Skip to main content

I'm so completely flummoxed by these people.  And no, the ugliness isn't the physical appearance of the people in the photos; while not the most pleasant of forms, I am not a shallow, callous, mean-spirited person - unlike them.  I really thought no one could stoop so low as to using the pictures of a dead soldier AGAINST his own MOTHER!  No shame, no decency, no empathy - just sheer heartlessness.  I'm not normally a violent woman, but when I saw this I wanted to hurt someone - after I nearly vomited.  

This first photo is the two men holding the signs:

This photo is those same signs leaning up against a flag draped SUV:

These are the close-ups - you may want a trash can handy as the need to throw up is not uncommon when you actually see what is printed on the signs:

Just posting the pictures makes me feel like I need to take a shower, but I thought they needed to be seen.  These people are utterly despicable.

Originally posted to Laura D on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 11:56 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar if I earned it plus... (3.95)
    Here are a couple of the other signs waved about - there was also one that said, "Don't be the tool of Michael Moore" or some such nonsense.  As if Cindy can't come up with an original idea on her very own, and then can't share the idea where ever she sees fit.

    Jerks.

    Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore; They're already overcrowded from Your dirty little war. - John Prine

    by Laura D on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 11:57:16 PM PDT

    •  Freedom (none)
      Yes, Casey Sheehan is a hero, now remembered by millions thanks to his mother. True, freedom isn't free: Casey's death and Cindy's ordeal since then are testaments to the consequences of when the fascists take power of a free nation. It's just a shame that the lower life forms who appropriate Casey's name and image to defend Bush's fiasco will never understand the true magnitude of what's printed on their signs.

      They are small, they were formed by cynical manipulators who programmed them to hate and attack. They are insignificant next to Cindy Sheehan's cause. They are driven by cynicism and hate, she is driven by sincerity and love. She has the numbers and the truth on her side, and the true ideals of our nation in her heart.

      •  Our country is facist??? (1.75)
        "True, freedom isn't free: Casey's death and Cindy's ordeal since then are testaments to the consequences of when the fascists take power of a free nation."

        I hate to remind you of this, but it was Iraq that was controlled by a facist.  A real facist.  Not your version of a facist, GWB, where if he lowers taxes he's a facist.

        Iraq was a real facist state, where if someone like you chose to speak out, you would be dead.  Or raped and dead.  Or you would be forced to watch your family being raped, before you were killed.

        That's facism.
        Or that was facism, before we got there.

        Now I realize that Iraq isn't a vacation spot (yet), but they actually have freedom of the press now.  That's what Casey died for.

        The fact is that you are getting upset about these guys with posters saying that Casey died honorably... but you don't believe that Cindy is taking advantage of her dead son?
        Uh huh.

        Then why is she ranting on about Palestine nowadays?

        -John

        •  Apparently you need to learn a bit (2.50)
          about fascism before you go bashing someone else who obviously understands the underpinnings of such a bit more than you.
        •  Fascism can be realized in degrees (none)
          Fascism.a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

          This definition seems closer in theme to the tactics of Bush/Rove Republicans these days than even Bush I or Reagan, unfortunately.  Indeed, tax cuts are an aspect of the larger economic policy change which increasingly shifts the percentage of government-sponsored welfare support towards our elite wealthy and away from the poor or middle-class.  Policies and new law tends towards protecting the profits of those already wealthy through legally allowing for degradation of worker or individual rights and benefits (at all levels - the true "trickle down" policy: less from the feds means less for the states, means less for average, poor and disadvantaged citizens, etc.).  Favored far-right religious affiliations - entities which exist in the realm of almost unquestionable faith and inflexible dogma - are politically propped up and funded by our secular government without precedent or provable benefits . . . primarily to cement increasingly politicized church-associated voting demographics along specific speaking points that have little to do with national needs.

          Those who attempt to speak their view of truth about BushCo policies or politics are "fair gamed" even to the extent of impacting national security; dissenting voices are severely chided as unpatriotic, anti-American, pro-terrorist and otherwise somehow extreme for merely speaking out against the exclusive and deceptive policies or pronouncements of this highly anti-science, anti-facts, anti-reality Administration.  Even decorated war veterans are branded as traitorous liars, closet gays or somehow anti-US despite their supporting service records in the face of a President who provably avoided a full service stay by taking advantage of political family friends.Editors in the mass media have reported being threatened with possible blackballing of their reporters from White House press events for continuing on certain tacks of reporting (most notable in the first term).  Foreign policy is primarily based upon philosophies which cannot hold up to ideals of equitable trade or maintainable security agendas, though some favored contracting groups have been making tons of money since 09/11/2001.  In fact, our security policy abroad fails miserably in supporting our national defense needs: rather than allowing more political and economic advantages to maintainably flourish abroad, we are creating more enemies and destroying our associations with past and potential allies in both realms.

