The US military is the world's preeminent military. From land to sea to air, they have no equal. Yet they are more than just our warriors and protectors, they are also the greatest ambassadors we have.
Two summers ago, my wife and I had the opportunity to visit some good friends who had been stationed in beautiful southern Germany, the Bavaria region. The first and most lasting impression were the breathtaking mountains in every direction. For those of us who like to stay active, they just seemed to cry out to be climbed.…
Article comments
26 - Jim Carruthers
Yep, the above certifies that Bugfuque, NTS is a real location in the USA.
27 - Mac Diva
I believe a commentator should present the facts, whether he likes them or not, Sandra. For example, I favor abortion rights. But, a significant proportion of the population does not. If I write about abortion, I should acknowledge the opposition. Then, I should explain why I disagree with it. To not grant the facts of a situation is to distort it. That is why I believe David Flanagan is passing on disinformation.
I said 'knowlingly,' above. Another BCer who posts really misleading entries is Tom Bux. However, I suspect he is not nearly as knowing as Flanagan. Much of the time, Bux does not understand he is missing the point or ignoring the facts. Flanagan does. He chooses to mislead.
28 - Mac Diva
Oops! "Knowingly." Tried to fix the typo, but BC is fast today.
29 - Lomu
I am with you on this MacD. A commentator should state the facts. I am aware of the Tom Bux factor.
What I understand from Sandra, is that a commentator must try to distinguish b/w the facts and the commentator's opinion.
It is always useful when the commentator can mention why they have that opinion. You both seem to be saying the same thing on that score.
Why do you favor abortion rights MacD?
30 - Mac Diva
I favor abortion rights mainly because denial of abortion denies women autonomy over their bodies. Furthermore, I don't consider fetuses persons. (An argument can be made that viable fetuses are close to being people. Roe v. Wade takes their status into account.) I believe Roe is the best accommodation possible for now. In fact, I was blown away when I read the case my freshlaw year. The reasoning balances the interests of all concerned -- women, doctors and society at large. However, a substantial minority of Americans opposes abortion. (Recent analysis says two-thirds believe abortion should be legal during the first trimester.) The opposition plays an important role in politics. To ignore it is to miss important information about the issue.
31 - SFC Ski
"Many of those troops, disproportionately minority and/or working-class, are there because they need a paycheck, even a small one, not because they believe in this war."
Where do you get this stuff?
Disproportionately minority, look up the facts, this assertion is easily disproven. Not only that, it neglects the fact that more than a few "minority" servicemembers are in leadership positions, ie, in charge, not subordinate to the white male hegemon.
"Well, there it is. Attention all you fire fighters, school teachers and EMTs! David Flanagan has passed judgement: you are all second-rate heroes. Sorry, no parades for you"
Selective reading in action, might interest you to knowthat many firemen, medics, and police are also reservists, and many of them are in Iraq now.
32 - Dan
I just want to second the assertion that the following:
"In the midst of all this we have Jim carruthers hearing of a vacant position for a headless chicken, stumbling in to criticise somebody saying.."very well written article" -lol..and thereby, clearly outlining his outstanding qualifications for that vacancy. The world has gone mad".
is hilarious.
33 - Natalie Davis
"We must support our troops"???
First of all, I neither have nor want troops.
Heroes? I disagree, but that's my opinion. I see them as members of the Death Brigade, nothing more. If they enlist, that's their right, and I want no harm to come to them, but I don't support what they do in the slightest.
But I offer this support to them as humans I wish to see long, humane lives -- bring them home now before they are killed or before they kill others.
34 - Sandra Smallson
Dan, what are you on?;)
35 - Shark
re: "HEROES" title
just an aside: my father received a Silver Star and a Bronze Star in WWII, European theater. He always rejected the word 'hero', and thought it was only used by people who'd never experienced war.
He told me, "Everybody was scared to death. Some hid, some fought, some just tried to stay alive. In war, there are no heroes."
BTW: re: donations to Iraqi children - See $87 billion plus of American taxpayer money.
Carry on.
36 - Lomu
We think the same MacD. I was only curious as to your reasoning.
37 - David Flanagan
Flanagan, I think Bush has far more protesters than Clinton ever did. Why do Republicans always counter a Bush criticism with something about Clinton? Answer me that.
Because what you cheered under Clinton you whine about under Bush. So, if you were okay with "protest zones" under Clinton, the man who was in office when the idea was implemented, why would you piss and moan about it now?
We counter your arguments this way because it underscores effectively the extent of your hypocrisy.
Thanks.
David
38 - Ms. Tek
Protest Zones under Clinton?
Sources, please.
