News
Antiwar T-shirts win protection
A federal judge cites the First Amendment in permanently blocking officials from prosecuting Flagstaff's Dan Frazier.PHOENIX -- A federal judge on Wednesday permanently blocked state and local officials from prosecuting a Flagstaff man who produces and sells antiwar T-shirts with the names of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq.
U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake said the shirts are "core political speech fully protected by the First Amendment." Wake acknowledged that Dan Frazier sells the shirts. But he said the fact that an item is sold rather than given away does not strip it of its constitutional protections.
But Wednesday's ruling is not an absolute victory for the American Civil Liberties Union, which came to Frazier's defense after the Legislature passed a law last year specifically aimed at putting him out of business.
Wake said he was able to decide the dispute strictly on the basis of how it would be applied to Frazier.
That allowed the judge to sidestep the question of whether the law, on its face, is unconstitutional. And attorney Lee Phillips said that means it remains on the books -- and might be used to prosecute someone else in the future.
The decision also leaves intact another section of that 2007 law which allows the survivors of dead soldiers to file civil suits if someone uses the names of their loved ones without permission. Wake declined to rule on that issue as he had no specific case before him on that issue.
That issue, however, could be resolved in a separate lawsuit filed in Tennessee by the parents of Brandon Reed, killed in 2004 in Iraq, who want $40 billion from Frazier on behalf of themselves and other survivors. The ACLU, which is defending Frazier in that case, too, has not yet filed its response.
At the heart of this case are Frazier's T-shirts, which have the words "Bush Lied" on one side and "They Died" on the other, all superimposed over the names of more than 4,000 soldiers killed in the Iraq war.
Sen. Jim Waring, R-Phoenix, pushed through a law making it a crime to use the names, portraits or pictures of dead soldiers to market any items without first obtaining consent of next of kin. Waring acknowledged the statute, which allows an offender to be jailed for up to six months, was aimed specifically at Frazier.
The ACLU filed suit last year after Frazier said he had been told by Flagstaff police they were preparing a report on his activities and intended to forward it to the city prosecutor's office. Wake issued a temporary restraining order blocking further action while he heard legal arguments.
In his new ruling, Wake acknowledged that commercial activities do not have the same broad free speech protections as those done without financial consideration.
And Wake acknowledged that Frazier was selling his shirts. He also said Frazier was using photos of the shirts -- with the soldiers' names -- in advertising on his Web site, something the law clearly prohibits.
But the judge said that doesn't mean Frazier was engaged in commercial activity.
In this case, Wake said, the T-shirts themselves and the message they bear are fully protected by the First Amendment. The judge called the Web site where they are marketed "like a street- side table used to disseminate anti-war and political messages in a variety of ways, including displaying and selling his message- bearing T-shirts."
"It is impossible to separate the political from the commercial aspects of that display," Wake wrote.
Phillips said Wake's refusal to overturn the law means others facing prosecution under the same law will have to make their own case that their activities are entitled to free speech protections. But Phillips said it should offer some legal shelter to other anti-war activists.
"Anyone else who can show they are genuine in their political motivation for the use of the names of a deceased soldier would probably be protected," he said. Conversely, someone who uses the names strictly to sell products likely could still be prosecuted.
The civil lawsuit filed earlier this year in Tennessee by Robin and Michael Read originally sought $10 million in damages from Frazier, who has placed their son's name on his T-shirts. It has since been amended in an effort to represent all of the survivors and collect $40 billion on their behalf from Frazier.
Phillips said he hopes to have the case transferred to Arizona.
»Subscribe to the Arizona Daily Sun
Ads by Yahoo!
Hollywood Video Powerplay
Lock in the Cheapest Rental Prices. No Due Dates - No Late Fees.
HollywoodVideo.com
Readers' Favorites
-
A farm stand grows in Cheshire
(2 ratings)
-
Probation in feed store theft
(1 ratings)
-
Prescott raising impact fees July 11
(1 ratings)
-
For love of art
(1 ratings)
-
70 boaters cited at Lake Powell
(1 ratings)
Most commented stories
- Senate: Give Fish new trial (87)
- Smoke blankets Flagstaff (48)
- Fort Valley prescribed fires started (46)
- Court denies Death Row appeal of Flag man (41)
- Plan for gifted in limbo (39)
- Appeals court tosses trail shooter's conviction (updated) (39)
- Mayor Presler: Looking forward, not back (38)
- City touts four projects worth $100M (32)
- House OKs major clean energy bill (25)
- More layoffs at Southwest Windpower (24)
Leave your comments below:
John wrote on Sep 2, 2008 6:04 PM:
" frybreadbody- your points were right on. My dad was a japanese ex-pow for 3 1/2 years to defend the constitution so Dan Frazier can hide behind it and profit from other people's losses and spew his so called opinion. "
John wrote on Sep 2, 2008 5:59 PM:
" rush wrote on Aug 30, 2008 10:17 PM:
" Most of the posts here talk of how rotten this guy is. You all fail to see the point. This is about upholding the constitution, and you should all be gratefull of the ruling. Otherwise, go live in China. Save your complaints for the "This Guy Has no Morals" article. "
Upholding the constitution is one thing, making money off of soldiers who have sacrificed their lives for the constitution is something completely different. That is what I have a problem with Frazier. Speaking your opinion vs making money off of the sorrow of others. "
" Most of the posts here talk of how rotten this guy is. You all fail to see the point. This is about upholding the constitution, and you should all be gratefull of the ruling. Otherwise, go live in China. Save your complaints for the "This Guy Has no Morals" article. "
Upholding the constitution is one thing, making money off of soldiers who have sacrificed their lives for the constitution is something completely different. That is what I have a problem with Frazier. Speaking your opinion vs making money off of the sorrow of others. "
frybreadbody wrote on Sep 1, 2008 1:06 PM:
" To: One of the Friends Fallen --
I must commend you for your strong stance in your beliefs. One of my uncle's is a Vietnam War Veteran, a former POW, paralyzed from his left elbow down to his left hand, a proud Native American. He barely gets by on his military pension. I will not use his name in this posting because I have not asked him if it would be ok to use his name--although I strongly believe he would object to me using his name. And I would not knowingly disrespect him by using his name even when he says, "Please, do not use my name for any reason unless I approve of it."
I do not understand why Mr. Frazier would not respect the wishes of an American citizen who respectfully asks that their own kin not be included in his political agenda.
Politics can be a very nasty and distasteful business and sometimes blinds a person into believing that what they are doing is correct. As a Native American, politics does not have a good history with my people. I am not a Bush/Cheney supporter. I am not a Republican or a Democrat--these two groups tend to show a lot of hatred towards each other. Mr. Frazier has a right to express his beliefs and I respect him for that, but I think he may have unintentionally gone about it the wrong way. But I guess that's ok because we all make mistakes or errors in judgement. If I were to use my uncle's name for any reason, intentionally or unintentionally, even after he requests that I not use his name, would that put me in the wrong? Being brought up to be respectful towards others I would have to apologize and make amends to my uncle and respect his wishes. If I have offended in any way, how do I right the wrong?
Anyway, thank you all for allowing me to express my freedom of speech. "
I must commend you for your strong stance in your beliefs. One of my uncle's is a Vietnam War Veteran, a former POW, paralyzed from his left elbow down to his left hand, a proud Native American. He barely gets by on his military pension. I will not use his name in this posting because I have not asked him if it would be ok to use his name--although I strongly believe he would object to me using his name. And I would not knowingly disrespect him by using his name even when he says, "Please, do not use my name for any reason unless I approve of it."
I do not understand why Mr. Frazier would not respect the wishes of an American citizen who respectfully asks that their own kin not be included in his political agenda.
Politics can be a very nasty and distasteful business and sometimes blinds a person into believing that what they are doing is correct. As a Native American, politics does not have a good history with my people. I am not a Bush/Cheney supporter. I am not a Republican or a Democrat--these two groups tend to show a lot of hatred towards each other. Mr. Frazier has a right to express his beliefs and I respect him for that, but I think he may have unintentionally gone about it the wrong way. But I guess that's ok because we all make mistakes or errors in judgement. If I were to use my uncle's name for any reason, intentionally or unintentionally, even after he requests that I not use his name, would that put me in the wrong? Being brought up to be respectful towards others I would have to apologize and make amends to my uncle and respect his wishes. If I have offended in any way, how do I right the wrong?
Anyway, thank you all for allowing me to express my freedom of speech. "
Tater wrote on Aug 31, 2008 3:57 AM:
" JD--Woundedwarriorproject.org and segs4vets.com. They are indeed worthwhile causes. I especially like the idea of the segs4vets program. I read a comment a few months ago where a vet said the best part was being able to see eye to eye with people instead of looking up from a wheel chair. I've been doing the wounded warrior project for a couple of years and after hearing of the segs4vets program I started alternating them. "
rush wrote on Aug 30, 2008 10:17 PM:
" Most of the posts here talk of how rotten this guy is. You all fail to see the point. This is about upholding the constitution, and you should all be gratefull of the ruling. Otherwise, go live in China. Save your complaints for the "This Guy Has no Morals" article. "
JD wrote on Aug 29, 2008 12:19 PM:
" Tater - Those sound like worthwhile causes. Please post the links. "
Tater wrote on Aug 29, 2008 1:37 AM:
" JD wrote on Aug 22, 2008 12:26 PM:
" To those posters who criticize my view on the military, I would like to clarify my position. As a general principle, I support our troops. In fact, in concrete terms such as financial support, I suspect that I actually support our troops to a greater degree than the conservatives who give lip service to "supporting the troops." Unlike many conservatives, my support for the troops will not disappear once their military usefulness has been ended by injuries or retirement. If and when we need to raise taxes to care for them, you will not find me objecting. Many conservatives, on the other hand, will only "support" the troops as long as their pocketbook isn't affected."
JD-- I'll be writing a $100 check to the "Wounded Warrior" project next month and another one to "Segs-4-Vets" in Oct. I invite you to demonstrate "in concrete terms" the financial support you speak of by matching my donations. In effect, we (you and I) can raise our own taxes to help care for them and the $$$ goes straight to their care without the bureacracy nibbling away at it. Liberals are all about the "feel good" moment and as a conservative, I must admit it feels pretty good to write those checks. So this is an opportunity for you to make a sacrifice AND "lead from the front" in your compassion for our wounded veterans. A twofer! I haven't been asked to sacrifice in this war, and judging from your posts, you wouldn't if asked. Here's an opportunity to put your money where your mouth is. I'll take your word for it if you tell me you'll match it, but I'll send in mine either way. Semper Fi. "
" To those posters who criticize my view on the military, I would like to clarify my position. As a general principle, I support our troops. In fact, in concrete terms such as financial support, I suspect that I actually support our troops to a greater degree than the conservatives who give lip service to "supporting the troops." Unlike many conservatives, my support for the troops will not disappear once their military usefulness has been ended by injuries or retirement. If and when we need to raise taxes to care for them, you will not find me objecting. Many conservatives, on the other hand, will only "support" the troops as long as their pocketbook isn't affected."
JD-- I'll be writing a $100 check to the "Wounded Warrior" project next month and another one to "Segs-4-Vets" in Oct. I invite you to demonstrate "in concrete terms" the financial support you speak of by matching my donations. In effect, we (you and I) can raise our own taxes to help care for them and the $$$ goes straight to their care without the bureacracy nibbling away at it. Liberals are all about the "feel good" moment and as a conservative, I must admit it feels pretty good to write those checks. So this is an opportunity for you to make a sacrifice AND "lead from the front" in your compassion for our wounded veterans. A twofer! I haven't been asked to sacrifice in this war, and judging from your posts, you wouldn't if asked. Here's an opportunity to put your money where your mouth is. I'll take your word for it if you tell me you'll match it, but I'll send in mine either way. Semper Fi. "
The Ostrich wrote on Aug 28, 2008 11:35 PM:
" Freinds of the Fallen,
Your singing to the choir. These people havent lost a family member. Micheal Dugan isnt a coward, just a small minded, selfish, human being. I hope he doesnt have to lose a family member so he can drive his car. As a matter of fact, I pray that no one has to bury our sons and daughters, the way we have. "
Your singing to the choir. These people havent lost a family member. Micheal Dugan isnt a coward, just a small minded, selfish, human being. I hope he doesnt have to lose a family member so he can drive his car. As a matter of fact, I pray that no one has to bury our sons and daughters, the way we have. "
JD wrote on Aug 28, 2008 6:49 PM:
" "Go Blue AZ" is correct that Ann Kirkpatrick voted for this clearly unconstitutional bill. Here's the proof: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/48leg/1r/bills/sb1014.hfinal.1.asp
And here is the list of shame from the senate side: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/48leg/1r/bills/sb1014.sfinal.1.asp
I'm disappointed Ann voted the way she did, but she's no more guilty than any of the other yahoos in our legislature. You'll note that the vote was unanimous (every senator and every representative voted for it, with the exception of 5 who didn't cast a vote one way or the other). I assume the political pressure was just too strong for any of them to think for themselves on this issue. "
And here is the list of shame from the senate side: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/48leg/1r/bills/sb1014.sfinal.1.asp
I'm disappointed Ann voted the way she did, but she's no more guilty than any of the other yahoos in our legislature. You'll note that the vote was unanimous (every senator and every representative voted for it, with the exception of 5 who didn't cast a vote one way or the other). I assume the political pressure was just too strong for any of them to think for themselves on this issue. "
Michael Dugan wrote on Aug 28, 2008 12:53 PM:
" I'm not a coward, I don' t hide behind computers or take advantage of anyone with their back turned. But face to face...I look forward to exercising my free speech rights with enthusiasm and focus. "
Michael Dugan wrote on Aug 28, 2008 12:48 PM:
" Eyes do it for whatever reason you want to...you're still wrong in doing it and you can rationalize it anyway you want, and you will still be wrong. "
Go Blue AZ wrote on Aug 28, 2008 10:40 AM:
" I don't think it should be missed that Ann Kirkpatrick chose to vote to make this shirt illegal. And thanks to the ACLU it has been proven in court that she and the State government did not have that authority.
I definitely will not be voting for Ann in her bid for US Congress this Tuesday. She would rather trounce the first amendment than fight for true freedom. "
I definitely will not be voting for Ann in her bid for US Congress this Tuesday. She would rather trounce the first amendment than fight for true freedom. "
Freind of Fallen wrote on Aug 28, 2008 10:34 AM:
" I think everyone knows who this is addressed to. Again with the political messages, again with the self righteous justifications that make you feel in good in YOUR own mind, again with with you have done, that makes you a hero in your own eyes. AGAIN (and Again, and Again), NONE OF THIS MATTERS TO ME. As soon as I read "BUT", or "I feel" or "It is my opinion" or "I have", your creditabilty for sentiment goes out the window, and I see that you are using the opportunity to deliver the political message, I TUNE OUT.
I don't know how to get this message acrossed to you. I would have made alot of effort to say thank you, if you had done as I requested and drop the political message from your posting. But this has been impossible for you to do so. Who is the brainwashed idiot? You have taken one step further, in fact over the edge, in becoming the political robot, who is so far indoctrinated to the propaganda, that you will not investigate anything creditable that refutes this propaganda. You have become a soldier hater, take no responsibility for the actions of the officials you helped elect. If you want to make a difference, go after EVERYONE in Congress, Cabinent, etc. that voted to go to war. Bush could not do so without Congress. He should not take the entire blame. I will tone it down a bit, and not call you a Ghoul again, however you have made none of the suggested compromises that I have asked. Separate the names from the politcal message, and maybe we'll talk. I am sure if I wore the "N" word on shirt to a KKK rally I would get lots of compliments also, but that would be expected. Birds of a feather flock together. I will say it for the last time. LOTS OF PEOPLE FIND IT OFFENSIVE. "
I don't know how to get this message acrossed to you. I would have made alot of effort to say thank you, if you had done as I requested and drop the political message from your posting. But this has been impossible for you to do so. Who is the brainwashed idiot? You have taken one step further, in fact over the edge, in becoming the political robot, who is so far indoctrinated to the propaganda, that you will not investigate anything creditable that refutes this propaganda. You have become a soldier hater, take no responsibility for the actions of the officials you helped elect. If you want to make a difference, go after EVERYONE in Congress, Cabinent, etc. that voted to go to war. Bush could not do so without Congress. He should not take the entire blame. I will tone it down a bit, and not call you a Ghoul again, however you have made none of the suggested compromises that I have asked. Separate the names from the politcal message, and maybe we'll talk. I am sure if I wore the "N" word on shirt to a KKK rally I would get lots of compliments also, but that would be expected. Birds of a feather flock together. I will say it for the last time. LOTS OF PEOPLE FIND IT OFFENSIVE. "
The Ostrich wrote on Aug 28, 2008 10:34 AM:
" I feel the T-shirts are a great idea, Here is another idea that might make the ostrichs pull there heads out of the sand. Put the pictures of the dead soldiers on all the gas pumps. That way we can see who is really paying for our gas. Oh, dont bring your HOW TERRIBLE, to me, I lost a brother in Viet Nam, anoter useless endevour. "
Eyes on the Fallen wrote on Aug 28, 2008 8:29 AM:
" to Friend of the Fallen:
You can't even say thank you.
I do not do this for money. Nor do I profit off of this. I have donated every cent (not much) I made on this design to charity.
Not because it is wrong to take the money, but because I can spare it. I used it to try to stop the war.
The only one profiting off this is the Daily Sun and Fox News and the like.
I don't hear you crying every time a newspaper or tv show sells hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars worth of adverts for their latest "Soldier" retrospective. In your words, that would be ghoulish.
I guess I misjudged you. I will not try to explain myself to brainwashed idiots anymore.
I tried (and continue to try) to stop the war. I have done jail time for this. I have put my body in the way. I have locked down to roads after I found that actual person to person confrontation of our thieving elected representatives obviously was not working.
From now on I will just do it to stop the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians being bombed by YOU and other Patriotic American Soldiers, our Heroes.
The civilians not make a choice like you did.
I would make a t-shirt for the iraqi women and children who have died needlessly in this war, but it would have to be a shirt as big as the Vietnam Memorial (a much more profitable "soldier name" venture, with no permission).
Have fun in your chat room. Don't let your brain get too mangled by the mainstream media, they need a few news room poster children for in between their latest Ex-lax ad and Sports. I have told you my reasons in a respectful way and you choose to believe what Fox News told you about the shirt. Don't bother responding, I won't be back to read. There is real work to be done. "
You can't even say thank you.
I do not do this for money. Nor do I profit off of this. I have donated every cent (not much) I made on this design to charity.
Not because it is wrong to take the money, but because I can spare it. I used it to try to stop the war.
The only one profiting off this is the Daily Sun and Fox News and the like.
I don't hear you crying every time a newspaper or tv show sells hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars worth of adverts for their latest "Soldier" retrospective. In your words, that would be ghoulish.
I guess I misjudged you. I will not try to explain myself to brainwashed idiots anymore.
I tried (and continue to try) to stop the war. I have done jail time for this. I have put my body in the way. I have locked down to roads after I found that actual person to person confrontation of our thieving elected representatives obviously was not working.
From now on I will just do it to stop the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians being bombed by YOU and other Patriotic American Soldiers, our Heroes.
The civilians not make a choice like you did.
I would make a t-shirt for the iraqi women and children who have died needlessly in this war, but it would have to be a shirt as big as the Vietnam Memorial (a much more profitable "soldier name" venture, with no permission).
Have fun in your chat room. Don't let your brain get too mangled by the mainstream media, they need a few news room poster children for in between their latest Ex-lax ad and Sports. I have told you my reasons in a respectful way and you choose to believe what Fox News told you about the shirt. Don't bother responding, I won't be back to read. There is real work to be done. "
Dr. USA wrote on Aug 27, 2008 11:39 PM:
" To those of you who say you object not to the message of these shirts but to the insensitivity toward the families...
I happen to have an Osama bin Laden t-shirt. I got it from a friend in 2002 returning from Cambodia, who bought it on the streets of Thailand. He told me the shirt is illegal in Cambodia (where he lives part time) but it's all over the place in Thailand. It's perfectly legal in the U.S., but you won't find it here.
It features a full face of Osama, his name bin Laden, cheering crowds in the background, and something in Arabic across the top. I wore this shirt into crowded bars and restaurants the day I got it. I wore it all over downtown. I have never worn it again, though. Seems too provocative to take any chances.
I can tell you that hardly anybody said anything about the shirt, but a few people asked me why I was wearing it. I told them the Arabic word across the top was "Wanted", meaning it's a wanted poster. That satisfied everyone.
I got all kinds of t-shirts from this guy I haven't worn, all from Thailand. One of them pictures Bush and Saddam as the "Twin Terrorists". One features those two plus bin Laden inscribed in three Valentine hearts, enjoining the three of them to "Make Love". You wouldn't believe these t-shirts.
These shirts are historical. I don't wear them, but I take them to class to show my students. Sometimes they hang in my office. The shirts, not the students. (Well, they hang in my office, too, if you get my drift.)
You who hate Frazier's shirts would hate these shirts a lot more, I guarantee it. If I wore one around Michael Dugan, he would practice a lot more than free speech behind my back.
The point: It is the message you object to. It is not the sensibilities of parents you worry about, it's the honor of your Commander/President. That and your own sensitivities.
Fight Fire with Water, Not Fire.
Semper Fi
Semper de Se Se "
I happen to have an Osama bin Laden t-shirt. I got it from a friend in 2002 returning from Cambodia, who bought it on the streets of Thailand. He told me the shirt is illegal in Cambodia (where he lives part time) but it's all over the place in Thailand. It's perfectly legal in the U.S., but you won't find it here.
It features a full face of Osama, his name bin Laden, cheering crowds in the background, and something in Arabic across the top. I wore this shirt into crowded bars and restaurants the day I got it. I wore it all over downtown. I have never worn it again, though. Seems too provocative to take any chances.
I can tell you that hardly anybody said anything about the shirt, but a few people asked me why I was wearing it. I told them the Arabic word across the top was "Wanted", meaning it's a wanted poster. That satisfied everyone.
I got all kinds of t-shirts from this guy I haven't worn, all from Thailand. One of them pictures Bush and Saddam as the "Twin Terrorists". One features those two plus bin Laden inscribed in three Valentine hearts, enjoining the three of them to "Make Love". You wouldn't believe these t-shirts.
These shirts are historical. I don't wear them, but I take them to class to show my students. Sometimes they hang in my office. The shirts, not the students. (Well, they hang in my office, too, if you get my drift.)
You who hate Frazier's shirts would hate these shirts a lot more, I guarantee it. If I wore one around Michael Dugan, he would practice a lot more than free speech behind my back.
The point: It is the message you object to. It is not the sensibilities of parents you worry about, it's the honor of your Commander/President. That and your own sensitivities.
Fight Fire with Water, Not Fire.
Semper Fi
Semper de Se Se "
Dr. USA wrote on Aug 27, 2008 10:24 PM:
" Michael the Dugan writes: "Anyone who would post "why not lower the age to 10? Then we'd have lots and lots of soldiers, all trying to get out of going to school", is insane."
Now, suddenly this comes across the wire:
"Army opens prep school for dropouts to fill ranks"
So much for Michael's opinion of the Army: They're insane. At LAST I am friends with Michael Dogone!!!
Semper Fi "
Now, suddenly this comes across the wire:
"Army opens prep school for dropouts to fill ranks"
So much for Michael's opinion of the Army: They're insane. At LAST I am friends with Michael Dogone!!!
Semper Fi "
Thought Provoking wrote on Aug 27, 2008 8:37 PM:
" This sure got turned into something that it" isn't" pretty fast. This is a victory for the First Amendement, but it quickly got turned into a showcase of how people project their disdain for one issue, onto another issue and how petty they are in the process. What you say about others says more about you...online and offline. You are judged how you judge others and it happens before you die and before you meet your maker. Make sure you know this before you spend hours commenting about someone or some thing that you say you hate. Dan Frazier's shirts in question sure are thought provoking but it appears to me that some people are projecting anger about something else onto this. They are thought provoking T-Shirts. Some are making these into grassy knolls and DC-10 pilots who are alive. They are thought provoking t-shirts, no more and no less. They are as important as you want to make them.Thanks for the regurgiatated history lessons whick make you look intellectual all brought on by a thought provoking t-shirt. That's thought provoking and the thoughts that are provoked are your's. The thought's provoked say it all about you, not the guy who made them. Thought provoking t-shirts. Here's the question being asked.."What do you think about the t-shirts made by Dan Frazier? Answer" He's anti American, he's a coward , he's a loser, I know someone who died there, (wait didnt I just ask you what you thought about the t-shirts??? and what gets answered?) Thought provoking t-shirts!!!!. This article still is behind the number of posts for the closing of a fast food restaurant. Wow, that's thought provoking!! "
Tater wrote on Aug 27, 2008 8:17 PM:
" Ross
"Given his reputation and credentials, I still can't see him making such a statement frivolously or casually. Even if it is his opinion, I would guess he had evidentiary support."
Well he is married to Andrea Mitchell, the ABC reporter who was in tears as she reported that the exit polls were wrong and Bush had indeed defeated John Kerry. Maybe he got some "insider" info from her. I don't know, but I'm reasonably certain he is espousing an opinion.
"My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield hi veto against out-of-control spending".
I too have that frustration.
"Tax cuts (decreased income) in the absence of fiscal discipline regarding spending leads to fiscal disaster (at least that's what my accountant tells me). If GW had been willing to do the right thing (and once again I'm not exempting Congress from culpability here) and cut spending along with the tax cuts then maybe everything would have been alright. "-
I'm not so sure about that. The treasury has been reporting record revenues for the past several years. One could argue that it is because of the record oil money the govt is getting from the oil companies and consumers, but no one has offered that as an explanation. I too, would expect revenues to be down with tax cuts, but they aren't. I don't have an accountant, but maybe you can ask yours what's up with that? "
"Given his reputation and credentials, I still can't see him making such a statement frivolously or casually. Even if it is his opinion, I would guess he had evidentiary support."
Well he is married to Andrea Mitchell, the ABC reporter who was in tears as she reported that the exit polls were wrong and Bush had indeed defeated John Kerry. Maybe he got some "insider" info from her. I don't know, but I'm reasonably certain he is espousing an opinion.
"My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield hi veto against out-of-control spending".
I too have that frustration.
"Tax cuts (decreased income) in the absence of fiscal discipline regarding spending leads to fiscal disaster (at least that's what my accountant tells me). If GW had been willing to do the right thing (and once again I'm not exempting Congress from culpability here) and cut spending along with the tax cuts then maybe everything would have been alright. "-
I'm not so sure about that. The treasury has been reporting record revenues for the past several years. One could argue that it is because of the record oil money the govt is getting from the oil companies and consumers, but no one has offered that as an explanation. I too, would expect revenues to be down with tax cuts, but they aren't. I don't have an accountant, but maybe you can ask yours what's up with that? "
Dr. USA wrote on Aug 27, 2008 7:19 PM:
" Fallen Friend wrote: "I COULD GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE REASON I WENT!"
Plato wrote: "THE UNEXAMINED LIFE IS NOT WORTH LIVING."
I'm sorry, I have to go with Plato on this one.
Maybe Falllen Fellow is JEALOUS of those guys with their nameS on the t-shirts. If his own name were up there he wouldn't object.... "
Plato wrote: "THE UNEXAMINED LIFE IS NOT WORTH LIVING."
I'm sorry, I have to go with Plato on this one.
Maybe Falllen Fellow is JEALOUS of those guys with their nameS on the t-shirts. If his own name were up there he wouldn't object.... "
ross wrote on Aug 27, 2008 4:09 PM:
" Tater" I WANT CTSA! Just kidding but it sure sounds cool. At any rate regarding Greenspan, my point was that his comment was made after stepping down from this position as Chairman of the Fed Reserve, so his view of the Big Picture might have been a bit clearer than you are giving him credit for. Given his reputation and credentials, I still can't see him making such a statement frivolously or casually. Even if it is his opinion, I would guess he had evidentiary support.