          After a nationally sobering event such as 09/11/2001, we are no longer seeing a policy of national defense being a clearly realized goal, rather than an excuse for incomprehensible international antagonism which apparently keeps us less stable here and abroad - perhaps to keep focus off the increasingly wealth-skewed national policy focus - instead, we should be: decreasing reliance on the highly unstable Middle East for our energy needs through government investment in a new leadership industry for the US, enhancing port/airline security to the extent that even the compromised Gore Commission recommended, ceasing the political alignment of our Federal Homeland Security and CIA resources, dealing soberly with Pakistan's highly exposed nuclear aresenal, creating a plan and timeline to minimize the increasing terrorist exposures created by our continued involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, undoing the fomenting of politically-motivated hatred for nations and peoples who don't fully support our own extreme and unsupported military agendas abroad, removing or opening up the untested and unverifiable Diebold Republican allies who have been placed into our supposedly democratic voting booths, etc.  Among other things.

          Saddam wasn't a nice fellow as a leader, certainly.  But, he was unfortunately not much more than a parallel change in Iraqi governmental leadership that has gone on since the early 1900s.  He was easily a product of his times and country, not an anomaly.  Iraq has rarely been kind to its own people - and, this trend continues now, in a more decentralized fashion, now that Saddam is long gone.  We've even brought external terrorism into their confines, helping to cement their entrenchment, through our own narrow priorities (originally) for securing basic infrastructure that was associated with future oil pipelining . . . just like Afghanistan.  Iraqis don't understand Western-style, idealized democracy in real-world terms - it's not in their cultural nature today.  Iraq is now ironically a place of fewer rights for women, more fundamentalist religion creeping into government rule and greater general uncertainty for safety or even clean water than under Saddam since the early 90s.  This doesn't mean that everything was rosey under his rule, of course - that's not the point.

          The point was that Saddam was effectively defanged by sanctions and international exposure to his desperate invasion of Kuwait after the Bush I Administration gave him a passive green light on the idea (follwing the cutoff of covert accounts when investigations of international money laundering began to creep closer towards our Administration) - he was an idiot with an ego, but little else to back it up internationally.  We were already minimizing his livelihood and effectiveness as a leader through attrition, which was the safest and U.N. majority-supported method of slowly influencing his country to move elsewhere.  But, there's only so far we can go unless a real war is happening and the U.N. and/or NATO actually agree on the need to intervene in a sovereign nation's affairs - such as considering Sudan.  Which we ignored under BushCo . . . not an easy place for our contractors to make a profit and lack of neocon support to establish our presence there, of course.  Saddam had attractive oil fields, was a perceived threat to ever-worried Israel and seemed a potentially advantageous spot to place military bases in support of PNAC-style pushing of Iran in new directions, we now see.

          Fascist tendencies seem to be that evident in how we as a country were all forcibly duped into supporting 09/11/2001 as a wakeup call to hit Afghanistan and Iraq for oil and establishment of US-friendly military presence in highly volatile sections of the oil-rich Middle East which were NOT Saudi Arabia, while giving a biscuit to our own Republican supporter elites and far-right vote-getters through politically extreme and culturally divisive national policies for economic, environmental and energy management.  Yet, the stories and speeches hiding these actual policies were cynically offered as black-is-white statements of growth, harmony and security in constant tones by this Administration and its supporters.

          So, if that's not fascist factors coming into play, then what is it all adding up to?  I'm willing to hear different words for describing how BushCo operates, so long as none of them include the term "democratic".

          •  Facism is tax cuts? Uh huh. (none)
            From Webster:

            "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

            Once you started printing that tax cuts were a form of facism, I stopped reading.

            That may have been the biggest waste of fifteen seconds of my life.  Ever.

            -John

            •  Then, you obviously missed the point again (none)
              I was responding to your response on the subject, which seemed to lack contextual relevance.  Fascist tactics can be utilized without having a completely fascist state - this isn't black or white.

              You also seem to take the notion of "tax cuts" as a necessarily objective neutral economic device from a political point of view.  This is not necessarily the case: BushCo has a history of utilizing strategic entitlements as a means for collecting and culling influence even within our own country, as I mentioned.

            •  A little OT, but are you (none)
              Caoilfhionn on another forum?  If so, please don't try to get free advertising for your silly "blog" over there any more...it is just irritating.

              If you are not...then nevermind

              /Emily Litella

              •  Who?? (none)
                "Caoilfhionn on another forum?  If so, please don't try to get free advertising for your silly "blog" over there any more...it is just irritating."

                eye roll

                -John

              •  I don't recognize the reference - sorry (none)
                This may have even been an in-joke snark towards my direction, perhaps - but, no: I'm not familiar with the who or the where you referenced.

                I was merely responding to a point which seemed a bit too absolute, given what we have as available information on this Administration - and, offering context to show why I felt this way.

          •  Sick (none)
            Your dictionary definition of facism is correct.  Please note however, that Saddam (not Bush) was a dictator and was not freely elected. Saddam (not Bush) conducted genocide on ethnic minorities (Kurds & Shiites). Saddam (not Bush) was "nationalist" in attacking Iran and Kuwait which subsequently led the U.S. to join other nations to free Kuwait. Saddam (not Bush) instituted stringent socioeconomic controls and pillaged the country for his own enrichment (not the oil for food scandal). Sddam (not bush) ruled through intimidation and terror (see the numerous atrocities committed by Saddam which he is soon to be tried for by other Iraqis).

            Read your definition and then more closely examine the facts.

