If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS13.com - CBS Sacramento)   Cindy Sheehan yells "Get out of my face" through a megaphone at point blank range to a grizzled military veteran. Hilarity ensues   (cbs13.com) divider line 662
    More: Fail, Cindy Sheehan, Travis Air Force Base, Code Pink, veterans, Slideshows, rally, trailers, military bases  
•       •       •

45072 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Nov 2009 at 10:55 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



662 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-11-29 01:41:18 AM
Dr. Mojo PhD: . Fighting illogic with illogic

That's the definition of war.
 
2009-11-29 01:42:31 AM
Sgt Otter: Elmo Jones: Two words: Conduct Unbecoming.

He was wearing the uniform of the United States Air Force, and is under strict protocols on how to behave. Yes, your First Amendment rights are limited.

Ms. Sheehan needs to see a doctor.

He's long retired. He has the very old Master Sergeant (E-7) stripes (six down). The current ones, (five down and one up) were introduced in the 90s. He also has the old-Army style dress coat.

He's wearing a maroon Para-Rescue beret (which to be fair, looks like shiat), and appears to have at least two sets of foreign jump wings (the top ones look Italian) on his right (our left) breast.


He deserved to get knocked out for that beret alone. Come on if your gonna wear the uniform take some pride in it. The guy was an old douche who probably loves Palin and misses good old dubya.
 
2009-11-29 01:43:16 AM
Cindy Sheehan is now the new spokesperson for CAPS LOCK.
 
2009-11-29 01:44:20 AM
Dr. Mojo PhD: NEDM: The migration and the paranoia I'll grant you, but the Byzantines had been in a decline since Manuel Komnenos died, and in an irreversible one since the Fourth Crusade. It was a slow death, so the vacuum was averted.

Vacuums are never averted, even when the world is spared the inevitable violence of an empire in rapid decline. I don't mean vacuum as something that has to be filled immediately -- perhaps power low pressure system is a better term; with the Byzantines and the Ottomans staring each other down, the satellite states felt the relative relief they usually do. Once the Byzantines no longer exist, there is a very real void for other European nations. Despite the Great Schism, the loss of the Eastern Roman Empire was a loss for Christendom.

Look at what happened after the fall of the Soviet Union. There's a real vacuum waiting to be filled. It's waited almost 20 years for a nation that could step up and effectively annihilate the United States. China's looking fairly probable to fill that role, but it's entirely uncertain that this point. I'd definitely qualify that -- and the similar lack of Christian influence in Eastern and Mediterranean Europe in the pre-Renaissance -- as vacuums.


Oh, undoubtedly. All I was saying is that when Basil II the Bulgar Slayer was Emperor, the Eastern Empire was the unquestioned superpower in Europe, and perhaps the world. However, as the Empire waned, the West grew. While they incubated, the Byzantines held off most of the threats from the east, allowing the Latins to grow. As they grew in power, there seemed to be a correlated drop in power from the Byzantines. I think my father put it best when he said that the migration of scholars and knowledge from Constantinople after it fell was Rome's final gift to the world.

/sorry for the rambling, not very often you get to have a discussion on the Byzantine Empire on Fark
 
2009-11-29 01:44:22 AM
belowner: That's the definition of war.

No, that's the definition of an unjust war. Outright discounting the use of force to end an unethical application of force only leads to more force being applied. It's unreasonable to assume perfect control over the world, and that extends to the application of force. Once an agent is aware of an ethical violation of force, they have a responsibility, if it is reasonable, to diminish that force as much as possible. Occasionally, that means the application of a measured amount of reciprocal force, so that the net amount of force applied post facto will be less than if the agency failed to intervene.
 
2009-11-29 01:45:02 AM
Jakevol2: Giltric: Jakevol2: rustybender: Jakevol2: Spad31: Jakevol2: Spad31: Jakevol2: if that man had an ounce of class or any remaining military bearing he would have backed off from Cindy Sheehan and apologize to her. He is a shame to his uniform and to this country.

Oh...oh, dude. Really?

Yes, really. The military is supposed to teach respect and courtesy to women. It did when I was in. It does not matter what she was doing that veteran had no business to threaten her, let alone put his hands on her.

No. We kill people and break their stuff. What part are you confused about?

well I am sure that is what the rapist Marines do.