I might agree with his position on the tax cuts, but even he put it into context when he wrote "My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield hi veto against out-of-control spending". Tax cuts (decreased income) in the absence of fiscal discipline regarding spending leads to fiscal disaster (at least that's what my accountant tells me). If GW had been willing to do the right thing (and once again I'm not exempting Congress from culpability here) and cut spending along with the tax cuts then maybe everything would have been alright. "
I might agree with his position on the tax cuts, but even he put it into context when he wrote "My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield hi veto against out-of-control spending". Tax cuts (decreased income) in the absence of fiscal discipline regarding spending leads to fiscal disaster (at least that's what my accountant tells me). If GW had been willing to do the right thing (and once again I'm not exempting Congress from culpability here) and cut spending along with the tax cuts then maybe everything would have been alright. "
flag citizen wrote on Aug 27, 2008 12:53 PM:
" Anything for a buck. Now he should get lists of all of the great Americans that gave their lives for freedom in the Civil War, Vietnam War, Koran War and all the others. What a creep!!! "
Tater wrote on Aug 27, 2008 12:06 PM:
" Ross
As to Greenspans security clearance, I'm sure its at the TS (Top Secret) level, but national security intelligence is always higher than that and is dealt with as SCI (Special Compartmentalized Information). Even people who possess an SCI clearance do not necessarily have access or exposure to all of the intelligence. It's a need to know thing, and those working the issue only have the intelligence they need for their role. The clearance I had was Cosmic Top Secret Atomal (CTSA). Sounds impressive, but merely meant I had access to TS material dealing with NATO's nuclear plans. I was still subject to the compartmentalization of the intelligence, so in effect I never saw the "big picture". I mention this to explain why I believe Greenspan's role was limited, as was the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of HUD among others. To me, his statements represent his opinion and not a window into the decision making process. If you value his opinion, then I would hope you would agree with his opinion about the tax cuts too.
The left's blind hatred of Bush has obscured the intelligence failures from an entrenched bureacracy and will prevent us from getting to the heart of them. The first guy I would put in the dock would be George Tenet and demand an explanation for his "slam dunk" statement. Tenet's tenure spanned two administrations and in my view he has "some splaining to do". Next in line for some "splaining" would be Sandy Berger.
"Incidentally, have you per chance read Barack Obama's speech given in 2002 prior to the invasion of Iraq?
Actually I have not. I had never heard of the guy in 2002 (you probably didn't either?) and my only knowledge of that speech is what Hillary said when she opined "I know Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And, Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002." I do know that Barack DID NOT HAVE access to ANY of the classified intelligence the congress and president had. His running mate Biden DID have that intelligence and voted to authorize the use of force. Go figure. "
As to Greenspans security clearance, I'm sure its at the TS (Top Secret) level, but national security intelligence is always higher than that and is dealt with as SCI (Special Compartmentalized Information). Even people who possess an SCI clearance do not necessarily have access or exposure to all of the intelligence. It's a need to know thing, and those working the issue only have the intelligence they need for their role. The clearance I had was Cosmic Top Secret Atomal (CTSA). Sounds impressive, but merely meant I had access to TS material dealing with NATO's nuclear plans. I was still subject to the compartmentalization of the intelligence, so in effect I never saw the "big picture". I mention this to explain why I believe Greenspan's role was limited, as was the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of HUD among others. To me, his statements represent his opinion and not a window into the decision making process. If you value his opinion, then I would hope you would agree with his opinion about the tax cuts too.
The left's blind hatred of Bush has obscured the intelligence failures from an entrenched bureacracy and will prevent us from getting to the heart of them. The first guy I would put in the dock would be George Tenet and demand an explanation for his "slam dunk" statement. Tenet's tenure spanned two administrations and in my view he has "some splaining to do". Next in line for some "splaining" would be Sandy Berger.
"Incidentally, have you per chance read Barack Obama's speech given in 2002 prior to the invasion of Iraq?
Actually I have not. I had never heard of the guy in 2002 (you probably didn't either?) and my only knowledge of that speech is what Hillary said when she opined "I know Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And, Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002." I do know that Barack DID NOT HAVE access to ANY of the classified intelligence the congress and president had. His running mate Biden DID have that intelligence and voted to authorize the use of force. Go figure. "
Friend o Fallen wrote on Aug 27, 2008 10:23 AM:
" To eyes on fallen. MY YOU ARE THICK! Have you not read my posts? I COULD GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE REASON I WENT! The fact remains that YOU, did nothing to stop me from going. Read Ross and Tater, both agree that the politicians FROM BOTH sides were for going. I'm sorry to say this, not a cheap shot at JD, or bandstanding, but YOU did not have to go. This war has cost you NOTHING. Those who profit from robbing graves are known as Ghouls, like you and Cindy Sheehan, who digs up her son's grave everytime she can get politcal gain from it. This is a SICK way of politicing. I am sorry you get time and half for having to put another name on the shirt, but I am sure you appreciate the money. "Thanks for stepping on that mine, Jarhead, I was a little short this week." I am NOT impressed by your self righteous excuses and justifications, that make YOU and your friends feel better. You are a GHOUL, plain and simple, you are robbing graves for political gain! "
Eyes on the Fallen wrote on Aug 27, 2008 9:42 AM:
" to Friend of the Fallen,
It was not people from Flagstaff.
I have worn the shirt in three different states and have received nothing but positive feedback in all three states.
However, it was in Flagstaff where I was approached by parents. They were not from here. It was in Heritage Square.
As far as it goes, you should put more stock into the true REASONS this shirt was made, rather than the political hype that surrounds it. Our intention is to STOP more soldiers from dying. As long as Dan asks me to update the shirt I will continue to do so.
I do not believe that you or your friend Alan thought you were in the middle of an oil war, nor were those your intentions. That is precisely our point. You were sent to Iraq under false pretenses. You were not aware of the true political situation when you deployed. And you can correct me if I am wrong, the military goes to great lengths to keep soldiers going to war away from political news. Doubt could put a mission in jeprody.
I would like to point out again that we as citizens are the ones with the DUTY to protect the soldiers our government controls.
I feel I am performing that duty right now.
I thank you for your service to our country for YOUR REASONS, not what our government asked you to do.
I am appalled that Bush would send good men like you off to die for his friends personal gain. "
It was not people from Flagstaff.
I have worn the shirt in three different states and have received nothing but positive feedback in all three states.
However, it was in Flagstaff where I was approached by parents. They were not from here. It was in Heritage Square.
As far as it goes, you should put more stock into the true REASONS this shirt was made, rather than the political hype that surrounds it. Our intention is to STOP more soldiers from dying. As long as Dan asks me to update the shirt I will continue to do so.
I do not believe that you or your friend Alan thought you were in the middle of an oil war, nor were those your intentions. That is precisely our point. You were sent to Iraq under false pretenses. You were not aware of the true political situation when you deployed. And you can correct me if I am wrong, the military goes to great lengths to keep soldiers going to war away from political news. Doubt could put a mission in jeprody.
I would like to point out again that we as citizens are the ones with the DUTY to protect the soldiers our government controls.
I feel I am performing that duty right now.
I thank you for your service to our country for YOUR REASONS, not what our government asked you to do.
I am appalled that Bush would send good men like you off to die for his friends personal gain. "
Dr. USA wrote on Aug 27, 2008 9:35 AM:
" Y'all should have listened to Grandpa!
JD: Semper Fi!
Fallen Friend: Semper Fight!
Michelle Dugan: See you on the tarmac, Heritage Square, high noon on Saturday!
Each and All: Resist violence for profit. Bush Lied They Died. "
JD: Semper Fi!
Fallen Friend: Semper Fight!
Michelle Dugan: See you on the tarmac, Heritage Square, high noon on Saturday!
Each and All: Resist violence for profit. Bush Lied They Died. "
JD wrote on Aug 27, 2008 9:04 AM:
" Friend of the Fallen - Thank you for helping me to see the tee shirt issue from a different perspective. I still strongly support Dan Frazier's legal right to print, sell, and advertise the shirts, and I still strongly support the political and anti-war message of the shirts, but I now question whether these shirts are an appropriate way to express that message. At this point, I am no longer comfortable wearing the shirt, and I will seek a less harmful way to express my views.
You are right that we will probably never agree on the political issues underlying the shirts (and maybe that's a good thing, for disagreement promotes discussion), but we can agree to try to separate the political message from the grieving of the survivors. "
You are right that we will probably never agree on the political issues underlying the shirts (and maybe that's a good thing, for disagreement promotes discussion), but we can agree to try to separate the political message from the grieving of the survivors. "
ross wrote on Aug 27, 2008 8:00 AM:
" Tater wrote: "Greenspan surely had a role, but was not a key player in the decison making process. He was not on the national security team. His guess is as good as yours or mine."
With all due respect Tater, I never said he was a key player in the decision making process. I have little doubt that his national security clearance was pretty high (because he would need it for his job) but admittedly I haven't yet looked into that. Your statement that his guess is as good as yours or mine, is in my view, respectfully, profoundly naive.
I agree with you entirely regarding the culpability of the majority of Congress. As I said, I think that there will plenty of room reserved in hell for those who did not act on their moral obligation and instead made the decision on political grounds. They and the Bush administration (which I still believe did not act in good faith with the American people or the international community) have a great deal of blood on their hands.
Regarding the "Bush Lied" issue. To me it's not a cop out. Regardless of who else was involved and contributed to the profoundly tragic poor judgment, GW LEAD (he IS the president - it wouldn't have happened if he didn't want it to) us into a war and played politics with the rationale. At the very best he saw what he and his neo-con hawk administration wanted to see - not what there was to see. I think that to put the culpability off on the intelligence community is the cop out.
"Bush picked up a tar baby when he made the decision to act on the intelligence, but he did not lie. "
Well Tater, you and I will have to disagree on that. As I said, the best I can give ol' GW is astoundingly poor judgment with unimaginably horrific consequences. Neither situation, to me, is acceptable action, intelligence or judgment for a president of the United States.
Incidentally, have you per chance read Barack Obama's speech given in 2002 prior to the invasion of Iraq? If not here is the webpage. You know I'm not very good at foretelling the future, but in my view Obama's prescience is impressive.
Thanks for the opportunity to debate this in a civil manner.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech "
With all due respect Tater, I never said he was a key player in the decision making process. I have little doubt that his national security clearance was pretty high (because he would need it for his job) but admittedly I haven't yet looked into that. Your statement that his guess is as good as yours or mine, is in my view, respectfully, profoundly naive.
I agree with you entirely regarding the culpability of the majority of Congress. As I said, I think that there will plenty of room reserved in hell for those who did not act on their moral obligation and instead made the decision on political grounds. They and the Bush administration (which I still believe did not act in good faith with the American people or the international community) have a great deal of blood on their hands.
Regarding the "Bush Lied" issue. To me it's not a cop out. Regardless of who else was involved and contributed to the profoundly tragic poor judgment, GW LEAD (he IS the president - it wouldn't have happened if he didn't want it to) us into a war and played politics with the rationale. At the very best he saw what he and his neo-con hawk administration wanted to see - not what there was to see. I think that to put the culpability off on the intelligence community is the cop out.
"Bush picked up a tar baby when he made the decision to act on the intelligence, but he did not lie. "
Well Tater, you and I will have to disagree on that. As I said, the best I can give ol' GW is astoundingly poor judgment with unimaginably horrific consequences. Neither situation, to me, is acceptable action, intelligence or judgment for a president of the United States.
Incidentally, have you per chance read Barack Obama's speech given in 2002 prior to the invasion of Iraq? If not here is the webpage. You know I'm not very good at foretelling the future, but in my view Obama's prescience is impressive.
Thanks for the opportunity to debate this in a civil manner.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech "
Tater wrote on Aug 27, 2008 1:43 AM:
" Ross
"Powell's comment was made AFTER he resigned as Sec of State, so I would offer you the same caution. I'd really like to know just exactly what he was thinking as he was arguing the case before the U.N. "
I'm convinced he believed the intelligence since he was part of the apparatus advancing the theories of Saddams WMD capabilities for over 10 years . An honorable man who would never shill for the sake of the administration, he was well spun up on Iraq having served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Desert Storm. His and Wolfiwitz's comments only recount the decision making process ("bureaucratic reasons") at the time. It's hardly a revelation. There were a number of solid reasons (16 UN resolutions) to call for a war authorization but none of them worthy of initiating the overthrow of Saddam. The WMD issue was another story entirely. With over a decade of intelligence (now believed to be faulty), a CIA director proclaiming it to be a "slam dunk", a cooperating congress, a still pi$$ed off nation, recent success in Afghanistan overthrowing the Taliban, and a popular president it was a perfect storm.
People who refuse to look beyond the "Bush lied" pablum can never be trusted to fix our problems because its obvious they don't know where the problems are. To me the disgrace was all of the politicians who tried to distance themselves from their pre-war rhetoric. They supported committing our military and then refused to support them, working to undermine Bush's efforts at every turn. Political opportunists of the worst kind. I wonder if me might have been finished with the Iraq project years ago with a unified effort at home and abroad. I wonder if we ever would have invaded in the first place if the French and Russians cooperated with pressuring Saddam to come clean with the inspectors, rather than kicking them out of the country.
Greenspan surely had a role, but was not a key player in the decison making process. He was not on the national security team. His guess is as good as yours or mine.
I'm glad you made the effort to read snopes. While we disagree on the Bush lied issue, maybe you can understand why many of us won't accept that as an excuse for our current situation in Iraq. To me its a cop out and doesn't reflect an undertanding of the chain of events. Democrats never accepted their role as the loyal opposition and instead went into "victim" mode after Gore was defeated. Seizing an opportunity to put Bush on his heels they have been relentless in their attacks on the presedent. Maybe a little revenge for the republicans abuse of Clinton, but either way it has been and contimues to be detrimental to our country.
Bush picked up a tar baby when he made the decision to act on the intelligence, but he did not lie. "
"Powell's comment was made AFTER he resigned as Sec of State, so I would offer you the same caution. I'd really like to know just exactly what he was thinking as he was arguing the case before the U.N. "
I'm convinced he believed the intelligence since he was part of the apparatus advancing the theories of Saddams WMD capabilities for over 10 years . An honorable man who would never shill for the sake of the administration, he was well spun up on Iraq having served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Desert Storm. His and Wolfiwitz's comments only recount the decision making process ("bureaucratic reasons") at the time. It's hardly a revelation. There were a number of solid reasons (16 UN resolutions) to call for a war authorization but none of them worthy of initiating the overthrow of Saddam. The WMD issue was another story entirely. With over a decade of intelligence (now believed to be faulty), a CIA director proclaiming it to be a "slam dunk", a cooperating congress, a still pi$$ed off nation, recent success in Afghanistan overthrowing the Taliban, and a popular president it was a perfect storm.
People who refuse to look beyond the "Bush lied" pablum can never be trusted to fix our problems because its obvious they don't know where the problems are. To me the disgrace was all of the politicians who tried to distance themselves from their pre-war rhetoric. They supported committing our military and then refused to support them, working to undermine Bush's efforts at every turn. Political opportunists of the worst kind. I wonder if me might have been finished with the Iraq project years ago with a unified effort at home and abroad. I wonder if we ever would have invaded in the first place if the French and Russians cooperated with pressuring Saddam to come clean with the inspectors, rather than kicking them out of the country.
Greenspan surely had a role, but was not a key player in the decison making process. He was not on the national security team. His guess is as good as yours or mine.
I'm glad you made the effort to read snopes. While we disagree on the Bush lied issue, maybe you can understand why many of us won't accept that as an excuse for our current situation in Iraq. To me its a cop out and doesn't reflect an undertanding of the chain of events. Democrats never accepted their role as the loyal opposition and instead went into "victim" mode after Gore was defeated. Seizing an opportunity to put Bush on his heels they have been relentless in their attacks on the presedent. Maybe a little revenge for the republicans abuse of Clinton, but either way it has been and contimues to be detrimental to our country.
Bush picked up a tar baby when he made the decision to act on the intelligence, but he did not lie. "
Friend of Fallen wrote on Aug 26, 2008 7:28 PM:
" I hope the editor will submit this (hopefully) last submission. I appreciate all that they have let through.
I have to say, I have posted things I have not told my family, because I lied to my mother, family, etc. telling them I was always in a safe area and bored out of my mind, so they wouldn't worry. Feels good to have some of those things off my chest.
JD, thanks. You have been more than a worthy opponent in the battle of wits. I can go back to anonominity knowing that you are big enough to look at things a different way, and work towards a solution. I ask your forgiveness for the poison arrows I shot at you. I don't know if you are an educator, but still, the Bottom Line up Front, is that every dispute has two sides, somewhere in between is where you find the truth. If you are an educator, please instill this in your students. Present both sides, and let them make the decision.
DR USA, it has been most entertaining! I hope you get what you want, but also hope you are not as let down as I was that President Clinton did not get punished. I guess it only goes to show you, there is a balance in this world. First Democrat, then Republican. Anyway, shouldn't you be out Campaigning for Senator McCain?
Semper Fi "
I have to say, I have posted things I have not told my family, because I lied to my mother, family, etc. telling them I was always in a safe area and bored out of my mind, so they wouldn't worry. Feels good to have some of those things off my chest.
JD, thanks. You have been more than a worthy opponent in the battle of wits. I can go back to anonominity knowing that you are big enough to look at things a different way, and work towards a solution. I ask your forgiveness for the poison arrows I shot at you. I don't know if you are an educator, but still, the Bottom Line up Front, is that every dispute has two sides, somewhere in between is where you find the truth. If you are an educator, please instill this in your students. Present both sides, and let them make the decision.
DR USA, it has been most entertaining! I hope you get what you want, but also hope you are not as let down as I was that President Clinton did not get punished. I guess it only goes to show you, there is a balance in this world. First Democrat, then Republican. Anyway, shouldn't you be out Campaigning for Senator McCain?
Semper Fi "
Michael Dugan wrote on Aug 26, 2008 7:06 PM:
" DR USA Anyone who would post "why not lower the age to 10? Then we'd have lots and lots of soldiers, all trying to get out of going to school", is insane. I won't respond to anymore of your posts or insults, but please wear your shirt, I'd love to practice some free speech. "
Dr. USA wrote on Aug 26, 2008 6:01 PM:
" If Michel Dugsten likes an all voluntery military, why not lower the age to 10? Then we'd have lots and lots of soldiers, all trying to get out of going to school. He's right, of course, that people old enough to think coherently would not go voluntarily, and we would need a draft. That's a good idea for the American people but terrible for the war makers. The draft, after all, is what made the Vietnam anti-war movement so mighty. So I'm for the draft, it's so democratic. If the Bush Wars depended on the draft, IT COULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED. I'm with Charlie Rangel on this.
He also says people like me are all the same. Well, that would have to be true, wouldn't it? It's true by definition: "like me" and "the same" are the same.
But do you know anybody like me? No...once again Michael is speaking through his shotglass. He says I hate America. I say Michael hates America. Where does that get us?
I do not call people misguied or uneducated because they disagree with me. I call them that when they are misguided or uneducated, and only then on those occasional few matters that I know something about. When life comes down to matters of agreement versus disagreement or things I'm not sure of, you just say whatever you want. But this is not one of those things. Whether carbon dating works or the Garden of Eden is true is not a matter of opinion but of informed knowledge, so don't start talking about whether or not you "agree" with it. All opinions are not equal when it comes to verifiable knowledge. I only direct your attention to the possibility of becoming educated on things that seem to matter to you. I've taken Michael Dugworthy's request for sources and offered some. I can't do all your work for you.
I know, I know. Some people talk this authoritative way about the Bible. But I am a social scientist.
I have been to Vietnam, and they are capitalist. Someday after the Iraqi's kick the Americans out, I will go there and they will be democratic. What a waste.
Anticipating the Downtown Carouser's (DC) response: CAPITALIST? WELL, SO WE WON THEN!!! I'll give him that.
Say No to the Bush Wars "
He also says people like me are all the same. Well, that would have to be true, wouldn't it? It's true by definition: "like me" and "the same" are the same.
But do you know anybody like me? No...once again Michael is speaking through his shotglass. He says I hate America. I say Michael hates America. Where does that get us?
I do not call people misguied or uneducated because they disagree with me. I call them that when they are misguided or uneducated, and only then on those occasional few matters that I know something about. When life comes down to matters of agreement versus disagreement or things I'm not sure of, you just say whatever you want. But this is not one of those things. Whether carbon dating works or the Garden of Eden is true is not a matter of opinion but of informed knowledge, so don't start talking about whether or not you "agree" with it. All opinions are not equal when it comes to verifiable knowledge. I only direct your attention to the possibility of becoming educated on things that seem to matter to you. I've taken Michael Dugworthy's request for sources and offered some. I can't do all your work for you.
I know, I know. Some people talk this authoritative way about the Bible. But I am a social scientist.
I have been to Vietnam, and they are capitalist. Someday after the Iraqi's kick the Americans out, I will go there and they will be democratic. What a waste.
Anticipating the Downtown Carouser's (DC) response: CAPITALIST? WELL, SO WE WON THEN!!! I'll give him that.
Say No to the Bush Wars "
Michael Dugan wrote on Aug 26, 2008 4:40 PM:
" DR USA if you are going to refer to me...at least get the name right or are you suffering from ADD? Actually I agree about the difference between the drinking age and age you can enlist (or be drafted) by the military. If you are old enough to serve as a man or woman in the military...you should be old enough to enjoy the privileges of being an adult.
As far as raising the age to 31. All that would happen is that in the next war there would be a draft to ensure we have enough troops. Would you rather have a drafted military or an all volunteer military? Somehow I doubt you would go with having a draft (my opinion only). I'm voting on the volunteer military myself. That way those who want to serve can, and those that don't want to don't have to. Or perhaps a system like Israel...where everyone serves a minimum of 3 years regardless. That way everyone does a minimum of service and those who want to stay on can volunteer. "
As far as raising the age to 31. All that would happen is that in the next war there would be a draft to ensure we have enough troops. Would you rather have a drafted military or an all volunteer military? Somehow I doubt you would go with having a draft (my opinion only). I'm voting on the volunteer military myself. That way those who want to serve can, and those that don't want to don't have to. Or perhaps a system like Israel...where everyone serves a minimum of 3 years regardless. That way everyone does a minimum of service and those who want to stay on can volunteer. "
Dr. USA wrote on Aug 26, 2008 3:26 PM:
" Our intelligence did not let us down. Our CIA, our NEI, our DIA reports, our secret sources inside Iraq (but not Chalabi), the UN inspectors...they were all saying the same thing: No WMD. Anyone who read Knight Ridder newspapers and other reports in 2002-03 knew this. Knight Ridder editors were interviewing the same people that the Bush administration were citing as evidence of the exact opposite of what they were actually saying. Knight Ridder was also reported in The Nation, and it was on NPR. I knew it then, so did Congress, and so did George W. Bush. He knowingly included items in his State of the Union address that only hours earlier he had been warned about by the CIA---that they were false, discredited, absolute lies...don't use them, they said. Occasionally Knight-Ridder reports appeared in other major newspapers, but most media were backing the President. Occasionally our intelligence agents were punished by the President for bringing back the messy truth, as when Joe Wilson's wife was outed by members of the Bush administration as a CIA agent at some risk to her life. So don't blame the Iraq war on faulty intelligence. Don't blame it on the CIA. Blame it on Bush Lied. That is, after all, why They Died.
The reason democrats supported the Bush wars in such large numbers is that they remembered what it cost them after they'd voted against the 1991 Bush I war, Desert Storm. They voted against that because it, too, had been planned before provocation. They knew it was based on lies. Saddam was our ally and would not have invaded Kuwait without our express encouragement. We gave him that encouragement, Kuwait gave him the provocation (by selling cheap oil, you see), and Kuwait warned him of U.S. retalliation if he tried to do anything about it. The night before his planned intervention, he checked with the U.S., which said "Go for it; we don't care." So he did, the next day Bush called him Hitler, and the rest was an American victory with hardly any U.S. casualties. Americans love success. The democrats took a huge hit for voting against what turned out to be an easy victory. In 2003, Democrats were afraid it might happen again, that Iraqis would greet us as liberaters and an easy victory would later be popular no matter the lies that got us to invade in the first place. They didn't want to be caught out. That's why Hillary voted for the war. Any easy military success would have ruined her presidential chances, and you know it would. For the most part, most war opponents in the Congress only turned against the war after it became apparent that we were not winning.
The American Revolution, the Civil War, WWI, and WWII were not stupid thing, Webfoot. Just because a lot of things are stupid doesn't mean everything is.
As for nobly defending one's brothers and sisters, it helps to recall that soldiers in this war are, on average, from the lower end of America's socio-economic system. Notice where most military recruitment goes on: in poorer schools and neighborhood and in shopping malls. On average, kids with bright and relatively easy futures do not volunter the way they clamored to fight for causes like WWI and others that aren't stupid. Bribes and other incentives are not irrelevant in these cases, though we do not pay veterans enough. (I would pay every surviving victim of military recruitment a lifetime stipend well above the level of Social Security, but never mind.)
Padraig's got it right.These shirt-haters would never oppose naming children of grieving parents on a shirt if they thought it would cost them their gun rights. I don't think they are just "feeling" for others. If they were, they would "feel" for the parents of soldier children who are alive today but will be dead tomorrow. They just oppose the message. No, wait, they oppose Frazier's making money. No, wait, they oppose not getting permission. No, wait, they oppose Frazier's immorality.I don't know what they oppose, and neither do they. It is all emotional.
While this issue of lowering the drinking age to 18 (Michael Duggin's cause) is in the national discourse, I say the opposite---we should raise the minimum age for joining the military to 21. In fact make it 31. Let's see how many thinking adults you can recruit.
Anyhow...Bush Lied, They Died. "
The reason democrats supported the Bush wars in such large numbers is that they remembered what it cost them after they'd voted against the 1991 Bush I war, Desert Storm. They voted against that because it, too, had been planned before provocation. They knew it was based on lies. Saddam was our ally and would not have invaded Kuwait without our express encouragement. We gave him that encouragement, Kuwait gave him the provocation (by selling cheap oil, you see), and Kuwait warned him of U.S. retalliation if he tried to do anything about it. The night before his planned intervention, he checked with the U.S., which said "Go for it; we don't care." So he did, the next day Bush called him Hitler, and the rest was an American victory with hardly any U.S. casualties. Americans love success. The democrats took a huge hit for voting against what turned out to be an easy victory. In 2003, Democrats were afraid it might happen again, that Iraqis would greet us as liberaters and an easy victory would later be popular no matter the lies that got us to invade in the first place. They didn't want to be caught out. That's why Hillary voted for the war. Any easy military success would have ruined her presidential chances, and you know it would. For the most part, most war opponents in the Congress only turned against the war after it became apparent that we were not winning.
The American Revolution, the Civil War, WWI, and WWII were not stupid thing, Webfoot. Just because a lot of things are stupid doesn't mean everything is.
As for nobly defending one's brothers and sisters, it helps to recall that soldiers in this war are, on average, from the lower end of America's socio-economic system. Notice where most military recruitment goes on: in poorer schools and neighborhood and in shopping malls. On average, kids with bright and relatively easy futures do not volunter the way they clamored to fight for causes like WWI and others that aren't stupid. Bribes and other incentives are not irrelevant in these cases, though we do not pay veterans enough. (I would pay every surviving victim of military recruitment a lifetime stipend well above the level of Social Security, but never mind.)
Padraig's got it right.These shirt-haters would never oppose naming children of grieving parents on a shirt if they thought it would cost them their gun rights. I don't think they are just "feeling" for others. If they were, they would "feel" for the parents of soldier children who are alive today but will be dead tomorrow. They just oppose the message. No, wait, they oppose Frazier's making money. No, wait, they oppose not getting permission. No, wait, they oppose Frazier's immorality.I don't know what they oppose, and neither do they. It is all emotional.
While this issue of lowering the drinking age to 18 (Michael Duggin's cause) is in the national discourse, I say the opposite---we should raise the minimum age for joining the military to 21. In fact make it 31. Let's see how many thinking adults you can recruit.
Anyhow...Bush Lied, They Died. "
JD wrote on Aug 26, 2008 3:20 PM:
" To Dan Frazier and Eyes on the Fallen --
I believe I understand the message you are trying to convey by printing the list of names on your shirts. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
You want to convey the enormity of the loss. Just saying "4000+ American soldiers have died in Iraq" has nowhere near the impact of actually listing the 4000 names. Looking at that shirt, with row after row of tiny printing, each name representing a human life that was snuffed out, really gives one a feel for the scope of the tragedy.
If I'm correct about that being your goal, couldn't the same effect be produced by replacing the names with icons of some sort, each one representing a fallen soldier? For example, couldn't you achieve the same effect by placing 4000+ tombstones, or 4000+ skulls, or 4000+ "X"s on the shirt? It would seem that would convey the same message without causing additional harm to the friends and family of the fallen.