            •  Contrasts don't negate facts - or definitions (none)
              In seeking to note elements of BushCo's modes of operation which appear to contrast with Saddam's military dictatorship - or do not fully fit under the dictionary definition of "fascism" - you may be discarding the opportunity to analyze a true, grey world before you: we cannot displace the knowledge that this Administration has demonstrated a rather alarming series of fascist tactics and related themes in the past 5-6 years.  I merely touched upon the government's association with private business (which includes religious institutions), for example - it is merely one of many elements involved here.  None of this means that we live under a fully fascist regime in the US, but that we must deal with enough of such mechanisms for it to be a troubling state of affairs.

              How you apply a dictionary definition is aligned with how flexibly you attempt to understand the actual world.

              •  Grey? (none)
                There is no element whatsoever in our current government that can be called facist.

                Its not that we don't understand your subtle "grey" characterizations of how someone can be "kinda" facist.  Its that even allowing for shades of grey, you can't call our government facist.

                Facist suggests that you have no voice, that there is no democracy, and that GWB is going to imprison you since you just spoke out.  That will not happen.  Sorry to disappoint you, but Cindy Sheehan, nut that she is, will not be tossed in the Gulag.  Mainly because we don't have a gulag.  But thems are the details.

                Tossing out terms like facism should be left to the 16 year olds, who are pissed off at their parents for not letting them have the car.  In adult discussions, the term facism shouldn't be used unless, well, a government shows facist tendencies.

                -John

                •  Bullshit (none)
                  > There is no element whatsoever in our
                  > current government that can be called facist.

                  Fascism
                  A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

                  fas·cist  n.
                  A reactionary or dictatorial person.
                  An adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views.

                  You don't recognize either of those definitons in BushCo?
                  You're fucked, man. Totally.

                  GOP: Invading personal privacy ©¿©¬ and proud of it!

                  by PBen on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 12:20:27 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Strike out. (none)
            Fascism.a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator

            Bush is no "dictator," no matter how many Hitler moustaches people draw on his pictures.

            stringent socioeconomic controls

            Your shoehorning of 'tax cuts' into 'stringent socioeconomic controls' leaves much to be desired. And remember: gay marriage was defeated by voters, even in so-called 'blue states,' not crushed by the so-called "dictator."

            suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship

            Indeed. All those millions who marched against the war and continue to do so, all those columnists who routinely attack the President and the Administration in newspapers and magazines, the uncovering of the Abu Ghraib scandal, and, of course, Cindy Sheehan's ensconcement at the gates of Crawford itself all speak of a powerful and deliberate campaign to silnce all opposition through terror and censorship.

            a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism

            I assume this refers to flag stickers on SUVs and deliberate avoidance of racially profiling Arabs during searches at airports and in other law-enforcement contexts.

            As for the supposed "green-lighting" of the invasion of Kuwait, you're quite simply wrong. What we all knew all along has been confirmed by Tariq Aziz himself.

            And "foricbly duped?" Breathtaking in its inscrutability.

            I'll simply pass on the unfortunate and unfortunately predictable nonsense about Israel and move on to comment that your paragraph about Iraqis "not understanding" democracy and such is, for lack of a better term, rather racist. Due to their past political culture they may be unexperienced in coping with the difficulties of democratic rule, but to say -- as you do -- that Iraqis don't understand Western-style, idealized democracy in real-world terms - it's not in their cultural nature today is to dismiss their intellect and potential based on their ethnicity and on which continent they happened to be born. In a word: racism. One need simply point out the example of Turkey (yes, yes, they're not Arabs) and its flawed-but-functioning democracy. Unless, of course, you feel that Arabs in particular (as opposed to Turks) are somehow unsuited to democratic governance.

            he was an idiot with an ego, but little else to back it up internationally

            A bit like that nasty Slobodan Milosevic fellow, eh? Remind me again which UN resolution authorized the invasion of the former Yugoslavia? And whatever happened to Radovan Karadzic?

            So, if that's not fascist factors coming into play, then what is it all adding up to?

            A flawed foreign policy brought about in response to a massive terror attack that had been growing for years and had been basically ignored -- as the "Able Danger" business confirms -- by the Bush Administration pre-9/11 as well as previous "non-fascist" administrations which were content to lob cruise missiles, maintain sanctions, violate Iraq's sovereignty with no-fly zones, and endorse legislation such as the Iraq Liberation Act.

            Bush's foreign policy is far from perfect. His domestic policy is even worse. But fascist? Or even "pseudo-", "proto-", or "crypto-" fascist? Please. Such words are only meant to demonize.

            It's breathtaking to watch the left which, for a century-and-a-half has made solidarity with the common man and opposition to authoritarianism a keystone of its values become so suddenly blasé about the the whole notion of liberation and willing to condemn entire populations to totalitarian repression over "concerns" about UN resolutions and whether or not a given dictator has the power to commit violence upon anyone but his own hapless population. How very... conservative.

            •  Not understanding democracy? (none)
              I loved great swaths of your post... but this in particular:
              "And "foricbly duped?" Breathtaking in its inscrutability."

              Was brilliant.
              You also found something that I had skimmed over on first read, and responded with this:

              "I'll simply pass on the unfortunate and unfortunately predictable nonsense about Israel and move on to comment that your paragraph about Iraqis "not understanding" democracy and such is, for lack of a better term, rather racist."

