That is The Oregonian's version.
This is where we see the protestors as the "authority problem" children that they are. You can describe the "peace" crowd in all the glowing terms that you want (and take video of their feet if you are a Fishwrapper reporter) but why is it that the riot police have to come out if there are no problems?
20 comments:
What problems?
All I saw were "Issues." They aren't the same are they?
This is why we haven't visited downtown Portland for over five years and likely will never return.
If Al Gor is correct it will all be under 20 feet of water soon anyway and then we can set the punks gondolas on fire.
The burning in effigy of an American soldier was the last gasp for the "I support the troops" anti-American left. The organizers didn't show outrage or stop this obvious hypocrisy. Any claims to peaceful thoughts or policies are exposed as outright lies. The mask-wearing thugs are accepted as normal by their so-called "peaceloving" cohorts. It is clear that the anti-American liberals are whole-heartedly on the side of the islamo-fascists and their bloodthirsty goals. The foolish propaganda and denials from lefty hacks like kaelri and her pals are no longer amusing. These anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-democratic, anti-freedom worms are showing their true colors. Pay attention to both their words and deeds. Many decent people around the world have died because of the treachery from the left, and many more will die while they play their sickening "I support the troops" propaganda game. If you don't believe me, check out Michelle Malkin's photos from PORTLAND. What a humiliation for this once-proud state.
Bear,
Often times I question your age. If I were to guess based solely on the quality of arguments you provide, I would place you around the age of 12-13.
Guess what? Not every liberal has a similar point of view. Protests are generally a collective of like-minded individuals who wish to make some sort of statement. The greatest part about the enormous group of people with liberal political perspectives (who you unsuccessfully try to group into some political party, or generalize as "leftists") is that their political views are so diverse that it is impossible to group them as one collective. Your oversimplification of their ideals and your relentless, baseless, and intentionally slandering statements are more damaging to the United States than any claim, false or otherwise, that you make against them. Your attempted dehumanization, and otherwise derogatory statements towards those who disagree with you along with the fascist tendencies revealed by what you speak more than suggest you are far less of a patriot and far more of an anti-American than I am.
Are there a group of liberal thinkers who believe that the troops should "be fucked?" Of course there are. Are they THE representation of the contemporary liberal? You're dead wrong if you think so.
In regards to my own person, if I were to be adherent to the claims you made about "lefty hacks", I would have to renounce my own brother, uncle, and cousin, all of whom serve in the military.
Your sophistic (specifically pertaining to your use of "anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-democratic, anti-freedom") statements additionally lend to your hypocrisy, given that you have so frequently accused others of (and overused to the point where it almost makes me sick to use the word), which is ironically what you imply "the left" is guilty of.
Also, I would strongly argue that many fine Americans, coupled with Iraqis who are just as good of people as the troops deployed and killed in Iraq, have lost their lives due to treachery from the "right", due to being forced to fight for a cause that is far from just.
If anything is to blame for the "humiliation of this once proud state," it's the generally incoherent, syllogistically lacking, and baseless incrimination of Americans from people like you.
PS: Feel free to respond. Just try not to "change the subject."
What Bear-anti said. Absolutely, dead on, right.
Are all anti-abortion advocates in favor of violence and the bombing and burning of clinics? Or would stigmatizing the entire anti-abortion movement based upon the actions of a small minority of that group be unfair?
Should all anti-open borders people be judged by the actions and beliefs of various Klan and Neo-Nazi groups?
I see no anti-American liberals (or their imam pals) either disagreeing with or denouncing the words and deeds expressed in these phony "peace" marches. Until the lefties actually display some regard for our troops (rather than burning them in effigy), our Constitution, and our flag (rather than burning it) I will continue to describe them factually. Your verbiage (look it up) has no substance, and, in particular, no statement denouncing your violent, anarchy-loving, anti-capitalist, and anti-American friends. You fool no one.
Bear -
OK Bear, here you go. I think the people who denounce the Troops and don't care for their well-being or if they get killed are jackasses and fools. I think it is idiotic to blame and condemn people for serving their nation. That blame and condemnation should be reserved for the people who put them there. Those protestors are infantile and thoughtless and I disagree completely and totally with their views about the Troops.
I want peace for three major reasons:
1) I do not believe that we belong in Iraq, and I do not feel that we should be engaged in a pre-emptive war and attempting to make people more like us. Other peoples get to chose their own destiny and path even if we disagree with it. We have enough unaddressed problems in this country and need to clean house before we attempt to clean others.
2) In consequence of 1, I feel it is horrible to be spilling the blood of Americans in Iraq. War almost always spirals out of control and forces people to act in ways they wouldn't otherwise. Decent people end up doing very indecent things sometimes. If that is the nature of war, we owe it to our troops to ensure that the sacrafice we ask of them is worth the price of the ticket.