39 - Jim Carruthers
Wow, I have my own nutsoid fanclub.
I want to thank the Academy, because it is an honour just to be nominated by crazy people, and I want to mention my co-dependant alter-egos, and my ISP, without which I would not be able to carry on my great work.
Oh, yah, FTP in the NWA style.
40 - David Flanagan
Sources please.
As requested. First an eyewitness account:
Now some links:
1) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22protest+zones%22+clinton
2) http://home1.gte.net/boulder/columns/nl250503.htm
3) http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1073372/posts
4) http://www.agrnews.org/issues/239/nationbriefs.html - Elend encountered his first zones at the 2000 Democratic Convention in Los Angeles.
There are more links, but those are a few from the first couple of pages of my Google search.
David
41 - Mac Diva
That's opinion, not fact. David Flanagan knows it is opinion. Apparently, he thinks the rest of us are too stupid to realize that, despite the way we peek his game over and over again. (Then, maybe, he thinks 'Dr. Singapore' is an unassailable source.)
The protest zones legislation was not interpreted in a Draconian way until it had been shored up Ashcroft and company post-9/11. Here is the basic statute the current mess grew out of.
Furthermore, the people lying about President Clinton are misrepresenting his personal style as well as the law. The man nearly drove the Secret Service out of its collective mind. He would not stay within the perimeters set for him. Anyone who has ever watched Clinton work a crowd knows he not only comes out to the fringes to talk to people, but touches them, even leaning in to hear better. The approaches of the two, B.C. and Shrub, to dealing with people could not be more diffierent.
42 - Ms. Tek
David, I looked at the links you posted and I am sorry, I don't see anywhere where they are talking about Clinton regularly using "free speech zones". I see a reference to wanting to sign into law a zone around abortion clinics (Bill Clinton does not perform abortions, last I checked).
But let me go through your links one by one:
http://home1.gte.net/boulder/columns/nl250503.htm
Who is Paul Weiser, and where are HIS sources? He's making claims but there are no links as to where his sources are.
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1073372/posts
This Free Republic link makes no mention of Bill Clinton. Only Bush and why he is correct in setting up "free speech" zones.
http://www.agrnews.org/issues/239/nationbriefs.html
Protesting the DNC is not the same as protesting the president. It just isn't. Also, where is the proof that the LAPD was there at the bequest of President Clinton? Seems to me that the DNC has been brought up before for limiting access and protests around its conventions- this is what the DNC chooses to do and as far as I know is not done because "The president says so".
Please show me a specific link where there are complaints against President Clinton and free speech zones. I can find SEVERAL, SPECIFIC complaints concerning Bush as well as where law enforcement involved with the arrests were acting on the orders of the secret service and government. I have yet to see where there are links tying Clinton to the same thing.
Moreover, if you want to just talk about Clinton vs. Bush and protests... The whole WORLD protests against Bush. Mass marches, demonstrations, editorials, etc... I don't see half as many complaints about the Clinton administration during his time in office.
43 - Mac Diva
It seems to me that Flanagan threw those (purposely indirect?) links up thinking no one would check them out. (Again, he should know better by now.) As Ms. Tek observes, they are surprisingly off point, even for Flanagan. Three are from the sites of Right Wing commentators. The remaining one is from, of course, Free Republic. They do not address the matter they are cited for -- President Clinton and protest zones.
I blogged the issue of nonwhites being a disproportionate part of the armed forces here. You will note that African-Americans make up 29 percent of the Army. It is beyond me how even 'Ski,' though not the sharpest pencil in the box, could miss noticing that some parts of the Army, such as infantry, are majority minority.
44 - Joe
Read what you cite, dumbass.
45 - Joe
In case there's any confusion the previous is in response to #43.
46 - Ms. Tek
Yeah... that might be a good idea.
47 - Jim Carruthers
What's obvious is that hot skinny blondes are the greatest threat to the security of the USA.
It's on teevee, so it must be true.
48 - Mac Diva
I always read what I cite, Tiny Testicles. Now, impress us with your insights again. (In response to #44.) Stands to reason Lil' Joe would carry water for Fatuous Flanagan. They have much in common.
BTW, where is Flanagan?
49 - Ms. Tek
I just think its funny he wants to say "read what your cite" when flannigan is point to links that don't even prove the point that he is trying to make and if anything disproves it.
Honestly, I was willing to read if the facts are there. But I didn't see any. =(
50 - Mac Diva
Funnier than that. Not only did I read what cited. I wrote what I cited. (With links to data to support it, of course.) Lil' Joe is another one of those far Right guys who can't bear hearing the truth, I guess.
