PDA

View Full Version : Get off my property



Strike For The South
08-16-2005, 04:25
Did hear about bushes neighbor shot his 12 gauge because he was warming for dove season might I add right in front of the protesters I saw this guy on cnn and it just furthers my belief that hippies and inbreds don't mix :bow:

Divinus Arma
08-16-2005, 04:40
Funny. But where does this thread go from here?

Strike For The South
08-16-2005, 04:42
wherever the wind takes it :bow:

scooter_the_shooter
08-16-2005, 04:44
Bush Neighbor Suffers Protest Fatigue

Monday, August 15, 2005

CRAWFORD, Texas — Protesters outside President Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch were starting their second week of demonstrations Sunday, leading one neighbor to demonstrate the first signs of protest fatigue.

Larry Mattlage (search) created quite a stir earlier in the day when he fired his shotgun over his property. The Crawford rancher told reporters he was practicing for dove season.

Mattlage expressed frustration about the ongoing anti-war protest taking place near his property, and said other neighbors are also getting aggravated by all of the protest activity on their quiet country road.

"You want something like this in your backyard? Huh, or your front yard? This is our yard right here. We just happen to, in Texas, have a bigger yard than they do in Maryland," Mattlage told reporters.

"I mean, would you like somebody invading your house for a long time and blocking your view and blocking your road? I wake up every morning [with] this crowd, and I go to bed every night with this campground down here on a public road, which I'm paying taxes to, the middle of this road," he said.

Mattlage has been watching throughout the past week as more and more protesters join Cindy Sheehan (search) outside the president's 1,500-acre ranch. Sheehan's son Casey was killed in Iraq in 2004. She says she wants U.S. troops to pull out of Iraq, and she will stay here until Bush speaks with her.

Bush has defended his decision not to meet with Sheehan, with whom he met once before.

''Whether it be here or in Washington or anywhere else, there's somebody who has got something to say to the president, that's part of the job. And I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say. But I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life," Bush told Cox News Service during a bicycle ride on Saturday.

On Sunday, Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean (search) said Bush should meet with Sheehan.

"Because the president sent her son to Iraq, her son lost his life. I think the president should meet with any parent who has sacrificed their son or daughter for the defense of the United States of America," Dean told a Sunday morning network talk show.

In 2004, Bush met with Sheehan and other grieving families. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who traveled with Bush the day he met with the families, described the president's mood afterward.

"I have seen him, I have seen his care, and I've seen him grieve. And I'm sure he wouldn't like to hear me say this, but I have seen him afterwards. He was very, very grieved," McCain told "FOX News Sunday."

After Sheehan was joined by other anti-war protesters, pro-Bush demonstrators also traveled to Crawford. One pro-Iraq policy demonstrator said those against the president are not from Texas. Others said if the anti-war protesters succeed in altering U.S. policy, it would put more troops in harm's way.

The increased traffic in Crawford did not affect Bush, first lady Laura Bush or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as they traveled Saturday night from the ranch to the Baylor University campus in nearby Waco, where the three attended the Little League Southwest Regional championship game.

But Mattlage said he is frustrated by the traffic — and subsequent side effects of it — in his neighborhood.

"We got a battle of the port-a-potties. They first started going to the bathroom in a five-gallon bucket, then they moved a port-a-pottie and then they got two port-a-potties, and now we got three and if this keeps up they will be all the way down the road," he said. "The only people winning here is the person who cleans the port-a-potties."

Mattlage said he sympathizes with Sheehan, but the crowd that has developed is akin to guests that won't leave.

"When they first came out here, I was sympathetic to their cause, all right. They as American citizens have a right to march, to protest, but it's like company. If you had your brother-in-law in your house for five days, wouldn't it start stinking after a while? You're ready for them to go home."

Mattlage said he respects the anti-war protesters and he respects President Bush, but he is frustrated because both federal and county law enforcement told him they can do nothing to end the anti-war protest.

U.S. Secret Service and McLennan County sheriff's deputies went to Mattlage's home on Sunday afternoon to urge restraint, and the situation appeared to calm down a bit after Mattlage spoke with law enforcement and vented to reporters.

McLennan County Sheriff Larry Lynch said Mattlage didn't violate any law by firing his shotgun on Sunday.

"He's on his own property. He's getting ready for dove season he says," Lynch said adding that had Mattlage shot across the road rather than on his own land, he would have broken state and county laws.

"Everybody needs to use restraint in this situation out here. This is a situation that's taken all these folks by storm and impacted a lot of businesses out here. But so far everybody's been compliant and that's what we are here for, the deputies are here to make sure that this continues on in a peaceful manner. Folks need to comply with all the rules and regulations in the state of Texas and county and that's what we are here for this morning," the sheriff added.

Mattlage said he loves Bush because the Bible tells people to love their neighbors. But he said he is not a politician and is not interested in the president's business.

"All I know, when he gets done with his presidency, he is our neighbor and all of you all and all of this protest is out of here," he said




From fox news


//////////////////////////////////////


I think it is ok.... They have the right to protest and he has the right to Shoot a shot gun in the air ~:cheers:

PanzerJaeger
08-16-2005, 04:45
Hippies always impose themselves on people who actually have jobs and lives.

What do you all think of Sheehan? Anybody have the balls to give their real opinion. ~;)

Strike For The South
08-16-2005, 04:48
I dont sympathize 2 things stick out

1. She already met with bush
2. Her son joined the army the army what do you do in the army Wait for it.......Huh Kill pepole

Red Harvest
08-16-2005, 04:59
It would suck to be any president's neighbor I think. Still, I watched this guy on TV and he's all too common down here. He makes rednecks look bad. He had parked his truck out there close to where they were, had a partially empty 12 or 18 pack of Keystone (*yuuucccckkk* might as well drink bull whiz) sitting on top of the cooler in the bed. So he gets angry, decides to show off with his shotgun, and fires off a shot. Brilliant.

Maybe he'll end up on the "no-fly" list. Not that it looked like it would effect his travel plans much.

scooter_the_shooter
08-16-2005, 05:04
They have the right to protest and he has his 2nd amendment rights! I dont care If he invites all his friends to bring their shot guns over to fill the air with lead!

JimBob
08-16-2005, 05:07
1. She already met with bush
And Bush was an ass when it happened. He did not know the name of Ms. Sheehan nor her son's name. You think that is a little problem?

I think the Bush should talk to Sheehan, I mean can't he give up one damn hour of a bike ride to talk to someone. Besides from a purely pragmatic view point it helps him because he talks to her honestly, she either a) leaves, media finds out about missing girl in *insert country* people forget about the protest, Bush wins, b) stays, looks like an ass for getting what she wants and demanding more, losses all credibility except with a few fringe groups, Bush wins.

AntiochusIII
08-16-2005, 05:10
They have the right to protest and he has his 2nd amendment rights! I dont care If he invites all his friends to bring their shot guns over to fill the air with lead!If it hits one of them?

You know, shotgun is quite spread out.

PanzerJaeger
08-16-2005, 05:15
And Bush was an ass when it happened. He did not know the name of Ms. Sheehan nor her son's name. You think that is a little problem?

Those are her words after she said the direct opposite right after her meeting. She completely changed her story after she got in bed with Miky Moore.

Red Harvest
08-16-2005, 05:16
They have the right to protest and he has his 2nd amendment rights! I dont care If he invites all his friends to bring their shot guns over to fill the air with lead!

Funny, I don't recall any right to brandish a weapon and discharge it while drinking around a crowd. They sure didn't make me aware of that during concealed carry instruction. I don't think Bush or the Secret Service would be too happy with it either. In fact, I would be very nervous discharging a weapon in an area like that, seems a good way to end up on a cold slab at the morgue.

bmolsson
08-16-2005, 05:17
I don't like demonstrations and I don't like guns......

scooter_the_shooter
08-16-2005, 05:20
If it hits one of them?

You know, shotgun is quite spread out.

If he is getting ready for dove season he has to be using bird shot. If it hits any one it will feel like rain because it has been shot into the air first.


If he was using 00 buck shot....then he could hurt some one when it comes down.





Let me guess you want guns banned with out ever shooting one and listen to every thing the media says about them?

Am I right?

Crazed Rabbit
08-16-2005, 05:20
Not to mention, all her relatives have signed a letter urging her to stop, and her husband has filed for divorce.

She's using her son's good name to promote herself and her agenda, which seems increasingly like a democrat list (Israel out of Palestine, what's that got to do with it?!?)

Crazed Rabbit

scooter_the_shooter
08-16-2005, 05:21
I don't like demonstrations and I don't like guns......


Guns do not kill people.... Does your pen mispell words?

bmolsson
08-16-2005, 06:06
Guns do not kill people.... Does your pen mispell words?


I didn't say that guns kill people. I said I don't like guns. And I don't use a pen when posting in this forum. We have invented keyboards over here.....

AntiochusIII
08-16-2005, 06:08
Let me guess you want guns banned with out ever shooting one and listen to every thing the media says about them?

Am I right?No :)

I just think that it's a bit too hard to shoot a gun out of frustation into the sky like that. Even if you're really frustated. Especially if you are really frustated, as you could accidentally hit something...unpleasant.

Red Harvest
08-16-2005, 06:13
He fired it on his own property. He was within his rights.

Most of the time such a display, particularly with alcohol involved would get you a trip to jail. Disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment would be the normal concerns--of course those tend to be left ot the discretion of law enforcement as to whether or not they want to bring the person in. Gun owners like this guy make us all look bad.

Redleg
08-16-2005, 06:24
As shown in the article, the Sherrif was a man of common-sense, and realized that the Protesters had overstayed their welcome. He was merely non-violently protesting their protest.


When the individual fired the shotgun in the air - he was no longer non-violently protesting the protest. He crossed a line that he should not have crossed in doing that.

He should of asked the police to insure that the protesters were not trespassing on his property. If he was upset with the demonstration or the noise - he should of filed a complaint with the same sherrif. It is amazing how fast you can get an assembly on public property shut down when citizens begin to file complaints about the activities of the assembly. Especially if such protests begin to trespass upon your property.

Taking a shotgun next to a demonstration - shows a lack of common sense for this individual,

Red Harvest
08-16-2005, 06:32
As shown in the article, the Sherrif was a man of common-sense, and realized that the Protesters had overstayed their welcome. He was merely non-violently protesting their protest.

Common sense says an angry drunk man with a gun, who discharges it around a crowd for show should be removed from the presence of protestors. If he can't control himself any better than that, then he has a problem.

Is there any common sense in discharging firearms as non-violent protest? Hell, no!

PanzerJaeger
08-16-2005, 06:35
Who says he was drunk, and whats wrong with shooting a gun on your own property... youd think this was communist russia or something. ~:rolleyes:

scooter_the_shooter
08-16-2005, 06:36
I would do the same thing if there were a bunch of crazy hippies on the property line!


If I did not have a gun I would by Fire works...when using them like this guy....there is no difference....he has not threatened any one; he Is using it for the noise factor.

bmolsson
08-16-2005, 06:42
When the individual fired the shotgun in the air - he was no longer non-violently protesting the protest. He crossed a line that he should not have crossed in doing that.

He should of asked the police to insure that the protesters were not trespassing on his property. If he was upset with the demonstration or the noise - he should of filed a complaint with the same sherrif. It is amazing how fast you can get an assembly on public property shut down when citizens begin to file complaints about the activities of the assembly. Especially if such protests begin to trespass upon your property.

Taking a shotgun next to a demonstration - shows a lack of common sense for this individual,

Good comment... :bow:

bmolsson
08-16-2005, 06:43
I would do the same thing if there were a bunch of crazy hippies on the property line!


And that is why you should not be allowed to have a gun..... ~:grouphug:

Samurai Waki
08-16-2005, 06:45
I wouldn't necessarily use a shotgun to get my way with a bunch of protesters. Maybe send them a polite letter asking them for peace and quiet for a certain amount of time during the day, and if they didn't get the message then I'd start throwing pepper spray grenades and other riot dispersal weapons to get my way.

Red Harvest
08-16-2005, 06:46
Who says he was drunk, and whats wrong with shooting a gun on your own property... youd think this was communist russia or something. ~:rolleyes:

Looked drunk, acted drunk in the interview, and had a partially empty 12 or 18 pack out in the open with his shotgun leaned up against it. Draw your own conclusion. Perhaps he had someone pitching cans in the air for him as targets?

So was he protesting or preparing for dove season? His statements don't mesh very well...

PanzerJaeger
08-16-2005, 06:51
I saw the interview and he most certainly didnt act drunk. He had a rural texas accent, but made his points clearly enough.

Dont you think the protestors make our country look worse than him?

Red Harvest
08-16-2005, 06:52
I would do the same thing if there were a bunch of crazy hippies on the property line!

That much has been obvious for awhile...



If I did not have a gun I would by Fire works...when using them like this guy....there is no difference....he has not threatened any one; he Is using it for the noise factor.

No he is using it for the intimidation factor. He wants to prevent them from protesting.

Last I saw, this wasn't a right.

Red Harvest
08-16-2005, 06:57
I saw the interview and he most certainly didnt act drunk. He had a rural texas accent, but made his points clearly enough.

Didn't sound that way to me, and I'm used to the accent.



Dont you think the protestors make our country look worse than him?

Let's see: Protesting on public right of way...or discharging a weapon after drinking to intimidate protestors, then making up some lie about what he's up to.

No, I think the idiot liar with a gun looks far worse.

scooter_the_shooter
08-16-2005, 07:02
And that is why you should not be allowed to have a gun..... ~:grouphug:


But thank god I live in the USA where people from Indonesia can't tell me what to do. ~:grouphug: (why is it when ever you flame you put this ~:grouphug: stupid smiley face there?)



How does shooting a shotgun legally not breaking any laws....not attacking brandishing etc threatening....how is it wrong?


If I am seen by some one when hunting or target shooting, should they be alarmed and say I should not have a gun. :help:






The hippies have there right to be annoying and so does this guy!

bmolsson
08-16-2005, 07:19
But thank god I live in the USA where people from Indonesia can't tell me what to do. ~:grouphug: (why is it when ever you flame you put this ~:grouphug: stupid smiley face there?)


I never flame, I am just spreading love and compassion to the people that needs it. ~:grouphug: ~:grouphug: ~:grouphug:



How does shooting a shotgun legally not breaking any laws....not attacking brandishing etc threatening....how is it wrong?


Take a shit on your front lawn isn't against the law either, but in a civilized society we don't do it anyway....... :charge:



If I am seen by some one when hunting or target shooting, should they be alarmed and say I should not have a gun. :help:


If you where hunting the neighbours dog, yes...... ~D




The hippies have there right to be annoying and so does this guy!