              I came to the same conclusion a while back.
              People who say that Iraq can't possibly understand democracy are the biggest racists of all.  Its no a mysterious concept, or one that takes a great deal of explanation.  The human heart yearns for freedom.  To suggest that Iraqis are different, that they can't grasp this, is the exact same argument that was used against black Americans in the days of slavery.

              -John

            •  Again with the black and white positions . . . (none)
              You harp on the apparent overuse of "fascist" in some circles to imply only demonization or a necessarily overt manner of managing the government in general, while also sounding almost violent in your opposition to any use of the word in describing factors*and *themes involved with BushCo.

              Why?  Perhaps it's time to calm down and realize that the world is not merely a fantasy place of purely objective and earnest politics: when something appears to be a duck, you can offer it as such, rather than whitewash it down until you've removed all sense of intent or actually demonstrated purpose, so as to label it merely a bird.  Knee-jerk reactionism to the use of the word, "fascism"  - or, any word, for that matter - is not a productive way of helping to understand what is actually occurring, or why I supported a small point made at the top of this subthread.

              As I mentioned above, corporatization of government functions without context or accountability, extreme fair-gaming of viewpoints which dissent or question the Administration's public messages, manipulation of Christianity (i.e., the majority followed religion in the US) towards achieving political policy ends, minimization of individual and labor rights, anti-intellectualism and anti-science stances in light of the desire for blind obedience to the President's viewpoints, election fiascos beyond the norm (e.g., operatives posing as concerned citizens in Florida, circa 2000), incredible focus on a national security in propaganda, uber-patriotism as both political and social cudgel, rallying around attacks on enemies-du-jour (Islamics, gays, etc.) beyond extremism to focus the electorate on issues not actually involving how we run the country, manipulation and infiltration of the public media, etc.  There's something of a theme to recognize in these tactics, and if that simply gets your britches in a bind because it doesn't meet your distilled-down sensibilities, then perhaps you should go back to my question above: why?

              Tax cuts were not shoehorned into this mix, they simply represent another facet of the mindset to shift actual power - i.e., money - from one segment towards a smaller elite.  It fits in well with the overall "centralization of control" theme.

              As expected, you would offer counter-examples to show how BushCo cannot possibly be 100% fascist.  Gee, that's difficult: I never claimed them to be, but merely demonstrated how these tactics are not being made in a vacuum, and obviously came from inspiration rather than oddly placed coincidence in foreign, domestic, economic, energy, etc. policies.  Claiming that an extreme definition is not being met, and then offering that it therefore means that we cannot use a whiff of the f-word, is logically ridiculous.  It's frankly extreme analysis, and seems to take very little historical perspective into account.  These are dishonest arguments.

              As is this one, out of a few:

              You took my statement: "Iraqis don't understand Western-style, idealized democracy in real-world terms - it's not in their cultural nature today" and decided that this somehow meant that Iraqis were wholly incapable of democratic appreciation.

              No, it was simply a reasonable statement of fact, and supported by any analysis of the region today: Western-style democracy as a full system is foreign to such a place today.  Period.  In other words, claims by BushCo that we could simply offer them the opportunity and it would prosper or grow is naive at best and dangerous to their own mode of developing self-rule in the worst case.  The USA is not an experiment which is easy to duplicate, as we've shown through our failed attempts to affect the mode of rule in much of that region.  It's a statement of reality: we should try to inform the Iraqis as best we can on what we feel is valuable to consider in their rebuilding and Constitution, but must ultimately respect the fact that things have been run differently there from governmental and cultural perspectives than here.

              Of course, you decided to take my comment as simplistic diatribe about the inherent capabilities of foreigners to this country, it appears.  That's extreme reasoning, and not entirely honest debate.

              BTW, you should read PNAC and understand the neocon diversity in BushCo: all I did was parrot the opinion they had about another potential threat to Israel's overall security picture.  I have no idea what you found "unfortunate", since you apparently assumed it's common knowledge - perhaps for those who never studied the neocons, I suppose.

              Many other examples, most of which don't deserve the time to re-explain, however, I'd love to quote this item:

              "It's breathtaking to watch the left which, for a century-and-a-half has made solidarity with the common man and opposition to authoritarianism a keystone of its values become so suddenly blasé about the the whole notion of liberation and willing to condemn entire populations to totalitarian repression over "concerns" about UN resolutions and whether or not a given dictator has the power to commit violence upon anyone but his own hapless population. How very... conservative."

              This certainly reveals much, thank you.  And, if you honestly feel that a primary reason we went into Iraq was to liberate the Iraqis from Saddam, then I'm sure you'll be able to explain how straight and true the Administration's pronouncements were on this point, up to and even beyond the occupation.  Then, please explain why our clear focus on backroom deals to obtain favored resources from that country seemed to overshadow our strategy for giving the Iraqis this wonderful chance to make their own way, for, as a multitude of countries and analysts noted before we invaded, the chance of creating an unstable haven for breeding pockets of actual terrorism were rather significant.  I'd also be interested to hear how the current death, injury and disease toll in Iraq plays with our prior balance of continuing to pressure Saddam on human rights issues, but not getting involved in their country's affairs unless it was recognized as a need by a UN council (or, at least NATO) majority to save citizens from genocide.  Why haven't we gone into Sudan, then?  Or, North Korea?