3) I am not a Pacifist, but I do believe that war should be the absolutely last card that is played when all other alternatives have been exhausted. Innocent people get caught in the middle and die. That is a fact of war that will probably never change, and certainly not in my life time. At the very best, war is a necessary evil.
Haha! I expected no less from you, Bear.
If you think my "verbiage" (which is incorrect in context, being that my wording is more than abundant in substance) has no language that denounces the oversimplified premise you associate with "the left," then I would seriously question your reading/comprehension abilities. If you look at the fourth post down, then couple that with just a little logic (which I must ask your forgiveness for since I'm 100% aware that's beyond your ability) you would realize that I could advocate no other position than that of condemnation of "fuck the troops."
Ironically, you accuse me of arguments containing no substance when it is in fact you who types so much to say absolutely nothing. I seriously contemplated accusing you of the very thing you accused me of (which would be superfluous language, because once again, your use of verbiage is out of context), but I'm more than sure I've taxed your vocabulary to the point where that will no longer be a problem.
Post should be paragraph. My bad.
Having had a very busy few weeks, I haven't been able to leave comments here very often. But I wanted to leave my heartfelt compliments to Robert and Bear's Anti-Argument for the quality of their writing and the clarity of their thought. I'm very impressed, and I hope someone lurking on the edges of this site is willing to rise to that level of debate on behalf of the opposition. This is the kind of focus, perspective and dialogue that we should be having - that the gravity of the issues at hand really deserve from us.
I'm grateful for your contribution.
Okay Bear, I'm here to shatter your world: I am a far-left liberal, more liberal than you can possibly imagine. I am the liberal of your worst nightmares, and I'll say it: The guys in the black masks carrying the "Fuck the troops" sign are assholes. I support their right to say what they like (and so should you, by the way) but I absolutely disagree with the shitty message on their sign. It's childish, counter-productive, hurtful to those in uniform and a distraction from the real issues. They need to grow up. Ditto for anyone who was burning a soldier in effigy.
I'm calling your punk ass out on this "anti-American" crap because it's just that: crap. The left is opposed to George W. Bush and his administration, and the war that he started in Iraq, and the vast, VAST majority of them are able to do this without "hating America." Period.
Most importantly, as inconvenient as it obviously is for your world view, the left is no longer just the left: Opponents of the Bush administration and the war in Iraq now include large numbers of Republicans, evangelical Christians, veterans, Libertarians, active servicemen, retired generals, senior citizens, and millions of ordinary working- and middle-class Americans who aren't affiliated with any party who are STILL pissed off about the Bush administration and what he's doing to this country.
If you want to support Bush, fine, but if you're going to take on his opponents, then you'd better pull your head out of your ass and start understanding who you're up against, because you're going to increasingly find yourself up against everybody.
" ... why is it that the riot police have to come out if there are no problems?
Maybe because we live in a POLICE STATE?
Heh... you really need to spend some time in a real police state, Anonymous. "Papers please?"
-----
And for the "out of Iraq now" folks... Listen, it's all well and good to march and chant and wave signs and feel kinship with your parents who went to Woodstock, but here's the deal:
Whether or not you agree with the reason for invading Iraq, is completely besides the point. The reason for going in and removing the government could have been a fortune cookie and it wouldn't make a lick of difference to the current situation. Whether or not the invasion was justified in your opinion, it happened. We sent our forces to Iraq, we removed a government, their military dissolved, and what man-based infrastructure their government had vanished into the night.
So now, we've got a fledgeling government, ununiformed fighters from neighboring countries, internal militias, and various authorities of secular, religious and tribal origin all vying for power.
So... we bail. We pull out by the bucketful, starting now, and what happens? Pretty much the whole world figures it'll go all the way to hell. Although some estimates have neighboring countries carving it up for their own purposes.
This means, yes, bailing out, withdrawing, cutting and running, strategically redeploying to Japan, or whatever else you want to call it, is NOT an option. If the situation is our fault, then it really is our responsibility to be there until stability is possible.
Diplomatic talks with Syria and Iran are a ridiculous solution... because they really have such a vested interest in helping the Iraqi people stand on their own...
Turning Iraq over to the UN is even more farcical... name one flareup in the world that was actually better off because of non-US United Nations peacekeepers in the past two decades.
No... pulling out now is not a responsible act. It's the act of a spoiled child that isn't getting his way.
If "fuck the troops" is the fringe message would it be "fair" to characterize the mainstream message of these protests as "get out of Iraq as soon as logistically feasible"?