Actually I don't think so. I can't see any reason for allowing demonstrations. It's a rather medieval way to make your opinion published and it most of the time ends up in violence and vandalism.

scooter_the_shooter
08-16-2005, 07:33
Take a shit on your front lawn isn't against the law either, but in a civilized society we don't do it anyway....... :charge:




There is a law against it in the USA ~:cheers: You could be arrested for disturbing the peace and indecent exposure.

bmolsson
08-16-2005, 07:41
There is a law against it in the USA ~:cheers: You could be arrested for disturbing the peace and indecent exposure.

So taking a shit is disturbing the peace, but shooting a shot gun is not ? Weird country you live in...

Divinus Arma
08-16-2005, 07:44
wherever the wind takes it :bow:

Holy hell! It really did take off! :charge:

Albino Gorilla
08-16-2005, 07:53
So taking a shit is disturbing the peace, but shooting a shot gun is not ? Weird country you live in...
It uh varies from state to state.

Ironside
08-16-2005, 08:23
Question

Can I legally shoot at people (not on them) with a sniper rifle after taking a few beers if I miss them intentionally, is shooting from my property, and hunt with it so I'm using it for practice for the hunting season?

Would you defend this guys rights too? If no, what's the difference?

Bartix
08-16-2005, 09:31
She completely changed her story after she got in bed with Miky Moore.
:fainting:
I don't want to think about that :furious3:

Ironside
08-16-2005, 10:00
This man shot into the air. Not at people. That's a silly comparison.

But if I don't aim at anything, only air that happens to be relavily close to a person? And is a good shot.
Yes it's a extreme example, but I haven't really added something AFAIK, just pushed it to the extremes.

Marshal Murat
08-16-2005, 10:36
If he was practicing, he was practicing.

If he shot his shotgun, on his property, than he was not breaking a law.

So either way, it DOESN'T MATTER now does it?

The sniper thing.
He probably would go to jail because he intentionally shot nearby or in the general area of people with a sniper rifle, and will be prosecuted for public endangerment.

If he shot up in the air, it would fly over wouldn't it? Or if not, the bullet would land far away, and nobody would care because their all hiding.

Redleg
08-16-2005, 12:26
Assuming he was firing bird shot, the pellets were harmless if shot into the air. And last I checked, firing a gun in the air did not constitute violence by any stretch of the imagination, or the law.

Firing weapons near a crowd - even in the air shows reckless disregard for your fellow human beings. Its irresponsible and idiotic. Serves no purpose other then an attempt to scare other people. Therefor its not a non-violent demonstration.




Why should he have to do that? Clearly the Sherrif agreed with him, and thus the law was on his side the whole time.


Not necessarily - you will be surprised how many laws a sherriff will allow you to break if he likes you or agrees with you. Doesn't make your action lawful - it just means the sherriff has a lot of discretion in regards to how he enforces the law. One must remember in Texas the sherriff is an elected official.



He did not take a shotgun to the demonstration. The demonstration came to his shotgun.

:rifle:

Don't think so - it seems he had to go to the edge of his property did he not - taking the shotgun with him.

Gawain of Orkeny
08-16-2005, 17:23
Firing weapons near a crowd - even in the air shows reckless disregard for your fellow human beings. Its irresponsible and idiotic.

Hey I did it all the time during marksmenship demonstrations ~;)

Its pretty much up to the local statutes I would thing and remember this is Texas not California or New York. Also isnt this ranch or farm country? I would think their pretty used to people firing guns off on their own property. An m-80 probably would have scared the protestors as much but may have gotten him in more trouble but I dont know the fireworks laws down there.

The worst part of this is how some of these far leftwing people are using this woman to advance their own agenda.

Crazed Rabbit
08-16-2005, 17:47
He should get a bunch of skunk scent and spray it on his property line. That'd keep the protestors away. Or, he could make a small catapult and get some water balloons full of the stuff...I've said too much. ~:eek: ~D

Crazed Rabbit

Redleg
08-16-2005, 17:47
Hey I did it all the time during marksmenship demonstrations ~;)

Its pretty much up to the local statutes I would thing and remember this is Texas not California or New York. Also isnt this ranch or farm country? I would think their pretty used to people firing guns off on their own property. An m-80 probably would have scared the protestors as much but may have gotten him in more trouble but I dont know the fireworks laws down there.


The part of the Texas Firearm Law that applies i this instance.

c. It is unlawful to discharge a firearm in a public place or
on or across a public road.

Now depending how close he was to the road or the public place - then he just might of committed a violation of the law.




The worst part of this is how some of these far leftwing people are using this woman to advance their own agenda.

And in that they are wrong. If you think this woman is doing it for a noble cause - well that is fine, But, when an individual has professional handlers well it shows something about her agenda.

Red Harvest
08-16-2005, 18:25
I wonder what sort of reaction the fellow might get if he decided to "excercise" his property and gun rights as the Presidential motorcade passed by? Cold slab, anyone?

Say what you want, but this is clearly wrong/stupid, and going out to your property line with a gun to in effect pick a fight will get your a$$ in big trouble, even in Texas. Hearing, but not seeing the gunshot, someone could make the assumption he was a threat and draw their own weapon ordering him to drop his, in which case you have a standoff with firearms. It is Texas afterall, and licensed concealed carry is common. This wasn't some sort of innocent act. Texas is quite tolerant of legitimate self defense, property defense, and firearms use. This is not an example of that.

Him getting a pass from local law enforcement in a small town in Texas...yeah, that's a real shocker. :rolleyes:

KafirChobee
08-16-2005, 18:40
The part of the Texas Firearm Law that applies i this instance.

c. It is unlawful to discharge a firearm in a public place or
on or across a public road.

Now depending how close he was to the road or the public place - then he just might of committed a violation of the law.




And in that they are wrong. If you think this woman is doing it for a noble cause - well that is fine, But, when an individual has professional handlers well it shows something about her agenda.


Absolutely agreed with everything you said, Red. Right up to the last statement. I agree, that she maybe being used now for the agenda of others, but it didn't start out that way. She was simply a distressed Mother that wanted to ask her President a question about her dead boy. Had Bush met her demand early on, this would be over - and remember he has refused to talk to anyone that's son or daughter died that doesnot fully agree with his agenda. Are a growing number of "gold star" Moms (and Dads) that have questions about the war - that Bush43 gleefully ignores.

Also, if the rancher lived in Florida, he could have said he felt threatened by the protestors and shot them all - Jeb just signed that into law. So now it is legal for one neighbor to kill another if he can show that he felt threatened. Cute, huh? :dizzy2:

Gawain of Orkeny
08-16-2005, 18:42
Also, if the rancher lived in Florida, he could have said he felt threatened by the protestors and shot them all - Jeb just signed that into law
Wouldnt they have to be on his property? Otherwise you could shoot any kid that looked like a gangster anywhere , anytime.

ICantSpellDawg
08-16-2005, 18:45
I wonder what sort of reaction the fellow might get if he decided to "excercise" his property and gun rights as the Presidential motorcade passed by? Cold slab, anyone?

Say what you want, but this is clearly wrong/stupid, and going out to your property line with a gun to in effect pick a fight will get your a$$ in big trouble, even in Texas. Hearing, but not seeing the gunshot, someone could make the assumption he was a threat and draw their own weapon ordering him to drop his, in which case you have a standoff with firearms. It is Texas afterall, and licensed concealed carry is common. This wasn't some sort of innocent act. Texas is quite tolerant of legitimate self defense, property defense, and firearms use. This is not an example of that.

Him getting a pass from local law enforcement in a small town in Texas...yeah, that's a real shocker. :rolleyes:


where is the trouble?
i havnt seen any charges pressed

if he was acting within his rights then there is no problem here

some people seem to be arguing that even though he did it, seemed to have the legal right to do it where he was (on his property in texas) and has incurred no legal trouble from the action that he broke the law. he did not fire his weapon "across a public road" but rather across FROM a public road on his own property

if the protestors have been there for months and are affecting his ability to excercise his rights as a property owning citizen THAT would be an injustice

if firing his gun on his own property when a protest was not going on is ok and firing his gun when a protest IS going on is not - then months of a public protest that impedes his free excercise of his rights is not acceptable

i agree that this came close to breaking the law - but it did not break the law - the sherriff said so on national television - he isnt some endless authority figure - he answers to someone

and hasnt incured any wrath so far

i dont know - what does a lawyer think about this?

Redleg
08-16-2005, 18:47
Absolutely agreed with everything you said, Red. Right up to the last statement. I agree, that she maybe being used now for the agenda of others, but it didn't start out that way. She was simply a distressed Mother that wanted to ask her President a question about her dead boy. Had Bush met her demand early on, this would be over - and remember he has refused to talk to anyone that's son or daughter died that doesnot fully agree with his agenda. Are a growing number of "gold star" Moms (and Dads) that have questions about the war - that Bush43 gleefully ignores.

Also, if the rancher lived in Florida, he could have said he felt threatened by the protestors and shot them all - Jeb just signed that into law. So now it is legal for one neighbor to kill another if he can show that he felt threatened. Cute, huh? :dizzy2:


Like I said Kafir - if it is a noble cause because of her son - why the professional handlers? She could of camped out at the front gate and gotten a lot more support from people like me - if she did it on her own as a mother.

However she did not show up in Crawford as a distress mother seeking answers - she showed up as a distressed mother with professional handlers looking to make a political statement.

There is more - but that gets into the politics of everything she has stated and done in the last several months. Explain the professional handlers away if you can - but having them speaks volumnes to me about her motives - that its not just about wanting answers about why her son died.

A son who volunteer for duty, re-up, and from all accounts volunteered to leave his assigned post to go on a mission to rescue some of his fellow soldiers. She more then entitled to question the President about the war - its the right that was futher guarnteed (SP) by her son - but I have the same equal right to question her motives when I see the information and evidence of other agenda's by her own actions.

Redleg
08-16-2005, 18:55
It looks like some citizens in the area have more common sense then the knucklehead who tried the shotgun approach

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/16/peace.mom.ap/index.html


The petition with more than 60 signatures was submitted to the McLennan County commission, asking the board to expand a no-parking zone that now bans cars within a few hundred feet of the ranch. If the ordinance passes, demonstrators probably would have to stay in Crawford, which is 7 miles away.

KafirChobee
08-16-2005, 19:00
Wouldnt they have to be on his property? Otherwise you could shoot any kid that looked like a gangster anywhere , anytime.
Nope, it's pretty much any time one feels threatened. Of course it hasn't been challenged, yet. So, I doubt it will stay in affect for very long. It was just one of those feel good laws Jeb likes.

Spetulhu
08-16-2005, 19:18
Assuming he was firing bird shot, the pellets were harmless if shot into the air. And last I checked, firing a gun in the air did not constitute violence by any stretch of the imagination, or the law.


Really? You wouldn't think that it could be a threat of violence, brandishing a gun and firing it?

Red Harvest
08-16-2005, 19:29
some people seem to be arguing that even though he did it, seemed to have the legal right to do it where he was (on his property in texas) and has incurred no legal trouble from the action that he broke the law. he did not fire his weapon "across a public road" but rather across FROM a public road on his own property

Do you think that would hold up had the President's motorcade been passing by and he decided to "protest by discharging a firearm?" He lives next to him you know... This doesn't pass the "smell test." Doesn't really matter what the political orientation of the protesters were does it? Last I checked, citizens were supposed to have the same fundamental rights and protections.



if the protestors have been there for months and are affecting his ability to excercise his rights as a property owning citizen THAT would be an injustice

if firing his gun on his own property when a protest was not going on is ok and firing his gun when a protest IS going on is not - then months of a public protest that impedes his free excercise of his rights is not acceptable

That's all well and good, only it doesn't apply:
1. "starting their second week of demonstrations"
2. How was re really being restricted from using his property? Could he have been shooting from the other side of it? How big is this property? If it is an acre, then maybe.
3. If he was being prevented from preparing for dove season, what sort of targeting shooting was he doing? Firing straight up in the air at nothing...and having a few beers first while watching a crowd. Yeah, this guy shouldn't be given a hunting license either. Idiots like that give the rest of us bad names.
4. Did he attempt to resolve any problems through local law enforcement or even a discussion with the organizers? Something like, "I'm going to be doing some target shooting, don't be alarmed. Just thought you would want to know." That's what most of us out in the sticks do if we have a sensitive neighbor.



i agree that this came close to breaking the law - but it did not break the law - the sherriff said so on national television - he isnt some endless authority figure - he answers to someone


Sheriff's are elected. So he answers to the GOP electorate of his county (Democrat's need not apply.) His political views are unlikely to represent any of those present at the scene other than shotgun Bubba.

As it is up to law enforcement's discretion, it depends more on the location and politics than on the legality or illegality of the act.

Redleg
08-16-2005, 20:01
Sheriff's are elected. So he answers to the GOP electorate of his county (Democrat's need not apply.) His political views are unlikely to represent any of those present at the scene other than shotgun Bubba.

Party politics usually have very little to do with rural county elections - so the shot at the GOP is just another attempt at demonizing the opposition. In such counties as the one Crawford is in - the Sherrif must attempt to appease all the law abiding people and maintain law and order or they do not get re-elected.



As it is up to law enforcement's discretion, it depends more on the location and politics than on the legality or illegality of the act.

Its always up to the law enforcement's discretion - regardles of the politicial afflication of the law enformement representive.

scooter_the_shooter
08-16-2005, 20:54
Really? You wouldn't think that it could be a threat of violence, brandishing a gun and firing it?


Them seeing a gun is not brandishing..He is not threatening them or pointing it at them....It is pointing in the air where it is harmless!!!!!!

Kaiser of Arabia
08-16-2005, 21:10
Hippies always impose themselves on people who actually have jobs and lives.

What do you all think of Sheehan? Anybody have the balls to give their real opinion. ~;)
Sheehan is a traitor. She has no right to impede on the president or his neighbors as she does. This is Amerika. Love it, or get the hell out.

Adrian II
08-16-2005, 21:29
Sheehan is a traitor. She has no right to impede on the president or his neighbors as she does. This is Amerika. Love it, or get the hell out.Fortunately it is not. I keep learning from this thread though. For instance that the word 'agenda' seems to have become short-hand for 'different ideas than the President' in your country. The President has no agenda. Not do the woman's family members who lick his boots in ways that would please Adolf Hitler. It is the woman who has an agenda => is a traitor => is not American.

I was thinking, Kaiser: wouldn't you agree the deceased son was a traitor as well? I mean, with him dying for the country over there in Iraq and having the wrong Mom back home and all? :inquisitive:

Red Harvest
08-16-2005, 21:31
Sheehan is a traitor. She has no right to impede on the president or his neighbors as she does. This is Amerika. Love it, or get the hell out.