Don't get me wrong, I believe the vast majority of the people who object to the shirts are doing so simply because they dislike the anti-war message, and I couldn't care less if those people are offended by the shirt. And I also don't assume, as many people do, that the family of every fallen soldier would be offended by the shirts; I think many of them would understand and appreciate that their son or daughter is listed on them. But there are people, including Friend of the Fallen on this forum, who appear to be genuinely hurt by the shirts. I realize it was Bush and not you who is responsible for the deaths of the soldiers, but the shirts do, in some cases, seem to exacerbate the pain caused by Bush. If there's an alternative way of expressing your message without exacerbating the survivors' pain, shouldn't you consider it? "
I believe I understand the message you are trying to convey by printing the list of names on your shirts. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
You want to convey the enormity of the loss. Just saying "4000+ American soldiers have died in Iraq" has nowhere near the impact of actually listing the 4000 names. Looking at that shirt, with row after row of tiny printing, each name representing a human life that was snuffed out, really gives one a feel for the scope of the tragedy.
If I'm correct about that being your goal, couldn't the same effect be produced by replacing the names with icons of some sort, each one representing a fallen soldier? For example, couldn't you achieve the same effect by placing 4000+ tombstones, or 4000+ skulls, or 4000+ "X"s on the shirt? It would seem that would convey the same message without causing additional harm to the friends and family of the fallen.
Don't get me wrong, I believe the vast majority of the people who object to the shirts are doing so simply because they dislike the anti-war message, and I couldn't care less if those people are offended by the shirt. And I also don't assume, as many people do, that the family of every fallen soldier would be offended by the shirts; I think many of them would understand and appreciate that their son or daughter is listed on them. But there are people, including Friend of the Fallen on this forum, who appear to be genuinely hurt by the shirts. I realize it was Bush and not you who is responsible for the deaths of the soldiers, but the shirts do, in some cases, seem to exacerbate the pain caused by Bush. If there's an alternative way of expressing your message without exacerbating the survivors' pain, shouldn't you consider it? "
Michael Dugan wrote on Aug 26, 2008 3:17 PM:
" DR USA I am looking for the shirts....and I don't consider you a reliable source of whats happening since you seem too politically invested in the issue. But if you and Anti American Dan's friends do wear them...I'll see them eventually and then get to exercise free speech as well, it's a small town. Maybe you can start a softball team? Perhaps you can all wear them at the next Memorial Day parade?
People like you are all the same....if someone doesn't agree with you, then they are misguided, uneducated or stupid. Whereas me...I don't see you as misguided, uneducated or stupid. I see you as as someone who is chronically angry and hateful toward America.
And surprise surprise you aren't being truthful with the arguments here. People have been making the point of Anti American Dan making money off the blood of our fallen soldiers since they first came out. READ THE SECOND POST. So if we can't believe you about that why should I believe you about you wearing the shirt itself. "
People like you are all the same....if someone doesn't agree with you, then they are misguided, uneducated or stupid. Whereas me...I don't see you as misguided, uneducated or stupid. I see you as as someone who is chronically angry and hateful toward America.
And surprise surprise you aren't being truthful with the arguments here. People have been making the point of Anti American Dan making money off the blood of our fallen soldiers since they first came out. READ THE SECOND POST. So if we can't believe you about that why should I believe you about you wearing the shirt itself. "
JD wrote on Aug 26, 2008 2:46 PM:
" Tater - Apparently, we are using different versions of the English language. From my perspective, you seem to make false and outrageous statements in response to my posts, and then, when I challenge your responses, you claim they were only "rhetorical." It appears my definition of "rhetorical" is not the same as yours.
I have never stated or implied that I am a hero. You have made that up out of whole cloth. Or was that yet another one of your "rhetorical" statements?
With regard to sacrifices I have made, and continue to make, I don't see the point of discussing my life in an anonymous Internet forum where nothing can be verified. You know nothing about me, so do not pretend that you do.
And the assault on the Constitution that you so blithely dismiss as "imaginary" is very real. Ask Dan Frazier, who was threatened with criminal sanctions and is now the subject of a $40 billion lawsuit just for exercising his constitutional right to free speech.
If your invitation to continue the debate without personal insults is serious and not just "rhetorical," I accept. "
I have never stated or implied that I am a hero. You have made that up out of whole cloth. Or was that yet another one of your "rhetorical" statements?
With regard to sacrifices I have made, and continue to make, I don't see the point of discussing my life in an anonymous Internet forum where nothing can be verified. You know nothing about me, so do not pretend that you do.
And the assault on the Constitution that you so blithely dismiss as "imaginary" is very real. Ask Dan Frazier, who was threatened with criminal sanctions and is now the subject of a $40 billion lawsuit just for exercising his constitutional right to free speech.
If your invitation to continue the debate without personal insults is serious and not just "rhetorical," I accept. "
ross wrote on Aug 26, 2008 2:31 PM:
" Tater: Be careful not to take Powell's statement out of context. Powell also argued before the UN that "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.", and it was Paul Wolfowitz who said "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction because it
was the one reason everyone could agree on."
Powell's comment was made AFTER he resigned as Sec of State, so I would offer you the same caution. I'd really like to know just exactly what he was thinking as he was arguing the case before the U.N.
As for Wolfowitz's statement, we are talking about going to war, not what strategy we'll use in the bingo tournament. It still sounds to me like they were doing their very best to make up a rationale for something they had already decided to do because they felt it was in the strategic (not defensive) interests of the U.S. Again, hopefully time will shed more light on this.
I don't believe I'm out on a limb in saying Greenspan was "not in the loop" on this matter so his personal opinion isn't germane to the debate.
I strongly and emphatically disagree. Because, once again, this was written after Greenspan retired as Fed Reserve Chief. As the guy who set monetary policy for the U.S. for 12 years, he undoubtedly had his finger on the pulse of the economic, political, military, social situations for just about every region of the world, and most especially for the Middle East because of the importance of oil in global economics. The invasion of Iraq would have had a dramatic effect on world economic systems, and I think Greenspan would know very well what was going on, and I don't think this would be something he would say frivolously.
Probably was intelligence failure. But in its most benign form it merely meant that nobody could argue as effectively against the decision to go to war. "
was the one reason everyone could agree on."
Powell's comment was made AFTER he resigned as Sec of State, so I would offer you the same caution. I'd really like to know just exactly what he was thinking as he was arguing the case before the U.N.
As for Wolfowitz's statement, we are talking about going to war, not what strategy we'll use in the bingo tournament. It still sounds to me like they were doing their very best to make up a rationale for something they had already decided to do because they felt it was in the strategic (not defensive) interests of the U.S. Again, hopefully time will shed more light on this.
I don't believe I'm out on a limb in saying Greenspan was "not in the loop" on this matter so his personal opinion isn't germane to the debate.
I strongly and emphatically disagree. Because, once again, this was written after Greenspan retired as Fed Reserve Chief. As the guy who set monetary policy for the U.S. for 12 years, he undoubtedly had his finger on the pulse of the economic, political, military, social situations for just about every region of the world, and most especially for the Middle East because of the importance of oil in global economics. The invasion of Iraq would have had a dramatic effect on world economic systems, and I think Greenspan would know very well what was going on, and I don't think this would be something he would say frivolously.
Probably was intelligence failure. But in its most benign form it merely meant that nobody could argue as effectively against the decision to go to war. "
Friend of Fallen wrote on Aug 26, 2008 2:23 PM:
" JD you have still missed my point. I am not here arguing about whether or not anybody lied. We could debate that for years. The world is a bad place, and America is still the best place to live. What I am saying is that the poltical message has been delivered. At this point the T-shirt is offending alot of people. Is that what you wish to do, offend people? You personally could send a message, that you are willing to compromise. Stop wearing the shirt with the names on it, buy one from him that only has the political message on it. Should be cheaper. You would gain alot of respect, at least from me. Come join me here in the middle, where the majority of people are.
You get your points acrossed to me, but not everyone has had your level of education. No Offense, but you come off as condescendingly to people who have not had the same level of education. These people's opinions still matter, as they still can relate to what is happening.
To eyes of the Fallen, your sentiments were appreciated, however you lost much creditability when you chose to immeadiately follow these sentiments with many lines of the political message. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't know of any Flagstaff residents who have been killed thus far. Are you trying to tell me that relative's of the Fallen, in Flagstaff have come up to you, and told you they were glad their relatives name was on the shirt? I call B.S. to this. We are back to where we started. The word Ghoul comes to mind. Does your mom know that you are not granting the wishes of other mothers? My mom would whup my butt for this. Honor the mother's wishes.
Mr. Dugan, please thank those who serve for me, and that I pray for their safe return.
As far as the second ammendment comment, I don't wear the names of fallen comrades on the same shirt that says keep and bear arms. You obviously have just joined this conversation, and have totally missed the point. Bow out now, gracefully.
DR USA, you have me pegged. I can run 3 miles in 18 minutes any more, can't make head shots at 500 meters anymore with rack grade M-16, but I will be there to help mop up, and can place every shot in the torso with my match grade AR-15. When the dogs of war are unleased, the last sound you will hear on the Battlefield will be the Blood curdling howl of the Tueffel Hunden!
It doesn't surprise me that you hang out with Iranian Terrorists. When they turn on you, and keep you alive just because they like having you as a squeeky sex toy, we will not come to get you. "
You get your points acrossed to me, but not everyone has had your level of education. No Offense, but you come off as condescendingly to people who have not had the same level of education. These people's opinions still matter, as they still can relate to what is happening.
To eyes of the Fallen, your sentiments were appreciated, however you lost much creditability when you chose to immeadiately follow these sentiments with many lines of the political message. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't know of any Flagstaff residents who have been killed thus far. Are you trying to tell me that relative's of the Fallen, in Flagstaff have come up to you, and told you they were glad their relatives name was on the shirt? I call B.S. to this. We are back to where we started. The word Ghoul comes to mind. Does your mom know that you are not granting the wishes of other mothers? My mom would whup my butt for this. Honor the mother's wishes.
Mr. Dugan, please thank those who serve for me, and that I pray for their safe return.
As far as the second ammendment comment, I don't wear the names of fallen comrades on the same shirt that says keep and bear arms. You obviously have just joined this conversation, and have totally missed the point. Bow out now, gracefully.
DR USA, you have me pegged. I can run 3 miles in 18 minutes any more, can't make head shots at 500 meters anymore with rack grade M-16, but I will be there to help mop up, and can place every shot in the torso with my match grade AR-15. When the dogs of war are unleased, the last sound you will hear on the Battlefield will be the Blood curdling howl of the Tueffel Hunden!
It doesn't surprise me that you hang out with Iranian Terrorists. When they turn on you, and keep you alive just because they like having you as a squeeky sex toy, we will not come to get you. "
Padraig Houlahan wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:49 AM:
" Friend of Fallen wrote on Aug 25, 2008 5:39 PM:
"I know you guys are sticking to your guns on keeping the names on the shirts. I still disagree. An honest appeal from a greiving mother, whether it be one who lost a soldier, or one whose child died driving drunk and took out another family, either way it is my opinion that this is much more important than a political message. "
Unless the mother is someone like Cindy Sheehan. The voices of mothers, it would seem, are only of interest when they support the war effort or serve to bolster the myth that we and our military adventures are selfless agents of Good.
...
And if a mother called for gun control after her child was gunned down? Are we to now place the appeal from a grieving mother above the right to bear arms?
... "
"I know you guys are sticking to your guns on keeping the names on the shirts. I still disagree. An honest appeal from a greiving mother, whether it be one who lost a soldier, or one whose child died driving drunk and took out another family, either way it is my opinion that this is much more important than a political message. "
Unless the mother is someone like Cindy Sheehan. The voices of mothers, it would seem, are only of interest when they support the war effort or serve to bolster the myth that we and our military adventures are selfless agents of Good.
...
And if a mother called for gun control after her child was gunned down? Are we to now place the appeal from a grieving mother above the right to bear arms?
... "
AzWebfoot wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:20 AM:
" In response to those responding to Dr USA, remember that when you argue with an idiot, he will bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Only a coward would say being in the service of your Mom's and Dads, protecting your Sis and Brothers, and of "but his willingness to die for others' stupid things, together with his expressed reasons for being willing to die for those stupid things, that's what worry me." is wrong.
It was "but his willingness to die for others' stupid things, together with his expressed reasons for being willing to die for those stupid things, that's what worry me." who started the American Revolution and who won the Civil War, who fought in WW1 and WW2 and who fights today because his country asked him. By our election of our representatives and President, we, WE, have sent him and her into harms way. "
Only a coward would say being in the service of your Mom's and Dads, protecting your Sis and Brothers, and of "but his willingness to die for others' stupid things, together with his expressed reasons for being willing to die for those stupid things, that's what worry me." is wrong.
It was "but his willingness to die for others' stupid things, together with his expressed reasons for being willing to die for those stupid things, that's what worry me." who started the American Revolution and who won the Civil War, who fought in WW1 and WW2 and who fights today because his country asked him. By our election of our representatives and President, we, WE, have sent him and her into harms way. "
Tater wrote on Aug 26, 2008 12:29 AM:
" Ross
Be careful not to take Powell's statement out of context. Powell also argued before the UN that "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.", and it was Paul Wolfowitz who said "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." I don't believe I'm out on a limb in saying Greenspan was "not in the loop" on this matter so his personal opinion isn't germane to the debate.
Wolfowitz's statement sounds right. Saddam's refusal to comply with the cease fire agreement at the end of Desert Storm as well as 16 UN resolutions were not enough to convince the nation/world to go to war, but the long held belief of his WMD capability and ambition certainly were. Exacerbating our intelligence failures was Saddam himself who wanted Iran and Israel as well as his Arab neighbors to believe he had a WMD arsenal, and the rest of the world to believe he didn't. (Sound like John Kerry?)
The bottom line for me is our intelligence community failed us and appears to had been failing us for many years. That all of the politicians and world leaders who beat the drums of war echoed that flawed intelligence is telling, and after years of bombast from repubs and dems alike (including Powell) on the subject, Bush is the one called a liar?
I'm not arguing that we should have gone to war anyway. Had we not been saddled with faulty intelligence, it is unlikely congress would have approved the war resolution, much less be asked to by Bush. If all of those quoted (snopes.com) on the subject bought into the "lie", it wasn't Bush selling it.
Our intelligence sucked. Nothing more, nothing less and Bush was the face of it. It was the same faulty intelligence served up by the Clinton administration and I'm not too eager to assume recent reforms have made a significant improvement. I'll be paying special attention to the publicized intelligence on Iran's capabilities, ambitions and intentions. I really believe there will be war with Iran if Ahmadinejad doesn't back down, but does something stupid like retaliating against the US when Israel takes out their nuke plant.
The future looks bright if your in the insulting political t-shirt business.
For J.D.
"Or are you intentionally taking my statement out of context so you can personally insult me?
Do you ever read, much less remember what you rant? I assumed your context was rhetorical, not literal. Not even the village idiot would literally make your assertions. You made a rhetorical statement, I replied with a rhetorical response. Your attempt to elevate yourself and antagonists like Dan Frazier to hero status citing your diligent defense of an imaginery assault on the constitution and bill of rights is pathetic. The only sacrifice you make is in subjecting yourself to the scorn and loathing of your fellow citizens. Do you wish to trade insults, or debate?
Man on the Street---Thank you for the compliment. There's just so much ignorance, and so little time. "
Be careful not to take Powell's statement out of context. Powell also argued before the UN that "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.", and it was Paul Wolfowitz who said "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." I don't believe I'm out on a limb in saying Greenspan was "not in the loop" on this matter so his personal opinion isn't germane to the debate.
Wolfowitz's statement sounds right. Saddam's refusal to comply with the cease fire agreement at the end of Desert Storm as well as 16 UN resolutions were not enough to convince the nation/world to go to war, but the long held belief of his WMD capability and ambition certainly were. Exacerbating our intelligence failures was Saddam himself who wanted Iran and Israel as well as his Arab neighbors to believe he had a WMD arsenal, and the rest of the world to believe he didn't. (Sound like John Kerry?)
The bottom line for me is our intelligence community failed us and appears to had been failing us for many years. That all of the politicians and world leaders who beat the drums of war echoed that flawed intelligence is telling, and after years of bombast from repubs and dems alike (including Powell) on the subject, Bush is the one called a liar?
I'm not arguing that we should have gone to war anyway. Had we not been saddled with faulty intelligence, it is unlikely congress would have approved the war resolution, much less be asked to by Bush. If all of those quoted (snopes.com) on the subject bought into the "lie", it wasn't Bush selling it.
Our intelligence sucked. Nothing more, nothing less and Bush was the face of it. It was the same faulty intelligence served up by the Clinton administration and I'm not too eager to assume recent reforms have made a significant improvement. I'll be paying special attention to the publicized intelligence on Iran's capabilities, ambitions and intentions. I really believe there will be war with Iran if Ahmadinejad doesn't back down, but does something stupid like retaliating against the US when Israel takes out their nuke plant.
The future looks bright if your in the insulting political t-shirt business.
For J.D.
"Or are you intentionally taking my statement out of context so you can personally insult me?
Do you ever read, much less remember what you rant? I assumed your context was rhetorical, not literal. Not even the village idiot would literally make your assertions. You made a rhetorical statement, I replied with a rhetorical response. Your attempt to elevate yourself and antagonists like Dan Frazier to hero status citing your diligent defense of an imaginery assault on the constitution and bill of rights is pathetic. The only sacrifice you make is in subjecting yourself to the scorn and loathing of your fellow citizens. Do you wish to trade insults, or debate?
Man on the Street---Thank you for the compliment. There's just so much ignorance, and so little time. "
ross wrote on Aug 25, 2008 8:29 PM:
" To Tater. I agree entirely regarding "..90%" of all politicians being involved with the deception about Iraq. I have said in a number of threads (and by the way I do think that Bush lied about the rationale for invading Iraq - either that or he is stupider than I give him credit for and that would be saying a whole lot) that there is plenty of guilt to go around. My own impression is that many members of Congress made a convenient (at the time) political decision rather than what would have been an unpopular, but more honest, moral decision. Hell, most of the rest of developed world knew what the heck was going on. (I think that France made the correct moral decision [and they knew darn well what the fallout with the U.S. would be and they had the courage to make the right decision anyway] rather than blindly kowtowing to Bush like Blair did). I think that whoever is responsible for these things will be saving plenty of room in that special place in hell for GW, his administration, and those politicians who brown-nosed their vote for GW.
It will be interesting to see what information comes out after GW (thank god) leaves office, and even decades from now as more information comes to light.
At any rate, thanks again for the Snopes reference. "
It will be interesting to see what information comes out after GW (thank god) leaves office, and even decades from now as more information comes to light.
At any rate, thanks again for the Snopes reference. "
Freind of Fallen wrote on Aug 25, 2008 7:57 PM:
" JD -as far as the finiacial aspects of taking individual names off, everytime one is requested to be taken , off, just doesn't wash. The shirt has to be redesigned, more ink applied, space made for, and a new shirt printed everytime a name is added anyway. Why not get rid of all with the names, say the shirts didn't sell and write it off in taxes. I'll be the first to admit I cheat on my taxes....who doesn't?. "
JD wrote on Aug 25, 2008 7:51 PM:
" To Friend of the Fallen:
You make your points well, and I understand what you are saying. We definitely have different world views on political and national security issues. Your view appears to be goal-oriented (e.g., the ends justify the means to some extent), whereas I would describe mine as more process-oriented. My own view is that the means by which we achieve our national security goals are as important as the goals themselves, because the means we use define us as a society.
Let me explain what I mean. I think many Americans (including possibly you) believe that America should not be unduly hampered by philosophical considerations in achieving its national security goals. If that means that the country's leadership must lie to its citizens on occasion, or invade its citizens' privacy to some extent, or sometimes violate their constitutional rights, or that the military or the CIA must stretch the definition of "torture" a bit when interrogating prisoners of war, then these things are acceptable, because the goal of national security is so much more important than these philosophical considerations.
My view, on the other hand, is that these philosophical considerations are what set America apart from the rest of the world. They are the very basis of our society. Therefore, if our leaders lie to us, if they violate our rights, if they allow torture of captives, if they authorize unjust wars, and so forth, they destroy our country just as surely as if they had dropped all our defenses and allowed our enemies to come rushing in. These sorts of actions do not physically destroy our country, of course, but they destroy it by turning it into something else--something less--a country with physical security, but one that is no longer America.
A person with the goal-oriented worldview would argue, "philosophy means nothing if our country is destroyed by its enemies," and that person would be right. A person with my worldview would argue, "winning wars means nothing if we become like our enemy in the process," and that person would also be right. Clearly, we have to steer a course between these two extremes.
With regard to the tee shirts, the description of your pain has not failed to move me. My point in supporting the tee shirts has been that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. In other words, the pain caused to the friends and families of the deceased is outweighed by the potential good of preventing many more deaths. Now I have to ask myself, "by sacrificing a few to help many, aren't I saying the end justifies the means? Are there no other equally-effective means to achieve my goal that involve the less pain to the survivors?"
I don't have an answer to that right now. "
You make your points well, and I understand what you are saying. We definitely have different world views on political and national security issues. Your view appears to be goal-oriented (e.g., the ends justify the means to some extent), whereas I would describe mine as more process-oriented. My own view is that the means by which we achieve our national security goals are as important as the goals themselves, because the means we use define us as a society.
Let me explain what I mean. I think many Americans (including possibly you) believe that America should not be unduly hampered by philosophical considerations in achieving its national security goals. If that means that the country's leadership must lie to its citizens on occasion, or invade its citizens' privacy to some extent, or sometimes violate their constitutional rights, or that the military or the CIA must stretch the definition of "torture" a bit when interrogating prisoners of war, then these things are acceptable, because the goal of national security is so much more important than these philosophical considerations.
My view, on the other hand, is that these philosophical considerations are what set America apart from the rest of the world. They are the very basis of our society. Therefore, if our leaders lie to us, if they violate our rights, if they allow torture of captives, if they authorize unjust wars, and so forth, they destroy our country just as surely as if they had dropped all our defenses and allowed our enemies to come rushing in. These sorts of actions do not physically destroy our country, of course, but they destroy it by turning it into something else--something less--a country with physical security, but one that is no longer America.
A person with the goal-oriented worldview would argue, "philosophy means nothing if our country is destroyed by its enemies," and that person would be right. A person with my worldview would argue, "winning wars means nothing if we become like our enemy in the process," and that person would also be right. Clearly, we have to steer a course between these two extremes.
With regard to the tee shirts, the description of your pain has not failed to move me. My point in supporting the tee shirts has been that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. In other words, the pain caused to the friends and families of the deceased is outweighed by the potential good of preventing many more deaths. Now I have to ask myself, "by sacrificing a few to help many, aren't I saying the end justifies the means? Are there no other equally-effective means to achieve my goal that involve the less pain to the survivors?"
I don't have an answer to that right now. "
Dr. USA wrote on Aug 25, 2008 7:34 PM:
" Fallen Friend writes: "Iran wakes up every morning Chanting "Death to America.""
More falsehoods from them whose judgment has not been clouded by being in the military. Iran does not wake up that way. I know Iranians. They know me. We are friends. What they wake up to is fear of their government. The chanters worry them as much as they worry Fallen Friend. They wonder why so many Americans fear Iranians in general. They wonder why we did not accept their previous regime's offer to give us bin Laden. They wonder whether or not we Americans can see through our government the way they see through theirs. They are hoping we can still change our respetive governments. They want a bit of peace and prosperity, and they want to be appreciated. They do not want to be judged by their lunatic fringe or by their government. (Neither do most Americans want to be judged by the KKK or the Bush administration.) But most of all they do not want to be attacked. It worries them to death. On a daily basis.
Michael Dugan writes: "It still doesn't change the fact that what Anti American Dan is doing is hurting the loved ones of those who already sacrificed more than you or he will ever have."
It is probably true that Dan is hurting the loved ones more than veterans are hurting them. The point is, Dan is not hurting them as much as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney hurt them. Even if Dan sat up at night thinking, "I wonder how I can hurt those parents, hmm, I think I'll do it," he could not come up with anything like killing their children for profit. And you must remember that families of ALL the soldiers on the shirt have been mortally wounded by George W. Bush. Not all of them are wounded by Dan. Many of them are proud. Many of them aren't proud but relieved their kids' death might count for something after all. (Remember, Cindy Sheehan's kid is on those shirts.) They all receive royalties from the shirts whether they like it or not.
I can hardly believe Michael Dugan has not noticed these shirts around Flagstaff. Maybe along with his compadres, he is confusing the shirted names with the solder's themselves, whom he will never see again no matter how hard he looks. You should never confuse names or symbols with human life. It's like confusing the flag with the country, thinking someone died for the flag, getting mad whenever it's dissed. (Personally, I never let my Frazier shirts touch the ground. It's disrespectful to people everywhere who wear them. I saw some in Minnesota this summer.) "
More falsehoods from them whose judgment has not been clouded by being in the military. Iran does not wake up that way. I know Iranians. They know me. We are friends. What they wake up to is fear of their government. The chanters worry them as much as they worry Fallen Friend. They wonder why so many Americans fear Iranians in general. They wonder why we did not accept their previous regime's offer to give us bin Laden. They wonder whether or not we Americans can see through our government the way they see through theirs. They are hoping we can still change our respetive governments. They want a bit of peace and prosperity, and they want to be appreciated. They do not want to be judged by their lunatic fringe or by their government. (Neither do most Americans want to be judged by the KKK or the Bush administration.) But most of all they do not want to be attacked. It worries them to death. On a daily basis.
Michael Dugan writes: "It still doesn't change the fact that what Anti American Dan is doing is hurting the loved ones of those who already sacrificed more than you or he will ever have."
It is probably true that Dan is hurting the loved ones more than veterans are hurting them. The point is, Dan is not hurting them as much as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney hurt them. Even if Dan sat up at night thinking, "I wonder how I can hurt those parents, hmm, I think I'll do it," he could not come up with anything like killing their children for profit. And you must remember that families of ALL the soldiers on the shirt have been mortally wounded by George W. Bush. Not all of them are wounded by Dan. Many of them are proud. Many of them aren't proud but relieved their kids' death might count for something after all. (Remember, Cindy Sheehan's kid is on those shirts.) They all receive royalties from the shirts whether they like it or not.
I can hardly believe Michael Dugan has not noticed these shirts around Flagstaff. Maybe along with his compadres, he is confusing the shirted names with the solder's themselves, whom he will never see again no matter how hard he looks. You should never confuse names or symbols with human life. It's like confusing the flag with the country, thinking someone died for the flag, getting mad whenever it's dissed. (Personally, I never let my Frazier shirts touch the ground. It's disrespectful to people everywhere who wear them. I saw some in Minnesota this summer.) "
flag citizen wrote on Aug 25, 2008 7:16 PM:
" This is one horrible person to do such a thing. If I had a family member that had died defending this country whether I agreed or disagreed with the war, I would sue the holy living tar out of him. I wonder how he looks himself in the mirror everyday??? "
Robert wrote on Aug 25, 2008 6:12 PM:
" We are not the world's policeforce. We spend billions on dollars on destoying a country, billions more rebuilding it, BUT our elected officials will not help their own citizens. A Repulican is an example of what the Bible says; "A Rich man cannot enter into heaven." It is very saddening to see so many young men and women maimed, injured or killed because an AWOL president and his henchmen wage war for oil. Teddy Roosevelt and thomas jefferson said it best; it is every citizens duty to question our government. That is why the Constitition was written. By reading the respones that have been writtening, I would say none of the responders have read 1984 by George Orwell. If you have not, do yourself and your children a favor and read it. "
Friend of Fallen wrote on Aug 25, 2008 5:39 PM:
" Okay JD, we'll talk at the DMZ.
I was a Marine for 4 years, and a citizen soldier another 20 years. The entire 20 years spent in Northern Arizona. I have not held the same job for 4 years, but have done all kinds of public service work. I disagree that my judgement has been clouded by the military. I still see things that others do, but perhaps I look into things a little deeper. Iran wakes up every morning Chanting "Death to America." I am sorry but I see them as a potential enemy. A potential enemy that will soon have a nuclear arsenal. I am a sheepdog, this is what I do. I have long admired the Israeli's for their spirit and will to protect their families and land, whose backs are to the wall. Do I wish that they had chosen a different place to settle than where many religions claim as THEIR most holy land, heck yes!
They are our Allies, and most hated by the Muslim extremists. Isreal is a ticking time bomb, with people like Saddam baiting them to make a move so the surrounding countries can attack. I don't care who pulls the trigger, it will destabilize the region, and this is where some say Armageddon will take place. Will I be sent, no probably not, I am too dam*ed old now, but what if the draft was re-instated to go help our allies?
