Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
1.) It's treasonous to oppose the administration and/or the war and it's not treasonous to out CIA operatives to reporters?

2.) A nearby church put up a field of white crosses for each of the people who died on 9/11 last year. It was very moving to get a sense of how many people individual people died that day. Similarly, there's a memorial in Oklahoma City that has an empty chair for each of the people who were murdered by Timothy McVeigh. Should the families have given permission before those memorials went up?

For the record, I generally don't necessarily agree with Mrs. Sheenan's efforts as I think that she's probably been given greater deference than anyone who has lost family in this stupid, senseless war and I don't see what Israel has to do with anything. But I am appalled that someone could be so hateful as to destroy crosses bearing the names of soldiers who died in the conflict.

I thought we were a better people than that.

1. More or less.

2. The other two "memorials" you cite are just that and only that, memorials. Without a message or agenda. The crosses set up by her are part of a very calculated and well-soros-funded media campaign. Thus the false light.

Its sad that the liberals have to distort the memory and sacruifices of these noble freedom loving warriors to pimp an agenda that the American public has already roundly rejected. I thought we were a better people than that.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Actually, false light is apt.

Using the names of fallen heroes - without their relatives consent - to promote her anti-Bush, anti-Israel cause, is probably actionable.

Cite, please.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who said anything about moral equivalency?

You can point out that Israel is not blameless without insisting that it bears all the blame.

I thought that is where you were heading. If I had to put percentages on it, I'd say Israel was 15% to blame.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
1. More or less.

Your analysis rarely rises above that of a glazed Dunkin Donut. Sugary outside, but invariably a hole in the middle.

2. The other two "memorials" you cite are just that and only that, memorials. Without a message or agenda. The crosses set up by her are part of a very calculated and well-soros-funded media campaign. Thus the false light.

Its sad that the liberals have to distort the memory and sacruifices of these noble freedom loving warriors to pimp an agenda that the American public has already roundly rejected. I thought we were a better people than that.

Who decides where there's a message or agenda? You, Lieutenant Weinberg?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Your analysis rarely rises above that of a glazed Dunkin Donut. Sugary outside, but invariably a hole in the middle.

I will ignore this baseless ad hominen attack other than to note that it is the typical resort to the politics of personal destruction of the liberal inteligentsia.

Originally posted by Gattigap


Who decides where there's a message or agenda? You, Lieutenant Weinberg?

I suppose as with everything there is a small black and white zone and a big grey. Without commenting on the examples RT gave, the crosses in this context are clearly black (or white). This is an orchestrated well funded partisan campaign and the crosses are part of it, not to symbolize a memorial for the noble acts of the dead but to lend emotional affect to the partisan message of live's which these freedom hating idiots think were sacrified by W in vain. If you want to join the rest of your discredited liberal pals and pretend otherwise , go for it, but at least acknowledge your obstinately wilful ignorance.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
2. The other two "memorials" you cite are just that and only that, memorials. Without a message or agenda. The crosses set up by her are part of a very calculated and well-soros-funded media campaign. Thus the false light.

Seems to me a lot of people died on 9/11 who weren't necessarily Christian, and yet they were memorialized with crosses in a Baptist church yard. There's a definite message there. I don't have a problem at all with that message, I hasten to add, but I'm pretty sure that the church didn't ask the Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Zorastran, etc. families if it was ok.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I suppose as with everything there is a small black and white zone and a big grey. Without commenting on the examples RT gave, the crosses in this context are clearly black (or white). This is an orchestrated well funded partisan campaign and the crosses are part of it, not to symbolize a memorial for the noble acts of the dead but to lend emotional affect to the partisan message of live's which these freedom hating idiots think were sacrified by W in vain. If you want to join the rest of your discredited liberal pals and pretend otherwise , go for it, but at least acknowledge your obstinately wilful ignorance.

If the crosses bore names of fallen soldiers and marines whose parents supported Ms. Sheehan, would the destruction of those crosses be actionable?

eta - in the civil, not criminal, system.

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
1.) It's treasonous to oppose the administration and/or the war and it's not treasonous to out CIA operatives to reporters?

Er, neither is remotely close to treason

2.) A nearby church put up a field of white crosses for each of the people who died on 9/11 last year. It was very moving to get a sense of how many people individual people died that day. Similarly, there's a memorial in Oklahoma City that has an empty chair for each of the people who were murdered by Timothy McVeigh. Should the families have given permission before those memorials went up?

We're their names actually used? Was the "leader" of this "memorial" a publicity-hound puppet of the anti-war movement

For the record, I generally don't necessarily agree with Mrs. Sheenan's efforts as I think that she's probably been given greater deference than anyone who has lost family in this stupid, senseless war and I don't see what Israel has to do with anything.

Concur, wholeheartedly.

But I am appalled that someone could be so hateful as to destroy crosses bearing the names of soldiers who died in the conflict.

I thought we were a better people than that.

The guy is clearly an ass. But who was saying otherwise?

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Concur, wholeheartedly.

A Slave concurrence that the war is stupid and senseless? Hold on, I have to update the dossier. Something doesn't seem to fit.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Actually, false light is apt.

Using the names of fallen heroes - without their relatives consent - to promote her anti-Bush, anti-Israel cause, is probably actionable.

Feel free to prove me wrong, but I'm thinking that, however distasteful you may otherwise find it, it's probably not actionable, unless she's doing something like standing over a cross and saying "see John Doe here? He agrees with me."

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Feel free to prove me wrong, but I'm thinking that, however distasteful you may otherwise find it, it's probably not actionable, unless she's doing something like standing over a cross and saying "see John Doe here? He agrees with me."

"Correction. Used to agree."

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Seems to me a lot of people died on 9/11 who weren't necessarily Christian, and yet they were memorialized with crosses in a Baptist church yard. There's a definite message there. I don't have a problem at all with that message, I hasten to add, but I'm pretty sure that the church didn't ask the Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Zorastran, etc. families if it was ok.

I think a cross is somewhat generic, unless the babyjesus is lounging on it.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
If the crosses bore names of fallen soldiers and marines whose parents supported Ms. Sheehan, would the destruction of those crosses be actionable?

eta - in the civil, not criminal, system.

I am sure that there are plenty of trial lawyers in Texas (and elseqwhere) who would be willing to answer that with a resounding YES, regardless of the merits, which is fine with me.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The guy is clearly an ass. But who was saying otherwise?

Umm, Penske?

What do I win?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Feel free to prove me wrong, but I'm thinking that, however distasteful you may otherwise find it, it's probably not actionable, unless she's doing something like standing over a cross and saying "see John Doe here? He agrees with me."

Hmmm... Something like "Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment"?

Problem with dead people is that they can't throttle the misguided idoits who presume to speak for them.

Unless, you know, they're zombies, and then we have much bigger problems.