While I might not agree with where she is going with this, I think she's paid the price for some respect, including from Mr. Arrogant himself, the President. If she breaks the law (like Dubya's neighbor) then she should be subject to prosecution.

This is America, not "Amerika" and those that want to deny peaceful protest are the ones that should get the hell out. It is not treason to oppose a war, especially when you've lost your child to a misrepresented, mismanaged mess. There are treasonous ways of opposing a war, simply protesting is not one of them.

Perhaps the neighbors should complain about how much Bush is on vacation? Afterall, protestors are only there when he is.

BDC
08-16-2005, 21:42
I thought the whole point of America was that you could protest about whatever you wanted, and that just made you a better American! You can't call someone un-American for protesting, that's what being American is about, freedom of speech and all that.

Red Harvest
08-16-2005, 21:47
I thought the whole point of America was that you could protest about whatever you wanted, and that just made you a better American! You can't call someone un-American for protesting, that's what being American is about, freedom of speech and all that.

Apparently that changed after the 2000 "election." According to some you may only protest if Dubya agrees with you. :dizzy2:

Redleg
08-16-2005, 21:53
Fortunately it is not. I keep learning from this thread though. For instance that the word 'agenda' seems to have become short-hand for 'different ideas than the President' in your country. The President has no agenda. Not do the woman's family members who lick his boots in ways that would please Adolf Hitler. It is the woman who has an agenda => is a traitor => is not American.

When I used the term agenda for Mrs. Sheehan its because with the professional handlers - she has shown by her actions that she has more in mind then a simple talk with the President - ie she has an agenda she wants to accomplish. However I see that you want to assume that I think that the President has no agenda - Every President, in fact every politician has an agenda or they would not be politicians. (But don't let my opinion cloud your blanket generalization.)



I was thinking, Kaiser: wouldn't you agree the deceased son was a traitor as well? I mean, with him dying for the country over there in Iraq and having the wrong Mom back home and all? :inquisitive:

A little below the belt I think ~:eek: Kaiser and a few others are wrong to call Mrs Sheehan a traitor - because she is exercising her rights as a citizen - within the United States, but that comment well smacks of something foul.

Devastatin Dave
08-16-2005, 22:42
And Bush was an ass when it happened. He did not know the name of Ms. Sheehan nor her son's name. You think that is a little problem?

I think the Bush should talk to Sheehan, I mean can't he give up one damn hour of a bike ride to talk to someone. Besides from a purely pragmatic view point it helps him because he talks to her honestly, she either a) leaves, media finds out about missing girl in *insert country* people forget about the protest, Bush wins, b) stays, looks like an ass for getting what she wants and demanding more, losses all credibility except with a few fringe groups, Bush wins.


Check it out...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45800

I guess you can get more love from the media if you trash your dead child's honor and go after Bush. Sorry for your loss Cindy, but now you're just a leftist media whore...
I love her latest rant saying that the terrorist will stop if Isreal got out of "Palistine", if that's not Michael Moore speach, i don't know what is. My how here opinion has changed sine the left has started financing her.

Devastatin Dave
08-16-2005, 23:10
Oh and one more thing...

well, a couple...

If that guy that was shooting off his shot gun in the air, then he needs to be put in jail. A lot of people lose their lives because of irrestponsible dumbasses each year shooting their guns at a wedding. One one last point about good old Cindy... It is an ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE!!! Her son JOINED the military and in fact reenlisted to go to Iraq. It was his decision and knew the risks. I salute him for it. I did 10 years and DECIDED to get out. That's the biggest problem I have with this attention whore. Instead of honoring her son's decision she's basically pissing on his grave. She is in fact going around telling people that this country is not worth dieing for. Osama should hire her because she is doing a better job of spreading his lies than he ever could. Of course I'm sure there is plenty on this board that "understand" where she and Osama are coming from.

Xiahou
08-16-2005, 23:40
The part of the Texas Firearm Law that applies i this instance.

c. It is unlawful to discharge a firearm in a public place or
on or across a public road.

Now depending how close he was to the road or the public place - then he just might of committed a violation of the law.And that's precisely why it was legal. The sheriff indicated the it was fired from and entirely on the guys own property.


Question

Can I legally shoot at people (not on them) with a sniper rifle after taking a few beers if I miss them intentionally, is shooting from my property, and hunt with it so I'm using it for practice for the hunting season?

Would you defend this guys rights too? If no, what's the difference? Hey, in Texas, if they're tresspassing and its after dark, you can even shoot them.

Kaiser of Arabia
08-17-2005, 00:12
Protesting is one thing, making the lives of the President and his neighbors hell is somthing totally different. If someone held a protest on my lawn I'd chase them off with my cavalry saber or Katana. You want to protest? Do it in front of senate for a day. Don't do your best to annoy the s**t out of the president so he gives you the interview.

You lost the election. Get over it.

Redleg
08-17-2005, 00:26
As it ought to be in all states. One's home is one's castle, and they should be able to defend it as they see fit.

Yes one should be able to defend one's home - however what the individual did was not defending his one. It was something else by his own words.

Frankly this just an examble of an irresponsible use of a firearm by an individual. His actions had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment or protection of the home, it was nothing other then an attempt to frighten individuals who were on public land next to his home.

The individual was upset because of the protestors being next to his home - he acted irresponsible, he might be within the law - but his actions were not one of being responsible with a firearm.

He has absolutely no justification for discharging a weapon near a crowd - and even his own words show that it was not about practicing or preparing for Hunting.

Redleg
08-17-2005, 00:28
Protesting is one thing, making the lives of the President and his neighbors hell is somthing totally different. If someone held a protest on my lawn I'd chase them off with my cavalry saber or Katana. You want to protest? Do it in front of senate for a day. Don't do your best to annoy the s**t out of the president so he gives you the interview.

The problem is the protestors were not on his land - but on public land. If you chased protestors with the Katana - you would be arrested and rightly so for reckless endangerment.




You lost the election. Get over it.

Yes some need to get over the fact that President Bush was elected not once but twice - however that does not prevent them from protesting or speaking out on public land.

Red Harvest
08-17-2005, 00:49
As it ought to be in all states. One's home is one's castle, and they should be able to defend it as they see fit.

The section actually reads "trespass" and "to land" IIRC. Would be interesting. Under your interpretation I could just cork those illegally hunting on my property...rather than sneaking up on them and giving them a surprise and ordering them to leave and not return. Tempting just to shoot them, but if we did that, there would be more hunters taken than deer in the average season.

Guess I could have put a hole in a sheriff's deputy too...hunting on my land. My wife suggested as much when she saw him. But I recognized him through the scope at about 400 yards as a former classmate. He was hunting on the back 40 of course, wasn't wearing a uniform, and we saw him sneaking across the neighbor's fence in the woods. He's a nice guy, but he has a real habit of poaching; I already knew that.

I sure would have a stack of bodies after a time...wouldn't make very good eatin' though. I'll stick with common sense when it comes to pulling the trigger, hope some others find a little.

ICantSpellDawg
08-17-2005, 00:50
wouldnt a large angry mob of protestors hanging around ones property constitute a threatening environment?

so he fired a gun - he didnt break any more laws of intimidation than the megaphone wielding mob outside of his house did

Redleg
08-17-2005, 01:27
wouldnt a large angry mob of protestors hanging around ones property constitute a threatening environment?

Did the angry mob of protestors threaten him or his property in any way shape or form?



so he fired a gun - he didnt break any more laws of intimidation than the megaphone wielding mob outside of his house did

Ah but defending his irresponsible and idiotic attempt at intimidation does not support the 2nd Amendment nor does it support a common sense approach at looking at this situation.

Its a case of blind idealog wanting to make the protestors the bad guys and responsible for this individuals stupidity.

The shotgun welding individual was within the law barely in my opinion - however according to the Sherriff he was within the law - but it was still an irresponsible and stupid act by the neighbor because protestors were on public land byside his property. The responsible thing to have done is what other citizens have already done - filed a complaint with the county to get the laws changed.

ICantSpellDawg
08-17-2005, 02:19
Did the angry mob of protestors threaten him or his property in any way shape or form?



Ah but defending his irresponsible and idiotic attempt at intimidation does not support the 2nd Amendment nor does it support a common sense approach at looking at this situation.

Its a case of blind idealog wanting to make the protestors the bad guys and responsible for this individuals stupidity.

The shotgun welding individual was within the law barely in my opinion - however according to the Sherriff he was within the law - but it was still an irresponsible and stupid act by the neighbor because protestors were on public land byside his property. The responsible thing to have done is what other citizens have already done - filed a complaint with the county to get the laws changed.


i understand that it would have been the "responsible" thing to do, but he didn't break any laws and he probably had a good time doing what he did. I don't particularly like anti-war protestors.

I didn't say that he should have shot AT them - but i am a firm believer in getting your point across to a crowd while almost breaking the law, but not quite. I never said that they didn't have the right to protest - i am just saying that he had the "right" to fire his weapon

i am sure that both of those legal things are annoying

Papewaio
08-17-2005, 02:25
Well the farmer had better prey that a oil or mineral company doesn't find a load under his property... because then he would see how much he really 'owns' the land... also default on a mortgage... or fail to pay rates... or a major roadworks go through...

IrishMike
08-17-2005, 02:47
Sheehan is a traitor. She has no right to impede on the president or his neighbors as she does. This is Amerika. Love it, or get the hell out.

Wait, did the people not elect him? Does he not answer to the people? Last time I checked the constitution said that we were his boss, not that he was our boss. So shouldn't he be able to just talk to this girl for a few moments? After all he has to justify things to us, not we have to serve him blindly. He doesn't have to give an arm or make a huge effort, its just a talk. I don't know about the rest of you, but last time I checked people talk all the time, so..... it should be that hard to talk to this women. Unless he feels guilty about something.

But to say that she is impedeing him is quite absurd. She is just taking it up to another level in actually voicing an opinion, whether it be right or wrong is not the point. The point is I don't care if he met her 2,000 times before, its his responsibility to the people to be avaliable after all he does work for us.

Papewaio
08-17-2005, 03:06
Isn't the whole concept of the right to have arms is so you can overthrow an unjust government?

So the farmer has the right to arms is tied to the protestors right to protest.

Remove the right for the protestors to protest and then the reason to have arms gets activated and a revolution starts... ~:eek:

ICantSpellDawg
08-17-2005, 03:17
Isn't the whole concept of the right to have arms is so you can overthrow an unjust government?

So the farmer has the right to arms is tied to the protestors right to protest.

Remove the right for the protestors to protest and then the reason to have arms gets activated and a revolution starts... ~:eek:


i dont believe that they should not have the right to protest
i just believe that property owners in certain parts of the country should be able to discharge weapons wherever theyd like on their property whenever theyd like unless the law says not to

otherwise the protestors would be curtailing a private citizens rights on his own property

i also think that private harrassment of a public display is ok as long as it is within the realm of what is legal

Seamus Fermanagh
08-17-2005, 03:19
A rich discussion do far!

Sheehan has a perfect right to advance her views in any lawful way she wishes. Her heart is very much behind her words and it is pretty sharp of the left wing propagandists to take up her cause here. If Bush meets with her, she gets to tell him he's wrong on everything with a national audience, if he doesn't, they can label him as a callous imperialist. Putting your political opponent in a lose/lose situation is the whole point.

I think she's distraught and departing from the rational, but that's only my opinion.

Our Dove Hunter, though probably within his legal rights in a strict sense (TX isn't a particularly restrictive state on gun issues), isn't exactly a poster-child for maturity. Alcohol and firearms are rarely -- never -- a good combo.

If the protest is on a public right of way, got their permit, and aren't constituting a public hazard, "Bubba" will just have to learn to cope.


As to gunfire and trespass, it varies with the state/locality in question. In some places you can drop 'em without warning for being on your property, in others, you can shoot them if the represent a direct threat to your safety or ignore a warning to depart, and in a few other places you can't shoot them if they're running away -- even if they have your computer and TW series games in their arms as they skedaddle.

In most locales, however, the firecrackers would be illegal, even on your own land. You might be justified in shooting them depending on the situation, but lobbing M-80's at them would get you jailed.

SF

PanzerJaeger
08-17-2005, 06:05
So shouldn't he be able to just talk to this girl for a few moments?

She already did! And she said he was very compassionate! THis is how the MSM distorts things..

Why on earth would Bush want to talk to a whore of miky moore? She had her chance before she turned to moores tit.

Shes nothing but a hack and is using her sons death to push an agenda he didnt even believe in.. as witnessed by his father and stepmother and stepfather, who is divorcing her.

Do a little research, dont get your news from the MSM, and you'll see shes in bed with the far left and her son wouldnt even approve of her.

JimBob
08-17-2005, 06:12
Sheehan is a traitor. She has no right to impede on the president or his neighbors as she does. This is Amerika. Love it, or get the hell out.
You wanna talk traitors? Talk about the guy who runs over the crosses with soldier's names on them (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4158196.stm) . But more to the point, she has every right to do what she does, it is refered to as civil disobedience, make a ruckus and people notice. When you sign up for the Presidency you don't go in thinking people are gonna give you a free ride. I protest, I disagree, does that mean I hate America?


At DDave, I've heard rumblings of story chaging in the past day or two. Apparently there's a transcript floating around of what she had to say about the meeting, until I find and digest that I'm not going to say anything for fear of putting my foot in my mouth

(side note: why is there no smiley for that? :footinmouth: would be the most used on the boards)

Adrian II
08-17-2005, 06:31
When I used the term agenda for Mrs. Sheehan its because with the professional handlers - she has shown by her actions that she has more in mind then a simple talk with the President - ie she has an agenda she wants to accomplish. However I see that you want to assume that I think that the President has no agenda - Every President, in fact every politician has an agenda or they would not be politicians. (But don't let my opinion cloud your blanket generalization.)



A little below the belt I think ~:eek: Kaiser and a few others are wrong to call Mrs Sheehan a traitor - because she is exercising her rights as a citizen - within the United States, but that comment well smacks of something foul.Agenda, professional handlers, foul play -- whichever way you put it, it looks like blaming the victim to me. And as for Bush, I don't think Abe Lincoln would have treated the mother of a dead Union soldier this way. Bush gives the impression that he is afraid of her. And Sheehan is starting to make the news the world over.

bmolsson
08-17-2005, 07:38
Wouldnt they have to be on his property?

Maybe he intended to purchase the property..... ~;)

bmolsson
08-17-2005, 07:39
Firing weapons near a crowd - even in the air shows reckless disregard for your fellow human beings. Its irresponsible and idiotic. Serves no purpose other then an attempt to scare other people. Therefor its not a non-violent demonstration.


