what protest is "OK"?

[Mulhollanddose]

Free-speech is a real fear in churches, especially Conservative churches, as the ACLU is chomping at the communist bit to destroy all things Christian in this nation.

Do you stand behind Johnson's liberal "free-speech" laws that make it criminal to exercise that right?

[skipdup]

Originally posted by Rodeo
I think people have a right to do more than vote, or “get involved. Democratic societies have established traditions whereby those that feel passionately about something can go directly to the people.
...

Rodeo- You're right. People do have the right to protest. We also have the right to point out that their protests likely cost soldier's lives.

Protesting against the president on domestic issues does not cost lives. Protesting a war we are currently fighting does.

This is not a complex issue.

- Skip

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by skipdup
Rodeo- You're right. People do have the right to protest. We also have the right to point out that their protests likely cost soldier's lives.

Protesting against the president on domestic issues does not cost lives. Protesting a war we are currently fighting does.

This is not a complex issue.

- Skip

Someone else here requested proof that a protest "costs soldiers' lives."

Since you're claiming same, can you prove this allegation?

[creaturecat]

I can prove that a successful protest will save lives - in the long term. Need an example? How many LESS lives would have been saved if the US was still fighting in Vietnam? Protest was one of the factors which ended the war in Vietnam.
As an aside, how many soldiers would prefer to stay in Iraq, versus coming home and being with their loved ones. This is not a trick question.
This is not a complex issue.

[nostatic]

tax the churches


tax the businesses owned by the churches

[Dan Mc Intyre]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Free-speech is a real fear in churches, especially Conservative churches, as the ACLU is chomping at the communist bit to destroy all things Christian in this nation.

Do you stand behind Johnson's liberal "free-speech" laws that make it criminal to exercise that right?

I don't see where preachers not being allowed to endorse a candidate is destroying all things Christian.

For Pete's sake. The only reason you side with Walter Jones is that conservatives want to further solidify their stranglehold on the country.

[Racerbvd]

Originally posted by nostatic
I wanted to try and get away from the vitriol in the other thread, and the insistence on painting lunatic fringe and honest americans against the war with the same brush.

Let's assume that the following neocon premise is correct:

Protesting in the US leads to increased deaths of US troops abroad. It does this by any number of mechanisms, including strengthening of the insurgent's resolve (resulting in longer operation period for US troops) and/or demoralizing US troops leading to poorer performance.

So if that is the case, then what is a US citizen supposed to do if they oppose the war? Some might believe that if they don't protest, the war effort will continue unabated, leading to increased casualties. If they do protest it will similarly lead to increased casualties. So what is the "proper" course of action?

I ask this in all seriousness, because it seems to me that the neocon position would prescribe inaction by the masses. What I keep hearing is that one must back the administration in order to back the troops, etc. What is allowable dissent?

Try mass suicide

[CamB]

Originally posted by island911
fwiw, I couldn't have been more of an advocate here, for pulling the tube on Shiavo.

.. .and yet I believe Sheehan is a tool, used by the Lib's for no other purpose than to bash Bush.

Yeah, I reckon both were (are) tools of the respective political masters.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by cool_chick
Someone else here requested proof that a protest "costs soldiers' lives."

Since you're claiming same, can you prove this allegation?

Emboldened enemy=more terrorists=more dead soldiers and innocent Iraqis.

I hope that is not too difficult for ya.

Do you need to be shown that the water you drink is in fact molecularly H20?...I mean, really.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Dan Mc Intyre
For Pete's sake. The only reason you side with Walter Jones is that conservatives want to further solidify their stranglehold on the country.

Heaven forbid we more closely adhere to the Founding Fathers' vision...I mean we all know what suppressive folks they were.

Little news for ya brains...Secularism has been the greatest evil mankind has ever seen...Only seconded by Islamic fanaticism -- they both seem to presently be fast friends.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Emboldened enemy=more terrorists=more dead soldiers and innocent Iraqis.

I hope that is not too difficult for ya.