51 - Joe
Actually, WMD, no. Just pointing at that your smartass remark to Ski was not backed up by the CSM article that you highlighted.
What's this fascination you've got with my gonads, by the way?
52 - David Flanagan
Well, I did a sloppy job of giving you links. The two best links are valid, however, in that they are written by people who were forced to stay within the "protest zones."
However, here is a CNN article that talks about the use of these zones for the 2000 Democratic convention and the events that led up to the institution of this practice. What I find interesting is the fact that very little was made of this "innovation" while Clinton was in office. Only under President Bush does the ACLU find the continued practice objectionable and only during Bush's administration does it receive widespread press.
Shocker!
David
53 - David Flanagan
Here is an article discussing the planned use of "Free Speech," or "Protest" zones at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston...
David
54 - bhw
So David, are you saying that the one instance of the zones being used while Clinton was in office was at one DNC?
That's not the same, my dear, as a unilateral practice for every presidential appearance, which is what Bush does.
That said, Clinton was wrong to do it, too, even if he did it only once.
55 - David Flanagan
Mac,
It always makes me chuckle when you label me the way you do. Are you not one who believes that the government should force anyone with racist and/or biased beliefs to go on medication?
Of course, you are the one who gets to choose who needs to be drugged and who does not, correct? What drug would you put me on? Should Senator Robert Byrd be put on drugs? After all, he was once a member of the KKK and, on March 5, 2001, said this to Tony Snow of Fox News regarding race relations:
"They are much, much better than they have ever been in my lifetime. As a personal opinion, I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us. I think we can all profit by our mistakes. I think we have reached a new plateau. And, I think it is going to keep going upward.- the understanding and race relations.
"I think…I just think …we talk so much about it we create somewhat of an illusion …uh…uh…I think we should try to have good will. My old Mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that.
There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time …it you want to use that word. We all…we all just need to work together to make our country a better country. I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."
56 - Ms. Tek
David, are you really not checking your links or are you being misleading on purpose?
Once again,lets take a quote out of that link you provided:
"Wary of the hordes of protesters who disrupted World Trade Organization and International Monetary Fund meetings in Seattle and Washington, D.C., and who have long been targeting the Democratic National Convention, local authorities have designated the streets around the arena, where the convention will be held, an impassable "secure zone." {emphasis mine}
1. NO WHERE does it say in the article that Al Gore, Clinton, the Secret Service, etc, specified for these zones. It is very specific in stating that "local authorities" made the zone due to protest at the WTO that got very violent.
2. How much clearer do I have to make that the DNC is NOT THE PRESIDENT and has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE.
So which is it, David? Are you being purposely misleading, or are you having a problem with reading comprehension? Sloppy googling is a poor excuse in this case. If Bill Clinton or Al Gore had told the secret service to set up "free speech" zones, I think you wouldn't have such a hard time finding a specific, documented, example of this. You have yet to find it. Finding the same about bush is very easy however. Are you going to say that the internet is run by the "liberal media" as well?
FINALLY:
Free Speech zones started with nixon.
This guy seems to have done his homework when it comes to the "free speech zones"
57 - David Flanagan
That said, Clinton was wrong to do it, too, even if he did it only once.
Not the point, though, I agree with you that the practice makes me nervous. However, everyone has been pointing the finger at President Bush for "creating" this "protest zone" concept. My point earlier in the thread that the practice began under Bill Clinton, not George Bush.
As you clearly can see, I was correct in my point.
Thanks
David
58 - bhw
If you read Tek's link, you're actually wrong. It started with Nixon.
59 - David Flanagan
So which is it, David? Are you being purposely misleading, or are you having a problem with reading comprehension?
Actually, I do have to issue a correction here. I said that Bill Clinton perfected the practice during his term and that was not correct. The practice began during Bill Clinton's term and has continued since. The DNC does plan to use the same strategy at their national convention in Boston (see link above).
I apologize for being overzealous above.
Thanks
David
60 - Ms. Tek
I'm still trying to figure out when what the Democratic National Convention does equate what the elected leader of the United States does.
It would be like saying this:
Let's say that President Clinton was also a hard core Star Trek Fan. He plans on attending the Fuzzy Slippers convention. The organizers of the Fuzzy Slippers convention and/or local police have decided to set up special "zones" to protest Clinton.
Now I want to know how what the Fuzzy Slippers convention decides to do means that Clinton told them to do it.
61 - David Flanagan
Okay, we've spent lots of time discussing peripheral issues on a post that is intended to lend support to volunteer work being done by our troops over in Iraq. I see that we have at least two people on this thread who have expressed some level of negativity towards the military. Hopefully others will consider supporting Operation Iraqi Children.