Agree fully....

The demonstration might have been stupid, illegal or what ever. It doesn't change the responsibility of the gun owner...

Adrian II
08-17-2005, 09:44
I just read that another neighbour has offered the demonstrators an acre of his land for their campsite. Seems that even the neighbours are falling out over the President's policies now...

I don't believe this neighbour has fired his gun in the vicinity of the President yet. Why not? It' s dove season for everyone. ~:handball:

Papewaio
08-17-2005, 09:45
I don't believe this neighbour has fired his gun in the vicinity of the President yet. Why not? It' s dove season for everyone. ~:handball:

Because the Democrats are Doves while the Republicans are Hawks. ~:handball:

Redleg
08-17-2005, 12:14
Agenda, professional handlers, foul play -- whichever way you put it, it looks like blaming the victim to me.

The thing is she is not a victim. Once the professional handlers came into play - its all about politics. The victim of war was her son



And as for Bush, I don't think Abe Lincoln would have treated the mother of a dead Union soldier this way. Bush gives the impression that he is afraid of her. And Sheehan is starting to make the news the world over.

Lincoln would have had her arrested and sent to the south.

Adrian II
08-17-2005, 12:37
The thing is she is not a victim. (..) The victim of war was her son.You wanna play blind? OK, end of discussion.

Redleg
08-17-2005, 15:20
You wanna play blind? OK, end of discussion.


Come on now Adrian - you can't be that idealogical baised.

Again how is she the victim? She, Mrs Sheehan has decided to protest the war with professional handlers using the death of her son to support her cause. If she was just a victim - she would not need professional and organized handlers to protest the death of her son in war. Her actions have shown that she is far from being a victim. You might want to check out what the rest of the family has to say on the issue

In fact if you bother to review all of what she has said and done - it begins to paint a picture of someone who is not a victim - but something else.

However I find it amusing that instead of discussing the issue - you say end of discussion.

Adrian II
08-17-2005, 17:07
Lincoln would have had her arrested and sent to the south.You didn't research that, did you? Nor did I, but I Googled around and found a little biographical gem, a tear-jerker of the kind that usually bears only a tenuous relationship to reality.


Shortly after the battle of Gettysburg, Edward, the elderly White House usher, showed a careworn, tearful woman into Lincoln’s office. Her husband and both of her sons were in the Army, she explained, and she was finding it hard to survive. Could she have one of her sons back?
The way she told her story moved him. He stood by the fire, his head low, keeping a grip on his emotions. ‘I have two [sons] and you have none,” he murmured. He stepped over to his desk and composed an order that would secure her youngest son’s discharge.
A few days later, Edward came to tell him, “That woman, Mr. President, is here again and still crying.”
“Let her in.”
The grief-stricken mother confronted him. She had found her son’s regiment, she told Lincoln, only to be informed that he had just died of wounds suffered in the battle of Gettysburg. Could she not have her surviving son.
Again he said softly, “I have two and you have none.” He sat down to write out another order. She stood beside him, and as he wrote, she stroked his wild mane, shooting in all directions and showing gray tints, as a mother might stroke a child’s. He stood up and thrust the order into her hands. He did not trust himself to say more than “There!” Then he hurried out of the room before he gave way to tears.

Geoffrey Perret, Lincoln’s War (Random House, 2004), pp. 346-347; from Michael Burlingame, ed., An Oral History of Abraham Lincoln (Carbondale IL, 1996), pp. 81-82
Well, there we have it -- good ol' Abe comforting a war widow and granting her family no less than two discharges. Even if we take this story with a lump of salt -- and we have to -- you will agree that it is a far cry from the callous treatment you suggested.

Redleg
08-17-2005, 17:29
You didn't research that, did you? Nor did I, but I Googled around and found a little biographical gem, a tear-jerker of the kind that usually bears only a tenuous relationship to reality.


Shortly after the battle of Gettysburg, Edward, the elderly White House usher, showed a careworn, tearful woman into Lincoln’s office. Her husband and both of her sons were in the Army, she explained, and she was finding it hard to survive. Could she have one of her sons back?
The way she told her story moved him. He stood by the fire, his head low, keeping a grip on his emotions. ‘I have two [sons] and you have none,” he murmured. He stepped over to his desk and composed an order that would secure her youngest son’s discharge.
A few days later, Edward came to tell him, “That woman, Mr. President, is here again and still crying.”
“Let her in.”
The grief-stricken mother confronted him. She had found her son’s regiment, she told Lincoln, only to be informed that he had just died of wounds suffered in the battle of Gettysburg. Could she not have her surviving son.
Again he said softly, “I have two and you have none.” He sat down to write out another order. She stood beside him, and as he wrote, she stroked his wild mane, shooting in all directions and showing gray tints, as a mother might stroke a child’s. He stood up and thrust the order into her hands. He did not trust himself to say more than “There!” Then he hurried out of the room before he gave way to tears.

Geoffrey Perret, Lincoln’s War (Random House, 2004), pp. 346-347; from Michael Burlingame, ed., An Oral History of Abraham Lincoln (Carbondale IL, 1996), pp. 81-82
Well, there we have it -- good ol' Abe comforting a war widow and granting her family no less than two discharges. Even if we take this story with a lump of salt -- and we have to -- you will agree that it is a far cry from the callous treatment you suggested.

Oh wait - then you will like this one. My research was alittle more then yours. From a interesting little book in my collection at home.




These mass deportations were dramatic and emotional but the relatively unheralded by the press. The banishment of a former Congressman from Ohio, attracted far more public interest.

Less then a month after Maj. Gen. Ambrose Burnside has used his Order No. 38 to forbid persons within his Department of the Ohio to express sympathy for the Southern cause, on May 4, 1963, a crowd gathered to hear a speech by Clement L. Vallandigham. The former officeholder said that he, "spit upon the Burnside order and trampled it under his feet." Denouncing Lincoln as a dictator, he called for an armistice that would end the fighting.

Late that night solders under Burnside's command broke down the door of Vallandigham's residence and carted him off to a military prison. Tried by the commission of eight officers, he was convicted of "publicly expressing sentiments designed to hinder suppression of rebellion."

Lincoln was placed in the difficult position of deciding whether to support the harsh military verdict or to set it aside. Concluding that the planned punishment of Ballandigham would do more harm then good, he directed that hte culprit be banished into Confederate Territory.

now this part is even more interesting

Placed aboard the gunboat Exchange at Cincinnati, the former lawmaker eventually reached the headquarters of the Union Army at Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Since he still strongly voicd his loyalty to the Union whose policies he challenged, he found himself unwanted by the Secessionist. Ordered off Confederate soil, he made a long and circuitous journey to Canada as the only man banished from both the United States and the Confederate States.

And you might want to read this -


Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus

Abraham Lincoln
September 24, 1862
Printer-Friendly Version

Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A PROCLAMATION

Whereas, it has become necessary to call into service not only volunteers but also portions of the militia of the States by draft in order to suppress the insurrection existing in the United States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of law from hindering this measure and from giving aid and comfort in various ways to the insurrection;

Now, therefore, be it ordered, first, that during the existing insurrection and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by Courts Martial or Military Commission:

Second. That the Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement by any military authority of by the sentence of any Court Martial or Military Commission.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington this twenty fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the 87th.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.



http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=425

Adrian II
08-17-2005, 17:57
My research was a little more then yours.Those quotes tell us nothing about Lincoln's attitude toward mothers of dead Union soldiers, do they? They show that Lincoln had little time for people who openly sided with the enemy. No purprise there, I'm afraid.

In fact, what you are suggesting here is that Mrs Sheehan is siding with Saddam or Al-Zarqawi, which to me seems to be even further from the truth than anything else you wrote about her.

Redleg
08-17-2005, 18:26
Those quotes tell us nothing about Lincoln's attitude toward mothers of dead Union soldiers, do they? They show that Lincoln had little time for people who openly sided with the enemy. No purprise there, I'm afraid.

Lincoln would have had little time for Mrs. Sheehan - other then to feel sorry for the loss of her child. Which is exactly what the Suspending of Writ of Habeas Corpus shows. Linclon had the measure signed to squash any protesting of his action that he or his generals deemed necessary. There is a big difference from getting the President to have emptahy and sympothy for the loss of your loved one - and using the loss of your love one to protest. By all accounts of the Civil War - Mrs Sheehan would of been arrested with the Writ of Habeas Corpus having been signed by Lincoln - either at his direction or most likely under the direction of one of the Military officers under his command.

I can reference many instances were civilians were arrested for protesting the war which is one of the reason for the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus



In fact, what you are suggesting here is that Mrs Sheehan is siding with Saddam or Al-Zarqawi, which to me seems to be even further from the truth than anything else you wrote about her.

That is not what I have stated - I what I have said is her use of professional handlers show that she is pursueing an agenda beyond just getting answers about why her son died from the President. BTW here is what I initially stated about Mrs. Sheehan

And in that they are wrong. If you think this woman is doing it for a noble cause - well that is fine, But, when an individual has professional handlers well it shows something about her agenda

You are assuming facts not in evidence in the discussion. I question her motives not her loyalties.

KafirChobee
08-17-2005, 18:53
It is always the same. During the Vietnam conflict if one protested the war they were labeled "bleeding-heart-liberal-commies" by the honorable VP Agnew - others took up his battle cry, even after he was dismissed on corruption charges. That is until the "silent majority" proved to be against the war as much as the vocal college students and "VN vets against the war". When the middle class began turning up at the rallys, it became difficult to claim they were all a buncha traitors to the noble cause of a free Vietnam (even tho it had been ruled by one military junta after another after the assassination of Diem) then. But, for some it was impossible to leave the "traitor" philosophy and turn to one of reason (or atleast, acknowledgement that we were in an unwinnable war). It remains the same today. Only today, it has yet to be proven that we can leave safely and lose what ever we think we have gained (access to the northern oil fields), a military hold in the middle-east (Haliburton has been given contracts to build 14 permanent bases in Iraq - but, you already know that).

To protest against an illegal war, is not being a traitor - it is a patriotic stance against the corruption that led our boys to war without a true reason or justifiable purpose. Which is now: the spread of democracy ... vs the original that Saddam was 45 minutes away with WMD he intended to use to destroy us (our way of life? - which they hate us for according to Bush43).

To equate that Mrs. Sheehan's actions are equal to siding with the enemy is ludicrous. It is simply bringing out the old format used in the Vietnam War (by the same sponsors of military incursions) to justify their actions by demonizing anyone that disagrees with them. It works for a while, until those that originally agreed with their premise see thru it - as the toll of soldiers lives being lost can no longer be justified by accusing others for it. Sooner than later, Bush43 must take responsability for his actions - I believe that is all Mrs. Sheehan is asking for.

Bush, is again the deer in the headlights - as he was on 9/11 for 7 minutes in a classroom after being told "America is under attack". He doesn't know how to respond, so he figures if he does nothing and leaves it to his minions to defile Mrs. Sheehan as being a tool for his enemies - it will all just go away. Like the DeLay affair, the Roves affair, the WMD, his and Cheney's ties to Haliburton and Enron, etc, etc, etc. He is banking on the short term memories of his constituents to do as they have always done - follow blindly and believe the propagations of the right-wing media.

It may work, again. Who knows? Expect a new change of menu soon - is how they generally get something off the front page and back on the obituaries where they believe they belong. Maybe they can bring back the boat-people ads against Kerry. What ever it will be, it will have a modecum of truth to it, but be trailed by a string of innuendo and lies. Is how they work, if you haven't noticed. ~D

Adrian II
08-17-2005, 20:08
Lincoln would have had little time for Mrs. Sheehan - other then to feel sorry for the loss of her child. Which is exactly what the Suspending of Writ of Habeas Corpus shows.The suspension was issued to deal with people who 'aided and comforted the enemy', not with bereaved mothers who questioned the necessity of their sons' deaths. In fact I dare you to come up with one example of the latter in Lincoln's career. He was tough whenever it was necessary, but he was also a gentleman and he was compassionate whenever it was possible in ways that our own day and age seems to have forgotten -- in that sense, the historians I quoted surely have it right.
I question her motives not her loyalties.And I question the President's motives. I saw a letter in The New York Times that adequately sums up what is wrong in that Crawford picture:


A Soldier's Mother Waits in Crawford (5 Letters)
Published: August 17, 2005
To the Editor:

I found President Bush's comments last Saturday callous when he defended his decision not to meet with Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother of a soldier killed in Iraq.

"I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say," he said.

But then this president, under whose orders more than 1,840 of our troops will never be able to go on with their lives, had the temerity to add, "But I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life."

In "Lives Blown Apart" (column, Aug. 15), Bob Herbert recounts the heroic story of a soldier, Cpl. Bobby Rosendahl, who has been wounded and maimed in Iraq - one of more than 10,000 similar casualties.

His brave mother says that she will stay with her son until he "is ready to go on with his life."

There are various ways a person "can go on with his life." The way the true heroes of this unfortunate war, and their loved ones, are - or are not - going on with their lives should be honored with compassion.

PanzerJaeger
08-17-2005, 20:18
This is so stupid. He met with her, just like every other parent who requests time with her! Here is what she said afterward:


'I now know [Bush is] sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith. For the first time in 11 weeks, we felt whole again. That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together.'

Why in the world would he give her extra priveledges after shes obviously become a whore of michael moore? Why would he allow her to spin any meeting they had?

The left smells blood, and as usual, distorts things until they get their kill. :no:

Redleg
08-17-2005, 20:42
The suspension was issued to deal with people who 'aided and comforted the enemy', not with bereaved mothers who questioned the necessity of their sons' deaths. In fact I dare you to come up with one example of the latter in Lincoln's career. He was tough whenever it was necessary, but he was also a gentleman and he was compassionate whenever it was possible in ways that our own day and age seems to have forgotten -- in that sense, the historians I quoted surely have it right.


And would you care to quess how many anti-war protestors were arrested because of that suspension. It seems that you want to use Lincoln's compassion to widows and mothers of soldiers who were killed from the reality of how the anti-war protestors were treated by the North. You brought Lincoln into the discussion to make a point about compassion - but face it Lincoln's adminstration was much worse on protestors and the anti-war crowd then Bush. Think the New York roits which were partly based upon opposition to the draft laws - where soldiers fired into the crowd.



And I question the President's motives. I saw a letter in The New York Times that adequately sums up what is wrong in that Crawford picture:


A Soldier's Mother Waits in Crawford (5 Letters)
Published: August 17, 2005
To the Editor:

I found President Bush's comments last Saturday callous when he defended his decision not to meet with Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother of a soldier killed in Iraq.