Do you need to be shown that the water you drink is in fact molecularly H20?...I mean, really.

Proofy, proofy please.

[Mulhollanddose]

North Vietnamese Col. Bui Tin, who served under Gen. (Nguyen) Giap on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, received South Vietnam's unconditional surrender on April 30, 1975.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal after his retirement, Col. Tin (Vietnamese communist butcher) explicitly credited leaders of the U.S. anti-war movement, saying they were "essential to our strategy."

"Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement," Col. Tin told the Journal.

Visits to Hanoi by … anti-war allies Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and others, he said, "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."

"We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war," the North Vietnamese military man explained.

"Through dissent and protest [America] lost the ability to mobilize a will to win," Col. Tin concluded. "

[cool_chick]

LOL

What are you talking about?

Too funny.

Here, I'll try to be clearer this time:

Proofy proofy that:

Anti-war protest in the U.S., causes an emboldened enemy=more terrorists=more dead soldiers and innocent Iraqis.

[CamB]

What if he lied? I mean, he's a socialist and never tells the truth, just callously manipulating everyone around him.

[Racerbvd]

Originally posted by creaturecat
FWIW - this is not a war - Iraq has not declared war on the US - this is an illegal occupation. - one should feel proud to demonstrate - regardless of the right wing rhetoric.

Once again, the socialist troll from the north demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge. The first Gulf war never ended, it was a cease fire based upon Saddam meeting certain conditions, which of course he didn't, and not only did we have the might, we had the right to go go in and finish the job. We didn't start a new War, we finished the first one, and we did it by the book. That is not only a fact, but history too.

[skipdup]

Maybe we should send some social scientists to go over and ask the terrorists directly? Or, maybe we conduct a phone survey of likely terrorists?

Or, maybe we just look at history and use a little common sense...

- Skip

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by skipdup
Maybe we should send some social scientists to go over and ask the terrorists directly? Or, maybe we conduct a phone survey of likely terrorists?

Or, maybe we just look at history and use a little common sense...

- Skip

History? LOL

It makes no sense that one would not become a terrorist until they hear that the world is holding an anti-war protest, then all of a sudden they decide to come one...

C'mon....

[fintstone]

Originally posted by creaturecat
I can prove that a successful protest will save lives - in the long term. Need an example? How many LESS lives would have been saved if the US was still fighting in Vietnam? Protest was one of the factors which ended the war in Vietnam.
As an aside, how many soldiers would prefer to stay in Iraq, versus coming home and being with their loved ones. This is not a trick question.
This is not a complex issue.

Millions lost their lives..after we pulled out of Vietnam. It was worse than the Holocaust...but of course most were not white Americans or canadians (seems sorta racist to me)...just as only innocent Iraqis would be slaughtered if we pulled out of Iraq now.... that is until they finished at home...and them came for the other infidels...again.

[skipdup]

Originally posted by cool_chick
History? LOL

It makes no sense that one would not become a terrorist until they hear that the world is holding an anti-war protest, then all of a sudden they decide to come one...

C'mon....

You're right... that makes no sense. But, that's not what I was saying.

Two questions...
Do you believe that people, teams, soldiers, terrorists, etc can become emboldened, or redouble their efforts, if they see victory, or a chance of victory on the horizon?
Do you think moral has any influence on a person's will to fight?

- Skip

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by skipdup
You're right... that makes no sense. But, that's not what I was saying.

Two questions...
Do you believe that people, teams, soldiers, terrorists, etc can become emboldened, or redouble their efforts, if they see victory, or a chance of victory on the horizon?
Do you think moral has any influence on a person's will to fight?

- Skip

Sure.

The question is, and you are IMO erroneously claiming, does a freaking protest do what you're claiming.....

If our soldiers are that wimpy then we're in trouble. But as usual, this is not the case, just unsubstantiated allegation.

As far as "redoubling" their efforts, I don't get the unrealistic impression they're "redoubling" and seeing "victory" over a freaking war protest. I"m pretty sure they're giving it all they got now....