Freepers still using the "you couldn't protest in one of those countries"

[expatriot]

"Our troops are over there fighting for our rights, and if she was in one of those countries she would not be able to do that," Vigna said.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/25/war.rally.ap/index.html

Okay, looking past the "one of those" countries comments, this argument has always pissed me off so much.


First of all, their logic seems to be that because we have the right to peacefully protest our government we ahouls nor exercise that right.

Secondly, don't they know that if we were "over there" in one of "those countries" we would still be in the streets... not protesting but fighting. They would be there too.... down the street from us not as counter-protesters but as that particular regime's stooges, duped by myths of a fascistic fatherland. Instead of insults, we'd be trading volleys of deadly fire. Freepers think that because we protest we are not respectful and mindful of the rights we enjoy. No, we respect our rights by exercising them when duty calls, the duty of citizen.

[noahmijo]

1. I say "And if our forefathers took your positions in 1773...

you'd be speaking with an English accent and helping to susidize the tea industry"

[mirandaod]

4. The cons would have been Tories.

This kind of thinking has been anti progress and anti freedom throughout history.
I also suspect that if the religious right had been around in Jesus' time, they would have been hammering the nails in.

[noahmijo]

6. funny you bring that up "Torries" is one of my nicknames for them

aside from flat earther..

and one of my statements to self proclaimed Christian freeps is that if Jesus walked the earth today they would be the first to wanna drive the nails back into his wrists.

[mirandaod]

9. That's why I love it here...

I'm not out of place here, like I am at family dinners....

[noahmijo]

10. Well I don't have any brothers or sisters

I just turned 24, only child always on the look out to adopt :)

[mirandaod]

12. You're the same age as my oldest son!

I'm happy to say that I managed to raise 2 peaceniks! So, it's really not the whole family - really just a few freeper inlaws! Those family gatherings are a real test to my manners.

[Selteri]

11. They were, they did, they were the Pharasies. The "jews" of the time. NT

[neuvocat]

2. So why do they want to make the U.S. like one of those countries?

After all, a number of women's coalitions are complaining about the erosion of rights for women in Iraq. Who's to blame for that? Not Saddam.

[Carolab]

3. If they think soldiers are defending our right to protest, then why

do they object to our protesting?

[Arkana]

21. Exactly. Pointing out that we have the right to protest makes protesting

wrong? If I could remember my logic class, I could shoot this so full of holes it's not even funny, but I really don't need to. Basically what they're saying is, "In other countries, you wouldn't have the right to protest, so you shouldn't do it here either!"

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. They don't allow protest in China, however that doesn't stop Walmart

from filling their warehouses with shit made there, that Vagina no doubt buys herself. Since when did these freepers get all excited about international human rights issues?

[pamela]

7. They just don't get it.

Yes, throughout history, brave men and women have fought and died for our freedoms. What the freepers don't get, is that the deaths of these brave men and women didn't give us the right to speak out, they gave us the OBLIGATION to speak out.

[Garbo 2004]

8. Troops aren't fighting for our rights in Iraq. Plus the war is Iraq is

funded by the Chinese. How do the freepers like that? Who do they think BushInc is borrowing from to support deficit spending and the running tab in Iraq? Geniuses, they are. Not.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wmills551]

14. The young men and women sent to Iraq are not stooges.

Young men wearing masks and breaking windows at a Starbucks for an afternoon to protest WTO or some other one day cause. Now those folks are stooges.

[Toots]

24. Not sure what you mean by stooge.

Maybe pawn would be a better word. They are nothing but pawns in a pointless war that is doing the exact opposite of how it is being billed. The killing of Arabs in Iraq is not making America stronger but much more vulnerable because less and less people around the globe will come to our assistance if ever needed. The world sees what is happening and does not approve. Only about thirty percent of Americans think what is happening is proper and just. That is a pretty miniscule amount compared to the population of the world, about one percent..

[wmills551]

25. I used the word stooge because that is the word used in the original post

Again, the men and women in our armed forces fighting in Iraq and elsewhere are not stooges or pawns. It is possible to be against the war and still not stoop to denigrating our brave troops by dismissing them as pawns. They are brave and patriotic Americans. They do not get to choose there assignments once they join the military. They were brave enough to join in the first place and are now honoring that commitment. It is wrong and it is political stupidity to refer to them as pawns.

[Toots]

30. If they are not pawns being used then thay are willing participants and

worthy of scorn unless of course you believe killing women and children is proper behavior. You sound like you approve of what is going on. If that is the case you are on the wrong forum..

[wmills551]

38. Why don't you find me one Democratic leader

who agrees with you that our troops are either pawns or worthy of scorn. Perhaps you are posting on the wrong board.

[RandomKoolzip]

36. Learn to parse before you post.

n/t

[RandomKoolzip]

34. The word "stooge" in the OP refers to the freepers.

They would be there too.... down the street from us not as counter-protesters but as that particular regime's stooges, duped by myths of a fascistic fatherland.

"They" in this case refers to the rightists and center-rightists who would be counter-protesting OUR protests. NOT the soldiers who are brave enough to enlist in a cause they believe in, but your average rightist keyboard kommando....Y'know, like those brave, courageous ProtestWarrior dingleberries who think they're being so clever because they're out-nonconforming the nonconformists, when really they're just lackeys for empire and big business.

And as for "breaking Starbuck's windows..." Dude, okay: so the actions of a tiny minority of protestors in a group of 100,000 invalidates that ENTIRE group's message? By that logic, the entire right wing ought to be discredited, because it has traditionally dredged its voting base from the Klan and the Posse Comitatus....y'know, murderers.

Nice use of the false quote and the third-party misdirection, however. Straight out of the Frank Luntz playbook! :thumbsup:

Overall, I must dock a grade because of poor parsing skills. C-

[wmills551]

39. Great parsing randomkoolzip

I see you needed to edit it to get it right. May want to work on your reading comprehension skills!