"I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say," he said.

But then this president, under whose orders more than 1,840 of our troops will never be able to go on with their lives, had the temerity to add, "But I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life."

In "Lives Blown Apart" (column, Aug. 15), Bob Herbert recounts the heroic story of a soldier, Cpl. Bobby Rosendahl, who has been wounded and maimed in Iraq - one of more than 10,000 similar casualties.

His brave mother says that she will stay with her son until he "is ready to go on with his life."

There are various ways a person "can go on with his life." The way the true heroes of this unfortunate war, and their loved ones, are - or are not - going on with their lives should be honored with compassion.

Yes indeed question President Bush's intent - that is your right granted by your government and more important to Mrs. Sheehan it is her right granted by the constitution of this nation. It also gives me the right to question her motives and statement under that same condition.

When she makes her issue into a political agenda - which she has by her own statements - it gives me the right to discuss her agenda in civil discourse by the same amendment that allows her to question the President.

I find it amazing that you defend her right to question the President - a right that I have not advocating being denied her, but it seems from your tone and your posts - that you would like to deny me the right to question her motives.

How very noble of you.

Adrian II
08-17-2005, 20:46
The left smells blood, and as usual, distorts things until they get their kill. :no:Aren't we distorting things a little bit ourselves, Panzerjager? Here is the wording of an original story (http://www.thereporter.com/republished) in The Reporter after the Sheehans visited to the President:


Since learning in April that their son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, had been killed in Iraq, life has been everything but normal for the Sheehan family of Vacaville. Casey's parents, Cindy and Patrick, as well as their three children, have attended event after event honoring the soldier both locally and abroad, received countless letters of support and fielded questions from reporters across the country. "That's the way our whole lives have been since April 4," Patrick said. "It's been surreal."
[snip]
The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected. For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle. For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again. "That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," Cindy said.

So it was the trip home with her husband -- a much-needed reprieve after months of commemorative events and reporters' questions -- that made them feel whole again. But they were critical even then. Read on:


"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."
The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey's sacrifice would make the world a safer place. But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election.
Now she is back and she wants an answer to those 'difficult questions'. And 60% of Americans want to hear that answer, too. That is of course the real problem that Bush is facing. Until now he managed to be seen siding, shoulder to shoulder, with the armed forces and their families. Now that facade is being pierced by those very same people.

Oh, and writing on someone's blog doesn't make her a whore. You should wash your mouth for that, young man, if only because this is a PG13 site. At least, that is what I am told by moderators every time I accidentally use that four-letter word for excrement.

Redleg
08-17-2005, 21:19
Oh Adrain you should of dug up that old article - lets go back to comparing Lincoln's compassion with President Bush's. You alluded to the theory that President Bush is solely lacking in that area as regards to that aspect.

In your own words


Well, there we have it -- good ol' Abe comforting a war widow and granting her family no less than two discharges. Even if we take this story with a lump of salt -- and we have to -- you will agree that it is a far cry from the callous treatment you suggested.

It seems old George Bush is not near as callous as your attempting to make him out to be. From the article you linked


"We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us," Pat said.

Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.

"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."

The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.



Futhermore you truely are not as well versed on Lincoln as you need to be to make such statements


Those quotes tell us nothing about Lincoln's attitude toward mothers of dead Union soldiers, do they? They show that Lincoln had little time for people who openly sided with the enemy. No purprise there, I'm afraid.

He also had little time for people who were openly against the war, nor those who were against the draft. In fact one can say he even more ruthless then the current adminstration since he did suspend the Writ of Hapeas Corpus

Seamus Fermanagh
08-17-2005, 21:35
Compassion is no longer the issue.

The moment she took her case to the media and to the blogs, meeting with her ceased to be a useful choice.

If Bush meets with her, he allows her to bash him, berate him, and attack his policy with him as a centerpiece. She then goes beyond the status of Bush detractor and becomes anti-Bush icon -- an even more powerful media tool to use in 2006.

She's doing that now, but has no centerpiece, which somehwat limits the impact.

If he doesn't meet with her, Bush is pilloried no worse than he will be anyway and has a greater chance of seeing this story die off in 3-10 days rather than 3-6 weeks. This would also limit the 2006 impact.

SF

PanzerJaeger
08-17-2005, 21:44
Aren't we distorting things a little bit ourselves, Panzerjager?

Only as much as you are - as Redleg pointed out. ~;) She met with him and said exactly what I posted she said. Now shes changed her story after meeting with moore. The soldier's father, stepfather, and stepmother completely disagree with what she is doing and state emphatically that that would not be what the soldier wanted his death to be used for.


Oh, and writing on someone's blog doesn't make her a whore. You should wash your mouth for that, young man, if only because this is a PG13 site. At least, that is what I am told by moderators every time I accidentally use that four-letter word for excrement.

I dont know any better word to describe her with. To use your own son's death to make political points directly counter to his beliefs simply because miky and the left tell her to is disgusting. Would gutter tramp be a better description for such a horrible person?

Adrian II
08-17-2005, 22:19
It seems that you want to use Lincoln's compassion to widows and mothers of soldiers who were killed from the reality of how the anti-war protestors were treated by the North.I quoted from a history book on Lincoln's compassion with a war widow; you haven't come up with a single quote on that issue at all. Sure, Lincoln could be tough when necessary. On the other hand he was known for his clemency with court-martialled soldiers. His character wasn't black and white as you paint it. I am sure he would have had no trouble explaining the case for war to a widow. That is another difference between him and Bush.
(..) you would like to deny me the right to question her motives.I am not denying your rights or anyone else's.

I question the President's motives. He is referring to the sacrifice of American soldiers all the time and justifying the continued military presence in Iraq with their sacrifice, so why couldn't Sheehan question the sacrifice of her own son in return? She is making a political point, of course, but for her and a growing number of other parents it is a personal matter as well. The two can not be separated. And the opinion of other Sheehan family members is neither here nor there. The whole affair is politically painful and damaging because 60% of the nation is watching over Sheehan's shoulder. That's what is bugging most Republican papers and bloggists, and that is why you get these references to Sheehan as a traitor, a whore, and what not. That is character assassination.

Redleg
08-17-2005, 23:04
I quoted from a history book on Lincoln's compassion with a war widow; you haven't come up with a single quote on that issue at all. Sure, Lincoln could be tough when necessary. On the other hand he was known for his clemency with court-martialled soldiers. His character wasn't black and white as you paint it. I am sure he would have had no trouble explaining the case for war to a widow. That is another difference between him and Bush.I am not denying your rights or anyone else's.

That is because I do not need to come up with a quote about Lincoln's compassion - I don't doubt he was a compassionate person. The quotes I used show that he was more strict on anti-war protestors - to include the draft protestors then President Bush could even dream of being. Lincoln had people arrested for protesting the war by proxy most of the time. But he did suspend the Writ of Hapeas Corpus with the provision to (taken straight from the linked document already posted) their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, which seems to be a point you first brought up and now want to ignore. But then that is my opinion on what you wrote in this paragraph,
And as for Bush, I don't think Abe Lincoln would have treated the mother of a dead Union soldier this way. Bush gives the impression that he is afraid of her. And Sheehan is starting to make the news the world over.

Like I stated initially Lincoln would have arrested her for her action after the initial meeting.



I question the President's motives. He is referring to the sacrifice of American soldiers all the time and justifying the continued military presence in Iraq with their sacrifice, so why couldn't Sheehan question the sacrifice of her own son in return? She is making a political point, of course, but for her and a growing number of other parents it is a personal matter as well. The two can not be separated. And the opinion of other Sheehan family members is neither here nor there. The whole affair is politically painful and damaging because 60% of the nation is watching over Sheehan's shoulder. That's what is bugging most Republican papers and bloggists, and that is why you get these references to Sheehan as a traitor, a whore, and what not. That is character assassination.

No problem - but you also must allow me to critize her postion without demonizing me. I have not made a character assassination on this individual - I disagree with her, I question her motives - but unlike other people I refuse to demonize her because she questions the President. She is entitled to question the President - I got absolutely no problem with her sitting out by the Crawford Ranch to present her case everyday to the President. But at the same time she is doing it - I get to question her motives and her actions because she is placing herself in the spotlight for me to look at.

Devastatin Dave
08-18-2005, 04:00
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

Hey, can we give her an honorary membership to the Guild, she's fit right in it appears. ~D
I guess she still has not figured out that her son CHOSE to join the military. Oh well, another lefty nutcase getting a free pass by the Main Stream Media here in the States, nothing new... ~:handball:

Goofball
08-18-2005, 22:50
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

Hey, can we give her an honorary membership to the Guild, she's fit right in it appears. ~D
I guess she still has not figured out that her son CHOSE to join the military. Oh well, another lefty nutcase getting a free pass by the Main Stream Media here in the States, nothing new... ~:handball:

Perhaps Ms. Sheehan isn't quite as fringe as the right would like to make her out to be:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1124315413002&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968705899037&t=TS_Home&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes


In groups as small as 20 and as large as 1,000, Americans massed silently in almost 1,600 different locations last night, lighting candles of support for a woman who has become a catalyst for those opposed to the war in Iraq.

and:


Today, Sheehan and her supporters are moving their encampment even closer to the Bush ranch.

Fred Mattlage, a Vietnam veteran and neighbour of Bush who opposes the Iraq war, has offered them the use of his land, which is only about 1.5 kilometres from the president's vacation home.

Don Corleone
08-18-2005, 22:57
First of all, Goofy, those numbers the Star is waving around came from MoveOn.Org. As they started the whole protest movemont, I'd hardly call them unbiased.

But let's give them their due. Let's really make our estimate in their favor.... 1600 vigils of 1000 members apiece (and my guess is only 1 or 2 were that large) still only adds up to 1.6million people. That's not even 0.5% of the population. Hell, the American Communist Party gets about 2,000,000 votes in national elections!

That being said, I feel bad for her. I think she's being manipulated by the anti-war movement, and when the grief settles, and she can see straight, she'll still hate the war, she'll still hate Bush, but, when faced with her accusations of "we're using nuclear weapons on the insurgents in Iraq" and "it wasn't the arabs that perpetrated 9/11, but Bush himself", she's going to ask herself "what the hell was I thinking?"

Looks like she's given up, btw. Drudgeport is reporting she's packing it in.

Goofball
08-18-2005, 23:12
First of all, Goofy, those numbers the Star is waving around came from MoveOn.Org. As they started the whole protest movemont, I'd hardly call them unbiased.

But let's give them their due. Let's really make our estimate in their favor.... 1600 vigils of 1000 members apiece (and my guess is only 1 or 2 were that large) still only adds up to 1.6million people. That's not even 0.5% of the population.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't your last two Presidential elections decided by equally skinny margins?

Don Corleone
08-18-2005, 23:14
That's a delta, not a total number. And again, 1.6million vigil-antes is a hell of an estimation in their favor. ~D

Seamus Fermanagh
08-18-2005, 23:40
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't your last two Presidential elections decided by equally skinny margins?

Yes. The critical vote in Florida in 2000 featured a Bush win by fewer than 2000 votes -- with some estimates putting the margin below 500.

In 2004, Bush won Ohio -- the critical swing state -- by fewer than 160,000 votes. Had 80k switched direction.....



That being acknowledged, I duspect the Don is quite correct in that the 1k average is generous. With a population of roughly 280 millions (+10-20 million unregistered guests ~;) ), that's not exactly a powerful movement.

You want big numbers? Ask a typical group of yanks to recount the latest events in the Pitt - Anniston - Jolie affair or to give you the details on the McNabb - Owens feud. Relatively minor issues like life and death in Iraq and the possibility of democracy in the Middle East excite the news junkies but leave most of the population non-plussed.

SF

Del Arroyo
08-19-2005, 01:53
I hate to butt in, and I don't have time to read all of the lengthening back and forth between Redled and AdrianII-- but I have some comments.

To AdrianII-- Redleg has a point. There is a big difference between expressing grief and EXPLOITING grief. Sheehan is exploiting grief. She probably enjoys the attention and is seduced by the idea that she is doing something important. But she has compromised her integrity.

And, having read a bit about the civil war, I can concur that Sheehan's protest would have fallen under the definition of "aiding and comforting" the enemy in the minds of Union men at the time. Though not everyone who expressed dissent in the North was in fact silenced-- this was one fact which U.S. Grant commented on with annoyance (not protest) in his memoirs, while noting that the South seemed to be much stricter on this count.

To Redleg-- While your references to the Civil War are accurate, and while I realize you didn't bring it into the discussion, I will say that the Civil War was, in fact, a civil war. Think about it. It is a very different situation from a war against an external enemy.

DA

Redleg
08-19-2005, 02:22
To Redleg-- While your references to the Civil War are accurate, and while I realize you didn't bring it into the discussion, I will say that the Civil War was, in fact, a civil war. Think about it. It is a very different situation from a war against an external enemy.

DA


Oh I am very well aware what the differences are between the two conflicts. The context of the discussion with AdrianII was what would Lincoln have done with Mrs. Sheehan.

Aenlic
08-20-2005, 05:07
As a disabled vet, I feel it should be mandatory for all able-bodied jingoistic, slogan-mouthing, war-loving, pseudo-patriotic, nationalistic, flag-draped chicken hawks to get their butts down to the local recruiter and join up. Tell them you want to be a scout in the Army or a forward observer in the Marines. If you're a pro-war American of the right age, then shut up and put your life where your mouth is. Or you could just be a 5 time deferment like Dick Cheney and just send other people off to die for your oil. What are you waiting for? Go on! We're waiting...

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Strike For The South
08-20-2005, 05:29
Just because someone supports the war dosent meen there a Chicken Hawk for some people its not feasible did you know only 59% of Americans age 17-25 would be Allowed into the military not to mention some of them have other circumstances. If you're agisant the war or how the president runs it fine just don't demonize a whole group

Redleg
08-20-2005, 05:56
As a disabled vet, I feel it should be mandatory for all able-bodied jingoistic, slogan-mouthing, war-loving, pseudo-patriotic, nationalistic, flag-draped chicken hawks to get their butts down to the local recruiter and join up. Tell them you want to be a scout in the Army or a forward observer in the Marines. If you're a pro-war American of the right age, then shut up and put your life where your mouth is. Or you could just be a 5 time deferment like Dick Cheney and just send other people off to die for your oil. What are you waiting for? Go on! We're waiting...

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Well since I am a disable vet myself - spent 12 years in the military in the Field Artillery served in combat in Desert Storm - and support the war. Am I a Chickenhawk.