Obvious Troll is too obvious.

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Link (new window)


There are thousands more pages on Google about Marines that rape.

Theres 2,680,000 hits on google about blacks who rape....maybe we can make one of those graphs with the circles to see where they intersect.

/cause the higher number of google hits, the better the empirical data

Oh my bad, Marines never rape, I am so glad you cleared that up for me.


You're implying that Marines are the only demographic that have raped. There have been convictions in other branches, there have been convictions among cops, priests, video store workers, librarians, etc. I don't know what you're getting at but you're twisting the facts. Of course there are those who are Marines who have committed crimes, even crimes as terrible as rape. That doesn't mean that Marines only rape, or only Marines rape. You're starting to sound as crazy as Sheehan.
 
2009-11-29 01:49:10 AM
OK whoever against UAV's, you are pretty clueless in current military and democracy/media thoughts and politics in the world and US!

anyone who argues against using UAVs against an enemy that is willing to commit suicide to kill you, has simply, not been paying attention.

to "win" no longer means killing more of the enemy than they kill you. to "win", one must appear to have victories most of the time, and not have losses.

when fighting nutjobs who have zero value for life, the only way to make them realize that fighting you is futile, is to make sure you have zero losses, and they have continuous and sustained losses, and their losses are made public to their supporters.

in vietnam, we were winning (in the most mathematical and simple sense) by taking them out 10 to 1, but America values its soldiers lives much more than some dictator, who hid their losses from his public.

if the situtation was so that vietnam or al-qaida, had continous losses, and the US had zero human losses (thanks to UAV's!), it would be difficult for their leaders to convince more people to "jump off the cliff for no reason" (that is, fight UAV's).

So, in conclusion, UAV's are the ONLY way to win against an enemy that has zero value against any life.

To be against UAV's, is the ULTIMATE example in very extreme stupidity (wow, just wow!)
 
2009-11-29 01:50:08 AM
IStateTheObvious:
Your personal space is invaded more walking down the sidewalk of most major cities. Or worse, on the subway.


And just what would you do if someone "walking down the street, or worse, on the subway" chose to stand less than two feet away and scream in your face? Would you stand there and take it like a fool, or would you tell them to step the f*ck back?

There's personal space invaded because we are all packed in a crowded area, and there's personal space invaded for the sake of intimidation. I'll let you guess which one this was.

He was wrong, and you know it.
 
2009-11-29 01:51:22 AM
www.classicalvalues.com
 
2009-11-29 01:52:00 AM
cduke23: You're implying that Marines are the only demographic that have raped. There have been convictions in other branches, there have been convictions among cops, priests, video store workers, librarians, etc. I don't know what you're getting at but you're twisting the facts. Of course there are those who are Marines who have committed crimes, even crimes as terrible as rape. That doesn't mean that Marines only rape, or only Marines rape. You're starting to sound as crazy as Sheehan.



Pfft, we all know that after a good firefight, every Marine needs a cigarette and a hefty bucket full o' rape.


Actual transcript:

CPL Smith: "Hey sarge, that was a good firefight. I need a cigarette."

SSG Winstead: "Indeed, Corporal, and pass that hefty bucket of rape."
 
2009-11-29 01:54:00 AM
NEDM: Oh, undoubtedly. All I was saying is that when Basil II the Bulgar Slayer was Emperor, the Eastern Empire was the unquestioned superpower in Europe, and perhaps the world. However, as the Empire waned, the West grew. While they incubated, the Byzantines held off most of the threats from the east, allowing the Latins to grow. As they grew in power, there seemed to be a correlated drop in power from the Byzantines. I think my father put it best when he said that the migration of scholars and knowledge from Constantinople after it fell was Rome's final gift to the world.

I would normally state that East, when discussing Middle Age Europe and Renaissance Europe, is -- at least when speaking of the "civilized" world, referring to China's sphere of influence. What I find really interesting about that time period is that East and West -- excluding the incursions by the hordes -- were relatively insular. That is, the Western world quibbled amongst themselves, the Eastern world amongst themselves, the Mongols went on a rampage and ruined everybody's shiat for a while, then became essentially full assimilated as somebody's vassal, conquest, or just Norman-viking type integration, and they relatively ignored each other. Though, of course, the Muslims would happily harass India from time to time.
 