[RandomKoolzip]

41. I edited it because I originally called you a scum-sucking dipshit.

And, of course, that would be against the rules.

[leesa]

15. How is it that they never notice the huge protests in these countries.

These people are so '1950's communists under the bed' frightened little twits.

[tanyev]

16. But "those countries" frequently have staged demonstrations

in support of a dictatorial regime. So I think they would feel very comfortable in one of "those countries".

[Catrina]

17. The troops in Iraq

are not fighting for freedom, not for us and not for Iraq. They are fighting for Halliburton and Bechtel and the Carlyle Group, and the neo-con dreams of Empire, which will never succeed.

The freepers won't fight for their freedom, so the protestors are doing their fighting for them.

They need not worry their little heads, as long as there are protestors to fight for their freedom, they'll have the right to hold their little gatherings in support of illegal wars and torture.

Amazing how little they think of America. They always compare it to the worst dictatorships. They really do hate America.

And if it should ever happen that a government take away any of these rights, it will be the protestors who will be in the streets fighting. Freepers will be on the side of the dictator. Thank god there are so few of them.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

18. They can't, aren't encouraged to think for themselves, so

that only leaves repeating endlessly talking points given them.

Even if the TP's are decades old and just as moldy.

[SunDrop23]

19. We are not in one of those countries...YET. Give them time.

[Arkana]

20. Yawn...same old tired arguments, and once again the only crowd

that will lap it up is the crowd that already believes it. I swear, if the Founding Fathers had thought the way these guys did...

[SOS]

22. Impeccable logic....

1. "Our troops are over there fighting for our rights, and if she was in one of those countries she would not be able to do that," Vigna said.

2. One sign on the mall read "Arrest the traitors"; it listed Sheehan's name first among several people who have spoken against the war.

In one breath they glorify the First Amendment guarantee of free speech and assembly in the United States. In the next they call for the arrest and imprisonment of Cindy Sheehan for having the audacity to exercise her First Amendment rights.

Logic and consistency always eludes these morons.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

23. BUT WE CAN AND WE DID SO THEY SHOULD S.T.F.U.

sorry for the shouting...whispering now :)

[zulchzulu]

26. An absolutely irrelevant "argument"

Sheehan (or any other American) is allowed to dissent because that is her right. What her thoughts are on the war are for whoever wishes to agree or disagree with her.

The ever-sliding reasons for being in Iraq have lately been because we are "fighting for democracy". Would we have gone to Iraq preemptively because we wanted to "free" the Iraqis from Saddam? Um...not a chance.

The inept logic that people who are exercising their First Amendment rights are somehow betraying the country by exercising those very rights as Americans is absurd.

It's as though America is free as long as you don't act like or are allowed to be free.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. Let's see, I first heard that in 1969

"Why aren't you protesting in Hanoi?"

It's "Why aren't you protesting in Baghdad" now, but they always think they're soooo clever when they say it, as if no one ever thought of it before.

[librechik]

28. I don't get it --is this fact supposed to get us to stop protesting?

Or realize we shouldn't? Or give up our views because why should we continue to disagree with a leadership who "allows us" to demonstrate? Should it be ENOUGH just to cherish our ("rare?") right to protest (without actually doing it) to satisfy us that justice is done?

This gambit is too stupid to respond to.

[liberalitch]

29. Women's rights activists are having to leave Iraq in droves now....

they didn't have to before they "got democracy"

[ComerPerro]

31. I like, "So then why aren't you over there fighting for our freedoms?"

I've hit a few College Rethugs with that one. They usually come back with some bullshit like "I am helping just as much at home" or "I am needed here".

Or Cheney's "I have other priorities"

[BluGrl]

32. I have to admit that I'm embarassed

When the signs start comparing America to dictatorships, Bush to Hitler, etc. I understand the passion and frustration but that's just giving people an excuse to laugh. We don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I can love America but hate what some of the politicians are doing. For that, you won't ever see me trashing my country, but rather the persons I feel are responsible for the problem.

Some are too frustrated to focus their thoughts and end up making us look like fools. Shame on them.

[tanyev]

33. If the jackboot fits,

:shrug:

[RandomKoolzip]

35. Yeah, that IS a problem.

I wish we could just all hold hands and never tall the truth in blunt terms. Instead of "fascist," can we all just call the NeoCons "misguided but effective?"

I mean, It's obvious the Bush Administration has the public's best interests at heart. Think about it: they COULD have started a war based on lies that would enrich the bank accounts of the corporations who fund their campaigns!

Oh, wait, they did do that....huh. That does seem kinda "fascist," I suppose....

Well, at least they're not cutting funding to programs that ensure tens of millions of Americans won't go homeless! That would be the SURE sign that they're horrible bastards!

Oh, wait...they're doing that, too.


Well, okay then...I'm just gonna hafta call a spade a spade here. Sorry. :shrug:

[jonnyblitz]

37. if they had their way we couldn't protest here!! what hypocrites

for saying that!!!

[Justice]

40. Conservatives don't want liberals to be able to speak,

they don't just disagree with what Liberals say, conservatives criticize liberals for even speaking.

How exactly are conservatives better?

[RedCloud]

42. In the past our troops have killed our people!

Native Americans
Slaves
Workers on strike
Students protesting


Lest we forget.

The USA has been involved in more military agression than any country or empire in history.

[Vinnie From Indy]

43. Sometimes it is fun to do a brief rundown of similarities

They have a ruthless right wing dictator, BushCo. is a right wing dictator
Their politicians steal what isn't nailed down, BushCo steals what isn't nailed down
They torture prisoners, BushCo tortures prisoners
etc. etc. etc.