Then my bother has done even more then I. A combat tour during Desert Storm, two peacekeeping tours to Bosina and Kosovo, and is currently in Kuwait training the Kuwaiti Military - about to return to the states to be assigned to a division about to go to Iraq - also supports the war - is he a Chickenhawk also.

You said something in another thread - but it seems here your not abiding by your own advice.

Gawain of Orkeny
08-20-2005, 06:35
Better to be a Chickenhawk than just plain chicken ~D

Aenlic
08-20-2005, 12:52
Now see? There some of you go again. Did I mention names? If you are of the right age to join the military and you're able to serve and you're rah-rah for the war and you haven't tried to sign up in spite of the desperate need for new recruits in the military right now, then you are a chicken hawk. If the military turns you down, then fine. There is no other excuse for letting someone else do your fighting. If you're in college, then put it off, go see your recruiter. It's that simple. If you don't meet ALL of those conditions, then you aren't a chicken hawk. Could it possibly be more clear? Those of you claiming my post fits you personally and then arguing with the above are having some difficulty with reading comprehension. I suggest remedial reading. ~D

If you're pro-war and otherwise able to serve but you're in college, join the ROTC.

If you're pro-war and otherwise able to serve but you're making more money in the private sector and don't want to take lower military pay, then you're a scumbag chickenhawk letting others die for your cause while you enrich yourself.

Did I say that just because someone supports the war, then they're a chicken hawk? No. Duh.

Did I say that someone who supports the war and has already served in the military or is planning to serve or can't get in because of physical restrictions, etc is a chicken hawk? No. Duh.

Did I say that those who are able and are pro-war and go about pretending to be patriotic and then don't serve when they could serve are chicken hawks? Absolutely.

If the shoe fits, then wear it. If it doesn't fit, then stop trying it on there, Cinderella.

Gawain of Orkeny
08-20-2005, 15:56
And I still say Better to be a Chickenhawk than just plain chicken . Just because someone supports the war and doesnt run to serve in the front lines doesnt make them chicken.

Aenlic
08-20-2005, 17:57
Yeah, it does. If that person is able to serve, and chooses not to do so, then he or she is first and foremost a hypocrite for supporting the war by mouth only while criticizing others for not supporting the war. Second, if that person's convictions aren't strong enough for them to put their life on the line for them, then they must not be particulary proud or sure of those convictions. They claim to support the military, and yet aren't willing to do more than support it with mere words and hyperbole and jingoism; the equivalent of sending them a nice card. The kind of people like that idiot who ran over the crosses and U.S. flags at the Sheehan protest with his pickup. Driving over a flag isn't patriotic in the least. And yet, I'll bet the yahoo who did it has spouted off more than once about other people's patriotism and gone off on people who want to burn the flag. Sheer, unambiguous hypocrisy. Makes me wonder if I'm the only sane person left in Texas.

Now, I'm not accusing anyone here of being in that category; but nothing is more disgusting than someone who criticizes another's patriotism when they have none of their own that isn't made from cheap plastic, empty rhetoric and false bravado. The military is desperately short on its recruiting goals, in all branches, thanks to this ill-conceived war in Iraq which is draining resources which could be used to actually fight terrorism. I have much more respect for someone who, through the strength of their convictions, is willing to protest the war while risking being called a traitor and a terrorist and unpatriotic and a liberal hippy and all manner of other nasty things, than I do for someone who just gives lip service to patriotism but doesn't really have anything behind the words other than hot air.

scooter_the_shooter
08-20-2005, 18:10
BS the air force and navy have met their goals with ease.....the air force quit recruiting for a month because of how many they were getting.(no one wants to be on the front lines with the army and marines)

Devastatin Dave
08-20-2005, 19:58
As a disabled vet, I feel it should be mandatory for all able-bodied jingoistic, slogan-mouthing, war-loving, pseudo-patriotic, nationalistic, flag-draped chicken hawks to get their butts down to the local recruiter and join up. Tell them you want to be a scout in the Army or a forward observer in the Marines. If you're a pro-war American of the right age, then shut up and put your life where your mouth is. Or you could just be a 5 time deferment like Dick Cheney and just send other people off to die for your oil. What are you waiting for? Go on! We're waiting...

Yeah, I didn't think so.

I did for 10 years. If your so against the United States and her allies being in Iraq or fighting terrorist, then get your terrorist sympothyzing, anti western, socialist loving, disctator worshipping ass over there and fight the "able-bodied jingoistic, slogan-mouthing, war-loving, pseudo-patriotic, nationalistic, flag-draped chicken hawks" currently over there... ~:handball:

KafirChobee
08-20-2005, 20:53
Aenlic, I get your message and agree in part, if not entirely with your statements.

That the true ChickenHawks don't recognize themselves is understandable. That they want to intermix our troops (actually putting their lives on the line) with the label "ChickenHawks" is understandable. They want to confuse the real issue. That is, it is easier to spout patriotic phraseology than actually performing the duty of being a soldier in an already unpopular war.

ChickenHawk: Someone that supports a war, but finds ways (or has in his past) to avoid actually serving in it (or in one). Examples; Dick Cheney, Rumsfield, Bush43 -ANG doesn't count, defending Texas against the NVA is a non-combatant scenario - G.W. Bush III (Jeb's boy), etc.

Actions speak louder than words. If one is a true believer, then prove it. :balloon2:

Aenlic
08-21-2005, 02:08
I did for 10 years. If your so against the United States and her allies being in Iraq or fighting terrorist, then get your terrorist sympothyzing, anti western, socialist loving, disctator worshipping ass over there and fight the "able-bodied jingoistic, slogan-mouthing, war-loving, pseudo-patriotic, nationalistic, flag-draped chicken hawks" currently over there... ~:handball:

Another one with reading comprehension problems.

Aenlic
08-21-2005, 02:11
Aenlic, I get your message and agree in part, if not entirely with your statements.

That the true ChickenHawks don't recognize themselves is understandable. That they want to intermix our troops (actually putting their lives on the line) with the label "ChickenHawks" is understandable. They want to confuse the real issue. That is, it is easier to spout patriotic phraseology than actually performing the duty of being a soldier in an already unpopular war.

ChickenHawk: Someone that supports a war, but finds ways (or has in his past) to avoid actually serving in it (or in one). Examples; Dick Cheney, Rumsfield, Bush43 -ANG doesn't count, defending Texas against the NVA is a non-combatant scenario - G.W. Bush III (Jeb's boy), etc.

Actions speak louder than words. If one is a true believer, then prove it. :balloon2:

Agreed in total, except for Rumsfeld. Even though I despise the man, he did serve a full term in the Navy. The others though, spot on.

I don't have a problem with people who choose not to serve. This is a free country, after all. My problem is with people who wholeheartedly support the war - vocally; but don't support it enough to put their own lives at risk. Those people, I despise. People like the Bush twins. They are of the right age. Why aren't they off helping Daddy make the world safe for Daddy's policies?

Gawain of Orkeny
08-21-2005, 02:30
So then FDR is a chicken Hawk of the first magnitude. ~;)

Red Harvest
08-21-2005, 03:43
I did for 10 years. If your so against the United States and her allies being in Iraq or fighting terrorist, then get your terrorist sympothyzing, anti western, socialist loving, disctator worshipping ass over there and fight the "able-bodied jingoistic, slogan-mouthing, war-loving, pseudo-patriotic, nationalistic, flag-draped chicken hawks" currently over there... ~:handball:

...whew...somebody missed the point entirely...and still has ZERO clue as to what a chickenhawk is. :no:

Gawain of Orkeny
08-21-2005, 03:57
and still has ZERO clue as to what a chickenhawk is.

Its a slur made up by those on the left. Of course no democrats could ever be accused of being a chicken hawk. Having served in the armed forces is not a pre requset for being president or sending us to war. Certainly there would be a lot fewer wars if all countries made their polticians fight their wars instead of the regular Joes.

Red Harvest
08-21-2005, 03:58
So then FDR is a chicken Hawk of the first magnitude. ~;)

~:confused: Really gotta wonder if you understand the definition... Do you really know anything about FDR or are you just running on what you would like to believe about the man? Born in 1882, his only shot at war would have been the 1898 Spanish American War...and that would have made him too young. (Don't know if he personally supported that or not.) By WWI he was acting as the administrative head of the Navy and had been instrumental in setting up the Naval Reserve and preparing the Navy for war. In 1921 he was stricken with Polio.

Gawain of Orkeny
08-21-2005, 04:02
Do you really know anything about FDR

No I never heard of him.


Born in 1882, his only shot at war would have been the 1898 Spanish American War...and that would have made him too young. (Don't know if he personally supported that or not.) By WWI he was acting as the administrative head of the Navy and had been instrumental in setting up the Naval Reserve and preparing the Navy for war.

So he was young enough to quit and go join the army during WW1 then. Hes a chicken hawk. He was instrumental in getting the US involved in two world wars.

Red Harvest
08-21-2005, 04:11
Its a slur made up by those on the left.

No, it's not. Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.

At it's heart it refers to hypocrisy. There is no reason a democrat wouldn't be eligible for the list...assuming the individual in question fit the criteria.

Red Harvest
08-21-2005, 04:18
So he was young enough to quit and go join the army during WW1 then. Hes a chicken hawk. He was instrumental in getting the US involved in two world wars.

:dizzy2: Since he was working for the Navy, he was in the war effort rather directly. No hypocrisy on his end.

I guess with your logic it would have been better to let the Nazi's and Japanese win WWII, while we sat it out. :inquisitive:

bmolsson
08-21-2005, 04:29
I guess with your logic it would have been better to let the Nazi's and Japanese win WWII, while we sat it out. :inquisitive:


The Nazi would never have won the war, even if US would have sat it out.

Red Harvest
08-21-2005, 04:36
The Nazi would never have won the war, even if US would have sat it out.

Great Britain was prevented by collapsing through FDR's efforts--the U.S. wasn't doing the fighting, it was throwing a lifeline. Without Great Britain and the U.S. the Nazi's would have chased the Russians over the mountains. There would have been nothing to tie the Nazi forces down in Western Europe or the Mediterranean.

Redleg
08-21-2005, 04:38
Now see? There some of you go again. Did I mention names? If you are of the right age to join the military and you're able to serve and you're rah-rah for the war and you haven't tried to sign up in spite of the desperate need for new recruits in the military right now, then you are a chicken hawk. If the military turns you down, then fine. There is no other excuse for letting someone else do your fighting. If you're in college, then put it off, go see your recruiter. It's that simple. If you don't meet ALL of those conditions, then you aren't a chicken hawk. Could it possibly be more clear? Those of you claiming my post fits you personally and then arguing with the above are having some difficulty with reading comprehension. I suggest remedial reading. ~D

Yes indeed someone needs to have a little remedial reading - Here let me suggest you read your own words.


find the responses interesting, to say the least. Have you allowed your dogmatic arguments on a heated and emotional issue to cloud your ability to see things other than in black and white, pro and con?

And what do you think the term Chickenhawk is used for. Again don't get upset with responses and attempt to claim the higher ground when one uses demonization and dogmatic arguements in the first place.

Yep Aenlic the arguement of the Chickenhawk is an emotional one - therefor it elicts an emotional response. Like I stated - am I a Chickenhawk because I no longer serve in the military but I advocate the war. Since I am only 10% disabled I actually still fit within the catergory as defined by you of


feel it should be mandatory for all able-bodied jingoistic, slogan-mouthing, war-loving, pseudo-patriotic, nationalistic, flag-draped chicken hawks to get their butts down to the local recruiter and join up. Tell them you want to be a scout in the Army or a forward observer in the Marines. If you're a pro-war American of the right age, then shut up and put your life where your mouth is.

Yea right - claiming a high ground when one starts with a emotional laden statement. LOL Someone needs some :help:

bmolsson
08-21-2005, 04:58
Great Britain was prevented by collapsing through FDR's efforts--the U.S. wasn't doing the fighting, it was throwing a lifeline. Without Great Britain and the U.S. the Nazi's would have chased the Russians over the mountains. There would have been nothing to tie the Nazi forces down in Western Europe or the Mediterranean.


Actually Germany lost the war the day they declared war on Sovietunion. In reality that would mean that Stalingrad was the turning point.

Surely, US was an important support for the allied forces, and all Europeans are greatful for that, but the war was not won by or due to US.

bmolsson
08-21-2005, 05:00
Wow. That's the biggest load of revisionist BS i've seen this week.

Why ?

Red Harvest
08-21-2005, 05:27
Actually Germany lost the war the day they declared war on Sovietunion. In reality that would mean that Stalingrad was the turning point.

Surely, US was an important support for the allied forces, and all Europeans are greatful for that, but the war was not won by or due to US.

You miss the simple point...the reason he was in big trouble invading Russia, is that he had not finished off the Brits. The Brits were in danger of being starved out and otherwise taken out of action.

You also don't seem to understand that the U.S. was not only providing more fronts for the Nazi's to deal with, but also SUPPLYING the Russians with additional aircraft, tanks and other gear, foodstuffs, etc. The aircraft total alone was ~13,000 U.S. and 8,000 Brit/Canadian. The total of U.S. tanks and self propelled guns was ~8,000 and ~4,000 from Brit/Canadians.

Gawain of Orkeny
08-21-2005, 06:19
Since he was working for the Navy, he was in the war effort rather directly. No hypocrisy on his end.

No only on yours. Bush was in the ANG and now hes commander in chief so he was in the war effort both times and is therefore no chicken hawk.

Aenlic
08-21-2005, 08:40
Bush was AWOL from the ANG for almost a year. Despite having a substantial cash reward available, no one has come forward with proof that Bush ever attended a single ANG duty in Alabama. Both the CO and XO of that unit at the time have stated - on the record - that they do not remember ever meeting ol' Georgie. The only reason he was assigned to Alabama in the first place was because he'd already moved there, abandoning his Houston duty post. It took three requests before his transfer was finally approved. The first two were denied outright.

Bush didn't even serve honorably while he was in Houston. He failed to achieve a required physical for flight status. Whether he just didn't show up or actually failed it is unclear. "Failed to achieve" can mean a lot of things in military speak. He was grounded from flying. He never again regained his flight status. Why? Bush was trained, expensively, to fly jets. And yet, for the last 2/3 of his ANG duty he had no flight status.