If you look at the history of WWII, we may have been able to stay neutral, but it my opinion that had we stayed out of it, Germany would control all of Europe, Italy all of Africa, and Japan all of the Far east. Germany would be powerful enough to be asking us to hand over our Jews, Negros, Hispanics, Mentally deficient, Homosexuals and other "undesirables." Rather than fight the Japanese, with recently acquired weapons and natural resources on the West Coast, and the Facists on the East, we would probably have to appease them or risk annihilation and enslavement ourselves.
I have done a lot of reading, but not conspiracy theories, these do me no good. I am a WWII buff. I read the Rape of Nanking, where Japanese soldiers made a sport of catching infants on their bayonets. Yes it was terrible using the atomic bomb on Japan, but if you talk to people who were alive during WW II, they wanted their sons, fathers, brothers sisters etc. back home. Many had been away for years. It was estimated we would suffer 1 million casualties if we invaded Japan. I believe it. Hitler wanted to rule the world, we needed to stop him while we still had allies to help. It did not matter if FDR lied, our enemies were growing too strong, and we were NEXT.
I don't think things have changed. Every conquering army, (ours excluded I would hope) has raped, pillaged and burned. I took a vow I would not let this happen to my country, my wife, or my sister. I am a soldier, you are right I have chosen my profession. But I have studied my enemy, from the Apache, who were masters of guerilla warfare, (Terrorism almost, from the fear they instilled) to the tactics and idiolgy of the Communist soldier, and the information we sell at Bookmans about how we fight, and what to expect from us.
WWII showed the importance of foward bases, so that we could strike the enemy within the range of our bombers. Thus, Japan, China, Burma, Russia and most of Europe lay in ruins, and America was untouched.
I am sure we have supported Dictators and other despots for foward bases in these countires before, but you have to ask yourself if this was necessary? Alot of countries, unlike your and mine verbal conflict, start killing each other over their differences. Attrocities follow atrocities on BOTH sides. Acusations are made of torture etc, against the opposing leader, from BOTH sides. It is the way of the world, as much as we would like to change it, the only way to keep America from hosting a war on our shores. It didn't matter to me, I was taking 40 people to a warzone, and I had other things on my mind. You may disagree with this, but these are the preparations a soldier makes, hoping that I never have to defend my actual home.
I know you guys are sticking to your guns on keeping the names on the shirts. I still disagree. An honest appeal from a greiving mother, whether it be one who lost a soldier, or one whose child died driving drunk and took out another family, either way it is my opinion that this is much more important than a political message. I don't think you understand, you would have to had go through what I have to understand the bond that Soldiers and Marines have. It could very well have been my vehicle targeted instead of Alan's. My unit supported his. Two boys don't have a father anymore, I'm Old, I don't have any kids, why not me instead? It just so happens I was not on the mission that day, had I been, mine would have been the first vehicle....
Again I don't care about the political message, it pales in comparison to the need to let the families have closure, and let the dead rest in peace. The political message does none of this. I knew him, and I ask you to take his name off. JD I know you think you are honoring these people and are sending a warning, but I ( and I think many agree) just don't see it that way. I am not saying this in a mean way, it is just the way I feel. Do you really want to send the message that enrages people, enough to want to rip the shirt off your body? Honestly, if alot of people say they find it offensive, is this really the message you want to put out to gain support for your views? No matter what you say about honoring the dead there are still many of us that disagee.
If you want to honor him, and possibly gain a friend who could start to see things your way, compromise. You are an intelligent person, we disagree, but we don't have insight into each other. I see DR USA as someone who could go to extremes to prove his point, regardless of who gets hurt or in the way.
I will say it again. The political message can be given without the names of those killed on the shirt. I feel very strongly about this. I don't think that it will affect sales at all, if they were taken off. This is what I see as the compromise that people are looking for. I don't think it asking too much. Enough with the political debate, lets get back to respecting each other's wishes. Lets show each other that we can meet halfway, give a little, and gain alot. "
I was a Marine for 4 years, and a citizen soldier another 20 years. The entire 20 years spent in Northern Arizona. I have not held the same job for 4 years, but have done all kinds of public service work. I disagree that my judgement has been clouded by the military. I still see things that others do, but perhaps I look into things a little deeper. Iran wakes up every morning Chanting "Death to America." I am sorry but I see them as a potential enemy. A potential enemy that will soon have a nuclear arsenal. I am a sheepdog, this is what I do. I have long admired the Israeli's for their spirit and will to protect their families and land, whose backs are to the wall. Do I wish that they had chosen a different place to settle than where many religions claim as THEIR most holy land, heck yes!
They are our Allies, and most hated by the Muslim extremists. Isreal is a ticking time bomb, with people like Saddam baiting them to make a move so the surrounding countries can attack. I don't care who pulls the trigger, it will destabilize the region, and this is where some say Armageddon will take place. Will I be sent, no probably not, I am too dam*ed old now, but what if the draft was re-instated to go help our allies?
If you look at the history of WWII, we may have been able to stay neutral, but it my opinion that had we stayed out of it, Germany would control all of Europe, Italy all of Africa, and Japan all of the Far east. Germany would be powerful enough to be asking us to hand over our Jews, Negros, Hispanics, Mentally deficient, Homosexuals and other "undesirables." Rather than fight the Japanese, with recently acquired weapons and natural resources on the West Coast, and the Facists on the East, we would probably have to appease them or risk annihilation and enslavement ourselves.
I have done a lot of reading, but not conspiracy theories, these do me no good. I am a WWII buff. I read the Rape of Nanking, where Japanese soldiers made a sport of catching infants on their bayonets. Yes it was terrible using the atomic bomb on Japan, but if you talk to people who were alive during WW II, they wanted their sons, fathers, brothers sisters etc. back home. Many had been away for years. It was estimated we would suffer 1 million casualties if we invaded Japan. I believe it. Hitler wanted to rule the world, we needed to stop him while we still had allies to help. It did not matter if FDR lied, our enemies were growing too strong, and we were NEXT.
I don't think things have changed. Every conquering army, (ours excluded I would hope) has raped, pillaged and burned. I took a vow I would not let this happen to my country, my wife, or my sister. I am a soldier, you are right I have chosen my profession. But I have studied my enemy, from the Apache, who were masters of guerilla warfare, (Terrorism almost, from the fear they instilled) to the tactics and idiolgy of the Communist soldier, and the information we sell at Bookmans about how we fight, and what to expect from us.
WWII showed the importance of foward bases, so that we could strike the enemy within the range of our bombers. Thus, Japan, China, Burma, Russia and most of Europe lay in ruins, and America was untouched.
I am sure we have supported Dictators and other despots for foward bases in these countires before, but you have to ask yourself if this was necessary? Alot of countries, unlike your and mine verbal conflict, start killing each other over their differences. Attrocities follow atrocities on BOTH sides. Acusations are made of torture etc, against the opposing leader, from BOTH sides. It is the way of the world, as much as we would like to change it, the only way to keep America from hosting a war on our shores. It didn't matter to me, I was taking 40 people to a warzone, and I had other things on my mind. You may disagree with this, but these are the preparations a soldier makes, hoping that I never have to defend my actual home.
I know you guys are sticking to your guns on keeping the names on the shirts. I still disagree. An honest appeal from a greiving mother, whether it be one who lost a soldier, or one whose child died driving drunk and took out another family, either way it is my opinion that this is much more important than a political message. I don't think you understand, you would have to had go through what I have to understand the bond that Soldiers and Marines have. It could very well have been my vehicle targeted instead of Alan's. My unit supported his. Two boys don't have a father anymore, I'm Old, I don't have any kids, why not me instead? It just so happens I was not on the mission that day, had I been, mine would have been the first vehicle....
Again I don't care about the political message, it pales in comparison to the need to let the families have closure, and let the dead rest in peace. The political message does none of this. I knew him, and I ask you to take his name off. JD I know you think you are honoring these people and are sending a warning, but I ( and I think many agree) just don't see it that way. I am not saying this in a mean way, it is just the way I feel. Do you really want to send the message that enrages people, enough to want to rip the shirt off your body? Honestly, if alot of people say they find it offensive, is this really the message you want to put out to gain support for your views? No matter what you say about honoring the dead there are still many of us that disagee.
If you want to honor him, and possibly gain a friend who could start to see things your way, compromise. You are an intelligent person, we disagree, but we don't have insight into each other. I see DR USA as someone who could go to extremes to prove his point, regardless of who gets hurt or in the way.
I will say it again. The political message can be given without the names of those killed on the shirt. I feel very strongly about this. I don't think that it will affect sales at all, if they were taken off. This is what I see as the compromise that people are looking for. I don't think it asking too much. Enough with the political debate, lets get back to respecting each other's wishes. Lets show each other that we can meet halfway, give a little, and gain alot. "
Michael Dugan wrote on Aug 25, 2008 5:23 PM:
" Friend of Fallen....these people don't care who gets hurt as long as they can promote their anti American dogma. Nothing else matters. Period. I am sorry for your loss, and no I didn't know your friend...but I know many like him...to date I have 6 relatives and 2 of my best friends have children in Afganastan and Iraq. Anti American Dan, Dr USA and the rest dislike and distrust the military and the soldiers who serve.....it probably makes them feel inferior. So they call them stupid, uneducated dupes or pawns to make themselves feel better. Think about it....how many anti war people are willing to talk about the positive things that the military does? All they want to talk about how stupid the troops are, or they call them war criminals.
Hopefully one day you can return to celebrating the 4th, but take your time....we all heal at our own pace. Don't pay any attention to the haters, who seem to relish in your pain. What comes around, goes around. Take care. "
Hopefully one day you can return to celebrating the 4th, but take your time....we all heal at our own pace. Don't pay any attention to the haters, who seem to relish in your pain. What comes around, goes around. Take care. "
Michael Dugan wrote on Aug 25, 2008 5:11 PM:
" Dr USA So now you are the all knowing truth God. Able to tell someone who has served this country doing something besides running his mouth, that his experience in the military has inhibited his knowledge and vision. What do your neighbors say when you tell them you know everything and have knowledge of all the truths in the world. Bet they are impressed. To most Americans, since Fallen has served, his opinions and views will hold much more creedence than someone who only complains on a computer. It still doesn't change the fact that what Anti American Dan is doing is hurting the loved ones of those who already sacrificed more than you or he will ever have. "
Dr. USA wrote on Aug 25, 2008 3:38 PM:
" Fallen Friend writes the following:
"Yes, we are America's warriors, and we are sometimes sent to do stupid things, but unfortunately this is because we are the World's policeman. Everyone hates us, until they are invaded by another country, or civil war makes their country a hell on earth. Then the cries go out for help."
This is a perfect example of how being in the Marine Corps inhibits, rather than liberates, one's knowledge and vision: None of this is true.
I will say that he's right about "stupid things"---but his willingness to die for others' stupid things, together with his expressed reasons for being willing to die for those stupid things, that's what worry me. HE doesn't think for himself, or listen to Rush, or read books...he listens to his commander. "
"Yes, we are America's warriors, and we are sometimes sent to do stupid things, but unfortunately this is because we are the World's policeman. Everyone hates us, until they are invaded by another country, or civil war makes their country a hell on earth. Then the cries go out for help."
This is a perfect example of how being in the Marine Corps inhibits, rather than liberates, one's knowledge and vision: None of this is true.
I will say that he's right about "stupid things"---but his willingness to die for others' stupid things, together with his expressed reasons for being willing to die for those stupid things, that's what worry me. HE doesn't think for himself, or listen to Rush, or read books...he listens to his commander. "
Dr. USA wrote on Aug 25, 2008 3:30 PM:
" To Michael Dugan: I didn't say you listened to Rush! I was responding to Fallen Friend, who said listening to Rush is no different than reading scholarly books since everyone always skews information to their point of view.
You, on the other hand, don't listen to anyone, don't read anyone, don't trust the concept of expertise in principle. You think...strictly for yourself. You quote your inner beliefs. You believe that your experiences are strictly your own and not subject to anyone's management or manipulation. Nothing acknowledged gets in from the outside. Listening to Rush would do you no harm. That's why I say that you are dead yet live on. "
You, on the other hand, don't listen to anyone, don't read anyone, don't trust the concept of expertise in principle. You think...strictly for yourself. You quote your inner beliefs. You believe that your experiences are strictly your own and not subject to anyone's management or manipulation. Nothing acknowledged gets in from the outside. Listening to Rush would do you no harm. That's why I say that you are dead yet live on. "
Freind of Fallen wrote on Aug 25, 2008 3:14 PM:
" Eyes on Fallen, You are correct. 4th of Julys suck for me, because it is the most notable date that I associate with his death. I am usually sad when I should be celebrating. I am sorry, but he did not die for oil, he never said anything about being Republic or Democrat. I never heard him saying anything bad about President Bush. He did not die for any freedoms you enjoy. What those who have never served don't understand is that soldiers form a bond with those around them. Alan was the kind of guy who would have taken a bullet for one of the Marines whose life he was responsible for, and I, or them for him. He died for his fellow Marines, not so we can have this discussion.
Politicians start wars, soldiers have to fight them. Soldiers should not get involved in politics, it would only drive us crazy. Our part of the war was so very small. I don't think his name should be part of a political message.
Maybe you have shed tears for him, but you did not know him. Your tears didn't start until the idea for this politcal message and use of his name was concieved. I still see his goofy grin. The time I knew him was brief, but still long enough to form that bond that only soldiers/Marines know. I still don't think it is right or proper that you use his name. All politics aside, I still say you get the message acrossed with only "Bush Lied, they Died" without having to put the names of those killed on the T-shirt.
Would it really be that hard to compromise, and grant my wish? Really, who cares about the politics?
You seem like a rational person, not like those who rejoice everytime a soldier is killed to prove a point. However, I don't think your opinion and your reasoning outweigh's those of the Families, the mothers who have requested that you let the dead rest in peace. It is a politcal message. Put that aside and grant someone's wish, just to show that you resepct their wishes. Better yet, since you so easily found my friend, why not ask the families?
It no longer matters to them, or me, what politics or leaders sent them to war. PLEASE TAKE THE NAMES OFF THE SHIRTS. Yes, we are America's warriors, and we are sometimes sent to do stupid things, but unfortunately this is because we are the World's policeman. Everyone hates us, until they are invaded by another country, or civil war makes their country a hell on earth. Then the cries go out for help.
When I was giving water and candy to little kids who probably never had it, made it all worthwhile. I was a soldier, and we are at war. I thank God that I brought all of those who I was responsible for home alive, and did not have to write any letters home informing a family that their loved one was killed.
Please, take the names off the shirts. I don't care who lied.
I ask one last time, please separate the political message "Bush Lied, they Died" (we can debate this for years) from what most find offensive, those killed "
Politicians start wars, soldiers have to fight them. Soldiers should not get involved in politics, it would only drive us crazy. Our part of the war was so very small. I don't think his name should be part of a political message.
Maybe you have shed tears for him, but you did not know him. Your tears didn't start until the idea for this politcal message and use of his name was concieved. I still see his goofy grin. The time I knew him was brief, but still long enough to form that bond that only soldiers/Marines know. I still don't think it is right or proper that you use his name. All politics aside, I still say you get the message acrossed with only "Bush Lied, they Died" without having to put the names of those killed on the T-shirt.
Would it really be that hard to compromise, and grant my wish? Really, who cares about the politics?
You seem like a rational person, not like those who rejoice everytime a soldier is killed to prove a point. However, I don't think your opinion and your reasoning outweigh's those of the Families, the mothers who have requested that you let the dead rest in peace. It is a politcal message. Put that aside and grant someone's wish, just to show that you resepct their wishes. Better yet, since you so easily found my friend, why not ask the families?
It no longer matters to them, or me, what politics or leaders sent them to war. PLEASE TAKE THE NAMES OFF THE SHIRTS. Yes, we are America's warriors, and we are sometimes sent to do stupid things, but unfortunately this is because we are the World's policeman. Everyone hates us, until they are invaded by another country, or civil war makes their country a hell on earth. Then the cries go out for help.
When I was giving water and candy to little kids who probably never had it, made it all worthwhile. I was a soldier, and we are at war. I thank God that I brought all of those who I was responsible for home alive, and did not have to write any letters home informing a family that their loved one was killed.
Please, take the names off the shirts. I don't care who lied.
I ask one last time, please separate the political message "Bush Lied, they Died" (we can debate this for years) from what most find offensive, those killed "
Tater wrote on Aug 25, 2008 1:53 PM:
" Ross--You are correct that you can't get full context from the snopes quotes, however, as I mentioned I have been following events in Iraq since it first came on my radar screen in 1991. None of the snopes stuff is contorted as to change the intentions of the authors. My point is that Bush didn't just pull this stuff out of his a$$, it has been the bravado of politicians of all stripes since Saddams smack down in Desert Storm. If the Bush haters want to hang on to the Bush lied mantra, then that would also apply to 90% of all the politicians. At least Hillary, to her credit, doesn't try to run from her comments about Iraq. I could have supported her as the nominee, but this is just too big of an office for a light weight like Obama. If you are interested in getting the context of the quotes, at least snopes will give you a starting point for further research. "
JD wrote on Aug 25, 2008 1:52 PM:
" To Friend of the Fallen--
It was the tone of your first post that caused me to become involved in this discussion. Your tone seems to have changed a bit since then, and I appreciate that. I absolutely do NOT hate soldiers or the military. However, as a student of history, I am very concerned when soldiers try to place themselves above the civilian population. In the history of mankind, this has often been the first step towards a military government. In your first post, it appeared to me that you were attempting to place yourself and the rest of the military above the civilian population. That's why I have been so aggressive in debating you. Perhaps your tone was influenced by your grief over the loss of your friend, and you don't really believe that civilians have no place in making decisions for the military. If that's the case, I apologize for my aggressiveness.
With regard to your claim that I know nothing about the military, and your previous implications that my experience of the world is more limited that yours, I dispute that. As I mentioned to another poster, it's rather pointless for me to discuss personal experiences in an anonymous online forum where nothing can be verified, but I believe the breadth and depth of my life experiences likely exceeds yours. True, you have more direct experience in Iraq than I do, but your experience is also limited to the specific areas and projects that you were working on over there. Your knowledge has also likely been filtered by the military, which has a tendency to tell its soldiers only what they need to know to perform their specific function, and no more than that. And, yes, I admit my knowledge has been filtered by my sources as well, as has everybody else's. None of us has complete knowledge.
My opinion, which I have developed as best I could based on my life experiences, my education, and my research, is that Bush misled America as to the reasons for entering into this war. American presidents do have a history of this kind of behavior, as you pointed out.
I believe the loss of our soldiers' lives is tragic. It is made even more tragic, in my opinion, by the fact that this war was unnecessary. I don't want any more soldiers to die in vain for an unnecessary war. I believe that to be the message of Dan's shirts, and that's why I wear one.
I understand that a few of the families of the fallen don't want their children's names on the shirts. I grieve for their sons and daughters, but I believe the goal of avoiding more deaths in Iraq is more important than the grief of a few people. As a soldier, I know you understand the concept of sacrificing a few to save the many. That I what I believe Dan is doing by ignoring the requests of some of the family members (that, plus the cost of removing names from pre-printed shirts whenever somebody told him to would likely make the shirts impossible to print). "
It was the tone of your first post that caused me to become involved in this discussion. Your tone seems to have changed a bit since then, and I appreciate that. I absolutely do NOT hate soldiers or the military. However, as a student of history, I am very concerned when soldiers try to place themselves above the civilian population. In the history of mankind, this has often been the first step towards a military government. In your first post, it appeared to me that you were attempting to place yourself and the rest of the military above the civilian population. That's why I have been so aggressive in debating you. Perhaps your tone was influenced by your grief over the loss of your friend, and you don't really believe that civilians have no place in making decisions for the military. If that's the case, I apologize for my aggressiveness.
With regard to your claim that I know nothing about the military, and your previous implications that my experience of the world is more limited that yours, I dispute that. As I mentioned to another poster, it's rather pointless for me to discuss personal experiences in an anonymous online forum where nothing can be verified, but I believe the breadth and depth of my life experiences likely exceeds yours. True, you have more direct experience in Iraq than I do, but your experience is also limited to the specific areas and projects that you were working on over there. Your knowledge has also likely been filtered by the military, which has a tendency to tell its soldiers only what they need to know to perform their specific function, and no more than that. And, yes, I admit my knowledge has been filtered by my sources as well, as has everybody else's. None of us has complete knowledge.
My opinion, which I have developed as best I could based on my life experiences, my education, and my research, is that Bush misled America as to the reasons for entering into this war. American presidents do have a history of this kind of behavior, as you pointed out.
I believe the loss of our soldiers' lives is tragic. It is made even more tragic, in my opinion, by the fact that this war was unnecessary. I don't want any more soldiers to die in vain for an unnecessary war. I believe that to be the message of Dan's shirts, and that's why I wear one.
I understand that a few of the families of the fallen don't want their children's names on the shirts. I grieve for their sons and daughters, but I believe the goal of avoiding more deaths in Iraq is more important than the grief of a few people. As a soldier, I know you understand the concept of sacrificing a few to save the many. That I what I believe Dan is doing by ignoring the requests of some of the family members (that, plus the cost of removing names from pre-printed shirts whenever somebody told him to would likely make the shirts impossible to print). "
Michael Dugan wrote on Aug 25, 2008 1:43 PM:
" Dr USA to add to your list of misconceptions....I don't listen to Rush, When someone says let me think for you like Rush does I get lost. Also while Rush and his opposite blame everything that goes wrong on people who don't think like they do, I lose interest rather quickly. By the way I was downtown this weekend and didn't see one of Anti American Dans shirts... "
JD wrote on Aug 25, 2008 1:12 PM:
" Tater - Once again, you need to bone up on your reading comprehension skills. Or are you intentionally taking my statement out of context so you can personally insult me? Either way, your statement is false. I wrote in my post that the values that make our country great are values such as those set forth in the Bill of Rights, especially the right to free speech. I further stated that those are the values that I'm fighting for. That is in no way "narcissistic." "
A Sane guy wrote on Aug 25, 2008 12:47 PM:
" good for Dan Frasier and the rest of us. So what is this ridiculous law saying? ABC news should get sued because it is a provides the names of US war dead during every George Stephanopoulus's Sunday show? Tours that make a profit taking people to the Vietnam Memorial can get sued? Spielberg should get sued for "Saving Private Ryan" because he showed memorials of War Dead from WW2?
Or is this law saying that one can only profit from the names of war dead only if it contains the "correct" political beliefs?
The real crime is bush getting these kids killed with lies, not the T-shirt. "
Or is this law saying that one can only profit from the names of war dead only if it contains the "correct" political beliefs?
The real crime is bush getting these kids killed with lies, not the T-shirt. "
Dr. USA wrote on Aug 25, 2008 11:50 AM:
" Anyone who thinks that reading Ron Suskind and listening to Rush Limbaugh are roughly equivalent has no appreciation of what kind of thing-in-the-world scholarship is. It isn't just a matter of accumulating anecdotes or rumors or quotations. It is a matter of heavy lifting scholarship. That's why I recommend education, so you can tell the difference. It's the same with the natural sciences: claims about global warming or evolution are not equal just because both sides invoke the name of Science and Objectivity. To know the difference, you need training. Fortunately, training is not beyond the ability of most Americans.
The underlying logic in Fallen Friend et al.'s social consciousness is that all positions are created equal, so it really comes down to just a matter of what you like versus what you don't like. They like the war and argue vehemently against its opponents unless and until...they come up against it, at which point they suddenly suggest that since "anybody can say anything" and that "anybody will edit whatever there is to support whatever they like," therefore nothing anybody says can be trusted...it's just a matter of what you like.
That position is deeply connected to the idea that since all politicians lie, therefore all lies are equal. That's why Fallen Friend thinks "Bush Lied,They Died" is no more serious than "Clinton Lied, Clinton had a Sercret Organsm."
Fallen Friend is a secret Postmodernist, and he doesn't even know it.
Street Man doesn't like conspiracies, thinks they stink. Consult your own experience working in any small company, small or large. People talk in groups about what they're up to, they make plans including how they will present their actions to relevant audiences and how others will view and experience what they're up to. You do the same thing when you're planning a party at your home. Call this conspiracy? Okay. Otherwise just imagine individuals behaving at random. Kind of like if Putin were assassinated and Russian media announced he was killed by a lone crazy American acting alone. Street Man would believe that.
I didn't say Michael Dugan is a drunk, I only said he drinks. I didn't say he is uneducated, either. He himself openly acknolwedges a disdain for education or informed knowledge.
Anyhow...Bush Lied, They Died. "
The underlying logic in Fallen Friend et al.'s social consciousness is that all positions are created equal, so it really comes down to just a matter of what you like versus what you don't like. They like the war and argue vehemently against its opponents unless and until...they come up against it, at which point they suddenly suggest that since "anybody can say anything" and that "anybody will edit whatever there is to support whatever they like," therefore nothing anybody says can be trusted...it's just a matter of what you like.
That position is deeply connected to the idea that since all politicians lie, therefore all lies are equal. That's why Fallen Friend thinks "Bush Lied,They Died" is no more serious than "Clinton Lied, Clinton had a Sercret Organsm."
Fallen Friend is a secret Postmodernist, and he doesn't even know it.
Street Man doesn't like conspiracies, thinks they stink. Consult your own experience working in any small company, small or large. People talk in groups about what they're up to, they make plans including how they will present their actions to relevant audiences and how others will view and experience what they're up to. You do the same thing when you're planning a party at your home. Call this conspiracy? Okay. Otherwise just imagine individuals behaving at random. Kind of like if Putin were assassinated and Russian media announced he was killed by a lone crazy American acting alone. Street Man would believe that.
I didn't say Michael Dugan is a drunk, I only said he drinks. I didn't say he is uneducated, either. He himself openly acknolwedges a disdain for education or informed knowledge.
Anyhow...Bush Lied, They Died. "
Dr. USA wrote on Aug 25, 2008 10:33 AM:
" I know that the editors eventually have to call and end to a particular line of discussion, or they have to postpone postings, or whatever they are doing...but this is not the proper time. Not until Michael Dugin admits that Bush lied and he died. "
Coco Native wrote on Aug 25, 2008 10:13 AM:
" Friend of Fallen,
There are times that First amendment protections are not appropriate, things like shouting “Fire “ in a crowded theater. Offensiveness does not fall into that category. I am offended by many things (Not really as I’m pretty thick skinned) but just because I’m offended doesn’t mean someone has to stop. What if I am offended by the sidewalk preacher shouting out and thumping his Bible, should the police come make him move? What if I am offended by a group of Native Americans sprinkling corn pollen and blessing a new public building, should they have to stop? Being PC has its limits. Using the N word while vile, is not protected, if you don’t want to hear a particular message, don’t buy the shirt, stand on the street corner next to the preacher or come to the blessing. No one is forcing anyone to read the shirt. I'll not buy one, for I think the only ones paying attention to them are those who share my belief that Bush did lie. "
There are times that First amendment protections are not appropriate, things like shouting “Fire “ in a crowded theater. Offensiveness does not fall into that category. I am offended by many things (Not really as I’m pretty thick skinned) but just because I’m offended doesn’t mean someone has to stop. What if I am offended by the sidewalk preacher shouting out and thumping his Bible, should the police come make him move? What if I am offended by a group of Native Americans sprinkling corn pollen and blessing a new public building, should they have to stop? Being PC has its limits. Using the N word while vile, is not protected, if you don’t want to hear a particular message, don’t buy the shirt, stand on the street corner next to the preacher or come to the blessing. No one is forcing anyone to read the shirt. I'll not buy one, for I think the only ones paying attention to them are those who share my belief that Bush did lie. "
Eyes on the Fallen wrote on Aug 24, 2008 6:29 PM:
" Hi I would like to just let some people know that we are not "Ghouls" or "traitors" or any of the other things we have been called in these comments. I personally feel very patriotic for my part in creating these shirts.
Dan is not alone in what he does. I am the graphic designer who has to try to fit over 4000 names on a shirt. I have read every name quite a few times now, and recognize many of their names in articles and such later. (it is of note that the Arizona Daily Sun will profit more off of these fallen in just one week than Dan will ever see profit, so who is really a "ghoul").