2009-11-29 01:54:16 AM
belowner: Dr. Mojo PhD: . Fighting illogic with illogic

That's the definition of war.


No it's not.

"We will kill your guys until you stop what you are doing" is not illogical. It is simple, straight-forward and to the point. What is illogical is to pussy-foot around when faced with evil.

There certainly is a very solid logic to stopping regimes like the Nazis and the Japanese in WW2, just as there is solid logic in killing Islamic extremists.
 
2009-11-29 01:55:07 AM
Dr. Mojo PhD: No, that's the definition of an unjust war. Outright discounting the use of force to end an unethical application of force only leads to more force being applied. It's unreasonable to assume perfect control over the world, and that extends to the application of force. Once an agent is aware of an ethical violation of force, they have a responsibility, if it is reasonable, to diminish that force as much as possible. Occasionally, that means the application of a measured amount of reciprocal force, so that the net amount of force applied post facto will be less than if the agency failed to intervene.

To my knowledge, only the Catholics have a written "just war" doctrine. Other religions, countries, or groups of people do not. Even the UN does not have a "just war" doctrine - they are only obligated to act if genocide occurs, which is why they have such a hard time declaring anything genocide. It's the one thing actually written into the charter that obligates actions.

If there are other written procedures for war and I'm wrong, I'd like to read about them. I'm reading your post and assuming you are writing that definition from somewhere. Could be from the Catholics, for all I know. Care to share?
 
2009-11-29 01:56:12 AM
rewind2846: He was wrong, and you know it.

He didn't attempt to deafen her. She, on the other hand, intentionally committed an act which would predictably result in damage to or loss of hearing. She escalated it, he acted in self-defense to stop damage to himself. She was wrong.
 
2009-11-29 01:56:59 AM
Dr. Mojo PhD: belowner: That's the definition of war.

No, that's the definition of an unjust war.


Defining a war as "just" or "unjust" is posturing, often on a religious basis.
War is the failure of diplomacy. And humanity.
 
2009-11-29 01:57:14 AM
SilentStrider: Paulistinian: Yes, don't let the troops know that what they're doing is morally reprehensible. After all, they're just following orders, same as these guys:

dude seriously? Comparing our soldiers to Nazis?
I may disagree vehemently with the war, but that's wrong on so many levels I can't begin to explain.




He's just going along woth Cindy: "Sheehan told reporters that she was disappointed her protest against what she called 'morally reprehensible' military drones was interrupted by the man."

They spit on the people who provide them the freedom to spit and think they're morally superior. That is what's reprehensible.

Fark both of 'em.
 
2009-11-29 01:59:14 AM
Dr. Mojo PhD: I would normally state that East, when discussing Middle Age Europe and Renaissance Europe, is -- at least when speaking of the "civilized" world, referring to China's sphere of influence. What I find really interesting about that time period is that East and West -- excluding the incursions by the hordes -- were relatively insular. That is, the Western world quibbled amongst themselves, the Eastern world amongst themselves, the Mongols went on a rampage and ruined everybody's shiat for a while, then became essentially full assimilated as somebody's vassal, conquest, or just Norman-viking type integration, and they relatively ignored each other. Though, of course, the Muslims would happily harass India from time to time.

Fair enough. You raise an interesting point, though. I wonder why China never decided to go see if the streets of Constantinople were paved with jade, and Europe to go see if Beijing was paved with gold. You'd think sooner or later that some noble would want to go play Alexander the Great and go off into the (relatively) unknown with an army.
 
2009-11-29 01:59:19 AM
Jakevol2: Spad31: Jakevol2: if that man had an ounce of class or any remaining military bearing he would have backed off from Cindy Sheehan and apologize to her. He is a shame to his uniform and to this country.

Oh...oh, dude. Really?

Yes, really. The military is supposed to teach respect and courtesy to women. It did when I was in. It does not matter what she was doing that veteran had no business to threaten her, let alone put his hands on her.


You're a clueless fool that does not know assault when it happens.

The second she blared that megaphone in that guys face, threatening his hearing or even his current state of consciousness, he had every right to act as he did, and then some. He showed remarkable constraint and courtesy to her by not planting her face into the ground and curb-stomping her head until it caved in.