He clearly admitted the AWOL, because he later, while still absent, accepted a punitive adminstrative assignment to a Denver ANG office to make up his AWOL time. For those of you unfamiliar with the military, if you go AWOL you can make up the time and still get an honorable discharge. Bush never showed up in Denver either! He never made up his 1 year in Denver as required. Instead, he asked for and recieved an early discharge because he was already enrolled at Harvard Business School. That, right there, shows an obvious intent not to return to the duty post from which he was absent. Now anyone else would have been dishonorably discharged at that point, and possibly even charged; but ol' Georgie's father was then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and in tight with Nixon and about to be appointed Chairman of the RNC. Guard appointments are purely political. It should come as no surprise that the state ANG commander who approved most of these things for ol' Georgie was later appointed national commander of the ANG by Daddy Bush when Daddy was finally president. That was the same man who bumped ol' Georgie over 500 other applicants for the Texas ANG, all of whom scored higher than Georgie in testing and had been on the waiting list longer. Why? Daddy. When Georgie entered the ANG, Daddy was a U.S. Congressman from Texas. When Georgie lost his flight status and ran off to Alabama (before getting permission!), Daddy was U.N. Ambassador. When Georgie never showed up in Denver and then asked for an received an early, and entirely undeserved, honorable discharge, Daddy was Chairman of the RNC.

Because of Daddy's influence, as a Congressman, Ambassador to the U.N. and RNC Chairman, Georgie was allowed to get away with being a deserter. That's right. I said deserter. Article 85 of the UCMJ is pretty clear. Since he was gone for more than 30 days, the military may assume he never intended to return. In fact, he never did return, and displayed his intent blatantly by entering Harvard Business School while he was supposed to be serving his AWOL time in Denver. Why wasn't Article 85 applied? Daddy. Plain and simple. Cut and dried. If he'd been a poor black man guilty of the same offense, then would have been in prison. Wonderful thing, wealth, power and privilege. Makes a real man out you. A real chicken hawk of a man.

bmolsson
08-21-2005, 08:47
Had Hitler listened to his generals,


Well, he didn't. If he would have listened, there would most probably never been a WWII anyway.....

KafirChobee
08-21-2005, 08:52
Yes indeed someone needs to have a little remedial reading - Here let me suggest you read your own words.
And what do you think the term Chickenhawk is used for. Again don't get upset with responses and attempt to claim the higher ground when one uses demonization and dogmatic arguements in the first place.
Yep Aenlic the arguement of the Chickenhawk is an emotional one - therefor it elicts an emotional response. Like I stated - am I a Chickenhawk because I no longer serve in the military but I advocate the war. Since I am only 10% disabled I actually still fit within the catergory as defined by you of
Yea right - claiming a high ground when one starts with a emotional laden statement. LOL Someone needs some :help:

Red, I really do respect you as a vet. However, as a person that did his duty and understood it? I give you an "C-". Either you forgot the moments of terror - or now discount them for a more philosophical right-wing line (as does my friend Gawain), or you accept a particular political party line and discount anything that discredits them.

You attempt to change the definition of "ChickenHawk to serve your own defintion. That, in part, is hypocracy. Not pure hypocracy, but hypocracy just the same.

Eliciting emotion to expound an idea? Isn't that exactly what Bush43 has done from the outset of his suggestion of war in Iraq? Or, since 9/11 - for all of those that simply wanted some sort of revenge.

Suggesting that all vets must be "ChickenHawks" - I find insulting. Denying that ChickenHawks should be allowed to proclaim their authenticity because they believe as our ChickenHawk President does? Well, that is just wrong. To claim a higher ground or knowledge because you were once wounded - but accepted the benefit package - is what? Exactly? it is BS. A true believer would turn in his benefits as simply being the patriotic thing to do - no? Hell, I have buds that wanted out bad enough to sign away their rights to benefits just to not go back to the military (Marines and Army - Navy never brought it up, nor the AF - but the grunts were told sign this or you might go back - to 'nam, or have to finish your ETS - of course the VFW found them and corrected that issue - still is for some).

Justification for illegal wars seems to be the new trend of the GOP - since Nixon, anyway. Now, don't get me wrong - Nixon was a liberal, when it came to actually giving a damn about the American people, but he was confused when it was about their rights (guaranteed freedoms and such - which all GOPers are). Nixon served in the Navy, rode a desk well and honorably. He was denied war activity because he was a Quaker - well, he wrote it and the navy deffered him. Still, he did serve and he did ask to be in combat. Personally, I always liked him as a man - I just didnt' like that he wanted to expand the presidency (as Bush43 has done).

Back to the subject (sorry, I tend to ramble - as those that know me accept or enjoy finding the finer points to counter my real ideas), ChickenHawks. It never ceases to amaze me when true heroes justify the actions of cowards. I find it almost comical, when a man that put his balls on the line justifys why someone else didn't (that person being someone whom's philosophy or actions they now agree with - even if they were a limp dick in reality). It is like, "if you agree with me, you don't need to have served - or be willing too, just agree and we can talk all the poor boys into doing it for us." And, that's alright. Even for those that had the balls to be shot at.

Me, I was one of those poor boys. I understand what was happening, and accepted it as my fate. As someone pointed out - the AirFarce and Nambys are making their enlistment quotas. It is just the harmsway boys that ain't (army and marines) - was the same during my era actually. Some stuff never changes. Especially the ChickenHawks finding ways to avoid it all together.

Point is, never justify an idea with an ideal. It simply doesnot work. In the long wrong, the people will see thru it. If, one is honest at the start - they need never justify the why or wherefore of their actions. However, if the original premise was a lie, then one must continue to weave the web that got them there. "oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first choose to deceive." Do any of you truely believe that Bush or any of his "never made a mistake" followers will ever step forward and say, "We may have made a mistake" or that they might have had alternatives to the invasion? Or, do you simply accept that we are where we are, and therefore must accept it?

The people I would expect to challenge the present hyperbole of the ChickenHawks, are those that actually heard the shot fired in anger. Those that were truely in the S_it - those that held a buddy's head and acted as their Mother (MOMMY!... it's ok son, just a scratch), as they lay dying in the muck (or dust on the side of a road). Amazing, guess it is a matter that once one is deceived it simply happens to them over and over again - because it is the patriotic thing to do. Or, just because they can't give up on .... something or some new ideal of the new patriotism (like in, blindly into the night).
:book:


Finally, I beg you don't one line quote me .... if you do, I swear I'll have my friends find out who you really are and expose you. J/K ... be honest. ~D

Aenlic
08-21-2005, 09:00
Well said, KafirChobee.

I am always amazed by most people's inability to tell the differences between patriotism, nationalism and jingoism. All three have very distinct meanings, but the last two are almost universally believed to be the same as the first. Somewhere, our education system failed them.

Gawain of Orkeny
08-21-2005, 15:47
Wrong. Bush is a chickenhawk because he started this war. He pushed for it. In World War II,

First off to say Bush started the war is desingenuous. Secondly then FDR is a chickenhawk as he did everything he could to get us involved in ww2 . FDR drove the Japanese to attack us and he the same can be said of his policies towards Germany.


Bush was AWOL from the ANG for almost a year.

You still believe Dan Rather?


Despite having a substantial cash reward available, no one has come forward with proof that Bush ever attended a single ANG duty in Alabama.
Wrong again. This is old and tired and has been debunked .

Redleg
08-21-2005, 16:54
Red, I really do respect you as a vet. However, as a person that did his duty and understood it? I give you an "C-". Either you forgot the moments of terror - or now discount them for a more philosophical right-wing line (as does my friend Gawain), or you accept a particular political party line and discount anything that discredits them.

And you would be wrong. What is worse you yourself are committing the error that you claim I am doing. LOL



You attempt to change the definition of "ChickenHawk to serve your own defintion. That, in part, is hypocracy. Not pure hypocracy, but hypocracy just the same.


Yes I was changing the defination of Chickenhawk - just as Aelnic has done - but don't let that cloud your reason.



Eliciting emotion to expound an idea? Isn't that exactly what Bush43 has done from the outset of his suggestion of war in Iraq? Or, since 9/11 - for all of those that simply wanted some sort of revenge.


Yes indeed its a politicians normal course of actions.



Suggesting that all vets must be "ChickenHawks" - I find insulting. Denying that ChickenHawks should be allowed to proclaim their authenticity because they believe as our ChickenHawk President does? Well, that is just wrong. To claim a higher ground or knowledge because you were once wounded - but accepted the benefit package - is what? Exactly? it is BS. A true believer would turn in his benefits as simply being the patriotic thing to do - no? Hell, I have buds that wanted out bad enough to sign away their rights to benefits just to not go back to the military (Marines and Army - Navy never brought it up, nor the AF - but the grunts were told sign this or you might go back - to 'nam, or have to finish your ETS - of course the VFW found them and corrected that issue - still is for some).

Actually my disability does not come from being wounded in combat - but from an accident. Again Chickenhawk as described by Aelnic is also not correct. A little hyperbole for his hyperbole is a method to deal with his emotional appeal arguement.



Justification for illegal wars seems to be the new trend of the GOP - since Nixon, anyway. Now, don't get me wrong - Nixon was a liberal, when it came to actually giving a damn about the American people, but he was confused when it was about their rights (guaranteed freedoms and such - which all GOPers are). Nixon served in the Navy, rode a desk well and honorably. He was denied war activity because he was a Quaker - well, he wrote it and the navy deffered him. Still, he did serve and he did ask to be in combat. Personally, I always liked him as a man - I just didnt' like that he wanted to expand the presidency (as Bush43 has done).

Again the War in Iraq is not illegal - don't go now mixing emotional appeal on your arguement against emotional appeal. That is hypocrisy on your part.



Back to the subject (sorry, I tend to ramble - as those that know me accept or enjoy finding the finer points to counter my real ideas), ChickenHawks. It never ceases to amaze me when true heroes justify the actions of cowards. I find it almost comical, when a man that put his balls on the line justifys why someone else didn't (that person being someone whom's philosophy or actions they now agree with - even if they were a limp dick in reality). It is like, "if you agree with me, you don't need to have served - or be willing too, just agree and we can talk all the poor boys into doing it for us." And, that's alright. Even for those that had the balls to be shot at.

Again you and Aelnic might want to check out the defination of Chickenhawk
Here I will help you out


Chickenhawk is an epithet used in United States politics to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who votes for war, supports war, commands a war, or develops war policy, but has not personally served in the military, especially one who opted out of a previous war on dubious grounds. Generally, it is not a label applied to essentially "dovish" leaders who support defensive wars, "humanitarian interventions," or UN operations.

The term is generally used in the ad hominem circumstantial context: since a supposed "chickenhawk" has not served in war, the implication is that the person is morally ill-equipped to support a war. On the contrary, implication is that any person who has served in a war is morally better-equipped to make decisions about war.

By the way since when is an individual expressing his opinion in this type of setting means that he is a commentator? Again notice how it is defined as an ad hominem given Aelnic's attempt at playing the better debater - the context of my last two post are spot on about his hyperbole and hypocrisy. However it seems that you are falling into the same trap he is. Individuals in this forum - I doubt very seriousily fall into any of the catergories that define Chickenhawk via the politicial defination. Here is the only one that many would even fall close to - but in myopinion still fall short of meeting the defination.


A commentator is an individual who comments on sports, politics, current events, or public issues; synonyms include pundit. Social commentator may cover anything from a preacher to a columnist to a cultural critic.

A live broadcast of a major public event, such as inauguration, funeral of a public figure, space flight or sporting occasion, is almost invariably accompanied by the thoughts of a commentator. This may be on television, accompanied by relevant images, or on radio. The technique involved differs between the two media, with radio broadcasters needing to be more explicit and descriptive because of the absence of pictures.

Sports and other commentators usually broadcast live during events, in an essentially unscripted way, though they may refer to prepared materials, for example on sports statistics. Spontaneity, and even enthusiasm and partisan comments, are sometimes valued by those watching or listening to sports.

So before jumping on the Bandwagon of lets attack all who are Chickenhawks maybe you should take the advice that Aelnic spouted then chose to ignore.



Me, I was one of those poor boys. I understand what was happening, and accepted it as my fate. As someone pointed out - the AirFarce and Nambys are making their enlistment quotas. It is just the harmsway boys that ain't (army and marines) - was the same during my era actually. Some stuff never changes. Especially the ChickenHawks finding ways to avoid it all together.


There you go doing what you just criticized me of in the first paragraph. Should I take the same course of grading you. LOL



Point is, never justify an idea with an ideal. It simply doesnot work. In the long wrong, the people will see thru it. If, one is honest at the start - they need never justify the why or wherefore of their actions. However, if the original premise was a lie, then one must continue to weave the web that got them there. "oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first choose to deceive." Do any of you truely believe that Bush or any of his "never made a mistake" followers will ever step forward and say, "We may have made a mistake" or that they might have had alternatives to the invasion? Or, do you simply accept that we are where we are, and therefore must accept it?

You might want to look at some statements of those you support the war. I believe several of us have criticized the mistakes of the adminstration. But don't let that distract your attempt at hyperbole here.




The people I would expect to challenge the present hyperbole of the ChickenHawks, are those that actually heard the shot fired in anger. Those that were truely in the S_it - those that held a buddy's head and acted as their Mother (MOMMY!... it's ok son, just a scratch), as they lay dying in the muck (or dust on the side of a road). Amazing, guess it is a matter that once one is deceived it simply happens to them over and over again - because it is the patriotic thing to do. Or, just because they can't give up on .... something or some new ideal of the new patriotism (like in, blindly into the night).
:book:

Or maybe some of use realize in regards to Iraq that this had to be done - it should of been finished in 1992 when the Kurds and the Shai' revolted, but the Senior Bush adminstration bailed out, and then there were the numerous times during the Clinton adminstration that shows that a course of action involving the overthrow of Saddam would eventually have to take place. Again don't throw hyperbole into the arguement when you are complaining against hyperbole - it makes your arguement disengenous - and hypocritical.



Finally, I beg you don't one line quote me .... if you do, I swear I'll have my friends find out who you really are and expose you. J/K ... be honest. ~D

LOL - your arguement deserves to be quoted by paragraph and countered by paragraph.

Aenlic
08-21-2005, 18:02
Redleg, you are a real piece of work. Are you and Fred Phelps related by any chance?

Until now, any statements which I've made in this thread against others have been made indirectly at no one in particular, except in the case of some politicians, and a drunk yahoo in a pickup. That means they can't, by definition, be ad hominem attacks; because they weren't used against someone else in the debate. You, on the other hand, have called me and others hypocrites directly as well as other directed personal attacks. That is ad hominem. Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of the phrase.

I realize that you just don't get the difference; because you also seem to think my comments about chicken hawks were directed at you, in spite of my very specific categorization, into which you don't fall. I even went out of my way to exclude Rumsfeld as a chicken hawk when he was mentioned; because he doesn't fit the definition. As for the rest, your defensive attitude speaks pretty eloquently all by itself. I don't need to make accusations while you're chewing on your own logical toenails with both feet planted firmly in your mouth.