I have shed real tears every time I have to add more names. I do nothing of this in hate for any soldier or their family. I do this to try to stop any more of our soldiers needlessly dying in an oilman's attempt to take over, not only our country, but Iraq as well. Historically, Iraq is a well-educated, very prosperous country that provided for it's citizens. It is not until America got involved that it became "undemocratic."
The biggest problem with all of these arguments is that one side does not believe that George W. Bush and his regime sent us to war with Iraq under false pretenses. In designing this shirt my anger is not directed at the soldiers themselves, it is with the fact that they are being "marketed" by our government's PR firm as "heroes fighting for freedom and democracy." when in fact they are actually being used by an illegally appointed president to completely destroy the infrastructure of a country and create chaos so some private oil companies can reap the benefits of free oil. Our soldiers, our "protectors of freedom and democracy" are being used as the private security force for multinational corporations to illegally take over and occupy a sovereign nation.
It is also very difficult to me to hear from soldiers who have been fed this "freedom and democracy" line so long that they will rabidly defend this position despite clear evidence that they are being lied to and abused (even to the point of death) by their own government.
TO: Friend of the Fallen
I believe your friend to be:
Alan David Sherman, 36, Marine Reserve Sergeant, Jun 29, 2004 Wanamassa, New Jersey
I have shed tears for him. I am sorry he died under these false pretenses, and I have put my body in the way to stop this war and his death for such lowly goals (that have been dressed up with such high ideals).
It only took me about 90 seconds to find his name on my personal list that is updated unfortunately daily.
I have no beef with you or your friend in making this shirt. It is actually the highest respect, because as a citizen it is my duty to protect those who protect us. It is my CIVIC duty to make sure that our government treats YOU properly. I know that with people like you we will stand strong against a real enemy. I also know that the only ones who protect you in your public duty as a soldier is me and citizens like me. I have no interest in trading your blood for cheap oil, and I have no interest in letting our government lie to you so you will be Exxon's bully. I have no interest in allowing your brave public service to be turned into a campaign to destroy a country and it's people while falsely calling it a path to "democracy." I truly am sorry to you that we have not been able to stop the Bush regime and it's lie of a war that has claimed your friend Alan.
And as a side note, I have personally received thank you's from parents of fallen soldiers who have stopped to squint and read their son's tiny, tiny name on my t-shirt. I have actually never received a negative comment from anyone while wearing the shirt. "
Dan is not alone in what he does. I am the graphic designer who has to try to fit over 4000 names on a shirt. I have read every name quite a few times now, and recognize many of their names in articles and such later. (it is of note that the Arizona Daily Sun will profit more off of these fallen in just one week than Dan will ever see profit, so who is really a "ghoul").
I have shed real tears every time I have to add more names. I do nothing of this in hate for any soldier or their family. I do this to try to stop any more of our soldiers needlessly dying in an oilman's attempt to take over, not only our country, but Iraq as well. Historically, Iraq is a well-educated, very prosperous country that provided for it's citizens. It is not until America got involved that it became "undemocratic."
The biggest problem with all of these arguments is that one side does not believe that George W. Bush and his regime sent us to war with Iraq under false pretenses. In designing this shirt my anger is not directed at the soldiers themselves, it is with the fact that they are being "marketed" by our government's PR firm as "heroes fighting for freedom and democracy." when in fact they are actually being used by an illegally appointed president to completely destroy the infrastructure of a country and create chaos so some private oil companies can reap the benefits of free oil. Our soldiers, our "protectors of freedom and democracy" are being used as the private security force for multinational corporations to illegally take over and occupy a sovereign nation.
It is also very difficult to me to hear from soldiers who have been fed this "freedom and democracy" line so long that they will rabidly defend this position despite clear evidence that they are being lied to and abused (even to the point of death) by their own government.
TO: Friend of the Fallen
I believe your friend to be:
Alan David Sherman, 36, Marine Reserve Sergeant, Jun 29, 2004 Wanamassa, New Jersey
I have shed tears for him. I am sorry he died under these false pretenses, and I have put my body in the way to stop this war and his death for such lowly goals (that have been dressed up with such high ideals).
It only took me about 90 seconds to find his name on my personal list that is updated unfortunately daily.
I have no beef with you or your friend in making this shirt. It is actually the highest respect, because as a citizen it is my duty to protect those who protect us. It is my CIVIC duty to make sure that our government treats YOU properly. I know that with people like you we will stand strong against a real enemy. I also know that the only ones who protect you in your public duty as a soldier is me and citizens like me. I have no interest in trading your blood for cheap oil, and I have no interest in letting our government lie to you so you will be Exxon's bully. I have no interest in allowing your brave public service to be turned into a campaign to destroy a country and it's people while falsely calling it a path to "democracy." I truly am sorry to you that we have not been able to stop the Bush regime and it's lie of a war that has claimed your friend Alan.
And as a side note, I have personally received thank you's from parents of fallen soldiers who have stopped to squint and read their son's tiny, tiny name on my t-shirt. I have actually never received a negative comment from anyone while wearing the shirt. "
hero wrote on Aug 24, 2008 7:22 AM:
" According to the dictionary the word "hero" means "a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities." I think our Troops qualify. "
sick wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:39 PM:
" instead of making shirts that disgrace Soldiers... try fighting in a war like I have. I was willing to give my LIFE for the greater good of America, only to have sick people like Dan Frazier ATTEMPT to have all my brothers and sister die in vain. Not going to happen.. a little silly t-shirt that makes you money is so minor compared to what people like me think of this Anti-American Dan Frazier. I hope you get less respect when you go, then you give these brave Troops. "
Jim L wrote on Aug 23, 2008 8:06 PM:
" Dan C. writes: "American and Iraqi alike, died for a cause that was at best a failure"
Excuse me Dan, what world have you been living in? While you've been out campaining for the Obamanation, the surge worked. Saddam Hussein was tried and executed. The people of Iraq voted for a democratic form of government. American soldiers are coming home. Democrats like you, steadfastly refuse to accept the fact that we've succeeded in bringing democracy to a region of the world where it's never existed. "At best a failure". How pathetic. "
Excuse me Dan, what world have you been living in? While you've been out campaining for the Obamanation, the surge worked. Saddam Hussein was tried and executed. The people of Iraq voted for a democratic form of government. American soldiers are coming home. Democrats like you, steadfastly refuse to accept the fact that we've succeeded in bringing democracy to a region of the world where it's never existed. "At best a failure". How pathetic. "
ross wrote on Aug 23, 2008 5:02 PM:
" Tater wrote: ".....invite any of you who believe the "Bush Lied" BS to visit snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp. "
Tater, Thanks. I hadn't seen this reference and it is very informative. I encourage everyone of every perspective who has been "chatting" about whether or not GW lied about the rationale for invading Iraq. (I'm not being sarcastic - this is a very good reference for this particular and very relevant issue).
Tater, I am somewhat curious - in your contribution where you site this reference, you seem to imply that the message in the citation is sort of, uh, a slam dunk in favor of GW being truthful about why he and his administration decided to invade Iraq. I read the whole evaluation, and many of the quotes that were included in the circulation email were taken out of context. It seemed to me that the intended points made by individuals such as John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy were very different than implied by the quotes that were taken from their original context.
I am also curious how the information in the Snopes essay is related to the statements made by Colin Powell who stated that the WMD issue was chosen as the rationale for military intervention by the Bush administration because it was the only rationale that everyone could agree on would be acceptable to congress and the American public. And that Alan Greenspan wrote after his resignation as Fed Reserve Chairman that the military invasion and occupation of Iraq was about oil - not about WMDs. These two guys seem like fairly reliable sources. "
Tater, Thanks. I hadn't seen this reference and it is very informative. I encourage everyone of every perspective who has been "chatting" about whether or not GW lied about the rationale for invading Iraq. (I'm not being sarcastic - this is a very good reference for this particular and very relevant issue).
Tater, I am somewhat curious - in your contribution where you site this reference, you seem to imply that the message in the citation is sort of, uh, a slam dunk in favor of GW being truthful about why he and his administration decided to invade Iraq. I read the whole evaluation, and many of the quotes that were included in the circulation email were taken out of context. It seemed to me that the intended points made by individuals such as John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy were very different than implied by the quotes that were taken from their original context.
I am also curious how the information in the Snopes essay is related to the statements made by Colin Powell who stated that the WMD issue was chosen as the rationale for military intervention by the Bush administration because it was the only rationale that everyone could agree on would be acceptable to congress and the American public. And that Alan Greenspan wrote after his resignation as Fed Reserve Chairman that the military invasion and occupation of Iraq was about oil - not about WMDs. These two guys seem like fairly reliable sources. "
Michael Dugan wrote on Aug 23, 2008 2:37 PM:
" I just checked out Anti American Dan's website. Surprise Surprise....there wasn't one thing available that puts America in any positive light whatsoever. So for him to say he is for America, is just a lie. If all I saw in America were negatives, I think I would leave. Oh I guess some will say the Obama stickers are positive. Yet he makes some insulting McCain. I guess Anti American Dan and his friends are not really for a democratic presidential election. They would prefer that there was only one canidate running so we as Americans won't be confused...like we are everytime we elect someone they don't support. Anti American Dan are you really that afraid of America, and American voters? "
Mike wrote on Aug 23, 2008 2:34 PM:
" We all know that the invasion of Iraq was based on incorrect (most likely fabricated) information that Iraq had WMDs. But we also knew for a fact that North Korea, China, Pakistan, India and others also had WMDs. Why didn't we attack them? What makes it ok to invade one country and not others who are also a threat? Our soldiers are sent to war with the idea that they are protecting American freedom. But in the case of Iraq it had nothing to do with protecting American freedom. American soldiers are dying for Iraqi freedom. Americans died in Vietnam to protect Vietnamese freedom. Its beyond shameful that so many brave soldiers are asked to die in the name of lies. Instead of being angry with someone who prints the truth on a T shirt, the families of the fallen should be angry with the lying politicians who are responsible for the death of their loved ones. "
Tater wrote on Aug 23, 2008 12:15 PM:
" JD wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:45 PM
"The values that make our country great are exactly the sort of values that Dan Frazier, Dr. USA, and I are espousing."
Wow! Who knew. Talk about narcissistic! "
"The values that make our country great are exactly the sort of values that Dan Frazier, Dr. USA, and I are espousing."
Wow! Who knew. Talk about narcissistic! "
Dan wrote on Aug 23, 2008 11:46 AM:
" patricia - I think your point is well taken, but you shouldn't borrow verbatim from wiki w/o a citation. It distracts from the message. "
Man on the Street wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:57 AM:
" Sorry Dr. USA I am going to have to go with Tater on this, it stinks of a conspiracy theory. A little far fetched for me.
By the way Tater, I lke your style. I laughed very hard when you suggested to JD that he go to the Marine Recruiters. I still get a chuckle when I picture it.
By the way JD, what did they say? "
By the way Tater, I lke your style. I laughed very hard when you suggested to JD that he go to the Marine Recruiters. I still get a chuckle when I picture it.
By the way JD, what did they say? "
ross wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:19 AM:
" Patricia: Thanks. I had indeed forgotten about the DSM.
Michael, add this to the list of evidence for Bush lying about the rationale for invading Iraq. I'm still waiting for your rebuttal. "
Michael, add this to the list of evidence for Bush lying about the rationale for invading Iraq. I'm still waiting for your rebuttal. "
Michael Dugan wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:19 AM:
" Dr USA Amazing....From a computed you can diagnose me as an uneducated drunk. Please continue to bloviate at your pleasure. For the record I am opposed to bumper stickers with the names of dead soldiers, if those printing them up didn't get approval from the families. As far as exercising free speech downtown...I look forward to it. "
Michael Dugan wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:14 AM:
" JD Once more you get backed into a corner and wham gotta go to the insults. If you can't see the difference between Anti American Dan's disgusting tee shirts and the Vietnam War Memorial...I can't help you. It would be like trying to describe a rainbow to someone who has never seen colors. "
azcoastie wrote on Aug 23, 2008 9:28 AM:
" As a veteran I just want to say if you protest the war you have that right and I and many others served to give you that right but do not use the dead for a profit or to state your case in a manner that is ignorant. protest wisely and your message will get across much clearer "
Friend of Fallen wrote on Aug 23, 2008 9:08 AM:
" To JD
I never said I expected you to bow down to me. This is something you keep repeating, hoping that if you say it enough, the weakminded will believe you. Keep back pedalling, you are almost getting some respect from some of these people, but then you blow it.
The values I speak of, are treating others with dignity and respect. It is very obvious to me that you have a deep seated hatred for soldiers. At least I can have some respect for you, as I think Dr. USA rubs his hands together in glee, everytime a soldier is killed because it re-enforces his position.
I have news for you DR USA, politicians and people in power LIE. I don't doubt that GWB has told a few lies, it seems to go with being a politician, and the president. John Edwards lied repeatedly to the American People. Clinton Lied, straight faced to the American public about the Monica Lewinsky affair, and launched cruise missle at Saraevo (sp?) the day before the trial. I think I know why, but why don't you put your spin on it? I am sure George H, told a few, he was a naval aviator for one, and head of the CIA. I am sure Ronald Reagan told a few whoppers, to get us to win the cold war. Carter I don't know, I was a kid. Nixon is reported to tell lots of lies. LBJ, JFK I am sure had to tell some lies. They say there is proof that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor. Shall I go into the Spanish American war? How about Treaties with the Native American tribes, and then guys like JD sending soldiers to punish the tribes at Wounded Knee? Hitler lied to Stalin, Stalin lied to Hitler, both lied to their people and the butcher's bill numbered in the millions. But I guess you would say we never should have got involved with that, since you think they weren't such bad guys.
It is the way of the world you idiot! I know you want the weak minded to think that I "believed the lie." This is not so. At the time I went,2004 no one knew for sure if he had or didn't have WMD. I am sure reasonable people will agree with me on this. As I stated earlier, and you still have not reponded to, one of the reasons stated for going in was, to look for these weapons, because the UN weapons inspectors were barred from inspecting.
As it was I wasn't assigned to hunt down terrorists, look for WMD or high value targets, my job was to build things that improved the peasant Iraqi persons standard of living. You never saw this on the left wing liberal media, because it was boring, and DR USA wanted to see dead, and burning US soldiers. Sorry JD this is the truth, not being a drama queen. The first consideration of Army and Marine personnel, at least in my experience is their comrades in arms. A soldier should not get involved in politics, because it is the politicians who start the wars, and the soldiers who must fight them. We fight for our friends around us, not for you JD. I could have easily gotten out of going to Iraq by retiring, but went because I knew my soldiers needed positive and experienced leadership. I sure you will snipe at this also JD. But the fact remains you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the military. So, you are just making an a-- of yourself when you try to tell people about it.
DR USA, I am still looking for the solid proof, both sides, of where you get your information. Telling me to read Ron Suskin is like me telling you to Listen to Rush Limbaugh, but I am smart enough to know that political activists skew the issue to re-enforce their message. I agree with another poster, that you only believe what supports your position, and have gotten so deep and so far into, that you will not believe anything different. I don't see the hand written note.......
To Patricia, thank you for the source. I am open minded enough to research it.
To all, has not been my intent to brag that I was a soldier. Most people can't tell by looking at me. I don't ask for military discounts. If you look at my original post, in fact all of my posts, the only person I said I was better than was JD, and this because he cannot judge me until he has walked a mile in my mocassins, which he has not. I don't want anyone to bow down to me or have a parade in my honor. I really don't care why myself, my soldiers, or my friend were sent to Iraq. What I do want, and fight for, is that some dignity and respect be shown to those who were killed and their greiving families. This is just common human-, not soldier, not politician, not first amendment encroaching, decdency and respect,
My advice to those who support Mr. Frazier's right to sell the shirts- distance yourself from DR USA and JD. They are not helping the cause. Push for the compromise, take off the names of the soldiers (the point has already been made) and leave Bush's on there. I think this would be satisfactory to those involved. "
I never said I expected you to bow down to me. This is something you keep repeating, hoping that if you say it enough, the weakminded will believe you. Keep back pedalling, you are almost getting some respect from some of these people, but then you blow it.
The values I speak of, are treating others with dignity and respect. It is very obvious to me that you have a deep seated hatred for soldiers. At least I can have some respect for you, as I think Dr. USA rubs his hands together in glee, everytime a soldier is killed because it re-enforces his position.
I have news for you DR USA, politicians and people in power LIE. I don't doubt that GWB has told a few lies, it seems to go with being a politician, and the president. John Edwards lied repeatedly to the American People. Clinton Lied, straight faced to the American public about the Monica Lewinsky affair, and launched cruise missle at Saraevo (sp?) the day before the trial. I think I know why, but why don't you put your spin on it? I am sure George H, told a few, he was a naval aviator for one, and head of the CIA. I am sure Ronald Reagan told a few whoppers, to get us to win the cold war. Carter I don't know, I was a kid. Nixon is reported to tell lots of lies. LBJ, JFK I am sure had to tell some lies. They say there is proof that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor. Shall I go into the Spanish American war? How about Treaties with the Native American tribes, and then guys like JD sending soldiers to punish the tribes at Wounded Knee? Hitler lied to Stalin, Stalin lied to Hitler, both lied to their people and the butcher's bill numbered in the millions. But I guess you would say we never should have got involved with that, since you think they weren't such bad guys.
It is the way of the world you idiot! I know you want the weak minded to think that I "believed the lie." This is not so. At the time I went,2004 no one knew for sure if he had or didn't have WMD. I am sure reasonable people will agree with me on this. As I stated earlier, and you still have not reponded to, one of the reasons stated for going in was, to look for these weapons, because the UN weapons inspectors were barred from inspecting.
As it was I wasn't assigned to hunt down terrorists, look for WMD or high value targets, my job was to build things that improved the peasant Iraqi persons standard of living. You never saw this on the left wing liberal media, because it was boring, and DR USA wanted to see dead, and burning US soldiers. Sorry JD this is the truth, not being a drama queen. The first consideration of Army and Marine personnel, at least in my experience is their comrades in arms. A soldier should not get involved in politics, because it is the politicians who start the wars, and the soldiers who must fight them. We fight for our friends around us, not for you JD. I could have easily gotten out of going to Iraq by retiring, but went because I knew my soldiers needed positive and experienced leadership. I sure you will snipe at this also JD. But the fact remains you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the military. So, you are just making an a-- of yourself when you try to tell people about it.
DR USA, I am still looking for the solid proof, both sides, of where you get your information. Telling me to read Ron Suskin is like me telling you to Listen to Rush Limbaugh, but I am smart enough to know that political activists skew the issue to re-enforce their message. I agree with another poster, that you only believe what supports your position, and have gotten so deep and so far into, that you will not believe anything different. I don't see the hand written note.......
To Patricia, thank you for the source. I am open minded enough to research it.
To all, has not been my intent to brag that I was a soldier. Most people can't tell by looking at me. I don't ask for military discounts. If you look at my original post, in fact all of my posts, the only person I said I was better than was JD, and this because he cannot judge me until he has walked a mile in my mocassins, which he has not. I don't want anyone to bow down to me or have a parade in my honor. I really don't care why myself, my soldiers, or my friend were sent to Iraq. What I do want, and fight for, is that some dignity and respect be shown to those who were killed and their greiving families. This is just common human-, not soldier, not politician, not first amendment encroaching, decdency and respect,
My advice to those who support Mr. Frazier's right to sell the shirts- distance yourself from DR USA and JD. They are not helping the cause. Push for the compromise, take off the names of the soldiers (the point has already been made) and leave Bush's on there. I think this would be satisfactory to those involved. "
Dr. USA wrote on Aug 23, 2008 8:24 AM:
" Tater, yes, it's true that I have personal knowledge these events occured. But I had not read the actual letter word for word until recently. It appears in full in Ron Suskind, The Way of the World, together with deeper sources and named authors. It is just one example of "Bush Lied". (The Downing Street Memo is another.) It was all over the media about a month ago, for a whole two days.
Street Man, I do not have personal knowledge concerning why none of this information is used to impeach Bush or why the conclusion of ongoing impeachment hearings was announced even before the hearings began: No impeachment. I suspect it is because this war was originally so bi-partisan, as Tater's cited web page reminds us, and they don't want to implicate themselves. Also because Democrats are too worried about the elections to traumatize the country with impeachment proceedings or give the impression that impeachment is becoming a normal routine trauma of any administration. Also because killing all those kids whose names are on the t-shirt is not as serious a violation of public trust as having an affair with an intern. Nobody could accuse George W. Bush of having sex.
easy brown, the countries include Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, Iran, and most of the middle east. Fallen Friend, they do not include France or Russia. I am not referring to military PLANS but to contracts awarded to private corporations for rebuilding these countries once we destroy them. A good source on this is Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. In fact she has the smoking gun. easy brown, start shopping.
Fallen Friend writes: "But you know at the time we were sending people over, no one protested." Public protest of the war prior to the 2003 invasion was the largest anti-war movement in our history, well beyond Vietnam protests at their height. And it was international. It just didn't last very long. Can't you remember anything?
Tater, I'll take cream with that java juice or something. Better, get Michael Dugan to do it, he works for me too. He's already downtown anyway. And get Patricia and JD some, too. Now go. Run run run. "
Street Man, I do not have personal knowledge concerning why none of this information is used to impeach Bush or why the conclusion of ongoing impeachment hearings was announced even before the hearings began: No impeachment. I suspect it is because this war was originally so bi-partisan, as Tater's cited web page reminds us, and they don't want to implicate themselves. Also because Democrats are too worried about the elections to traumatize the country with impeachment proceedings or give the impression that impeachment is becoming a normal routine trauma of any administration. Also because killing all those kids whose names are on the t-shirt is not as serious a violation of public trust as having an affair with an intern. Nobody could accuse George W. Bush of having sex.
easy brown, the countries include Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, Iran, and most of the middle east. Fallen Friend, they do not include France or Russia. I am not referring to military PLANS but to contracts awarded to private corporations for rebuilding these countries once we destroy them. A good source on this is Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. In fact she has the smoking gun. easy brown, start shopping.
Fallen Friend writes: "But you know at the time we were sending people over, no one protested." Public protest of the war prior to the 2003 invasion was the largest anti-war movement in our history, well beyond Vietnam protests at their height. And it was international. It just didn't last very long. Can't you remember anything?
Tater, I'll take cream with that java juice or something. Better, get Michael Dugan to do it, he works for me too. He's already downtown anyway. And get Patricia and JD some, too. Now go. Run run run. "
flag wrote on Aug 23, 2008 7:50 AM:
" Bad taste is bad taste no matter how you package it. Its a shame Flagstaff is linked to this sort of patriotism. "
Patricia wrote on Aug 23, 2008 6:15 AM:
" Does anyone remember the Downing Street Memo??
The "Downing Street memo" (occasionally DSM, or the "Downing Street Minutes"), sometimes described by critics of the Iraq War as the "smoking gun memo",[1] is the note of a secret 23 July 2002 meeting of senior United Kingdom Labour government, defence and intelligence figures discussing the build-up to the war, which included direct reference to classified United States policy of the time. The name refers to 10 Downing Street, the residence of the British prime minister.
The memo recorded the head of MI6 as expressing the view following his recent visit to Washington that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." It also quoted Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as saying that it was clear that Bush had "made up his mind" to take military action but that "the case was thin", and the Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith as warning that justifying the invasion on legal grounds would be difficult. "
The "Downing Street memo" (occasionally DSM, or the "Downing Street Minutes"), sometimes described by critics of the Iraq War as the "smoking gun memo",[1] is the note of a secret 23 July 2002 meeting of senior United Kingdom Labour government, defence and intelligence figures discussing the build-up to the war, which included direct reference to classified United States policy of the time. The name refers to 10 Downing Street, the residence of the British prime minister.
The memo recorded the head of MI6 as expressing the view following his recent visit to Washington that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." It also quoted Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as saying that it was clear that Bush had "made up his mind" to take military action but that "the case was thin", and the Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith as warning that justifying the invasion on legal grounds would be difficult. "
Tater wrote on Aug 23, 2008 1:43 AM:
" JD wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:54 PM:
"Tater - Since you obviously have problems with reading comprehension, I'll use small words and short sentences for you."
Ouch! You got me good! (Note to self.....bone up on reading comprehension.)
"In our country, the military works for the civilians. Not any one civilian, like me, but the civilian population as a whole."
I think the concept you are struggling to convey is "civilian control". Care to take a stab at what it means or "chain of command"?
"If you don't understand that, I suggest you return to fourth grade and catch up on your social studies homework."
It's called "rhetoric". Might a rhetorical statement call for a rhetorical reply? We're studying that now in 3rd grade. Gotta go. Recess bell just rang. "
"Tater - Since you obviously have problems with reading comprehension, I'll use small words and short sentences for you."
Ouch! You got me good! (Note to self.....bone up on reading comprehension.)
"In our country, the military works for the civilians. Not any one civilian, like me, but the civilian population as a whole."
I think the concept you are struggling to convey is "civilian control". Care to take a stab at what it means or "chain of command"?
"If you don't understand that, I suggest you return to fourth grade and catch up on your social studies homework."
It's called "rhetoric". Might a rhetorical statement call for a rhetorical reply? We're studying that now in 3rd grade. Gotta go. Recess bell just rang. "
Tater wrote on Aug 23, 2008 1:24 AM:
" Dr. USA
So let me see if I understand you. Is it your claim that Bush ordered the CIA to forge a letter asserting a partial truth (the meeting) and then had it leaked to a foreign newspaper, who "scooped" the world that Saddam could be tied to 9/11? This, from someone you view as an idiot, and this idiot managed to pull the wool over congress, the UN, as well as all the worlds best inteligence agencies who bought the forged inteligence lock, stock, and barrel? And none of it could be traced to this idiot?
And this "Jack of Diamonds", having refused to go along with the CIA in writing this letter, forcing them to forge it, is being hidden and protected by the CIA and "living well" today on our dime?
Since you didn't source your claims, am I to assume you have personal knowledge these events actually occured?
I'm not buying it. I've been paying attention to the events in Iraq since 1991 and will invite any of you who believe the "Bush Lied" BS to visit snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp. You may have been busy saving the planet from global warming during the times and missed the debate. "
So let me see if I understand you. Is it your claim that Bush ordered the CIA to forge a letter asserting a partial truth (the meeting) and then had it leaked to a foreign newspaper, who "scooped" the world that Saddam could be tied to 9/11? This, from someone you view as an idiot, and this idiot managed to pull the wool over congress, the UN, as well as all the worlds best inteligence agencies who bought the forged inteligence lock, stock, and barrel? And none of it could be traced to this idiot?
And this "Jack of Diamonds", having refused to go along with the CIA in writing this letter, forcing them to forge it, is being hidden and protected by the CIA and "living well" today on our dime?
Since you didn't source your claims, am I to assume you have personal knowledge these events actually occured?
I'm not buying it. I've been paying attention to the events in Iraq since 1991 and will invite any of you who believe the "Bush Lied" BS to visit snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp. You may have been busy saving the planet from global warming during the times and missed the debate. "
JK wrote on Aug 23, 2008 12:46 AM:
" Because Pelosi took the issue off the table. Which is why Cindy Sheehan is running against her this election. "
JD wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:45 PM:
" To Friend of Fallen--
I never said that I personally sent you to Iraq. If you'll read my posts more carefully, you'll see that I used plural pronouns such as "we" and "us," referring to the civilian population of our country. I simply said (about 5 times now) that, in our country, the civilians control the military, and not the other way around. Bush, as the leader of our civilian government, sent the troops to Iraq. So that was a nice try at obfuscation, but there's no conflict in what I said.
I find it interesting (and a bit frightening) that people like you criticize others for "undermining the traditional American morales [sic] and beliefs which once made our country great," when in fact it is people like YOU who are undermining the values that make our country great.
The values that make our country great are not jingoism, blind obedience to our leader, and deference by civilians to the military. Those are the opposite of true American values. That is the kind of thinking our ancestors died to oppose. The values that make our country great are exactly the sort of values that Dan Frazier, Dr. USA, and I are espousing. Those are the values enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the first (and arguably most important) of which is the right to free speech. I'm sorry you can't see that. "
I never said that I personally sent you to Iraq. If you'll read my posts more carefully, you'll see that I used plural pronouns such as "we" and "us," referring to the civilian population of our country. I simply said (about 5 times now) that, in our country, the civilians control the military, and not the other way around. Bush, as the leader of our civilian government, sent the troops to Iraq. So that was a nice try at obfuscation, but there's no conflict in what I said.
I find it interesting (and a bit frightening) that people like you criticize others for "undermining the traditional American morales [sic] and beliefs which once made our country great," when in fact it is people like YOU who are undermining the values that make our country great.