And by that I mean, not wait for the Iraqi army to be ready, not wait for the Iraqi police to be ready, just get out (in my words: retreat) as fast as we can get on the airplanes?
Because I don't believe that is a mainstream position any more than "impeach Bush" is a mainstream position.
"If "fuck the troops" is the fringe message would it be "fair" to characterize the mainstream message of these protests as "get out of Iraq as soon as logistically feasible"?
And by that I mean, not wait for the Iraqi army to be ready, not wait for the Iraqi police to be ready, just get out (in my words: retreat) as fast as we can get on the airplanes?
Because I don't believe that is a mainstream position any more than "impeach Bush" is a mainstream position."
Ignoring that we are fighting an unjust war, I think the mainstream, including the contemporary liberal thinker, is mainly frustrated by our current administration's unwillingness to take steps to help solve a problem that it has created. I understand that Eddie is opposed to diplomacy with Syria and Iran, but I would hope that a little actual research on the subject (please start with "Baker & Hamilton" report) would at least partially enlighten you to why it is likely in Iran and Syria's best interest to help with the peace process.
If the United States has no intention of taking any pragmatic steps to withdraw from Iraq in a manner that would leave the country stable, then yes, I would say withdraw immediately is not irrational. The only thing that keeping with the current status quo will do differently is cause more American deaths in Iraq, along with possibly (likely in my personal view) make the situation even worse.
I personally would like to see the former, but if we have no intention of changing our strategy in Iraq (in a pragmatic sense, not this BS "policy change" Bush implemented), then I would hope to get out as soon as possible.
Was it my imagination, or was there really an anti-peace protester in that first vid dressed as a suicide bomber?
Mark me down as another leftie peacenik who denounces the actions of the black bloc anarchist types on the fringes of the peace movement. Committing or provoking violence in the name of peace is just as wrong as pre-emptively invading a country that might, maybe attack us one day.
But no movement should be judged by it's "worst" members, particularly one as large as the peace movement. (I believe someone has already mentioned the anti-abortion folks and the doctor murderers on their fringes.)
I've been looking for incidents of violence or destruction of property at the protests over the weekend (mostly in DC, where the possibility was greatest) and so far, it's lookin' to me like individuals from the anti-peace, anti-protester side committed more hurtful acts. (Judge for yourself. My collection of anti-protester vids so far are here.) By no means does this make all anti-peace, anti-protester protesters the same as the folks in these vids. (Though I do think it calls their whole reason for being into question. While they accuse the peace folk of being against the troops, it is they who went out with the express purpose of opposing their fellow citizens for daring to disagree with 'em. Something to consider...)
Bottom line; while it might be convenient to tar everyone in a movement with the behavior of the worst few, it's a poor substitute for dealing with the actual issues of the movement as a whole.
Hey repsac, I believe in Peace, too. I just don't go anywhere near the fucktards in downtown Portland.
As for the police state comment, this is a police state. A leftist police state. Alcohol monitors anyone? What the fuck is that? And take a drive around any community surrounding Portland. The cops are everywhere, especially in places like Beaverton. If you are out after 10 p.m., you are obviously up to no good. Geez, gimme a break already. The far right sucks. The far left sucks. People like me get squeezed hard, especially by the Left since this is a leftist/socialist state. Assholes.
I went to the rally. I walked towards the front, middle, and end at different times. As I stood on the sidelines watching the march come to an end, I saw a small group that was at the very end turn away from the march and head north from the park blocks. Some were carrying black flags and had their faces covered. Immediately, I thought 'Oh no, those are anarchists. They're going to cause problems'. Watching this video proved my suspicions. These people were not marching for peace - they were there to cause problems - and they were part of a very small group. So, do not assume from watching this little video that that was representative of the march. After all, I was there and you weren't!
I went to the rally. I walked towards the front, middle, and end at different times. As I stood on the sidelines watching the march come to an end, I saw a small group that was at the very end turn away from the march and head north from the park blocks. Some were carrying black flags and had their faces covered. Immediately, I thought 'Oh no, those are anarchists. They're going to cause problems'. Watching this video proved my suspicions. These people were not marching for peace - they were there to cause problems - and they were part of a very small group. So, do not assume from watching this little video that that was representative of the march. After all, I was there and you weren't!
Daniel, if you're going to base your view of anti-war protesters on the few guys who burned flags and carried stupid signs, I guess you won't mind if I assume that all pro-lifers have an inclination to shoot physicians who perform abortions?
Heard today of a counter-protest, 500-1000 vets, bikers marching with a permit...on a Friday, same route, burning the PDX city council in effigy.
Any truth too this? If not...shall we start one!
Post a Comment