato's Republic, but one nonethelsess.

rabbit season

Nope, not going to accept that at face value. Until there is some type of law broken, there is no solid legal ground to stand on to stop the protest. I've seen a Klan recruitment rally held in the blackest part of Augusta, GA, cops lined up at double-arms lengths for a quarter mile on each side of that fiasco, those klanners doing nothing but inciting & taunting the area, and not one thing could be done to stop them. They're as protected as anyone else. It's all covered under free speech.

I never said they were breaking any laws, ES or that they shouldn't be allowed to protest.

Remember, though, free speech is not absolute...shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater isn't free speech...

Yeah... Not really free speech as much as comedy...

Originally posted by BorgHunter
I am seriously tiring of the assertion that Saddam Hussein is our "hero", or that we support him. WE DO NOT. Can't someone oppose a war led by one's country without supporting the other side?
YES, and NO, if a person protest a war fine, but they still have to choose which side they are on. A person says they hate Sadam then they have choosen to be on the U.S. side. Alot of these Hollywood freaks came out and sad "I hope the U.S. fails" this would mean that they hope Sadam wins. So therefore these few HW freaks would be anti-American. BorgHunter I realize you are "anti", but I have never once seen you say I hope America looses. You have made good arguments about why there should be no war. On the other hand there are those few public idiots that make ALL "anti's" look bad. It's like the old saying one rotten apple spoils the rest. It is just like saying a "pro" is a war monger(sp) I don't like war, but I also don't like to see people beaten and tortured, sometimes to win a situation you have to fight fire with fire. The other thing is when the sh** hit the fan there were a few "anti's" that went around bashing(throwing rocks, stopping traffic, etc...) instead of making a point, this is why "anti's" get a bad name.

I've never seen a fire put out with a flame thrower, would you like to show me an example?

We're going to need a demonstrator for that one Blibb, and we volunteer You. We're going to strap you to a telephone pole, douse you in a flammible liquid, & light you up, while preparing a WWII vintage flame thrower, with operator to be the demonstratee of the experiment.
Tickets are available through ticketmaster at a nominal fee.

Torch Tickets (http://www.richstevens.com/NAKED.swf)

Fine with me.

Originally posted by Blibblob
I've never seen a fire put out with a flame thrower, would you like to show me an example?
I never said put the fire out with fire I said fight fire with fire, and yes dumb a** it does happen. Alot of times when there are forest fires the rangers will go ahead of the fire, and burn ground, this way when the fire reaches a certain point it runs out of fuel. There are also alot of places that have controled burns just so they don't have a forest fire, this is why we have the saying fight fire with fire. Oh, and by the way they do use flame throwers when they do this.

You have to love the comments from the CG, 1 MARDIV. His latest classic is below.

Whether Soldier or Marine, he knows how to talk to the troops.

"When you guys get home and face an antiwar protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pussy."

-Commanding General, 1st Marine Division

Heres one from me.
When you shake the hand of a soldier, stab his girlfriend, because you know she wanted to die, she's dating a murderer.

Your attitude is reprehensible.

Mad Dog, I have to disagree with your black and white view of this issue. It just seems a little narrow to clump every opinion in one of two categories. I, personally, would like to have seen a diplomatic solution in which both countries got what they wanted. I realise that this is incredibly idealistic and for from realistic, but it still is conceivable. Is this pro-America or pro-Iraq. According to your reasoning as it appears to me, the two are mutually exclusive.

Munch, it is pro-Iraq. You may not like Saddam or support him, but that opinion aids him. Why? because a diplomatic solution with him would have been nil. That means he stays in power, unharmed.

Is it not also pro-America? If we don't get attacked, isn't that good for us?

is it not ALSO pro-american because america is all about freedom? based on freedom? hell, isn't this war supposedly about "freedom"?

george bush personally said that no matter HOW much people protested, no matter if the entire fucking country was opposed to war, he was gonna go ahead and declare it anyway. republic, democracy, whatever the hell you want to call this country we live in, george bush's job is to REPRESENT this nation. when a REPRESENTATIVE comes right out and says that he doesn't give a flying fuck WHAT the PEOPLE want, HE is going to make his OWN decision, THAT is the sort of thing that allows dictators to come into power in the first place: no opposition to this absolute stance.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

To some extent I agree with you - the President can't be out of touch with the people of the country. On the other hand, a President also has to lead. A president that just follows the polls is darn near useless (see Clinton). Plus the president knows things we don't - he has access to the NSA, FBI, CIA, etc. Sometimes he has to do (or at least should do) what he thinks is best no matter how unpopular.

well said LionelHutz