Thanks.
David
62 - Ms. Tek
So which is it, David? Are you being purposely misleading, or are you having a problem with reading comprehension?
Actually, I do have to issue a correction here. I said that Bill Clinton perfected the practice during his term and that was not correct. The practice began during Bill Clinton's term and has continued since. The DNC does plan to use the same strategy at their national convention in Boston (see link above).
I apologize for being overzealous above.
!!!!
Your credibility is going in the sinker, David.
1. The practice did not begin during Clinton's term.
2. The DNC does not equal the president of the United states.
You aren't being misleading. You are plainly lying. That is NOT a Christian thing to do. Thou shalt not lie. No if, ands, or buts!
If you want to apologize, why not apologize for spreading a proven falsehood. Then again, you were the first to post a lie about Kerry so I guess that is power for the course at this point.
I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. I am very disappointed in you.
63 - bhw
But it didn't start during Clinton's administration -- it was Nixon. And Tek's link also shows that both the DNC and RNC used the tactic in 1996 and 2000.
Now you can't even claim that Clinton started it in the '90s.
The organizers of both conventions did it. It apparently was not done for any non-convention presidential appearance during Clinton's 8 years.
But Bush does it frequently.
No matter who does it, it's wrong to separate protestors in order to keep them farther away from the action than supporters.
64 - Ms. Tek
Okay, we've spent lots of time discussing peripheral issues on a post that is intended to lend support to volunteer work being done by our troops over in Iraq. I see that we have at least two people on this thread who have expressed some level of negativity towards the military. Hopefully others will consider supporting Operation Iraqi Children.
Thanks.
David
Nice cop out. You've been proven wrong. Decided to continue to be deceitful anyway, and now because the kitchen got too hot, you decide that you don't like the tone and direction of the discussion.
What a very cowardly thing to do. That is just plain wrong, and you know it.
65 - Mac Diva
The earlier statutes, including the one I cited, focused on presidential security. Their rationale was that the president should be able to move about unimpeded. The current practices are designed to discourage speech even when the protesters are behind barriers that make it impossible for them to impede the president's movement. And, their focus is on content of speech, not proximity. A person wearing red, white and blue and waving a sign reading, 'I Love Dubya!' can get quite close. One of the oddities of this is that actual threats to the president don't necessarily oppose his politics. For example, John Hinckley came from as loyal a Republican family as David Flanagan does. The contention that protesters are inherently a threat to the president does not hold up to scrutiny.
Flanagan, I cannot think of a thing Robert Byrd has to do with the topic of this thread. Did you just want an opportunity to use the n-word or something?
66 - Ms. Tek
=(
I'm still sad that he won't admit he said something false when the truth is right there on the page. =(
67 - Mark Saleski
Not the point, though, I agree with you that the practice makes me nervous. However, everyone has been pointing the finger at President Bush for "creating" this "protest zone" concept. My point earlier in the thread that the practice began under Bill Clinton, not George Bush.
As you clearly can see, I was correct in my point.
nope, not what i said.
here it is:
while our boys are supposedly standing up for what's right and true...we have president bush visiting southern new hampshire...and before he shows up we have the police sweeping through to ensure that protesters are moved at least two blocks away, so that neither the president nor the news media will see them. this, in the name of 'security'.
sure it is.
this is the 'freedom' our boys are protecting?
no implication there at all that bush 'created' the concept. even if you were somehow able to interpret my words that way, that was certainly not my intent.
and somehow we go from there to "it was clinton's fault".
see, i told you guys, no matter what happens...it was clinton's fault.
68 - Ms. Tek
meh... whatever. Next time, I won't bother.
69 - Mac Diva
David Flanagan will likely start another thread with an entry that pretty much restates what he said here. Yes, including the misrepresentations. That is his modus operandi when outflanked. I gather Flanagan believes what we say doesn't count; that we just mess up the 'wisdom' he is bestowing on us like naughty children. Ergo, the need to start fresh.
70 - Joe
Groovy, and perhaps you can elucidate the majority minority status of the infantry.
71 - barticus
No joe.....it is no fun to prove ones statements........it is only fun to disprove someone's statements. Easier to demand sources than to give them. That is their Modus Operandi! lol
Let's start demanding sources from those who demand them....shall we? lol
[personal attack deleted]
72 - barticus
They outflanked.................themselves!
73 - mono
No one asked for their sources??? Are we supposed to take their words as gospel? (MCDIVA TEC)
That would take "great" faith.
74 - Macdude
Maybe if someone asked for their sources...they would just say "NO, I will not do your homework for you"!
Yep that's them!
By their own standards....their words are shit.