              Please note, that only you have brought a Hitler association into this subthread - I didn't attempt anything of the sort.  Otherwise, I would have made the comparison in plain words.  Apparently, you're trying to read things into this "fascist" tone that I supported which do not exist, so as to bolster your careful counterpoints that seem to ascribe no classifications to BushCo policy from a style perspective.  As if their tactics or style can only be viewed as the Administration honestly and sincerely trying to do a proper job in all areas we've mentioned.  How convenient.

    •  Counter Sign - STAT! (none)
      Don't The American People Deserve Truth?

      Great minds snark alike. :)

      by cskendrick on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 05:07:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And... (none)
      What Are YOU Upset About?

      Great minds snark alike. :)

      by cskendrick on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 05:09:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  WTF? (4.00)
    Why aren't they in Iraq?
  •  Anti-Cindy protesters (4.00)
    I am so sick and tired of these people using images of her some to protest against her, that is so morally wrong. If these people want to have freedom in Iraq the  they should be the ones fighting.
  •  When you think (4.00)
    that they can do nothing more to make your opinion of them drop --

    This is about as sick as it gets -- I hope to
    God that Cindy did not see that --

    We will never end terrorism by terrorizing others -- bumper sticker on I-5

    by sara seattle on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 12:02:42 AM PDT

  •  Two fat white (4.00)
    cowards. If they can drive an SUV they can drive a humvee.

    Suit up, ship out.

    Support the troops: enlist.

    by strack on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 12:03:28 AM PDT

    •  Actually I think they get an exemption... (3.64)
      ...for being pregnant, apparently. (What was the signature line I saw the other day? Oh yeah: "How far up your ass does Bush need to stick his d#ck before you realize you are being f#cked?" I guess the Preznit was not wearing protection, and now these two are expecting.)
      •  OMG (4.00)
        That is the funniest comment I've seen in a long time.  I seriously thing I pulled something, I'm laughing so hard.

        Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore; They're already overcrowded from Your dirty little war. - John Prine

        by Laura D on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 12:24:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  wtf? (none)
        i'm tired of people giving 1s to comments that do not deserve them.  christ it's lame.

        If I knew it was going to be this bad, I would have aborted myself

        by als10 on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 12:46:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, (none)
          It's weird - I clicked on it and the rating is really a 4.  I wonder if this is a quirk of the site, because I started looking around at other (none/1) posts and most were 4s - they just didn't show up that way.

          Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore; They're already overcrowded from Your dirty little war. - John Prine

          by Laura D on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 03:15:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  no, im talking (none)
            about the post that i responded to.  one guy gave him a 1 rating (tomP), while he got 4s from everyone else.

            the whole (none/1) thing is you can't have an average (none) because there's only been one vote (/1).  the /# is the number of votes, not the actual vote score.

            If I knew it was going to be this bad, I would have aborted myself

            by als10 on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 03:25:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  and (none)
            i should have been more specific.  i was responding to someone giving an undeserving 1 to daulton's comment about the anti-protestors being exempt from military duty due to pregnancy.  and...it was funny and not offensive and, well, I'm just sick of people abusing ratings.  it's kind of childish.

            If I knew it was going to be this bad, I would have aborted myself

            by als10 on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 03:28:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  and (none)
              now two people have given it a one.  pussies.

              Tom P and daisycolorado.  supposedly it's too, uh, not kosher?  maybe they are on a mission to remove tactfully non-offensive yet blatant remarks from the annals of comedy.  so you two, don't see the aristocrats when it comes out.

              If I knew it was going to be this bad, I would have aborted myself

              by als10 on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 03:32:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  you missed a step (4.00)
      shut up, suit up, ship out
  •  Don't the Iraqi people deserve freedom?? (4.00)
    Don't Americans deserve the Hillary healthcare the Iraqi Constitution provides Iraqis??
  •  their holds holding his picture (4.00)
    I'm going to be sick.
  •  I find it infuriating (4.00)
    That the same people who want to kill all the "towel heads" pretend to be interested in setting them free.

    Give me a fucking break. These stuffed sausages don't give a rats ass about "Iraqi Freedom". If they did they'd be asking:

    "Don't the Saudi People deserve Freedom?"

  •  These people..... (4.00)
    are not bright.

    They lead shallow, empty lives. They are desperate and lonely.

    And I loathe them.

    *Love me, love me, love me....I'm a liberal*--Phil Ochs

    by Manix on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 12:08:08 AM PDT

  •  Oh yea... (none)
    Iraqi freedom...
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8942482/

    At least it'll be more open to the US being around... I'm sure.

  •  remember florida 2000? (4.00)
    someone needs to find out who they are. i doubt they are just normal human beings living in texas. um, ok, im sorry. that is kinda stupid. well, if your in tx you must know that shit is going to flow toward you. ugh. these guys have NO SENSE OF REALITY. how sad are humans that they stoop so low as to throw shit at each other.

    It's ok to be stupid if everybody else is.

    by mkf on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 12:12:58 AM PDT

  •  these guys started a website called (none)
    guyswithguts.net!!!!!! "hey baby, ever go down on a guy where you had to hold up his gut?" ha

    It's ok to be stupid if everybody else is.

    by mkf on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 12:14:20 AM PDT

  •  This says a lot about BUSH... (4.00)
    This is his Base. Pathetic. This to me, it says a lot more about Bush than the to men holding the signs. How can people be filled with such hate? It is shocking that this was the majority that put Bush over the number he needed last November. If nothing else it takes us into the minds of the sick motherfuckers that we are dealing with. This is Jeffrey Dahmer sick.