Go back to sucking on mommy's teat, little one. Grown men are talking.
 
2009-11-29 02:01:33 AM
i2.ytimg.com

Can't believe I'm the first one here with this!
 
2009-11-29 02:03:18 AM
Klingon Penis: Defining a war as "just" or "unjust" is posturing, often on a religious basis.
War is the failure of diplomacy. And humanity.


War is a triumph of humanity, and it is the ultimate expression of animal competition. It's funny that you bring up religious posturing. It is that very same religious posturing that leads to the idea that man is somehow more "special" than the other animals; we are not. It may be a lot of things, but war is nothing but a celebration of our animal nature. And it is our animal nature that defines us, as it defines every other animal, as a species.

Attempting to apply ethics to it is just an expression of attempting to make a superior animal, one capable of measuring its force rather than naked application through ritual. That doesn't mean you should remove an agency's ability to react to force and dismiss its ethical concerns as anything as maudlin as religious posturing (although it is that religious posturing that gave us wartime ethics in the first place, it's now obsolete thinking).
 
2009-11-29 02:04:37 AM
Holy s**t are liberals stupid.
 
2009-11-29 02:05:47 AM
CAPLOCKS
image.cbslocal.com
Not always necessary
 
2009-11-29 02:09:06 AM
NEDM: Fair enough. You raise an interesting point, though. I wonder why China never decided to go see if the streets of Constantinople were paved with jade, and Europe to go see if Beijing was paved with gold. You'd think sooner or later that some noble would want to go play Alexander the Great and go off into the (relatively) unknown with an army.

Oh, that was the Mongol's job. Temujin ended up with an empire vaster than anything that existed before or since, from Russia to the Mediterranean to the South China Sea. I guess when everybody else watched the Khanates sort of implode -- or deflate, really -- the idea of conquest became untenable. And the prevailing wisdom then was that whatever couldn't be conquered couldn't be controlled couldn't be traded. After a while trade routes opened up, and that's when you had the Portuguese and Dutch slipping into Japan, the white man realizing what Forbidden City meant, navigators and sailors and explorers being asked to find a faster route to India, etc.
 
2009-11-29 02:10:20 AM
rewind2846: IStateTheObvious:
Your personal space is invaded more walking down the sidewalk of most major cities. Or worse, on the subway.

And just what would you do if someone "walking down the street, or worse, on the subway" chose to stand less than two feet away and scream in your face? Would you stand there and take it like a fool, or would you tell them to step the f*ck back?

There's personal space invaded because we are all packed in a crowded area, and there's personal space invaded for the sake of intimidation. I'll let you guess which one this was.

He was wrong, and you know it.


To provide context to what that post refers to, since that part was clipped from the posts some time ago: ""Simple assault can consist simply of the violation of one's personal space or touching in a way the victim deemed inappropriate." It was a pretty piss poor definition of assault from Wikipedia.

I never said he was right, I said he was within his rights and did not commit assault. There's a difference.
 
2009-11-29 02:10:27 AM
Dr. Mojo PhD: Klingon Penis: Defining a war as "just" or "unjust" is posturing, often on a religious basis. War is the failure of diplomacy. And humanity.

War is a triumph of humanity, and it is the ultimate expression of animal competition. It's funny that you bring up religious posturing. It is that very same religious posturing that leads to the idea that man is somehow more "special" than the other animals; we are not. It may be a lot of things, but war is nothing but a celebration of our animal nature. And it is our animal nature that defines us, as it defines every other animal, as a species.

Attempting to apply ethics to it is just an expression of attempting to make a superior animal, one capable of measuring its force rather than naked application through ritual. That doesn't mean you should remove an agency's ability to react to force and dismiss its ethical concerns as anything as maudlin as religious posturing (although it is that religious posturing that gave us wartime ethics in the first place, it's now obsolete thinking).


Yeah, you're kind of an idiot.
 
2009-11-29 02:11:23 AM
Meh. These wars or some other wars will be going on long after this coont and her dead crotchfruit are long forgotten.

/just more meat for the grinder
 
2009-11-29 02:11:57 AM
iowntheworld.com
 
2009-11-29 02:13:36 AM
Klingon Penis: Yeah, you're kind of an idiot.