The values that make our country great are not jingoism, blind obedience to our leader, and deference by civilians to the military. Those are the opposite of true American values. That is the kind of thinking our ancestors died to oppose. The values that make our country great are exactly the sort of values that Dan Frazier, Dr. USA, and I are espousing. Those are the values enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the first (and arguably most important) of which is the right to free speech. I'm sorry you can't see that. "
Man on the Street wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:23 PM:
" I will try to stay neutral though have my thoughts on the subject. The question I have is that if there is legitimate proof of Bush and Cheney lying about the war, why hasn't this be used to impeach them? A precedence was set at the end of Bill Clinton's term. I would like a logical, answer not political rhetoric from a political zealot mouthing the party line. My mind is open, show me the proof. "
Dan C wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:46 PM:
" Michael - I have to agree with JD and Dan F. You're opening line has all the genuineness of a drippy Nanci Griffith song festooned with bunting. Fact is that the fighting in Iraq has no bearing on our our freedom or lives, except in so far as the price of oil has sky-rocketed and TV covers dead Hollywood celebrities now more often than before the war. The children who have died in Iraq, American and Iraqi alike, died for a cause that was at best a failure. This is a difficult thing to celebrate or even appreciate, but I manage -- and it is more pathos than appreciation that I feel. Some, including me, believe that GWB and this puppet-master/chicken-hawk sidekick Dick, are the reason for, and will be the legacy of those unnecessary deaths. Your superficial, politically motivated patronizing of the victims of this war will do nothing to soothe a parent who lost a child for no reason. Vets have done a great job, many have died, many more will die; but in the current state of affairs, it will be an exercise in tragedy and not an expression of heroism. "
Friend of Fallen wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:43 PM:
" Well JD you have changed my mind. First it was Bush who you said is responsible for sending "our boys" (thank you DR. USA) over there and getting killed, but now you say it was you who sent me over there, and told me who to fight. Maybe your name should be used instead of Bush's. Which is it? You are not making any sense. Keep back pedalling. I am not asking anyone to worship me because I was a soldier, I just want this idiot to take the name of my friend, and those of greiving families off of the T-shirt. I was there, I went through what these people went through, you didn't, so shut up. Your uncle's name isn't being used for political or financial gain. According to DR USA as a puplic servant we can use his name too, without permission from you in any manner we please. Again I say get out of your arm chair, turn off the news and experience the real world.
To Logic, yes I understand and respect your views. But you know at the time we were sending people over, no one protested. I still have not seen solid unbiased proof that bush has lied or started a war just for profit. What for? Both are already rich.
Coconative- I am all for the First Amendment, but there are times when it is in-appropriate, such as when someone uses the N word, say to describe an African American. Is it free speech? yes, does it offend a lot of people, yes, could I print it on a t-shirt and sell a bunch at a KKK rally? Yes. Is it appropriate? NO. That is what I am getting at.
By all means "Leave Bush Lied, Some # Died on the t-shirt." I don't agree with it, but it is free speech. But if someone says that they find the N word offensive, it is time to apologize and stop saying it. If someone asks you to stop using their name to make money, you need to stop, and change the message on the t-shirt.
And DR USA for all your education your reading comprehension sucks. I spoke of things I saw, and what my thoughts were. I have news for you, we have invasion plans for Iran, Mexico, Russia, France, etc. That is why they are called PLANS. I still want to see your references, why not list them after every point you are trying to make, and plagarizing from? I went to college isn't this what you are supposed to do? Not that it matters, but I am sure there is a different set of documents refuting what you list.
You know, forget it. This has gone way beyond just having the decency to honor someone's request. AS one poster put it, they just wish this would die. I agree. You, Dan Frazier, JD, and a bunch of other people, have no regard for treating other's with respect and dignity, and never will. You will always twist the rights you recieved for free to your utmost advantage. In my opinion you undermine the traditional American morales and beliefs which once made our country great. "
To Logic, yes I understand and respect your views. But you know at the time we were sending people over, no one protested. I still have not seen solid unbiased proof that bush has lied or started a war just for profit. What for? Both are already rich.
Coconative- I am all for the First Amendment, but there are times when it is in-appropriate, such as when someone uses the N word, say to describe an African American. Is it free speech? yes, does it offend a lot of people, yes, could I print it on a t-shirt and sell a bunch at a KKK rally? Yes. Is it appropriate? NO. That is what I am getting at.
By all means "Leave Bush Lied, Some # Died on the t-shirt." I don't agree with it, but it is free speech. But if someone says that they find the N word offensive, it is time to apologize and stop saying it. If someone asks you to stop using their name to make money, you need to stop, and change the message on the t-shirt.
And DR USA for all your education your reading comprehension sucks. I spoke of things I saw, and what my thoughts were. I have news for you, we have invasion plans for Iran, Mexico, Russia, France, etc. That is why they are called PLANS. I still want to see your references, why not list them after every point you are trying to make, and plagarizing from? I went to college isn't this what you are supposed to do? Not that it matters, but I am sure there is a different set of documents refuting what you list.
You know, forget it. This has gone way beyond just having the decency to honor someone's request. AS one poster put it, they just wish this would die. I agree. You, Dan Frazier, JD, and a bunch of other people, have no regard for treating other's with respect and dignity, and never will. You will always twist the rights you recieved for free to your utmost advantage. In my opinion you undermine the traditional American morales and beliefs which once made our country great. "
Dr. USA wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:39 PM:
" Dear Tater---
Check this out. It's from a hand written letter to Saddam Hussein from Saddam's top Iraqi intelligence adviser Tahir Jalil Habbush. It is dated July 1, 2001.
".... Mohammed Atta, an Egyption national, came with Abu Ammer...and we hosted him in Abu Nidal's house at al-Dora under our direct supervision."
Mohammed Atta was one of the 9-11 hijacking pilots. The point of the letter was to show a direct connection between Saddam's government and 9-11.
The only problem is that this letter wasn't written by Habbush. It was a backdated forged letter written by the CIA and leaked by the White House to British media in Baghdad...well after 9-11.
It's true that Habbush was communicating with the U.S. at risk of his life back home, but his actual words were: No weapons of mass destruction. No biological weapons, either; he ran that program himself and should know. Consequently we had to hide him away someplace, but he was an embarrassment. We still hide him today, though officially he is the "missing" Jack of Diamonds in that really neat deck of cards Bush used to show people. Thinking it would be impossible to get him to go along with the fake letter, the CIA forged it themselves. He is living well today.
That is the meaning of Bush Lied. The meaning of They Died is too obvious to repeat. "
Check this out. It's from a hand written letter to Saddam Hussein from Saddam's top Iraqi intelligence adviser Tahir Jalil Habbush. It is dated July 1, 2001.
".... Mohammed Atta, an Egyption national, came with Abu Ammer...and we hosted him in Abu Nidal's house at al-Dora under our direct supervision."
Mohammed Atta was one of the 9-11 hijacking pilots. The point of the letter was to show a direct connection between Saddam's government and 9-11.
The only problem is that this letter wasn't written by Habbush. It was a backdated forged letter written by the CIA and leaked by the White House to British media in Baghdad...well after 9-11.
It's true that Habbush was communicating with the U.S. at risk of his life back home, but his actual words were: No weapons of mass destruction. No biological weapons, either; he ran that program himself and should know. Consequently we had to hide him away someplace, but he was an embarrassment. We still hide him today, though officially he is the "missing" Jack of Diamonds in that really neat deck of cards Bush used to show people. Thinking it would be impossible to get him to go along with the fake letter, the CIA forged it themselves. He is living well today.
That is the meaning of Bush Lied. The meaning of They Died is too obvious to repeat. "
JD wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:03 PM:
" Michael Dugan - Wow, you flip-flop more than John McCain! The logical conclusion of your first argument was that war memorials should also be prohibited, so you invent new reasons to hate the shirts. Now you hate them because somebody is making money off of them. So if Dan gave them away for free, then you'd have no objection to them, right? Wait, don't tell me, let me guess, there's another flip-flop coming.
Why don't you just be honest and admit you hate the anti-war message? What's wrong with a little honesty? Oh, never mind, I forgot you're a Bush fanboy. "
Why don't you just be honest and admit you hate the anti-war message? What's wrong with a little honesty? Oh, never mind, I forgot you're a Bush fanboy. "
JD wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:54 PM:
" Tater - Since you obviously have problems with reading comprehension, I'll use small words and short sentences for you. In our country, the military works for the civilians. Not any one civilian, like me, but the civilian population as a whole. If you don't understand that, I suggest you return to fourth grade and catch up on your social studies homework. "
easy brown wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:29 PM:
" dr. usa, what top secret documents have you seen that we are going to invade another country? can you list the countries, i could use some tips on defense contract investments. now if your talking contingency plans i understand those. however it seems you are talking about something entirely different. by the way who got the oil contracts in iraq? "
Tater wrote on Aug 22, 2008 6:40 PM:
" Every village has an idiot. We are blessed with many in this little burg. And JD, to test your assertion that "Your job is to do what we say, when we say, and how we say.", I invite you to go into the Marine recruiting station and order them to run down and fetch you a java juice or something. You might be surprised just how wrong one person can possibly be.
And for all you shameless cravens who whine about Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11, a careful analysis will show that the only people who even bring that up are left wing fanatics who accuse others of making that connection. I know of nobody who says that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. The only time it comes up is when some idiot tries to credit that claim to those who support our action in Iraq.
Keep selling those overpriced (this is Flagstaff) shirts Dan. You'll find that sometimes Karma sucks. "
And for all you shameless cravens who whine about Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11, a careful analysis will show that the only people who even bring that up are left wing fanatics who accuse others of making that connection. I know of nobody who says that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. The only time it comes up is when some idiot tries to credit that claim to those who support our action in Iraq.
Keep selling those overpriced (this is Flagstaff) shirts Dan. You'll find that sometimes Karma sucks. "
Dr. USA wrote on Aug 22, 2008 6:35 PM:
" See? These shirt-haters bounce back and forth between objecting to the message, objecting to the parents' hurt feelings, and finally...when all else fails...falling back on the fact that Frazier is SELLING something and making money on the side.
Have you ever thought how much MONEY Bush and Cheney are making on this war? What about Blackwater? Have you heard of the government/corporate plans already on the books...to rebuild nations that the U.S. hasn't destroyed yet, HASN'T EVEN ATTACKED YET? Planned future wars for profit yet without provocation. You shirt haters LOVE money. It's the message you can't stand. No wait...you say you support free speech and that's why our children die in Iraq, to protect free speech. So you say the shirts are legally right but morally wrong, like slavery. What did we do about slavery? We BANNED it, Constitutionally. So you would do exactly what with Frazier's shirts? Outlaw them? So NOW what are the soldier's dying for? So you wouldn't outlaw them exactly...you might even buy one if only Frazier would have gotten the parents' permission. No, wait, we didn't ask permission to use names on the Vietnam Memorial, even though this issue did come up for anyone who remembers. Remember how the Michael Dugans of the world HATED that memorial when it was in its planning stage? Ugly thing, designed by an Asian war protester in the shape of a wedge...so disrespectful. But now it's...well, he should have gotten permission anyway, since shirts are commercial. But about all those profitable newspapers, hmm? And books openly sold on the free market that freely use George W. Bush's name without asking Barbara's permission, and yes all those other government employees' names as well. Isn't Barbara Bush entitled to a little respect? Ever wonder how she feels to see her son criticized so openly? Should have gotten permission. No, but wait. It isn't Frazier's legal rights you challenge, nor his right to make money. It's his...MORALS. He is an EVIL ONE, like me. The same rationale for attacking Iraq and taking on most of humanity. Kind of like Michael Dugin's plans for me when he meets me on the streets of Flagstaff: "Bring it on," he says. Exercise free speech indeed!!! He wouldn't dare, not if it were illegal. I, on the other hand, would exercise it even if it weren't in the Constitution. So the shirt-haters are just attacking immorality! Like alcohol prohibitionists. No wait, you drink; that's why you hang around downtown Flagstaff so much. Not ALL immorality is bad...just the kind where you make money, no just the kind where you don't get permission, no just the kind where you oppose the U.S. government, but only where your opposition makes you money, but bumper stickers are okay, so only the kind where you don't get permission, no wait....
Michael Dugin has the wisdom to write: "At some point decent human beings realize that while there may be a right to do something...you are wrong if you are harming others. I my opinion just doing something because you can without considering who gets hurt in the process is immoral." He ought to make a t-shirt with that message, because plenty of people like me would buy it. It is the same message on Frazier's t-shirts, namely that George Bush did not consider those whom he was hurting in exercising his offical power, and he still does not today. His ultimate victims are printed on the shirts as a reminder to us all to PAY ATTENTION. Get an education, do not believe lies. That is the best protection against having your name end up on somebody's t-shirt, and your parents will be happy too. "
Have you ever thought how much MONEY Bush and Cheney are making on this war? What about Blackwater? Have you heard of the government/corporate plans already on the books...to rebuild nations that the U.S. hasn't destroyed yet, HASN'T EVEN ATTACKED YET? Planned future wars for profit yet without provocation. You shirt haters LOVE money. It's the message you can't stand. No wait...you say you support free speech and that's why our children die in Iraq, to protect free speech. So you say the shirts are legally right but morally wrong, like slavery. What did we do about slavery? We BANNED it, Constitutionally. So you would do exactly what with Frazier's shirts? Outlaw them? So NOW what are the soldier's dying for? So you wouldn't outlaw them exactly...you might even buy one if only Frazier would have gotten the parents' permission. No, wait, we didn't ask permission to use names on the Vietnam Memorial, even though this issue did come up for anyone who remembers. Remember how the Michael Dugans of the world HATED that memorial when it was in its planning stage? Ugly thing, designed by an Asian war protester in the shape of a wedge...so disrespectful. But now it's...well, he should have gotten permission anyway, since shirts are commercial. But about all those profitable newspapers, hmm? And books openly sold on the free market that freely use George W. Bush's name without asking Barbara's permission, and yes all those other government employees' names as well. Isn't Barbara Bush entitled to a little respect? Ever wonder how she feels to see her son criticized so openly? Should have gotten permission. No, but wait. It isn't Frazier's legal rights you challenge, nor his right to make money. It's his...MORALS. He is an EVIL ONE, like me. The same rationale for attacking Iraq and taking on most of humanity. Kind of like Michael Dugin's plans for me when he meets me on the streets of Flagstaff: "Bring it on," he says. Exercise free speech indeed!!! He wouldn't dare, not if it were illegal. I, on the other hand, would exercise it even if it weren't in the Constitution. So the shirt-haters are just attacking immorality! Like alcohol prohibitionists. No wait, you drink; that's why you hang around downtown Flagstaff so much. Not ALL immorality is bad...just the kind where you make money, no just the kind where you don't get permission, no just the kind where you oppose the U.S. government, but only where your opposition makes you money, but bumper stickers are okay, so only the kind where you don't get permission, no wait....
Michael Dugin has the wisdom to write: "At some point decent human beings realize that while there may be a right to do something...you are wrong if you are harming others. I my opinion just doing something because you can without considering who gets hurt in the process is immoral." He ought to make a t-shirt with that message, because plenty of people like me would buy it. It is the same message on Frazier's t-shirts, namely that George Bush did not consider those whom he was hurting in exercising his offical power, and he still does not today. His ultimate victims are printed on the shirts as a reminder to us all to PAY ATTENTION. Get an education, do not believe lies. That is the best protection against having your name end up on somebody's t-shirt, and your parents will be happy too. "
Michael Dugan wrote on Aug 22, 2008 5:41 PM:
" Robert Stephens....I thank you for your service to our country. I only disagree about the use of dead soldiers names. Anti American Dan is hurting people who have already given their sons, daughters, wives, husbands, brothers and sisters. And for what? To make a buck and impress his American hating friends. That is the point. "
Jered Colfax wrote on Aug 22, 2008 5:25 PM:
" This decision was the only decision a free society could make. New information is now coming out that Bush and Cheney lied to Congress about the Iraqi threat, so Dan's shirt turns out to be the truth. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism, nor did it have anything to do with a threat to the United States. And if it had actually been true that Iraq had WMDs, how was that a reason to invade? China has WMDs, Russia has WMDs, North Korea has WMDs, India has WMDs, Pakistan and Israel have WMDs. So do we invade them? No. No American soldier should ever have to die for the lies of politicians. "
Michael Dugan wrote on Aug 22, 2008 5:19 PM:
" JD Comparing Anti American Dan's disgusting tee shirts to the Vietnam War monument shows just how far apart our thinking is. There is no way you or Anti American Dan are going to be able to convince anyone who has the common sense God gave a throw rug that his vile shirts are a monument to the soldiers who died. Also to my knowledge the only people who make money off the Vietnam Memorial are veterans themselves, not some piece of slime who relishes is making the surviving family members feel pain. If that is your best example of rationalization quit now while your behind.
As far as the who owns the names of the dead soldiers, they should belong to the survivors, not political trash like Anti American Dan. "
As far as the who owns the names of the dead soldiers, they should belong to the survivors, not political trash like Anti American Dan. "
Michael Dugan wrote on Aug 22, 2008 5:09 PM:
" SGT thank you for your service, I owe you more than I can ever repay. I also respect your opinion on Anti American Dan't disgusting shirts but disagree. I don't think signing up to serve and protect our country in the military gives anti American zealots a right to capitalize on their names. Should he have gotten permission from the next of kin... I would agree. As far as being patriotic I remember college students bragging about their patriotism by spitting on returning troops from Vietnam who were forced into war by the draft. At some point decent human beings realize that while there may be a right to do something...you are wrong if you are harming others. I my opinion just doing something because you can without considering who gets hurt in the process is immoral. But I doubt Anti American Dan is worried about his morality and who he hurts...as long as he makes a buck and shines in the America haters limelight. "
Robert Stephens wrote on Aug 22, 2008 5:06 PM:
" As another who served in Vietnam, I am completely in agreement with Sgt. Moreno's comments. I certainly don't support Mr. Frazier's enterprise and, based on his own actions and opinions, I have little doubt he would quash the very rights he enjoys in order to further his own view of society.
That is the entire point.
Either we, as a nation, protect people like Dan Frazier or we will subjugate our liberty to people like Mr. Frazier. I would much rather see his T-Shirt than to ever see anything like that happen. "
That is the entire point.
Either we, as a nation, protect people like Dan Frazier or we will subjugate our liberty to people like Mr. Frazier. I would much rather see his T-Shirt than to ever see anything like that happen. "
JD wrote on Aug 22, 2008 4:45 PM:
" To Michael Dugan - What "actions" of mine are you referring to? You don't know who I am. You know nothing about any "actions" that I have taken or not taken.
Now on to the rest of your statement. So, you say it's not the political message you object to, eh? You only object to the use of the soldiers' names because they are not public citizens like the President, and therefore people shouldn't be allowed to use their names?
Well, first of all, you're dead wrong, legally. The names are in the public domain, and we have a legal right to use them. Not only CAN we use them, we SHOULD use them, as Dr. USA has pointed out.
Second, following your reasoning to its logical end, you would also have to object to a war memorial (like the Vietnam Memorial) that lists the names of all the deceased soldiers. They are, after all, private citizens whose names should not be used in public. You would also have to object to the very respectful scrolling of the names of the deceased that some TV stations broadcast. And you would have to object to a t-shirt listing the names of the deceased soldiers with a respectful pro-war slogan such as "Honor our fallen soldiers . . . finish the job they started by winning the war on terror!"
Right? "
Now on to the rest of your statement. So, you say it's not the political message you object to, eh? You only object to the use of the soldiers' names because they are not public citizens like the President, and therefore people shouldn't be allowed to use their names?
Well, first of all, you're dead wrong, legally. The names are in the public domain, and we have a legal right to use them. Not only CAN we use them, we SHOULD use them, as Dr. USA has pointed out.
Second, following your reasoning to its logical end, you would also have to object to a war memorial (like the Vietnam Memorial) that lists the names of all the deceased soldiers. They are, after all, private citizens whose names should not be used in public. You would also have to object to the very respectful scrolling of the names of the deceased that some TV stations broadcast. And you would have to object to a t-shirt listing the names of the deceased soldiers with a respectful pro-war slogan such as "Honor our fallen soldiers . . . finish the job they started by winning the war on terror!"
Right? "
Reality Check wrote on Aug 22, 2008 4:36 PM:
" Sorry SGT. David M.Moreno, while I respect your service, as a veteran myself I can assure you that your analysis is dead wrong. You see, there's a big difference between what is legal and what is right. Most here aren't questioning the legality of Frazier's shirts. It's his morality, his common decency and his lack of respect for those who have lost loved ones that is deeply in question. Consider this. At one time slavery was legal in this country, but it was never right. Understand? "
Proud American wrote on Aug 22, 2008 4:08 PM:
" At first I was going to write "Congratulations Dan", but instead I must say "Congratulations Constitution, you've taken a beating the last several years but you still have defenders". It's decisions like this that remind me that there are still reasons to be proud to be an American - freedom of speech, for example! "
Michael Dugan wrote on Aug 22, 2008 3:58 PM:
" Dr USA it is you who are so blinded by your ideals you can't tell right from wrong. You support the troops who come back alive and mock the ones who died???? Unbelievable....I guess it's true that it takes all kinds to make the world go around. "
SGT. David M.Moreno wrote on Aug 22, 2008 3:04 PM:
" I Proudly served 6 Years in the U.S.M.C. , 13 Months in Vietnam and I Feel this Man has Every Right to Print These Shirts! I do not Believe it Dishoners our Service men, in fact thats why we Serve in the Military, to Garrantee our Rights to Free Speech, Among other Freedoms.
Why should we have These Freedoms if we can't use them? I Can't Stand the Confederate Flag,(To me it is the Flag of Raciest, Traiters, KKK, Neo-Nazi Skinheads! The Confederates were The Enemies of Civil Liberties) Yet I understand that any American has the Right to display one, even though it means Racial Hatred to Many Americans.Freedom sometimes Seems to have a Double Edge. . "
Why should we have These Freedoms if we can't use them? I Can't Stand the Confederate Flag,(To me it is the Flag of Raciest, Traiters, KKK, Neo-Nazi Skinheads! The Confederates were The Enemies of Civil Liberties) Yet I understand that any American has the Right to display one, even though it means Racial Hatred to Many Americans.Freedom sometimes Seems to have a Double Edge. . "
Michael Dugan wrote on Aug 22, 2008 2:43 PM:
" JD Let me be clear here....for me it's not the poltical message...Bush is a public figure and can be treated as such...I don't believe that just because you volunteer for the military...anyone has the right to use your name for whatever they want to. No one seems to be using dead federal, state and local government workers for the purposes of making money and making a political statement...yet Anti American Dan uses the names of dead soldiers? I'm sure he's against gasoline..why not make a tee shirt with the names of all the government workers killed each year in car accidents. Why do people like Anti American Dan think our military personel have less privacy rights than everyone else. And you can say you support the troops until the cow comes home....but like the saying goes...your actions are so much louder than your word I can't hear them. "
Joe wrote on Aug 22, 2008 2:25 PM:
" A large peace rally will be in the U. of Denver Arena on Aug. 27th. Sean Penn, Val Kilmer, Sheehan, Nader and many others will be there. Live music.
Tickets, car-pooling, etc at votenader.org.
Or you can gather behind the razor wire with Kucinich and his followers at the Democratic convention down the street. "
Tickets, car-pooling, etc at votenader.org.
Or you can gather behind the razor wire with Kucinich and his followers at the Democratic convention down the street. "
Gadfly wrote on Aug 22, 2008 2:15 PM:
" "...we went there as liberators, not as conquerers..."
Didn't these words came from a notorious German leader . . . oh, say, right around WWII or so?
So, tell me again, Mommy, about the soldiers "fighting for our freedom" because I can't seem to protest anywhere without getting corraled into a "free speech" cage. "
Didn't these words came from a notorious German leader . . . oh, say, right around WWII or so?
So, tell me again, Mommy, about the soldiers "fighting for our freedom" because I can't seem to protest anywhere without getting corraled into a "free speech" cage. "
Dr. USA wrote on Aug 22, 2008 1:35 PM:
" JD has it right. People who say "Support the Troops" only support them with cheers and bumper stickers. I once supported my high school football team that way. They also only support our troops when they are in harm's way, willing to die, not thinking, taking orders, trusting authority. And they have an uncanny way of supporting our troops once they are dead. But if they come home crippled, where is the support? "Ooops, sorry man, that's the way it goes." It's like pro-lifers supporting fetuses but not babies.
When I wear Frazier's t-shirts, I am supporting our troops, the ones who are still alive. I see the shirts as warning live humans to be educated, pay attention, do not end up as a name on this list. Don't be fooled like Michael Dugan, who is dead yet lives on....
Another book worthy of attention, by Vincent Bugliosi, successful prosecutor of Charles Manson: The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder. He is serious and advocates the death penalty. He is supporting our troops. And it is GOOD KARMA for those dead marks whose names appear on Frazer's shirts. "
When I wear Frazier's t-shirts, I am supporting our troops, the ones who are still alive. I see the shirts as warning live humans to be educated, pay attention, do not end up as a name on this list. Don't be fooled like Michael Dugan, who is dead yet lives on....
Another book worthy of attention, by Vincent Bugliosi, successful prosecutor of Charles Manson: The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder. He is serious and advocates the death penalty. He is supporting our troops. And it is GOOD KARMA for those dead marks whose names appear on Frazer's shirts. "
the bigger picture wrote on Aug 22, 2008 1:17 PM:
" If every one of you who are outraged about this (whether it's about its existence or the challenge of its existence) get equally outraged by the reason why those soldiers have died, then we might actually be able to make something happen before the shirt is double-sided.
Such a backwards society we live in when something as trivial as this invokes more of a response amongst its citizens than the bigger picture. "
Such a backwards society we live in when something as trivial as this invokes more of a response amongst its citizens than the bigger picture. "
JD wrote on Aug 22, 2008 12:26 PM:
" To those posters who criticize my view on the military, I would like to clarify my position. As a general principle, I support our troops. In fact, in concrete terms such as financial support, I suspect that I actually support our troops to a greater degree than the conservatives who give lip service to "supporting the troops." Unlike many conservatives, my support for the troops will not disappear once their military usefulness has been ended by injuries or retirement. If and when we need to raise taxes to care for them, you will not find me objecting. Many conservatives, on the other hand, will only "support" the troops as long as their pocketbook isn't affected.
While I do support the troops, I refuse to worship them or treat them like heroes just because they are doing their job. I realize this is a politically incorrect view, but I have never been known for political correctness.
To me, a hero is one who goes above and beyond the call of duty. Certainly, there are heroes among the troops, but somebody is not a hero simply because he or she puts on a uniform and does his or her job. The vast majority of the troops are simply men and women, like the rest of us, who do their jobs every day. Military jobs entail some risk of death or injury, but so do many civilian jobs. My own uncle died a premature death as a result of his civilian job. He had a risky job, and he knew it. And he was compensated for that risk by increased pay and benefits, just like our troops are. Again, I'm NOT saying there are no heroes among our troops. I'm simply saying that the mere fact of being employed in the armed forces is insufficient for "hero" status.
In particular, I have problems with people such as "One of the of Fallens Friend" and "Purple heart Veteran" who claim to be veterans, and then pretend that makes them better than us mere civilians. They seem to forget that the military is answerable to the civilians and not the other way around. As I keep repeating, we civilians are the only ones with the authority to tell the military, through its chain of command, where to fight, when to fight, and who to fight. The day that changes is the day our country ceases to be a democracy.
Posters like "One of the of Fallens Friend" and "Purple heart Veteran" seem to view themselves as worthy of adulation, and they seem to view those who don't show the expected degree of worshipfulness as "pests" or worse. Real heroes don't need this sort of adulation.
Getting back to the subject of this story--Dan Frazier's tee shirts--I must agree with "High IQ." It appears that it's actually the political message that people have a problem with, not the use of the dead soldiers' names. Nobody objects to the scrolling list of the names of deceased soldiers on TV. Nobody would object to a war memorial listing all their names. If Dan's t-shirt had listed all the dead soldiers' names with a pro-war message instead of an anti-war message (e.g., “Honor our fallen troops . . . Win the war on terror!”), I doubt anybody would have objected either. Therefore, I detect a large degree of disingenuousness in Dan Frazier's critics. "
While I do support the troops, I refuse to worship them or treat them like heroes just because they are doing their job. I realize this is a politically incorrect view, but I have never been known for political correctness.