    *"I went to protest Dobson, and all I got was this damn feeding tube*

    by Chamonix on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 12:17:00 AM PDT

    •  no (none)
      it's not jeffrey dahmer sick.  can we please go forth with the merits of our words without making another disastrous comparison between this and one of the sickest men ever to live in milwaukee?  remember the gulag remark and how well that played?  i guess not.

      If I knew it was going to be this bad, I would have aborted myself

      by als10 on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 03:36:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  hey daulton (2.50)
    the original comes from bill hicks!!!!!!!

    "how far up your ass do these guys dicks have to be before you realise their fucking you!?"

    It's ok to be stupid if everybody else is.

    by mkf on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 12:19:44 AM PDT

  •  Cult (none)
    That's all I gotta say.

    I HATE REPUBLICANS, HATE HATE HATE THEM!!!!!!!!! UGHHHHH

    by michael1104 on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 12:24:19 AM PDT

  •  Yes, it is so easy to ridicule these... (none)
    ...gut-heavy, mean-spirited guys, with their pitiful, cowardly signs.

    Signs that are almost an excuse for an opinion really, not an actual opinion, just what happens when mens minds are truly like memory foam.

    But take heart, there is one truth apparent in these horrible photos, and that is that between both of these guys fat, palid, sweaty, thighs there hangs a satire, a comedy version, a joke of a manhood.

    Yes, I'm talking about miniscularium penileisism.

    It's actually quite sad when you see one, looks a bit like a "comma" , at best surrounded by two "periods" ..

    Sucks for those guys.

    George Bush: you work for me. I pay your salary. Come out and talk to me.
    --Cindy Sheehan

    by deafmetal on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 12:43:57 AM PDT

  •  What goes around comes around (4.00)
    and some day these guys will get their just desserts (although it doesn't look as if they need any dessert!).  Sorry, that was nasty and almost stooping as low as they are stooping.  But when I see something like that, it makes me want to be violent, and I am not a violent person.  I want to take their fucking heads and whatever few brains might be in there, and rap them together until maybe some sense is knocked into them.  But that would be a lost cause and certainly not promoting the peace we want to achieve here, would it?  LOL  Sure want to knock a few fucking heads together though.  Those pictures do require a barf bucket.  How dare they use Casey's image to promote their warped, sick, and  very wrong beliefs about freedom...

    Bush lies, people die  

  •  They look young enough. (4.00)
    Why don't they enlist?

    You might want to have some army recruiting flyers handy next time.

    •  Military enlistment papers (4.00)
      Great Idea!

      Cindy and her crew should have enlistment papers to provide bushies crew.

      Then she should tell them "put up or shut up."

      Go Cindy, my heart is with you even though I can't be.

      •  Not Cindy's message (none)
        remember, Cindy is fighting to bring ALL troops home - she wants NO other MOTHER to feel the pain she feels ... its not partisan ..... stop the pain of Mothers's hearts being ripped out by the death of their children.  Stay focused.  please.
        •  Not Really (1.00)
          I am not a troll - only an objective observer of this and other lefty sites' rhetoric.

          My take on this topic - this woman deserves no more sympathy than any other parent having a son or daughter wounded or killed in Iraq.

          What makes her so damned important?  The media, that's who, so they have something to report on.

          Our military is a volunteer, not drafted, organization, meaning those who serve do so willingly (you can always find exceptions, but let's try to be grown-ups here, ok?).

          If my child decided to fight for this cause, and was killed doing it, I would certainly grieve over this loss, but first and foremost I would respect his/her decision to do so by not whining about the war fought; doing so only DISRESPECTS that decision... which most of you simply cannot comprehend.

          Death under any curcumstance is tragic, but you guys are turning this into a political opportunity to bach Bush, Iraq, and anything else RNC-related.

          Ok, flame away...

          •  You have a good point here... but (none)
            Casey Sheehan didn't volunteer to go to war in Iraq. He volunteered to fight the terrorists responsible for 9/11. Cindy has said that he was uncomfortable going to Iraq to fight a war that he thought was wrong.
            •  joining the military... (none)
              The problem with joining something like the military is that ultimately, you don't get a choice in where they decide to send you.

              You can say that you want to serve in one place. But the military determines where you wind up.

              "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

              by kredwyn on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 08:02:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Iraq and the all volunteer Armed Forces (none)
            When are the right wingers going to get the fact that we invaded a sovereign nation?

            Casey and all others volunteered to defend the United States against our enemies.  Saddam never attacked this country.  So where do you get off saying Cindy dishonors her son?  bush and his neocon buddies had an agenda to go to Iraq and used 9-11.  And in using 9-11 he used our Armed Forces for a very illegal war.  Have you read the Downing Street memoes or are you so wrapped up in defending bush that you can't be bothered because it would tarnish your idolotry of bush.

            You need to apologize to Cindy and all families that have lost loved ones in this needless conflict.

            •  Huh? (none)
              First, I am not a right winger - I only call 'em as I see 'em.

              Secondly, Iraq was certainly considered a threat by even the UN (why else would they have issues those 17 resolutions?) prior to the US going in to remove Hussein... and when you consider that most of the Iraqi fighter are foreign fighters, the "fly paper" strategy of attracting the terrorists over there, instead of in the US, makes some sense to me.