Here's the definition for chicken hawk by WordSpy.com (http://www.wordspy.com/words/chickenhawk.asp):

chicken hawk (CHIK.un.hawk) n. A person who now advocates war but who once took special measures to avoid military service.

Do you see a specific requirement that it be politicians in that definition. I've been exacting in more than one post about my usage of the phrase. and yet, others, yourself included, got your panties in a wad and took offense at something that wasn't even directed at you in the first place. But if you're going to claim that something is tailored to fit you, then you'd best be prepared to like the cut.

Now, if your defensiveness over the phrase, which can't be because of the above definition, is instead the result of some pent up emotional distress because you fit one of the other definitions of the phrase, then I suppose we had best hope you have feathers and can fly. ~D

The above post is an ad hominem argument. It is used to directly attack another person in a debate. Behavior in which you've chosen to behave in this thread by specifically insulting other posters. Would you like it explained to you again? I'll be more than happy to further enlighten you.

Red Harvest
08-21-2005, 18:37
No only on yours. Bush was in the ANG and now hes commander in chief so he was in the war effort both times and is therefore no chicken hawk.

Hiding in the ANG? That isn't in the war effort, that's hiding from it. Of family members I know of who served in the guard at the time, I can safely say that none of them wanted to go to Vietnam. The ones who did want to go to Vietnam did not serve in the Guard, and they went.

The ANG MAKES him a chickenhawk extraordaniare. He had strings pulled to get the position, was a discipline problem, failed to fulfill his obligations, etc., didn't even find it necessary to keep his flight status. What useful service was he performing in the ANG? He couldn't even be bothered to do his job. He struts around saying what a great "War President" he is despite mismanaging the two wars he has on his hands right now. Quintessential chickenhawk.

Red Harvest
08-21-2005, 18:47
You still believe Dan Rather?

While the memo may have been a fabrication and therefore Dan Rather had failed journalistically, what I have read/heard reported elsewhere it that the sentiment in the memo was an accurate representation of Dubya's commanders views of the situation. The memo might be false, but the story minus the memo is not.


Wrong again. This is old and tired and has been debunked .
Really??? That's news. So who claimed the reward? Who has come out and proven that they served with the future president. The one fellow I know of claiming he remembered Dubya there didn't have service dates that lined up with Dubya. His claim was not credible.

Seems like there would be a bunch of folks who would remember serving with a future president.

Redleg
08-21-2005, 20:37
Redleg, you are a real piece of work. Are you and Fred Phelps related by any chance?

The pot calling the Kettle Black - lots of fun there. I know who my relatives are - can you say the same thing. Notice how you are calling me a piece of work - when you fit more in that category then I. Have a nice day with your feeling superior.




Until now, any statements which I've made in this thread against others have been made indirectly at no one in particular, except in the case of some politicians, and a drunk yahoo in a pickup. That means they can't, by definition, be ad hominem attacks; because they weren't used against someone else in the debate. You, on the other hand, have called me and others hypocrites directly as well as other directed personal attacks. That is ad hominem. Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of the phrase.

Actually again - you might want to check definations. You made a rant - an emotional appeal - which I responded to. The emotional appeal ie the rant was directed at others within this forum - inother words it was an ad hominem arguement . Here let me refer to your words exactly, which you posted here in the .Org - knowing that President Bush, and others are not reading posts here, but members of the .Org Community. So by ranting here you are ranting at members of the .Org Community.


As a disabled vet, I feel it should be mandatory for all able-bodied jingoistic, slogan-mouthing, war-loving, pseudo-patriotic, nationalistic, flag-draped chicken hawks to get their butts down to the local recruiter and join up. Tell them you want to be a scout in the Army or a forward observer in the Marines. If you're a pro-war American of the right age, then shut up and put your life where your mouth is. Or you could just be a 5 time deferment like Dick Cheney and just send other people off to die for your oil. What are you waiting for? Go on! We're waiting...

Yeah, I didn't think so.



Now lets see Panzer supports the war - and by his own words can not enlist because of medicial reason. So are you addressing it at him. Again try checking out how the defination came about and what it means.



I realize that you just don't get the difference; because you also seem to think my comments about chicken hawks were directed at you, in spite of my very specific categorization, into which you don't fall. I even went out of my way to exclude Rumsfeld as a chicken hawk when he was mentioned; because he doesn't fit the definition. As for the rest, your defensive attitude speaks pretty eloquently all by itself. I don't need to make accusations while you're chewing on your own logical toenails with both feet planted firmly in your mouth.


Please feel free to include yourself in that comment. Again you made a rant - an emotional appeal - then attempt to claim the high ground when you yourself are at fault. Notice in your orginal rant - quoted above to refresh your memory - that you did not exclude Rumsfeld - you actually were including all here in the .Org because of the language you used. Again an emotional appeal arguement - which indeed is an ad hominem arguement.

Since you seem to be confused on what an ad hominem arguement is - here let me help you understand.


An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man"), is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.

The initial phase and using the label of Chickenhawk does indeed fit the description of ad hominem where are you attacking the people who support or arueme for the war with Iraq, not the arguement concerning the war. However you are attacking those who support (the Man) the war (the arguement).

Futhermore in your rant - which is ad hominem you meet one of the criteria for it to be such an arguement.


Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he or she is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way. Such arguments are not necessarily irrational, but are not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic.




Now who has their foot in their mouth.




Here's the definition for chicken hawk by WordSpy.com (http://www.wordspy.com/words/chickenhawk.asp):

chicken hawk (CHIK.un.hawk) n. A person who now advocates war but who once took special measures to avoid military service.


Again try reading the defination provided by Wikepedia - it includes more spefics along the lines of what Chichenhawk means - well besides being a bird of prey . Then again how can any member of .Org be shown to take special measure at avoiding going to war - since most here are young. Again you made a rant - an emotional appeal directed at who knows what - but one must assume it was at the general audience of the .Org since you posted it here verus somewhere else.



Do you see a specific requirement that it be politicians in that definition. I've been exacting in more than one post about my usage of the phrase. and yet, others, yourself included, got your panties in a wad and took offense at something that wasn't even directed at you in the first place. But if you're going to claim that something is tailored to fit you, then you'd best be prepared to like the cut.

No I saw your little post for what it was - a rant. However don't let that distract you from taking pot shots at others for calling you on the rant. Actually try reading the Wikipedia one - it gives a spefic defination. And again look at your own provided defination. Who here in the .Org meets the conditions to be a "Chickenhawk."



Now, if your defensiveness over the phrase, which can't be because of the above definition, is instead the result of some pent up emotional distress because you fit one of the other definitions of the phrase, then I suppose we had best hope you have feathers and can fly. ~D

Maybe so - but you first. Maybe its because I recoginzed your rant for what it was - and decided to play a little logic game with you. I am not the most intelligent person in the world - but I recoginzed your rant for what it was. To bad you didn't.



The above post is an ad hominem argument. It is used to directly attack another person in a debate. Behavior in which you've chosen to behave in this thread by specifically insulting other posters. Would you like it explained to you again? I'll be more than happy to further enlighten you.

No - I understand it very well - maybe you need to understand what the nature of your initial rant is - an attempt to demonize those who you disagree with. You placed a label on people in which disagree with you - not because of who they are - but because of opinions they express on an internet forum. Those people who might meet the defination of "Chickenhawk" are few and far between. Now if you would of stated in the Rant that Bush, and several politicans where chickenhawks - I would of just chalked it up to another baised opinion because you disagree with the war with Iraq - however since you made it a general rant direct at the general audience of the .Org - I called it what it was and still is - nothing more then an ad hominem arguement directed at members of the .Org who do not agree with your politics or postion.

Redleg
08-21-2005, 20:40
Hiding in the ANG? That isn't in the war effort, that's hiding from it. Of family members I know of who served in the guard at the time, I can safely say that none of them wanted to go to Vietnam. The ones who did want to go to Vietnam did not serve in the Guard, and they went.

Care to guess how many National Guard units were in Vietnam?



The ANG MAKES him a chickenhawk extraordaniare. He had strings pulled to get the position, was a discipline problem, failed to fulfill his obligations, etc., didn't even find it necessary to keep his flight status. What useful service was he performing in the ANG? He couldn't even be bothered to do his job. He struts around saying what a great "War President" he is despite mismanaging the two wars he has on his hands right now. Quintessential chickenhawk.

Not necessarily - I know several individuals who were in the National Guard who ended up going to Vietnam - I also know of whole units that were deployed to Vietnam. For instance you might want to check out the history of one of the Ranger Regiments that was in Vietnam - if I remember the state correctly the unit was from Illinois.

KukriKhan
08-21-2005, 21:03
Pretty good work, folks...it took 5 and a half pages for this one to derail into personal bickering and one-to-one sniping.

Warning: Any further name-calling hurled at another member will result in unpleasant sanctions.

Back on-topic: Does anyone know if Ms. Sheehan received and/or cashed the survivors' benefit check that should have been issued after her son's death? The debate in the op/ed media over her 'moral high ground' might be affected by that information.

Strike For The South
08-21-2005, 22:59
5 cand a half thats got to be record ~D

Xiahou
08-21-2005, 23:06
While the memo may have been a fabrication and therefore Dan Rather had failed journalistically, what I have read/heard reported elsewhere it that the sentiment in the memo was an accurate representation of Dubya's commanders views of the situation. The memo might be false, but the story minus the memo is not. To paraphrase Dan Rather "It's not the facts, but the seriousness of the allegations.". ~D

Crazed Rabbit
08-22-2005, 00:13
Who needs facts when you can fling allegations around?

Crazed Rabbit

Redleg
08-22-2005, 00:38
Back on-topic: Does anyone know if Ms. Sheehan received and/or cashed the survivors' benefit check that should have been issued after her son's death? The debate in the op/ed media over her 'moral high ground' might be affected by that information.

I do not beleive such things are a matter of public record - however I would image that if he had the SGLI someone has recieved payment.

ichi
08-22-2005, 05:35
First off to say Bush started the war is desingenuous.

~:confused:

To say anything else is quite disingenious. OK, maybe it was Cheney, or Rove.

I know, lets lay it on Powell, or better yet, McCain. Or wait, let's find a way to say Clinton did it.

ichi ~:cheers:

Gawain of Orkeny
08-22-2005, 05:41
To say anything else is quite disingenious. OK, maybe it was Cheney, or Rove.

Or Maybe it was Saddam or how about the congress of the US. I dont believe GWB had the power to start this war on his own. Now whos being disingenious?

Aenlic
08-22-2005, 13:03
From The Nuremberg Diaries by Gustave Gilbert. An Allied intelligence officer and psychologist who interviewed the prisoners during the war crimes trials. Below is an excerpt from his April 18, 1946 interview with Hermann Goering:


We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

~D

Oh, and the word you are all misusing is "disingenuous" which actually means insincere, not naive.

Redleg
08-22-2005, 13:15
Oh, and the word you are all misusing is "disingenuous" which actually means insincere, not naive.

Actually you would be incorrect, and disinenuous with this statement.

The actual definition from Websters

lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness

Care to try again ~:eek:

Aenlic
08-22-2005, 13:20
I'm not going to get into it with you, Redleg. You've already been warned.

Your definition means insincere, which is not the same thing as naive. As I clearly stated. "Giving a false appearance of frankness" is the definition of insincere. The word, however, is being used in the above thread to mean naive, instead.

From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

dis·in·gen·u·ous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dsn-jny-s)
adj.
Not straightforward or candid; insincere calculating: “an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who... exemplified... the most disagreeable traits of his time” (David Cannadine).
Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
Usage Problem. Unaware or uninformed; naive.

disin·genu·ous·ly adv.
disin·genu·ous·ness n.

"Usage Note: The meaning of disingenuous has been shifting about lately, as if people are unsure of its proper meaning. Generally, it means “insincere” and often seems to be a synonym of cynical or calculating. Not surprisingly, the word is used often in political contexts, as in It is both insensitive and disingenuous for the White House to describe its aid package and the proposal to eliminate the federal payment as “tough love.” This use of the word is accepted by 94 percent of the Usage Panel. Most Panelists also accept the extended meaning relating to less reproachable behavior. Fully 88 percent accept disingenuous with the meaning “playfully insincere, faux-naïf,” as in the example “I don't have a clue about late Beethoven!” he said. The remark seemed disingenuous, coming from one of the world's foremost concert pianists. Sometimes disingenuous is used as a synonym for naive, as if the dis- prefix functioned as an intensive (as it does in certain words like disannul) rather than as a negative element. This usage does not find much admiration among Panelists, however. Seventy-five percent do not accept it in the phrase a disingenuous tourist who falls prey to stereotypical con artists.


Is there an ignore option somewhere? This is getting ridiculous.

Redleg
08-22-2005, 13:23
I'm not going to get into it with you, Redleg. You've already been warned.

Your definition means insincere, which is not the same thing as naive. As I clearly stated. "Giving a false appearance of frankness" is the definition of insincere. The word, however, is being used in the above thread to mean naive, instead.

Is there an ignore option somewhere? This is getting ridiculous.

Actually its not my definition it is webster's.

Aenlic
08-22-2005, 13:26
Actually its not my definition it is webster's.


See my edit. Your deliberate misreading and ignoring of what I post and then re-defining what I say has gone beyond the pale. If it's personal then just ignore me, sport. I guarantee I'll return the favor.

Xiahou
08-22-2005, 13:30
From The Nuremberg Diaries by Gustave Gilbert. An Allied intelligence officer and psychologist who interviewed the prisoners during the war crimes trials. Below is an excerpt from his April 18, 1946 interview with Hermann Goering:Wow, Herman Goering said it? Must be true- we all know the Nazis were never wrong about anything. :dizzy2:

Anyone else notice how horribly off-topic this thread is?

Aenlic
08-22-2005, 13:30
Ah, found the ignore list. It's so much nicer to have an all adult conversation.

Aenlic
08-22-2005, 13:36
Wow, Herman Goering said it? Must be true- we all know the Nazis were never wrong about anything. :dizzy2:

Anyone else notice how horribly off-topic this thread is?

You should read Gilbert's book. It's interesting how truthful people can be when faced with their executions. Goering isn't the only interesting personality in that book. It's a very insightful look into the minds of some of the most despicable people of the 20th century. Gilbert was adept at getting them to open up about their motivations.

Ser Clegane
08-22-2005, 13:41
Anyone else notice how horribly off-topic this thread is?

Indeed - I think the relevant discussion was over quite some posts ago.

If people would like to further discuss any new (or old) aspects about the pro and contra of the Iraq war, please start a dedicated new thread.

Well, at least I now know more than I could ever possibly wanted to know about the terms "chickenhawk" and "disingenuous" :book: ~:)

Closed