To me, a hero is one who goes above and beyond the call of duty. Certainly, there are heroes among the troops, but somebody is not a hero simply because he or she puts on a uniform and does his or her job. The vast majority of the troops are simply men and women, like the rest of us, who do their jobs every day. Military jobs entail some risk of death or injury, but so do many civilian jobs. My own uncle died a premature death as a result of his civilian job. He had a risky job, and he knew it. And he was compensated for that risk by increased pay and benefits, just like our troops are. Again, I'm NOT saying there are no heroes among our troops. I'm simply saying that the mere fact of being employed in the armed forces is insufficient for "hero" status.
In particular, I have problems with people such as "One of the of Fallens Friend" and "Purple heart Veteran" who claim to be veterans, and then pretend that makes them better than us mere civilians. They seem to forget that the military is answerable to the civilians and not the other way around. As I keep repeating, we civilians are the only ones with the authority to tell the military, through its chain of command, where to fight, when to fight, and who to fight. The day that changes is the day our country ceases to be a democracy.
Posters like "One of the of Fallens Friend" and "Purple heart Veteran" seem to view themselves as worthy of adulation, and they seem to view those who don't show the expected degree of worshipfulness as "pests" or worse. Real heroes don't need this sort of adulation.
Getting back to the subject of this story--Dan Frazier's tee shirts--I must agree with "High IQ." It appears that it's actually the political message that people have a problem with, not the use of the dead soldiers' names. Nobody objects to the scrolling list of the names of deceased soldiers on TV. Nobody would object to a war memorial listing all their names. If Dan's t-shirt had listed all the dead soldiers' names with a pro-war message instead of an anti-war message (e.g., “Honor our fallen troops . . . Win the war on terror!”), I doubt anybody would have objected either. Therefore, I detect a large degree of disingenuousness in Dan Frazier's critics. "
Dr. USA wrote on Aug 22, 2008 12:24 PM:
" Friend of Fallen is asking about sources. His own sources are his beliefs and impressions. He doesn't trust the media, and he probably doesn't trust scholarship. So what does he trust? The military, he thinks, though even military intelligence and the CIA were warning us in 2003 that there were no WMD in Iraq. To see how this intelligence was turned around to suggest just the opposite through forged letters and Bush Lies (point made nobly on the shirt), Fallens Friend will have to take a few courses, maybe one of my courses. A quick summary would be Ron Suskind's The Way of the World, though admittedly Suskind writes for the Wall Street Journal and is a Pulitzer Prize winning elitist.
We should also understand how plans to invade Iraq were being drawn up before 9-11 and how the Bush administration knowingly rejected an Iranian offer brokered through Great Britain to lead the U.S. directly to Osama bin Laden. We should also understand how Saddam was a U.S. flunkee at the time he gassed the Kurds and how pleased we were with his actions at the time. We wanted him strong. The stronger the better. For to contain Iran, you see. And it worked.
Fallen, there are abundant sources on this. Read the National Intelligence Estimate. Read the pre-doctored CIA reports of the period that Congress has unveiled. Read a few books.
Grandpa has me dead center. I am an Evil One. He and his uniformed friends should be ashamed of me and put my name on a shirt, and sell it...
But as for those kids who died for absolutely no good reason other than to help a dumb childish clueless wimp who had the misfortune of being appointed President of the United States, I join Grandpa in being proud of them because they thought they were doing the right thing. But they were lied to. That's why they died, because they were lied to and they bought the lie. Grandpa buys the lie, and so does Fallens Friend. Access to those names is our collective right as citizens, and I will not give it up because of parents who also buy the lie. We need those names to remember cost of being lied to. That is the only way their deaths could possibly be of benefit for the United States of America. That is the point of Frazier's t-shirt: "Bush Lied, They Died". As Glenda the Good Witch said, That's all it is. "
We should also understand how plans to invade Iraq were being drawn up before 9-11 and how the Bush administration knowingly rejected an Iranian offer brokered through Great Britain to lead the U.S. directly to Osama bin Laden. We should also understand how Saddam was a U.S. flunkee at the time he gassed the Kurds and how pleased we were with his actions at the time. We wanted him strong. The stronger the better. For to contain Iran, you see. And it worked.
Fallen, there are abundant sources on this. Read the National Intelligence Estimate. Read the pre-doctored CIA reports of the period that Congress has unveiled. Read a few books.
Grandpa has me dead center. I am an Evil One. He and his uniformed friends should be ashamed of me and put my name on a shirt, and sell it...
But as for those kids who died for absolutely no good reason other than to help a dumb childish clueless wimp who had the misfortune of being appointed President of the United States, I join Grandpa in being proud of them because they thought they were doing the right thing. But they were lied to. That's why they died, because they were lied to and they bought the lie. Grandpa buys the lie, and so does Fallens Friend. Access to those names is our collective right as citizens, and I will not give it up because of parents who also buy the lie. We need those names to remember cost of being lied to. That is the only way their deaths could possibly be of benefit for the United States of America. That is the point of Frazier's t-shirt: "Bush Lied, They Died". As Glenda the Good Witch said, That's all it is. "
Michael Dugan wrote on Aug 22, 2008 12:22 PM:
" Dr USA I'll exercise my right of free speech anytime I see someone wearing one...funny thing is...I haven't seen any. And I've been downtown all summer... I'll keep looking.
You "patriots" ought to put on your fine shirts and go hang with some of the Vets at the VFW and American Legion. They know more about patriotism and honor than you can even concieve. Some will say you have a right to wear them....others will say say you don't...but all of them have done more to promote and protect our country, our constitution and our people than you patriot...the likes of which have never been known.... " will ever do. "
You "patriots" ought to put on your fine shirts and go hang with some of the Vets at the VFW and American Legion. They know more about patriotism and honor than you can even concieve. Some will say you have a right to wear them....others will say say you don't...but all of them have done more to promote and protect our country, our constitution and our people than you patriot...the likes of which have never been known.... " will ever do. "
Mary P. wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:55 AM:
" Everything about the planning for this war was botched in the rush to make it happen. From troop levels, to armor and equipment, to planning for post-invasion civilain and political control, etc, etc, the incompetence of leadership was clear for all to see. It is no wonder then, that the Bush administration probably never considered the effect this war would have on social and political relations between civilians back in the US , or if they did, they probably figured it would bring everyone together in a big, patriotic group hug. As with most else regarding this war, they were either wrong or negligent. It's no wonder we have the kind of issues that this thread exposes. You can't legislate support for a war, especially one as ill-concieved and executed as the one in Iraq. "
Oscar wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:46 AM:
" Legally defensible, morally bankrupt and deeply offensive -- this is becoming a familiar refrain in Flagstaff.
Wait...
Are Dan Frazier and Eric Borowsky (Arizona Snowbowl) and Nora Rasure (Coconino National Forest) ALL THE SAME PERSON?! "
Wait...
Are Dan Frazier and Eric Borowsky (Arizona Snowbowl) and Nora Rasure (Coconino National Forest) ALL THE SAME PERSON?! "
Bob wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:41 AM:
" the only thing I want to die right now is this story. enough free publicity for this novelty vendor. he got more than his 15 minutes of fame. "
Grandpa wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:21 AM:
" Dr. USA, supposedly a "patriot the likes of..." I feel a retch coming on. You are obviously doing nothing but baiting folks here with your comments and waiting gleefully for responses. Your comments are disingenuous at best and your behavior makes it patently obvious that you have a very childish need for attention. Were you ignored as you grew up, Bunky? I'll reply this one time anyway even though you are less than deserving. You're much like those pariah CB operators who sit at home and get their jollies by stupidly singing or making gross, disgusting comments to a captive audience of passersby on the highway. You offer demeaning, baseless insults of our troops, their families, and the overwhelming majority of American society that supports them. You propose that you are, “we the people,” and own our troops and their names. You are delusional as well as laughable! Without regard to the merits of the current war, Americans recognize that our troops are honorable men and women. We are proud of them and sadly ashamed of you and your ilk. Many years ago I served in uniform, and son, even an old timer like me can see what a pathetic human being you must be to behave as you do. And FYI, I won't feed your miniscule ego further by responding to the drivel of your future reply. "
Flagfan wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:19 AM:
" Ok, so now the courts seem to confirm that Fraizier has the "right" per our Consitution etc to print his t-shirts to make a buck. But I've said it before and I'll say it again, the bottom line is that GRIEVING parents and family have asked him NOT to use their sons or daughters names on the shirts and Frazier, needing the money and publicity, choose to totally disregard and disrespect the memories of some of the names listed. I believe in a little thing called Karma and the "Golden Rule", Frazier, your day will come. I hope the couple of bucks you made was worth the sell out of your moral compass. Turn to your loved ones tonight and think that if something terrible happened to them and some idiot printed up their names on t-shirts that supported driving Hummers, George Bush, war, waste and anything else you oppose, how would you sleep? You got your 15 minutes of "fame", now crawl back into the failure rock you crawled out of. "
High IQ wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:55 AM:
" He has a right to their names. He has a right to make money. He is against the war. You who are against him are for the war. You are not supporting the troops, and you do not support the dead soldiers or their parents. You are just supporting the war. This is politics AND YOU WON'T ADMIT IT. "
Reality Check wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:40 AM:
" Vito says, "If Mr. Frazier had a bit of respect for others and chose to do the responsible thing, not use certain names upon request, he could continue to make his shirts, in peace, and no court ruling would be needed." EXACTLY! That's without a doubt the most obvious and intelligent comment anyone has made in this entire and never-ending battle of ideology, but obviously too simple for zealots like Frasier and his misguided supporters to understand. "
Friend of fallen wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:40 AM:
" Ok DR USA state the source of your research. Tell me where to look, for solid proof (not the news) something written by a reputable source, not a reporter, that the Iraqis scientists that fled to this country were lying, the CIA and military intelligence were wrong.
I strongly believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction because he used chemical warfare on the Kurds, as well as the Iranians. But, I saw this on the news so it really doesn't count. What does count, is that I saw the actual chemical munitions in Iraqi bunkers. Soldiers in full NBC gear taking them away. I saw Scud missiles/ launchers capable of hitting Isreal.The capability was there, and the will to use them.
I have no proof, but in my mind, Saddam financed terrorism, in retaliation to us for kicking his army out of Kuwait, where his soldiers raped and pillaged. Now, I was not there, but did talk to some old soldiers who said naked Kuwaiti women were lying in the street with bullet holes in their head, men and children were hanging with curtain wropes wrapped around their necks outside of windows. Okay, you are going to say that is heresay, but, I did see pictures of this.
The UN guaranteed punitive actions against Iraq if they did not let our weapons inspectors inspect the munitions producing facilities. I am sure there is a UN resolution there, but I have not bothered to look for it. The Iraqis barred the way. Do you argue with this? Unfortunately the sissies in the UN are more than happy to talk big, but not follow through on their pledge of military action. We then gave Saddam an ultimatum, we are coming in force in 6 months. This is like the police telling a drug dealer, in six months we are coming to garage to shut down your meth lab.
You will say that there was never any evidence found that he was producing nuclear weapons.I will give you this. But, I hope to god that the reason for this was that we invaded and put a stop to it's developement before it was completed. On the other had, we did uncover 6 MIg 25s at an Iraqi Airbase that no one knew about. I saw this for myself, and it was on the news. Now, if they can hide 6 fighter planes, what else can they hide? In my mind in those 6 months, everything was hidden or to Syria and any witnesses killed, except those who were smart enough to skip the country.
I also saw the little kids begging for MREs, the rations even we refused to eat. I saw people living in holes cut from Irrgation canals and called a home. I did not see any fat Iraqis over there, it was easy to identify the suicide bombers, because their vests made them look fat, which was out of the ordinary. I also saw for miles, obsolete 1950's era Soviet Weaponary, that was bought by Saddam with money denied to, or squeezed out of these dirt poor Iraqi people. I have seen on the news the palaces that Saddam had built, but have never been there so I will have to agree with you that I can't prove they existed.
I saw on the news, and many articles, what demons Uday and Kusay, Saddam's sons were. Again it is heresay, but Iraqis I talked to said it was true.
What you don't understand is that we went there as liberators, not as conquerers.
Again I would like you to quote your sources, not from news reporters, who pick and choose to report what will sell papers and improve the ratings. I want non-biased hard facts. "
I strongly believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction because he used chemical warfare on the Kurds, as well as the Iranians. But, I saw this on the news so it really doesn't count. What does count, is that I saw the actual chemical munitions in Iraqi bunkers. Soldiers in full NBC gear taking them away. I saw Scud missiles/ launchers capable of hitting Isreal.The capability was there, and the will to use them.
I have no proof, but in my mind, Saddam financed terrorism, in retaliation to us for kicking his army out of Kuwait, where his soldiers raped and pillaged. Now, I was not there, but did talk to some old soldiers who said naked Kuwaiti women were lying in the street with bullet holes in their head, men and children were hanging with curtain wropes wrapped around their necks outside of windows. Okay, you are going to say that is heresay, but, I did see pictures of this.
The UN guaranteed punitive actions against Iraq if they did not let our weapons inspectors inspect the munitions producing facilities. I am sure there is a UN resolution there, but I have not bothered to look for it. The Iraqis barred the way. Do you argue with this? Unfortunately the sissies in the UN are more than happy to talk big, but not follow through on their pledge of military action. We then gave Saddam an ultimatum, we are coming in force in 6 months. This is like the police telling a drug dealer, in six months we are coming to garage to shut down your meth lab.
You will say that there was never any evidence found that he was producing nuclear weapons.I will give you this. But, I hope to god that the reason for this was that we invaded and put a stop to it's developement before it was completed. On the other had, we did uncover 6 MIg 25s at an Iraqi Airbase that no one knew about. I saw this for myself, and it was on the news. Now, if they can hide 6 fighter planes, what else can they hide? In my mind in those 6 months, everything was hidden or to Syria and any witnesses killed, except those who were smart enough to skip the country.
I also saw the little kids begging for MREs, the rations even we refused to eat. I saw people living in holes cut from Irrgation canals and called a home. I did not see any fat Iraqis over there, it was easy to identify the suicide bombers, because their vests made them look fat, which was out of the ordinary. I also saw for miles, obsolete 1950's era Soviet Weaponary, that was bought by Saddam with money denied to, or squeezed out of these dirt poor Iraqi people. I have seen on the news the palaces that Saddam had built, but have never been there so I will have to agree with you that I can't prove they existed.
I saw on the news, and many articles, what demons Uday and Kusay, Saddam's sons were. Again it is heresay, but Iraqis I talked to said it was true.
What you don't understand is that we went there as liberators, not as conquerers.
Again I would like you to quote your sources, not from news reporters, who pick and choose to report what will sell papers and improve the ratings. I want non-biased hard facts. "
Coco Native wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:31 AM:
" "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin.
One of the of Fallens Friend, I can't believe you would advocate giving up the freedoms that your friend fell for! What is next, should we sue the AZ Daily Sun for reporting the death of a soldier and listing his name? Why not, they profit from the content that they print, aren't they exploiting his/her service and death? Is it ok to profit as long as it is news?
To those who feel that those who have served in the military and faced combat have some how have done more for their country than those who have not, I say Humbug! I served my City, my State and my Country for 11 years and I never had a gun pointed at me. What I did do though was spend countless hours away from my family, friends and doing things other than what I might have wanted to and I will not let you DISHONOR me by suggesting that I am somehow less.
Please don't get me wrong, if someone was dishonoring our fallen soldiers I will be the first to rise in their defense. There is nothing dishonorable about being listed as someone who fell in the line of duty. Support your position as to if they fell in vain or not, but you can't stifle the debate without dishonoring them. "
One of the of Fallens Friend, I can't believe you would advocate giving up the freedoms that your friend fell for! What is next, should we sue the AZ Daily Sun for reporting the death of a soldier and listing his name? Why not, they profit from the content that they print, aren't they exploiting his/her service and death? Is it ok to profit as long as it is news?
To those who feel that those who have served in the military and faced combat have some how have done more for their country than those who have not, I say Humbug! I served my City, my State and my Country for 11 years and I never had a gun pointed at me. What I did do though was spend countless hours away from my family, friends and doing things other than what I might have wanted to and I will not let you DISHONOR me by suggesting that I am somehow less.
Please don't get me wrong, if someone was dishonoring our fallen soldiers I will be the first to rise in their defense. There is nothing dishonorable about being listed as someone who fell in the line of duty. Support your position as to if they fell in vain or not, but you can't stifle the debate without dishonoring them. "
JD wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:24 AM:
" To Purple Heart Veteran --
MY sense of self importance?? Boy, that's the pot calling the kettle black! You military types are the ones who obviously feel the need to be worshiped, based on your comments in this forum. I'm not the one here who's claiming to be a hero, just because I go to work and do my job. That's all any of us do, and none of us are entitled to any kind of special "hero" status because we do it.
And, yes, as a lowly civilian, we are your bosses, whether you like it or not. We are not some "pests" that you can look down upon. We decide where you fight, when you fight, and who you fight. True, we decide that through the chain of command, because we give orders to your bosses and they give orders to you, but don't think for a minute that you don't work for us. That is the height of arrogance.
Finally, with regard to my own service to my fellow man, there's little point in making statements about myself in an anonymous forum where nothing can be verified. I believe my service to my fellow man likely exceeds yours. I just don't require all the adulation that you do, so I don't talk about it.
Grandpa -- you called me on an error in my last post, and I acknowledge the error. My last post was written in a rush (as is this one), and I made a mistake in it. I did not mean to imply that the military was unnecessary for our security. Clearly, that is not the case. My statement about not needing protection was an inartful attempt to criticize the Iraq war. What I meant to say was that if our administration's idea of "protecting" me was to send the military into Iraq, then I reject that "protection." I do not believe the war in Iraq has made us any safer, and I believe it has been a huge waste of lives and resources. "
MY sense of self importance?? Boy, that's the pot calling the kettle black! You military types are the ones who obviously feel the need to be worshiped, based on your comments in this forum. I'm not the one here who's claiming to be a hero, just because I go to work and do my job. That's all any of us do, and none of us are entitled to any kind of special "hero" status because we do it.
And, yes, as a lowly civilian, we are your bosses, whether you like it or not. We are not some "pests" that you can look down upon. We decide where you fight, when you fight, and who you fight. True, we decide that through the chain of command, because we give orders to your bosses and they give orders to you, but don't think for a minute that you don't work for us. That is the height of arrogance.
Finally, with regard to my own service to my fellow man, there's little point in making statements about myself in an anonymous forum where nothing can be verified. I believe my service to my fellow man likely exceeds yours. I just don't require all the adulation that you do, so I don't talk about it.
Grandpa -- you called me on an error in my last post, and I acknowledge the error. My last post was written in a rush (as is this one), and I made a mistake in it. I did not mean to imply that the military was unnecessary for our security. Clearly, that is not the case. My statement about not needing protection was an inartful attempt to criticize the Iraq war. What I meant to say was that if our administration's idea of "protecting" me was to send the military into Iraq, then I reject that "protection." I do not believe the war in Iraq has made us any safer, and I believe it has been a huge waste of lives and resources. "
Bob wrote on Aug 22, 2008 7:42 AM:
" I got this from an older gentleman years ago. "One of the easiest things in life is to fail, and the quickest way to get there is by putting rights ahead of responsibilities". Dan Frazier desperately needs his moments of fame to somehow counter his many failures. I can just hear the stories around the fireplace with Grandpa Frazier. What did you do Grandpa during the war on terrorism? "I made T-Shirts and exercised my constitutional rights to kick the parents of dead solidiers when they were grieving." Wow Grandpa, you must be a Hero!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "
JK wrote on Aug 22, 2008 7:04 AM:
" Career soldiers who die in an unconstitutional war were defending the constitution?? That does not compute, Will Robinson! "
Joan wrote on Aug 22, 2008 7:01 AM:
" Names of soldiers are public information - as are those of other public officials - whether they die in office or not. They are public servants paid with public funds. "
vito wrote on Aug 22, 2008 12:19 AM:
" Would it be so difficult to honor the requests of others? I think not. This story seems to be about a stubborn man who feels he can do what he likes with no respect for others. The simple solution seems to be fairly easy, don't use the fallen soldiers name if the family requests it. Instead, tax dollars are wasted to fight Mr. Frazier's war for free speech. Or, is it simply a fight for profit?
I believe most of us were taught "with freedom comes responsibility". If Mr. Frazier had a bit of respect for others and chose to do the responsible thing, not use certain names upon request, he could continue to make his shirts, in peace, and no court ruling would be needed. I suppose a simple, peaceful solution is to much to ask. "
I believe most of us were taught "with freedom comes responsibility". If Mr. Frazier had a bit of respect for others and chose to do the responsible thing, not use certain names upon request, he could continue to make his shirts, in peace, and no court ruling would be needed. I suppose a simple, peaceful solution is to much to ask. "
Logic wrote on Aug 22, 2008 12:09 AM:
" Fallens friend, thank you for your service to our country. I don't think JD has ever opened a history book or he wouldn't be so naive about how important our armed forces are and how selfless it is to put your life on the line for your country. It is NOT "just a job".
I don't agree with your analogy on the war though, Iraq was never a threat. I find it incredible that if said enough, the entire country can be brainwashed into thinking the war in Iraq has something to do with 9/11, if that were the case, we are in the wrong country. We are accomplishing nothing but self destruction at home with this war, if we invested the amount of money we spent on the war on security at home every citizen would have a personal bodyguard. Or we could have provided free education and health care to just about everyone, but that is a different issue. Don't get me wrong, I support our troops 100% which is exactly why I want to bring them home alive, I put the value of our soldiers lives above the value of the Iraqi's. Iraq couldn't even launch a missile out of their own country let alone attack the US, what a waste of precious lives this has been.
I do agree with Mr. Fraziers right to make this shirt although I think it is dispicable that he will not honor the request of families requesting to remove their loved ones names. "
I don't agree with your analogy on the war though, Iraq was never a threat. I find it incredible that if said enough, the entire country can be brainwashed into thinking the war in Iraq has something to do with 9/11, if that were the case, we are in the wrong country. We are accomplishing nothing but self destruction at home with this war, if we invested the amount of money we spent on the war on security at home every citizen would have a personal bodyguard. Or we could have provided free education and health care to just about everyone, but that is a different issue. Don't get me wrong, I support our troops 100% which is exactly why I want to bring them home alive, I put the value of our soldiers lives above the value of the Iraqi's. Iraq couldn't even launch a missile out of their own country let alone attack the US, what a waste of precious lives this has been.
I do agree with Mr. Fraziers right to make this shirt although I think it is dispicable that he will not honor the request of families requesting to remove their loved ones names. "
T. Jenkins wrote on Aug 21, 2008 10:51 PM:
" Dans T shirts list the names of fallen American soldiers. The Vietnam memorial lists the names of fallen American soldiers. Now that more information is becoming available, it has come to light that Bush indeed knowingly lied about the WMDs. So the shirts tell the truth. We did not invade Iraq to protect American freedom. George Bush and Dick Cheney are responsible for the death of thousands of honorable Americans who were just doing what they were told to do. They did not deserve to die, and are heros for their sacrifice. No one should ever die for the lies of politicians. Bush and Cheney are criminals and should pay for their crimes. "
Frank Dofelmier wrote on Aug 21, 2008 9:44 PM:
" Making money off our fallen soldiers, only in Flagstaff or Sanfrancisco. "
Purple heart Veteran wrote on Aug 21, 2008 9:22 PM:
" JD,
I have been very impressed with your sense of self importance. I have news for you though. No, you haven't done anything for this country that compares with what our Military War Veterans have done, and I suspect that if the Country needed to have you serve in the military (because there weren't enough brave volunteers to protect us) you would do whatever you could to avoid your responsibility.
You do like to talk tough, though, and I'm sure that you impress your friends, but no, the soldiers don't do "what you say, when you say and how we say". In reality, they work for and answer to professionals who don't have time to worry about pests like you. Your need to dishonor the service of our Military members speaks volumns. "
I have been very impressed with your sense of self importance. I have news for you though. No, you haven't done anything for this country that compares with what our Military War Veterans have done, and I suspect that if the Country needed to have you serve in the military (because there weren't enough brave volunteers to protect us) you would do whatever you could to avoid your responsibility.
You do like to talk tough, though, and I'm sure that you impress your friends, but no, the soldiers don't do "what you say, when you say and how we say". In reality, they work for and answer to professionals who don't have time to worry about pests like you. Your need to dishonor the service of our Military members speaks volumns. "
Grandpa wrote on Aug 21, 2008 9:13 PM:
" JD and Dr. USA are the best, the best that blind ignorance and arrogance has to offer. Sort of like Dan Frazier. It's nice that they don't want anyone to defend them and see no need for the military. But perhaps since they obviously live in a land where others do care about our nation and its defense their position is patently indefensible. Thanks to "one of the fallens friend." Most thoughtful Americans value your service as an exceptional act of unselfishness. "
One of the Fallens friend wrote on Aug 21, 2008 7:45 PM:
" To JD,
Obviously I have struck a nerve. For this I appologize. Don't worry you are not alone. I saw it alot when I was a young Jarhead at Camp Pendleton. Unsatisfied wives and girlfriends flocked to the Marines stationed there, even though alot of my brothers in arms were quite frankly, "butt ugly." And this is the Pot calling the kettle black!
But I got out of the Marines, moved to Flagstaff and became a citizen soldier. I still wore the uniform, was even more butt ugly, yet still the same thing. I am sorry if your wife or girlfriend was one of these, or it was the guy that used to steal your lunch money. I was told by the women that it wasn't so much the uniform, it was the set of the jaw, the pushing out of the chest, the attitude that "Nobody better mess with me while I am with him or he will kick his arse." This combined with treating them like a lady in public seemed to be what they wanted in a MAN. You are right, I joined for the chicks. I later became a police officer for the chicks.(Being sarcastic here). What you don't get is that I AM better than YOU (at least) , because yes I have walked in your Doc Martins for years, but I also wore out the soles on a pair of combat boots, something you have not done.
JD maybe you should give it a try. Get out of the armchair quarterback mode and become a man of action! Do something brave like going to talk to the Terrorists. You are a smart man, I am sure you will have a lot more luck than stupid old me, I failed, because they shot at me.
To the other folks, thank you for the thank yous. I did not post that I was a soldier to brag, only to point out that I have been there, and having a friend killed there, I have a little more vested interest than those who get their opinions from the liberal evening news.
I will not mention his name here, but if you feel strongly about the supporting the troops, he was the only USMC Sergeant killed in Iraq, June 29th 2004. He left behind two young sons that he CONSTANTLY bragged about. His ex-wife said although they were divorced (too many deployments) he was a GREAT father, and that it meant alot to them that I wrote to the family and told him what a great guy I thought he was. Might even mention to them that Mr. Frazier refuses to do the right thing, and that maybe they should join the litigants against him.
To all, I can't take credit for this, but read somewhere, that in this world there are Sheep, wolves, and Sheepdogs. The sheep are neutering the Sheepdogs and being sympathetic to the wolves. The more sheep the wolves eat, the more wolves are born. Sheep turn a blind eye to other sheep they don't know that are being killed and eaten by the wolves. There will come a day when the wolves come after the whole herd. It is on this day that the sheepdog is going to have to make a choice. If you are a sheep, fine stay a sheep, but those of you who agree with what I have posted, please become sheepdogs. On that day when the sheep are being slaughtered I want to be able to band together with other sheep dogs, (not become a wolf) because we are NEXT.
Say what you will, but Saddam Hussein was a wolf, Osama Bin Laden is a wolf, Hitler was a wolf. Hirohito was a wolf. If we don't keep the wolf population down, the sheep dogs will be greatly outnumbered, and be slaughtered with the sheep.
As far as the comment about being a bully and associating "Mark my words there will a time when you need someone with a backbone," I am talking about the day when the wolves will be at both of our doors. I won't be wearing a muzzle that the sheep made me wear.
DR. USA I am not even going to respond to your posting, you draw fire all on your own. PLEASE wear one of the shirts every day of the week. I would love to exercise my FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. Also it is that much more restitution Mr. Frasier will have to pay.
On a final note, To those of you who say that Mr. Frasier has a right to express his political views, I agree whole heartedly. And I respect you for standing up for what you think is right. But do not associate with this grave-robbing ghoul.
"Ask not what your country can do for your, ask what you can do for your country." President JFK "
Obviously I have struck a nerve. For this I appologize. Don't worry you are not alone. I saw it alot when I was a young Jarhead at Camp Pendleton. Unsatisfied wives and girlfriends flocked to the Marines stationed there, even though alot of my brothers in arms were quite frankly, "butt ugly." And this is the Pot calling the kettle black!