              Thirdly, her son was just like any other military recruit, who volunteered to follow orders in a organization that demands such to exist.  He, like the others, cannot choose what orders to obey (like an assignment to Iraq) - he must obey what his commanders tell him, just like his commanders obeying their orders, and so on.  

              And why do I owe anyone an apology to CS for anything?  Did I sent him to Iraq?  No, I did not.  He sent himself to the military, period.

              Oh, and saying I have an "idolotry" of Bush?  You are a moron for stating this, since you know nothing about my position other than a single post I've made on this forum.

              Bottom line - you appear to be an anti-Bush person, and as such cannot see the forest for the trees, referring to the debunked Downing Street memos, a "predisposition" to invade Iraq, etc., all while ignoring a decade-old effort to control Hussien's threat (amid his boasting) to the international community.

              You just need to quit your sniping at other POV's, settle down, put yourself in the shoes of the Administration's, and try to calmly judge the situation.  I've tried to, and I while I certainly have doubts about some of the Admin's actions, I am nowhere near the position that you are supporting since it is completely without merit.

              •  Fly paper nonsense (none)
                when you consider that most of the Iraqi fighter are foreign fighters, the "fly paper" strategy of attracting the terrorists over there, instead of in the US, makes some sense to me.

                All terrorists will not magically converge in Iraq because the US is waging war there. As the attacks in Madrid, London and Sharm el Sheik prove, you don't need an army to strike elsewhere.

                Most Iraqi fighters are definitely not foreign fighters but Sunnis who benefited the most from Hussein's rule, and a large number of them are from the army that was so foolishly dissolved by Paul Bremer.

                The "fly paper" theory is just that, a theory. It wasn't the justification given for the war in the first place, and it's completely delusional to think of it as something effective in dealing with terrorism.

                From the link above:
                A separate Israeli analysis of 154 foreign fighters compiled by a leading terrorism researcher found that despite the presence of some senior Al Qaeda operatives who are organizing the volunteers, ''the vast majority of [non-Iraqi] Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq."

          •  yes, BUT (none)
            "My take on this topic - this woman deserves no more sympathy than any other parent having a son or daughter wounded or killed in Iraq."

            Yes, but it's the President's obvious lack of sympathy for those who actual sacrificed themselves for this OPTIONAL war.  Fucker won't even go to any funerals.  That is BULLSHIT.  Sheehan has not gotten any sympathy from this White House, and I feel she deserves it.

            If I knew it was going to be this bad, I would have aborted myself

            by als10 on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 03:42:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hmmm... (none)
              Sounds like you have a lot of pent-up feelings about this subject (calling the Prez a FUCKER, calling the Iraq conflict OPTIONAL abd BULLSHIT)... all of which you know is BOGUS.  Oh that's right, you wanna a warm 'n fuzzy Prez like Clinton who didn't do ANYTHING to stop Hussein, perjured himself, had his wife fire the while WH travel staff that was in place for over 30 years, etc.

              Maybe you need to be Prez for a day to see how you manage that schedule... you have no idea.

              •  hey (none)
                there's a preview button, so that should help you with your spelling mistakes next time you decide to post.  

                hillary firing the white house travel staff - eh

                bush choosing a war and letting 1900 servicepeople die - well, thats a lot more serious than a cleaning of house.

                having idiots like you suck at the teet of stupidity - well, maybe you've had enough milk for today.  besides, the GOP is getting all wrinkled at spent.  just like a worn out titty.

                If I knew it was going to be this bad, I would have aborted myself

                by als10 on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 05:11:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ahhh... (none)
                  ...the future of the Democratic party.  You've made my point quite well, thank you very much.
                  •  well at least (none)
                    I have a point.

                    "you don't know what it's like to be president."

                    well neither do you, hypocrite.

                    otherwise you'd know that basic human decency should be a requirement of the job.

                    and the fact you'd defend such drivel is key to my point: you're way off base, you've been spending too much time whiffing fumes from thompson's waterseal, and you're taking the side of a bully.  cheers!

                    possibly, instead of defending who probably will end up being the worst president in recent memory, you should spend more time actually disseminating substantial information and not blindly swallowing whatever talking points the GOP vomits up.

                    hey, what's the next justification for the Iraq war going to be?  are you going to be uber-trendy and switch, or are you going to stick with the fly-paper strategy?  chanel, or lane bryant?  which is it?  well, basically, the fact that you aren't mad about the blatant fuck-ups makes me wonder if your looking glass isn't permanently broken or just smeared by incessant half-truths and whole lies given by those you feel have been unfairly attacked.

                    If I knew it was going to be this bad, I would have aborted myself

                    by als10 on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 07:18:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Like I said... (none)
                      You make my point every time you post.  You bow to personally attacking someone (me, Bush or whomever) that you don't even know with "facts" that are probably provided to you by questionable sources (likely other blogs like this one).

                      BTW - do you work for Howard Dean?

                      •  what's your point again? (none)
                        oh, right:

                        president bush: good
                        cindy sheehan: bad

                        and what "facts" don't I know?  and why put "s around facts?  is it the "fact" that you can't take a little heat?  or the "fact" that you defend a bully?