Oh, ok. I'm glad you explained that to me. At first I was like, "well, this is pretty well thought out: Clearly agency has an ethical necessity to diminish the use of force as much as possible" but then you came along were like "ur dumb" and I was like, huh, maybe -- but then when I saw that you were saying force was bad, but a moral agent should not act to minimize it even if it meant he himself had to apply some force -- I was like, wow. That's totally contradictory AND an ad hominem argument.

And I conceded the point to you.
 
2009-11-29 02:14:28 AM
rewind2846: IStateTheObvious:
Your personal space is invaded more walking down the sidewalk of most major cities. Or worse, on the subway.

And just what would you do if someone "walking down the street, or worse, on the subway" chose to stand less than two feet away and scream in your face? Would you stand there and take it like a fool, or would you tell them to step the f*ck back?

There's personal space invaded because we are all packed in a crowded area, and there's personal space invaded for the sake of intimidation. I'll let you guess which one this was.

He was wrong, and you know it.


Golly, and here I thought that Liberal puppets were educated or something.
 
2009-11-29 02:16:54 AM
Just when you thought the ol' bat went back to her belfry
 
2009-11-29 02:17:14 AM
Dr. Mojo PhD: Klingon Penis: Defining a war as "just" or "unjust" is posturing, often on a religious basis.
War is the failure of diplomacy. And humanity.

War is a triumph of humanity, and it is the ultimate expression of animal competition. It's funny that you bring up religious posturing. It is that very same religious posturing that leads to the idea that man is somehow more "special" than the other animals; we are not. It may be a lot of things, but war is nothing but a celebration of our animal nature. And it is our animal nature that defines us, as it defines every other animal, as a species.

Attempting to apply ethics to it is just an expression of attempting to make a superior animal, one capable of measuring its force rather than naked application through ritual. That doesn't mean you should remove an agency's ability to react to force and dismiss its ethical concerns as anything as maudlin as religious posturing (although it is that religious posturing that gave us wartime ethics in the first place, it's now obsolete thinking).


Just throw out the baby with the bath water and be done with it huh?
Religious systems are the reason why we don't all live in a thug-controlled monkey like animal society.
Religion is not a static experience, it evolves along with morals as humans do. Now go back to pointing at the fundies and laugh while you feel all superior.
 
2009-11-29 02:19:07 AM
IStateTheObvious: rewind2846: IStateTheObvious:
Your personal space is invaded more walking down the sidewalk of most major cities. Or worse, on the subway.

And just what would you do if someone "walking down the street, or worse, on the subway" chose to stand less than two feet away and scream in your face? Would you stand there and take it like a fool, or would you tell them to step the f*ck back?

There's personal space invaded because we are all packed in a crowded area, and there's personal space invaded for the sake of intimidation. I'll let you guess which one this was.

He was wrong, and you know it.

To provide context to what that post refers to, since that part was clipped from the posts some time ago: ""Simple assault can consist simply of the violation of one's personal space or touching in a way the victim deemed inappropriate." It was a pretty piss poor definition of assault from Wikipedia.

I never said he was right, I said he was within his rights and did not commit assault. There's a difference.


Assault is putting someone in fear or apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact.

Battery actually perpetrating the harmful or offensive contact.

Basically, any unwanted contact can qualify, even if it's utterly unreasonable (as would be the case with Cindy's attitude towards a man in uniform). But one suspects she wouldn't be the one to get the jury's sympathy if it came to that, so you could say that, as a practical matter (rather than a legal one), there's an implied reasonableness requirement.
 
2009-11-29 02:21:15 AM
Kunda Koonta approves.
 
2009-11-29 02:23:20 AM
lulzy
 
2009-11-29 02:24:24 AM
Dr. Mojo PhD: Klingon Penis: Defining a war as "just" or "unjust" is posturing, often on a religious basis.
War is the failure of diplomacy. And humanity.

War is a triumph of humanity, and it is the ultimate expression of animal competition. It's funny that you bring up religious posturing. It is that very same religious posturing that leads to the idea that man is somehow more "special" than the other animals; we are not. It may be a lot of things, but war is nothing but a celebration of our animal nature. And it is our animal nature that defines us, as it defines every other animal, as a species.