But I got out of the Marines, moved to Flagstaff and became a citizen soldier. I still wore the uniform, was even more butt ugly, yet still the same thing. I am sorry if your wife or girlfriend was one of these, or it was the guy that used to steal your lunch money. I was told by the women that it wasn't so much the uniform, it was the set of the jaw, the pushing out of the chest, the attitude that "Nobody better mess with me while I am with him or he will kick his arse." This combined with treating them like a lady in public seemed to be what they wanted in a MAN. You are right, I joined for the chicks. I later became a police officer for the chicks.(Being sarcastic here). What you don't get is that I AM better than YOU (at least) , because yes I have walked in your Doc Martins for years, but I also wore out the soles on a pair of combat boots, something you have not done.
JD maybe you should give it a try. Get out of the armchair quarterback mode and become a man of action! Do something brave like going to talk to the Terrorists. You are a smart man, I am sure you will have a lot more luck than stupid old me, I failed, because they shot at me.
To the other folks, thank you for the thank yous. I did not post that I was a soldier to brag, only to point out that I have been there, and having a friend killed there, I have a little more vested interest than those who get their opinions from the liberal evening news.
I will not mention his name here, but if you feel strongly about the supporting the troops, he was the only USMC Sergeant killed in Iraq, June 29th 2004. He left behind two young sons that he CONSTANTLY bragged about. His ex-wife said although they were divorced (too many deployments) he was a GREAT father, and that it meant alot to them that I wrote to the family and told him what a great guy I thought he was. Might even mention to them that Mr. Frazier refuses to do the right thing, and that maybe they should join the litigants against him.
To all, I can't take credit for this, but read somewhere, that in this world there are Sheep, wolves, and Sheepdogs. The sheep are neutering the Sheepdogs and being sympathetic to the wolves. The more sheep the wolves eat, the more wolves are born. Sheep turn a blind eye to other sheep they don't know that are being killed and eaten by the wolves. There will come a day when the wolves come after the whole herd. It is on this day that the sheepdog is going to have to make a choice. If you are a sheep, fine stay a sheep, but those of you who agree with what I have posted, please become sheepdogs. On that day when the sheep are being slaughtered I want to be able to band together with other sheep dogs, (not become a wolf) because we are NEXT.
Say what you will, but Saddam Hussein was a wolf, Osama Bin Laden is a wolf, Hitler was a wolf. Hirohito was a wolf. If we don't keep the wolf population down, the sheep dogs will be greatly outnumbered, and be slaughtered with the sheep.
As far as the comment about being a bully and associating "Mark my words there will a time when you need someone with a backbone," I am talking about the day when the wolves will be at both of our doors. I won't be wearing a muzzle that the sheep made me wear.
DR. USA I am not even going to respond to your posting, you draw fire all on your own. PLEASE wear one of the shirts every day of the week. I would love to exercise my FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. Also it is that much more restitution Mr. Frasier will have to pay.
On a final note, To those of you who say that Mr. Frasier has a right to express his political views, I agree whole heartedly. And I respect you for standing up for what you think is right. But do not associate with this grave-robbing ghoul.
"Ask not what your country can do for your, ask what you can do for your country." President JFK "
Dr. USA wrote on Aug 21, 2008 7:31 PM:
" I have worn my Frazier t-shirts all over Flagstaff---southside, westside, down town, on campus, Buffalo Park, at the mall...and NOT ONCE has Michael Dugan ever come up to me to practice free speech.
One of the Fallens Friend has twice said he respects research, so he should know that attacking Iraq is COMPLETELY unrelated to 9-11 and has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Nobody who knows anything thinks otherwise, even W. You might as well say we attacked Iraq because of Pearl Harbor.
And so I repeat: If you volunteer to join a military mission like that, your parents should not be surprised if you turn up dead, though they may well be ashamed not to have offered you a proper education. They do not "own" your name, either. We the People own your name. You are one of Our Boys.
Speaking of which, We the People are the ones who have been buying Frazier's shirts. You who hate this guy so much say you object to his profiteering, but that is just plain anti-capitalism. You would not object if he were making the shirts but not selling them. You would not object if he were selling weapons, but you loath his t-shirts. And if he were a high-class criminal, you might even vote for him. So you may as well recognize that your hatred is emotion, not based on reason or patriotism.
I, on the other hand, am a patriot...the likes of which have never been known.... "
One of the Fallens Friend has twice said he respects research, so he should know that attacking Iraq is COMPLETELY unrelated to 9-11 and has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Nobody who knows anything thinks otherwise, even W. You might as well say we attacked Iraq because of Pearl Harbor.
And so I repeat: If you volunteer to join a military mission like that, your parents should not be surprised if you turn up dead, though they may well be ashamed not to have offered you a proper education. They do not "own" your name, either. We the People own your name. You are one of Our Boys.
Speaking of which, We the People are the ones who have been buying Frazier's shirts. You who hate this guy so much say you object to his profiteering, but that is just plain anti-capitalism. You would not object if he were making the shirts but not selling them. You would not object if he were selling weapons, but you loath his t-shirts. And if he were a high-class criminal, you might even vote for him. So you may as well recognize that your hatred is emotion, not based on reason or patriotism.
I, on the other hand, am a patriot...the likes of which have never been known.... "
Tom wrote on Aug 21, 2008 6:10 PM:
" I am having doubts about even considering moving to Flagstaff....how shameful!~ "
FormerFlagGirl wrote on Aug 21, 2008 5:34 PM:
" To One of the Fallens Friend - thank you for serving our country. I agree with you 100 percent.
To Man on the Street: When are you going to start selling those shirts? I want one!! I bet it will be a top seller!! "
To Man on the Street: When are you going to start selling those shirts? I want one!! I bet it will be a top seller!! "
JD wrote on Aug 21, 2008 5:22 PM:
" To One of the of Fallens Friend:
My, you're quite the drama queen, aren't you? Nobody is "spitting or cursing" at you. I'm simply saying you aren't entitled to any sort of "hero" status simply because the career you chose was a military one. When you were in Iraq, you were just doing your job, like all the rest of us do every day.
And, sorry, I don't believe you joined the military because you "always fight for the downtrodden and the weak." It's pretty easy to say something like that in the anonymous context of an Internet forum. Based on the attitude of entitlement you've displayed in these forums, I find your alleged altruism suspect. You claim to hate bullies, yet you are acting like one yourself. (Remember the threat from your previous post? "Mark my words, there will come a day when you will need someone with a backbone to protect you, and we will not forget how you have spit on us.")
Thank you for protecting me from all the scary bad guys out there--both real and imagined--but I didn't ask for your protection, nor do I desire it. "
My, you're quite the drama queen, aren't you? Nobody is "spitting or cursing" at you. I'm simply saying you aren't entitled to any sort of "hero" status simply because the career you chose was a military one. When you were in Iraq, you were just doing your job, like all the rest of us do every day.
And, sorry, I don't believe you joined the military because you "always fight for the downtrodden and the weak." It's pretty easy to say something like that in the anonymous context of an Internet forum. Based on the attitude of entitlement you've displayed in these forums, I find your alleged altruism suspect. You claim to hate bullies, yet you are acting like one yourself. (Remember the threat from your previous post? "Mark my words, there will come a day when you will need someone with a backbone to protect you, and we will not forget how you have spit on us.")
Thank you for protecting me from all the scary bad guys out there--both real and imagined--but I didn't ask for your protection, nor do I desire it. "
Jim L wrote on Aug 21, 2008 5:13 PM:
" Dan Frazier,
Put on your T-shirt. Read each name every day, knowing that every soldier on that shirt paid the ultimate sacrifice in defense of the constitution that gives you the right to profit and misrepresent them. Your behavior is despicable.
MINDFULNESS
To strive to be thoughtful, aware, and concerned of the impact of our choices, our actions and our decisions. "
Put on your T-shirt. Read each name every day, knowing that every soldier on that shirt paid the ultimate sacrifice in defense of the constitution that gives you the right to profit and misrepresent them. Your behavior is despicable.
MINDFULNESS
To strive to be thoughtful, aware, and concerned of the impact of our choices, our actions and our decisions. "
Michael Dugan wrote on Aug 21, 2008 5:12 PM:
" One of our Fallens Friend...thank you very much for your service to our country. It may not seem like it but a majority of Americans are thankful people like you are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to ensure our safety. As far as Dan Frazier and Lee Phillips...what goes around comes around...then there is all the karma they are bringing on themselves. All bad. "
One of the of Fallens Friend wrote on Aug 21, 2008 4:49 PM:
" No, I don't think I am better than anyone else because I served my country and ensured my freedoms and those of my fellow citizens before serving myself. Contrary to popular belief there are bad people out there who would like to cut YOUR head off to make a political statement, regardless of you being on their side. I went to Iraq and saw that for myself. What do you base your political opinions on? What would have done if you were President? Apologized to the terrosits who attacked us on Sept. 11th? What did those people do to piss off the terrorists? It sucked to have terrorists try to kill me, but at least over there they were shooting at me, not shooting up our school yards over here.
Yes we do serve civilians. Thank god there are still some who realize that the only reason that we are not attacked more often is that we have a strong military. I have been all over the world and the desperately poor people are the same everywhere. They see leaders and regimes come and go, and it is still the same, everyday struggle to feed their families one more meal at a time. Terrorism is not going to stop if we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. WE were attacked long before we attacked Iraq or Afghanistan. Terrorism will always exist, as long as their are "Haves" and "Havenots," and the "havenots" want to murder US Citizens, YES YOU TOO, because of our wealth, our choice of religion, and sexual preference.
Yes, I volunteered to join the military. Not because I was stupid, or didn't have any options, it was because I always fight for the downtrodden, for the weak, because I hate bullies. The year spent there was not trying to find insurgents, it was spent drilling water wells, building schools, police stations, and hospitals. Curse me and spit on me if you will, but I did my part to give alot of oppressed people a taste of being free, and having some control over their destiny.
You are entitled to your opinions and I respect that, though I don't agree. If you can show that you have done more research than watching the one-sided TV news, I love a great debate, and will respect your point of view, if it is informed.
But it is just wrong to not honor the wishes of these people whose loved one have died. I think alot will agree that not respecting the wishes of these people is going too far.
As far as the comment about the same people opposing this are probably the same ones who reserve second ammendment rights, this is a stupid comment. It would be like saying those who support this issue, are probably gay rights activists also. Let's not go there. "
Yes we do serve civilians. Thank god there are still some who realize that the only reason that we are not attacked more often is that we have a strong military. I have been all over the world and the desperately poor people are the same everywhere. They see leaders and regimes come and go, and it is still the same, everyday struggle to feed their families one more meal at a time. Terrorism is not going to stop if we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. WE were attacked long before we attacked Iraq or Afghanistan. Terrorism will always exist, as long as their are "Haves" and "Havenots," and the "havenots" want to murder US Citizens, YES YOU TOO, because of our wealth, our choice of religion, and sexual preference.
Yes, I volunteered to join the military. Not because I was stupid, or didn't have any options, it was because I always fight for the downtrodden, for the weak, because I hate bullies. The year spent there was not trying to find insurgents, it was spent drilling water wells, building schools, police stations, and hospitals. Curse me and spit on me if you will, but I did my part to give alot of oppressed people a taste of being free, and having some control over their destiny.
You are entitled to your opinions and I respect that, though I don't agree. If you can show that you have done more research than watching the one-sided TV news, I love a great debate, and will respect your point of view, if it is informed.
But it is just wrong to not honor the wishes of these people whose loved one have died. I think alot will agree that not respecting the wishes of these people is going too far.
As far as the comment about the same people opposing this are probably the same ones who reserve second ammendment rights, this is a stupid comment. It would be like saying those who support this issue, are probably gay rights activists also. Let's not go there. "
JD wrote on Aug 21, 2008 4:44 PM:
" AzWebfoot - Your legal analysis of this matter is lacking. Commercial speech is, in fact, protected by the First Amendment, but to a lesser degree than core political speech. Furthermore, where commercial speech is inextricably intertwined with core political speech, the entire speech becomes protected.
Remember, it is not the SHIRTS THEMSELVES that are illegal under the statute, it is only the ADVERTISEMENT of the shirts that is illegal. In other words, this case is not about the shirts; it's about the website on which the shirts are advertised for sale.
Quoting from the judge's opinion: "The website displays images of one of his shirts showing the words “Bush Lied” on the front, “They Died” on the back, and a close-up of the names of the deceased soldiers. It is impossible to separate the political from the commercial aspects of that display." "
Remember, it is not the SHIRTS THEMSELVES that are illegal under the statute, it is only the ADVERTISEMENT of the shirts that is illegal. In other words, this case is not about the shirts; it's about the website on which the shirts are advertised for sale.
Quoting from the judge's opinion: "The website displays images of one of his shirts showing the words “Bush Lied” on the front, “They Died” on the back, and a close-up of the names of the deceased soldiers. It is impossible to separate the political from the commercial aspects of that display." "
Michael Dugan wrote on Aug 21, 2008 4:18 PM:
" Dr USA I hope I see you wearing one of them...I'll practice a little free speech myself. "
AzWebfoot wrote on Aug 21, 2008 4:07 PM:
" Dr. USA you sir, are an unmitigated scoundrel who should not be allowed to have children. To begin with we don't necessarily SEND our sons and daughters into harms way, it's a personal choice and we have to accept the choice. However, and this is where I fully disagree with the judges ruling, what the T-shirts are is simply commercial speech and that is NOT protected by the 1st Amendment.
A newspaper can not arbitrarily publish a persons name in a bad light unless it is newsworthy, else they run the risk of libel. A person in the military does not give up their right nor their family's rights to commercial use of their name when they join the military. "
A newspaper can not arbitrarily publish a persons name in a bad light unless it is newsworthy, else they run the risk of libel. A person in the military does not give up their right nor their family's rights to commercial use of their name when they join the military. "
Dr. USA wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:37 PM:
" I bought four of Dan Frazier's shirts, and One of the Fallens Friend has convinced me to buy MORE. More and more.
If you do not want your name included in a list of dead soldiers, then don't join the military. If you don't want your child's name on Frazier's shirts, then make a family rule: NO MILITARY.
But if you join and die, you are FAMOUS, in all the papers, and your name is part of the public domain, just like any other American who chooses to serve the country---as a member of Congress, as a CEO of Blackwater, as a Supreme Court Justice. Next thing you know, conscientious objectors like One of the Fallens Friend will say we can't use George W. Bush's name without his permission. Well, we can, and we proved it in 1776.
Of course I understand how embarrassing it is to admit that you sent your child to Iraq thinking he or she was defending our right to make Frazieresque t-shirts. But think: If the U.S. had not gone into Iraq, everyone on the shirts would still be alive and Americans would STILL have their First Amendment rights. What a complete waste. "
If you do not want your name included in a list of dead soldiers, then don't join the military. If you don't want your child's name on Frazier's shirts, then make a family rule: NO MILITARY.
But if you join and die, you are FAMOUS, in all the papers, and your name is part of the public domain, just like any other American who chooses to serve the country---as a member of Congress, as a CEO of Blackwater, as a Supreme Court Justice. Next thing you know, conscientious objectors like One of the Fallens Friend will say we can't use George W. Bush's name without his permission. Well, we can, and we proved it in 1776.
Of course I understand how embarrassing it is to admit that you sent your child to Iraq thinking he or she was defending our right to make Frazieresque t-shirts. But think: If the U.S. had not gone into Iraq, everyone on the shirts would still be alive and Americans would STILL have their First Amendment rights. What a complete waste. "
JD wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:26 PM:
" To "One of the Fallens Friend":
Wow, that was quite a temper tantrum you threw. Based upon your rant, you apparently think you're better than anybody else on this board because you're a veteran. Well, I've got news for you, buddy. You're not.
Even assuming, for sake of argument, that you actually are a veteran, you haven't done any more for this country than any of the rest of us. This is still (despite the best efforts of some) a representative democracy. That means we, the civilians, are your bosses. The job we pay you to do is to go fight. And that's apparently what you did. You did your job. That's all you did. That doesn't make you a hero, and it doesn't make you better than anybody else. It just means you did your job, just like all the rest of us do every day.
Yes, your job entails some risk of injury and death. So what? A lot of people have jobs that entail some risk of injury and death. You are compensated for the risks you take. That's why low-level military jobs pay relatively well, despite requiring virtually no education or formal training. The risk is factored into the pay. If that were not the case, we'd have to go back to the draft.
So don't come onto this board and whine about us civilians "not deserving the freedoms that we abuse," and don't try to threaten us with retribution if we fail to bow down to you and the rest of the military. You work for us, not the other way around, and don't you ever forget it! We--not you--decide where, when, and who you fight. Your job is to do what we say, when we say, and how we say. If you can't handle that, then perhaps you should seek employment in a country where the military runs the government instead of lowly civilians like us. "
Wow, that was quite a temper tantrum you threw. Based upon your rant, you apparently think you're better than anybody else on this board because you're a veteran. Well, I've got news for you, buddy. You're not.
Even assuming, for sake of argument, that you actually are a veteran, you haven't done any more for this country than any of the rest of us. This is still (despite the best efforts of some) a representative democracy. That means we, the civilians, are your bosses. The job we pay you to do is to go fight. And that's apparently what you did. You did your job. That's all you did. That doesn't make you a hero, and it doesn't make you better than anybody else. It just means you did your job, just like all the rest of us do every day.
Yes, your job entails some risk of injury and death. So what? A lot of people have jobs that entail some risk of injury and death. You are compensated for the risks you take. That's why low-level military jobs pay relatively well, despite requiring virtually no education or formal training. The risk is factored into the pay. If that were not the case, we'd have to go back to the draft.
So don't come onto this board and whine about us civilians "not deserving the freedoms that we abuse," and don't try to threaten us with retribution if we fail to bow down to you and the rest of the military. You work for us, not the other way around, and don't you ever forget it! We--not you--decide where, when, and who you fight. Your job is to do what we say, when we say, and how we say. If you can't handle that, then perhaps you should seek employment in a country where the military runs the government instead of lowly civilians like us. "
Michael Dugan wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:04 PM:
" Dan Frazier...You just don't get it. I mean human decency. "
Sarah wrote on Aug 21, 2008 2:59 PM:
" I would bet money that so many of the folks ranting against Dan Frazier's First Amendment rights are adament supporters of the "right to bear arms".
Why is one right more important than another? - and why is it not okay to question our government's decisions?
You might also want to look up the kind of cases the ACLU works on - they cover the political spectrum, right to left. "
Why is one right more important than another? - and why is it not okay to question our government's decisions?
You might also want to look up the kind of cases the ACLU works on - they cover the political spectrum, right to left. "
MJ wrote on Aug 21, 2008 2:39 PM:
" I believe that Dan is violating Hippa laws. I know if I made a tshirt with all the names of the patients that worked in my office practice that died that we would definately get sued. What about chaninging it and just using an initial for the last name? My mother recently died and I know I'd be very upset if some activist put her name on a tshirt without my concent. These soldiers even though not with us still have family members. If he got permission first then that would be much better. "
man on the street wrote on Aug 21, 2008 2:08 PM:
" I am going to exercise my 1st Amendment rights. I got a really good idea from someone. I am planning on having a T-shirt made, listing 4,000 names on it, including "Horse's Arse" and putting on the top of it, "D. Frazier is a--" anyone want to buy one? And no, I didn't check with him first before using his name. "
One of the Fallens Friend wrote on Aug 21, 2008 1:39 PM:
" Yes, he has the right to say what his political views are, but I hope and pray that those who seek the 40 billion get every penny of it, and put this Ghoul out of business, for life. Mr. Frazier denied a polite request from a greiving mother to have her son's name removed from this rag/t-shirt. "Peeing on the mountain?", no this is closer to urinating on the closed casket while the next of kin is recieving a folded flag. Those of you who support Mr. Frazier, don't seem to realize First Amendment rights come from the blood of patriots and those willing to stand up and sacrifice for what they beleive in. You don't deserve the freedoms that you abuse, and have let someone else sacrifice for. Mark my words, there will come a day when you will need someone with a backbone to protect you, and we will not forget how you have spit on us.
I really wish you "experts" would look a little deeper into the world of a soldier who has been there, (There are alot of us in Flagstaff) instead of letting the crap they show on the evening news do your thinking for you. How dare you think you know enough about subject to offer an opinion?
I lost a good friend while over there, and it enrages me that a maggot would be feasting on his memory! It is unfortunate that I can not use the more colorful words in my vocabulary to describe what I think of this Business man / two-bit political pundit. "
I really wish you "experts" would look a little deeper into the world of a soldier who has been there, (There are alot of us in Flagstaff) instead of letting the crap they show on the evening news do your thinking for you. How dare you think you know enough about subject to offer an opinion?
I lost a good friend while over there, and it enrages me that a maggot would be feasting on his memory! It is unfortunate that I can not use the more colorful words in my vocabulary to describe what I think of this Business man / two-bit political pundit. "
Dan Frazier wrote on Aug 21, 2008 1:16 PM:
" First, I would like to thank the ACLU and the Law Office of Lee Phillips for their hard work on this case. Without their help, I would not have been able to get this ruling. I always knew that the Constitution was on my side, and it is nice to see that the legal system can sometimes still be used by ordinary folks to help set things right.
I question one of the statements made in this article about the Judge's ruling. I am no lawyer, but in my reading of the ruling, I do not see where the ruling "leaves intact another section of that 2007 law which allows the survivors of dead soldiers to file civil suits if someone uses the names of their loved ones without permission."
I am doubtful that the issue will be resolved by the Tennessee lawsuit because I do not think that lawsuit has any direct connection to this Arizona law. At least, the Tennessee lawsuit itself makes no reference to the Arizona law.
Though the law could possibly be enforced against someone else, the law itself is so poorly written, with so many loopholes and special exemptions, that it is hard for me to imagine a situation in which the law could be successfully applied to anyone else.
I would also like to note that once again this story fails to note that we have long been selling a second version of this shirt that includes the words "Support our Remaining Troops -- Bring the Rest Home Alive." That version of the shirt was also targeted by the Arizona law, and shielded by this ruling.
Readers who are interested can download the ruling, the preliminary injunction (on which the final ruling is based), and the Tennessee lawsuit from my Web site by visiting the page where we sell these shirts: http://carryabigsticker.com/ "
I question one of the statements made in this article about the Judge's ruling. I am no lawyer, but in my reading of the ruling, I do not see where the ruling "leaves intact another section of that 2007 law which allows the survivors of dead soldiers to file civil suits if someone uses the names of their loved ones without permission."
I am doubtful that the issue will be resolved by the Tennessee lawsuit because I do not think that lawsuit has any direct connection to this Arizona law. At least, the Tennessee lawsuit itself makes no reference to the Arizona law.
Though the law could possibly be enforced against someone else, the law itself is so poorly written, with so many loopholes and special exemptions, that it is hard for me to imagine a situation in which the law could be successfully applied to anyone else.
I would also like to note that once again this story fails to note that we have long been selling a second version of this shirt that includes the words "Support our Remaining Troops -- Bring the Rest Home Alive." That version of the shirt was also targeted by the Arizona law, and shielded by this ruling.
Readers who are interested can download the ruling, the preliminary injunction (on which the final ruling is based), and the Tennessee lawsuit from my Web site by visiting the page where we sell these shirts: http://carryabigsticker.com/ "
MT wrote on Aug 21, 2008 12:41 PM:
" Fortunately for Dan he serves a cause no greater than himself. While him or others may not agree with the war, many of the men and women who serve this county and die for its prosperity, believe in the causes they fight for and ultimately die for; this one included. It’s a shame to see a man disrespect and trivialize the lives of fallen US soldiers all for the sake of his political free speech and the almighty American greenback. Thankfully for Dan free speech and respect don’t have to coincide. "
Logic wrote on Aug 21, 2008 12:31 PM:
" I don't agree with what he's doing, but I agree with his right to do it. I don't like the shirts, but they are nothing compared to the day we start adding "exceptions" to our right to free speech. It's a shame that people can't get past how some of the families feel about it and realize the 1st amendment was threatened. If we outlawed everything that at least a few people found hurtful or offending, there wouldn't be much left. Wake up and realize what the real issue is people, get over Fraziers profiteering and don't let our rights be threatened no matter what your trying to say. "
Flagstaffer wrote on Aug 21, 2008 10:57 AM:
" No, Christina, it's neither a joke nor a typo. The greed of those people is astounding. I'm pleased to see this blatantly unconstitutional attempt at restricting free speech was rejected, and I'm hoping for the same result in the civil case. "
Joe wrote on Aug 21, 2008 10:38 AM:
" Remember Frazier running and hiding from Bill O'reilly's news crew? I laughed soooooo hard! "
Sarah wrote on Aug 21, 2008 8:39 AM:
" Congrats, Dan and the ACLU! I'm so glad to see a logical decision - protecting First Amendment rights - come out of the Arizona courts. "
A Vet wrote on Aug 21, 2008 7:48 AM:
" Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.
I hope those folks from Tennessee crush Traitor-Dan.
Never have I seen such blatant disregard for families and their feelings as I have with this abomination of a T-shirt. Whether his "commercial" speech is protected or not, Traitor-Dan's lack of feelings for those families who have lost a hero is the more shameful than peeing on the mountain.
Traitor-Dan talks about the sacred mountain, but what about the sacredness of those who wish to honor the dead instead of using their name for their own commercial gain. Talk about speaking with a forked tongue! "
I hope those folks from Tennessee crush Traitor-Dan.
Never have I seen such blatant disregard for families and their feelings as I have with this abomination of a T-shirt. Whether his "commercial" speech is protected or not, Traitor-Dan's lack of feelings for those families who have lost a hero is the more shameful than peeing on the mountain.
Traitor-Dan talks about the sacred mountain, but what about the sacredness of those who wish to honor the dead instead of using their name for their own commercial gain. Talk about speaking with a forked tongue! "
Canyon reader wrote on Aug 21, 2008 7:22 AM:
" Sad, sad, sad. Frazier could still get his political message across with the numbers of the soldiers who lost their lives -- he doesn't have to use their names. Shame on you, Dan. Are you enjoying spending the money you are making from this sick venture? How much of it are you donating to the local groups that support veterans, many of whom are not getting the support promised to them from our government? I don't agree with the war either, but I am ashamed that a neighbor would use it as an excuse for personal profit. You owe their families an apology. "
All comments will be reviewed before being posted. Comments that contain profanity or are obscene, resort to name calling, are libelous in nature, or make personal attacks won’t be approved. Criticism should focus on the ideas or arguments presented — not the person.
Comments are not always reviewed immediately, especially when posted on weekends or nights.
We reserve the right to delete any comments that, upon further review, fail to meet our guidelines.
Do we edit user comments? No. The writers are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide.
Click to see the complete policy
Advertisement
News Photos Slide Show
Top Jobs
Coconino County Superintendent of Schools
Openings
Accounting Clerk
Accounting Clerk
Busters Restaurant
Cooks
Courier Service
Courier Service
Labor Consultants Internationa
Forestry Workers
Physical Therapy Tech
Physical Therapy
Quintus
Accountant
Receptionist
Receptionist
See our Ad
Merchandiser
Shiprock Associated Schools
physical&speech serv
THE SERVICE COMPANIES
Housekeepers
Openings
Accounting Clerk
Accounting Clerk
Busters Restaurant
Cooks
Courier Service
Courier Service
Labor Consultants Internationa
Forestry Workers
Physical Therapy Tech
Physical Therapy
Quintus
Accountant
Receptionist
Receptionist
See our Ad
Merchandiser
Shiprock Associated Schools
physical&speech serv
THE SERVICE COMPANIES
Housekeepers
Advertisements
Site Index
[ About Us |
Contact Us |
Job Opportunities |
Advertise |
Terms of use |
Privacy policy |
Legal Statement ]
The Arizona Daily Sun, Copyright 2009 ©
The Arizona Daily Sun, Copyright 2009 ©
rush wrote on Sep 4, 2008 5:56 PM:
Do you think the constitution should only be upheld as long as it doesn't hurt someones feelings?
Your dad fought for the constitution the way it is, not a constitution that says 'you can have freedom of speech as long as it is nice and does't hurt anyones feelings'.
Yes, your dad did fight so we could make money using dead soilders names, because the constituion upholds that right, and your dad fought for the constitution.
Again, this ruling is not about good/bad morals. It's about protecting the right of free speech.
As other people have noted, soilders names are public domain.
Free speech. "