                        oh no, I attacked president bush!  gee, how could I do something so crass?  and i didn't attack you, i implied you were watersealing your deck, but for some reason decided to do it in your basement.  i was just getting a little insight into your train of thought, and came up with the conclusion that to take a position such as yours you'd have to just returned from a four hour huffing session.  i didn't know you were sensitive about your drug problem.  i apologize.

                        and are these "questionable sources (likely other blogs like this one)" the same ones you read that have an argument and use evidence to back them up, even supplying the appropriate links to where their evidence is located?  god the WaPo must be on crack!  

                        basically, I'm done with you.  you take the side of bush and that's more than enough reason to simply brush off whatever you have said, or will probably say in the future.  into the septic tank, bud, because i'm about to flush.

                        If I knew it was going to be this bad, I would have aborted myself

                        by als10 on Tue Aug 16, 2005 at 09:52:56 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  LOL (none)
                          Sorry, but I take the side of reason which you apparently lack in platitudes, what with you assuming that I am a Bushie (I am not) and that your "news" sources are objective (The Washington  Post?  Give me a break).

                          Enjoy your camaraderie among your other bigots, dude... and get used to being in the minority for a long time.

                          Signing off for good...

                          •  word! (none)
                            hey, don't use lame acronyms.  and i'm sorry, but people disliking bush are NOT in the minority.  do you know what approval ratings are?  

                            and i don't care if you aren't a "bushie," and would appreciate, whenever you post in the future, you don't use lame nicknames.  ok, snuggly-poo?

                            at least you didn't stoop low enough to use emoticons.

                            If I knew it was going to be this bad, I would have aborted myself

                            by als10 on Tue Aug 16, 2005 at 07:48:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  by the way (none)
                            you're ENTIRE comment history consists of defending bush over a woman who lost her son.  can you say, "zero credibility?"

                            speaking up only for bush.  class act.

                            If I knew it was going to be this bad, I would have aborted myself

                            by als10 on Tue Aug 16, 2005 at 07:59:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

  •  Everyone Deserves Freedom... (4.00)
    Reminds me of an old Onion article: "Dead Iraqi Would Have Loved Democracy" (that's just a snippet, the whole thing has since expired from The Onion, but really the title says it all...)
  •  Forgive them. They know not what they do..... (4.00)
    I think THAT is the best way to look at these guys. I think that THEY think that they are actually righteous.

    As others have pointed out, they probably aren't very bright, probably bought into the comany line whole hog from the outset, and they just don't know any better.

    What transpires as the tide turns in the coming days is going to be a very painful thing for them to accept. They will have to confront their own limitations.

    Forgive them.

  •  Hah hah (none)
    Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs linked to this.

    Some highlights:

    The Left only supports the troops when they're dead.

    I declare those who would 'throw up' at a sign about "Freedom not being free" as mentally ill.

    Some commenters over there wonder why the two holding the signs aren't in Iraq -- how do they know that they haven't already served? Asshats.

    Hah hah.

    I find it really hard to imagine re-joining the Right as long as its population by hateful scum like this.

    •  Son of a B**** (none)
      From that site.
      #18         sms111  8/14/2005 09:19AM PDT

      I declare those who would 'throw up' at a sign about "Freedom not being free" as mentally ill.

      So, yes, I normally would not want to throw up at a "Freedom isn't Free" sign, but as I explained above - when you use a mother's son against her it makes me physically ill.  All those asshats say that Cindy is "using" her som - bullsh**.  She's his MOTHER!  She has every right to demand the answers for his death in his name - JERKS.

      Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore; They're already overcrowded from Your dirty little war. - John Prine

      by Laura D on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 10:52:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Heh, don't worry (none)
        The fact that they're getting so riled up about it only shows how far this is going and how much momentum it's getting.

        They're skurrred.....oooohhh noooooo America is finally seeing the truth aaaaaaaggggggghhhhhhh attack the truth tellers attack......101st Keyboardists ten-hut....ready....set....TYPE!

        They're so transparent it's beyond the aburd.

        ***

        Hey Charlie!  You see me here talkin to your sorry ass....get ready to arm your keyboard Mister All American! Gettin skurred over there?  Watching your war supporters turn into the 30% range?  Watching America wake up to the truth that you and your scumbag ilk have been spreading nothing but hate based on lies?   How does it feel to know that the only people who support your sites are the true scum sucking bigots of this nation who have to have assistance getting their knuckles off the ground just to type their inane repetitive "Kill the ragheads...nuke the camel jockeys....shoot the liberals" idiotic mantras day after day?

        You must be proud, Charlie :-D  Buahahahahaha!

        Cheers ;-)

    •  haha (none)
      "...how do you know they haven't already served"

      I dunno, aren't there physical requirements?  Like not being a fat-ass?

      If I knew it was going to be this bad, I would have aborted myself

      by als10 on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 03:43:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Iraq Free? (none)

    You must be joking!! Sharia law will be installed and has been well reported here in Australia. That means that women in Iraq will be anything but free. But to expect two pregnant male dick heads to know that would be too much!!
  •  Well (none)
    It's obvious the two guys holding the signs have never seen battle more strenuous than their struggle to reach the bowl of Cheetoes from the Barcalounger.

    Yet more chickenhawk tactics. Gad, they're ugly, you're right about that.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site