Attempting to apply ethics to it is just an expression of attempting to make a superior animal, one capable of measuring its force rather than naked application through ritual. That doesn't mean you should remove an agency's ability to react to force and dismiss its ethical concerns as anything as maudlin as religious posturing (although it is that religious posturing that gave us wartime ethics in the first place, it's now obsolete thinking).


I don't know, man. It does seem pointless to try to add rules to war, but there really should be some. I have seen secondhand what war does to a people, and firsthand what it does to the soldiers that fight in it. It may be a futile struggle, but we should always strive to prevent war from affecting more than the minimum amount of people.

/naive idealism: off
 
2009-11-29 02:24:30 AM
rev. dave: Religious systems are the reason why we don't all live in a thug-controlled monkey like animal society.

We do live in a monkey-like animal society. By definition. Thugs, by the way, are a Hindu religious cult that worship Kali. Whether or not you accept that we're primates, your statement is still ridiculous: The reason we don't live in a religious society is because of religious influence. Don't be ridiculous.

Religion is not a static experience, it evolves along with morals as humans do. Now go back to pointing at the fundies and laugh while you feel all superior.

I will. Not to be a dick, but seriously -- I will.
 
2009-11-29 02:31:28 AM
MuadDib: IStateTheObvious: rewind2846: IStateTheObvious:
Your personal space is invaded more walking down the sidewalk of most major cities. Or worse, on the subway.

And just what would you do if someone "walking down the street, or worse, on the subway" chose to stand less than two feet away and scream in your face? Would you stand there and take it like a fool, or would you tell them to step the f*ck back?

There's personal space invaded because we are all packed in a crowded area, and there's personal space invaded for the sake of intimidation. I'll let you guess which one this was.

He was wrong, and you know it.

To provide context to what that post refers to, since that part was clipped from the posts some time ago: ""Simple assault can consist simply of the violation of one's personal space or touching in a way the victim deemed inappropriate." It was a pretty piss poor definition of assault from Wikipedia.

I never said he was right, I said he was within his rights and did not commit assault. There's a difference.

Assault is putting someone in fear or apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact.


Again, via USLegal, this is the definition of assault:

"1. An unlawful attempt, coupled with apparent ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another; or
2. An intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent."

Number 2 is the pertinent one in this situation. It requires 3 things:

1. Intentional, unlawful threat by word or action to do violence.
2. Ability to carry out that threat
3. Fear in the victim that violence is imminent.

Since the actions he took, and the words he spoke were not illegal, he did not commit assault.

Battery actually perpetrating the harmful or offensive contact.

Basically, any unwanted contact can qualify, even if it's utterly unreasonable (as would be the case with Cindy's attitude towards a man in uniform). But one suspects she wouldn't be the one to get the jury's sympathy if it came to that, so you could say that, as a practical matter (rather than a legal one), there's an implied reasonableness requirement.


I can agree with this...I would say that's why no one was arrested. But between the two of them, it is Sheehan who technically violated the law, but even if I had been the cop on the scene I wouldn't have arrested her. I would have done what they did, and just separate the parties and leave it at that. It would be hard to argue that emotions weren't running high which introduces extenuating circumstances.
 
2009-11-29 02:33:32 AM
NEDM: I don't know, man. It does seem pointless to try to add rules to war, but there really should be some. I have seen secondhand what war does to a people, and firsthand what it does to the soldiers that fight in it. It may be a futile struggle, but we should always strive to prevent war from affecting more than the minimum amount of people.

Well, war is a pretty rough trade to apply ethics too. Still, if each agent can be encouraged to understand the importance of ethics, we will become a superior animal; if mankind can harness his ability for warfare and develop a sense of ethics about it, he will be capable of 1. destroying those without ethics (example, Nazis) and 2. still have the ability to apply force to reduce force, which is really no different than a surgeon damaging an organism slightly to reduce future damage from, say, a tumor.

That's not really rules of warfare, that's rules of humanity. I guess you could say a memetic evolution. Throwing away our ability to apply force would only be ... well, genocide.
 
2009-11-29 02:34:12 AM
Saw this on the news tonight. She wasn't shouting at him. The guy stuck his face in her megaphone.
 
2009-11-29 02:34:56 AM
Sure, the left "disowned" Cindy Sheehan in a big hurry because she was a loon. The right just puts them into office.

Lookin' at you, Michelle Bachmann
 
2009-11-29 02:35:58 AM
C'mon people now,
smile on your brother.
Everybody get together.
Try an' love one another right now.

-or-

50,000 pairs of highly trained American military boots on Middle Eastern soil ensures your daily access to the interwebs.


I opt for the boots. Anti-war coonts may just ignorantly suck me on free soil.

///Troll out ~~~
 
2009-11-29 02:38:03 AM
mrjared: Saw this on the news tonight. She wasn't shouting at him. The guy stuck his face in her megaphone.

Did she speak through the megaphone after his face was inside the bell?

Decibel level, blah blah, hearing damage blah blah, assault with liability blah blah, she deserved to have the megaphone shoved up her hoo ha.

I mean honestly what is the difference between what Sheehan does and the Klan having rallies to disparage blacks?
 
2009-11-29 02:38:44 AM
one of Ripley's Bad Guys: How many veterans wear their uniform around after discharge/retirement?

not me.


Not me either. It's mothballed in a footlocker, just in case...

/WOLVERINES!
 
2009-11-29 02:39:01 AM
Dr. Mojo PhD: Well, war is a pretty rough trade to apply ethics too. Still, if each agent can be encouraged to understand the importance of ethics, we will become a superior animal; if mankind can harness his ability for warfare and develop a sense of ethics about it, he will be capable of 1. destroying those without ethics (example, Nazis) and 2. still have the ability to apply force to reduce force, which is really no different than a surgeon damaging an organism slightly to reduce future damage from, say, a tumor.

That's not really rules of warfare, that's rules of humanity. I guess you could say a memetic evolution. Throwing away our ability to apply force would only be ... well, genocide.


True. I guess the question is really if that goal is obtainable. Either way, I say we should still pursue it.
 
2009-11-29 02:39:40 AM
fizzygillespie: Sure, the left "disowned" Cindy Sheehan in a big hurry because she was a loon. The right just puts them into office.


kensgarbagecan.files.wordpress.com
/Hotlinked.
 
2009-11-29 02:41:14 AM
undernova 2009-11-29 01:01:39 AM
Thats an 827: I do believe that is a phoney vet from what I see there.

Need to run this guy by the Stolen Valor author.

I may agree with you. Tell us what you see that makes you think so.

Excess wings, RAF wings right chest, USA wings right chest. One view the right chest wings look USA not USAF. Had 13 years USAF way back when, just does not look correct.
 
2009-11-29 02:42:06 AM
fizzygillespie: Sure, the left "disowned" Cindy Sheehan in a big hurry because she was a loon. The right just puts them into office.

Lookin' at you, Michelle Bachmann


I see your Michelle Bachmann and raise you

Maxine Waters,

dealbreaker.com

Pete Stark,

www.moonbattery.com

Jim McDermott,

img.wonkette.com

and Cynthia McKinney

kensgarbagecan.files.wordpress.com
 
2009-11-29 02:42:47 AM
Wolfmanjames: fizzygillespie: Sure, the left "disowned" Cindy Sheehan in a big hurry because she was a loon. The right just puts them into office.



/Hotlinked.


We kicked her out of office when her crazy came to the surface. She didn't run for election based on the crazy.

/her run for president nonwithstanding
 
2009-11-29 02:42:58 AM
Wolfmanjames: fizzygillespie: Sure, the left "disowned" Cindy Sheehan in a big hurry because she was a loon. The right just puts them into office.



/Hotlinked.


They ought to know that pic is coming, but they still walk right into it....
 
2009-11-29 03:01:05 AM
AirForceVet: Personally, I don't worry about Cindy Sheehan and don't get upset with her. She can protest as loud as she wants, wherever she can legally protest at. She lost her son in Iraq so I can understand where she's coming from. Besides, freedom of speech goes for all Americans.

Now, if you really want to get pissed off by demonstrators, there's the American Nazi Party, the KKK, and the newest attention whores: the Westboro Baptist Church. Those are the groups I'd love to slap the shiat out of.


Agreed. Why waste your energy on a target like Sheehan that isn't worth your ire in the first place when their are so many more bigger fish to fry.
 
Displayed 50 of 662 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report