OT: (Political) Looks Like Cindy Sheehan Has Some Company

[duckman]

Pro-Bush Camp Sets Up in Crawford

Sunday, August 21, 2005



CRAWFORD, Texas — A patriotic camp with a "God Bless Our President!" banner sprung up downtown Saturday, countering the anti-war demonstration started by a fallen soldier's mother two weeks ago near President Bush's ranch.

The camp is named "Fort Qualls," in memory of Marine Lance Cpl. Louis Wayne Qualls, 20, who died in Iraq last fall.

"If I have to sacrifice my whole family for the sake of our country and world, other countries that want freedom, I'll do that," said the soldier's father, Gary Qualls (search), a friend of the local business owner who started the pro-Bush camp. He said his 16-year-old son now wants to enlist, and he supports that decision.

Qualls' frustration with the anti-war demonstrators erupted last week when he removed a cross bearing his son's name that was among hundreds the group had put up along the road to Bush's ranch.

Qualls called the protesters' views disrespectful to soldiers, and said he had to yank out two more crosses after protesters kept replacing them.

Cindy Sheehan (search), whose 24-year-old son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, died last year in Iraq, started the anti-war demonstration along the roadside on Aug. 6. "Camp Casey" has since grown to about 100 core participants, and hundreds more from across the nation have visited.

Sheehan vowed to remain there until Bush agreed to meet with her or until his monthlong vacation ended, but she flew to Los Angeles last week after her 74-year-old mother had a stroke. Her mother has some paralysis but is in good spirits, and if she improves, Sheehan may return to Texas in a few days, some demonstrators said.

In her absence, the rest of the group will keep camping out for the unlikely chance to question the president about the war that has claimed the lives of about 1,850 U.S. soldiers.

Bush has said he sympathizes with Sheehan but won't change his schedule to meet with her. She and other families met with Bush about two months after Casey Sheehan died, before she became a vocal opponent of the war.

Large counter-protests were held in a ditch near Sheehan's site a week after she arrived, and since then, a few Bush supporters have stood in the sun holding signs for several hours each day.

Bill Johnson, a local gift shop owner who created "Fort Qualls," said he wanted to offer a larger, more convenient place for Bush supporters to gather.

He and others at "Fort Qualls" have asked for a debate with those at the Crawford Peace House, which is helping Sheehan.

It's unclear if that will happen. But a member of Gold Star Families for Peace, co-founded by Sheehan and comprised of relatives of fallen soldiers, said her group would not participate.

"We're asking for a meeting with the president, period," said Michelle DeFord, whose 37-year-old son, Sgt. David W. Johnson, was in the Army National Guard from Oregon when he was killed in Iraq last fall. "We don't want to debate with people who don't understand our point of view."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by duckman

Sweaty balls called the protesters' views disrespectful to soldiers

Sounds like a bright fellow.

[jeff061]

That town needs to be firebombed. Clear 'em all out.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by duckman

Sheehan vowed to remain there until Bush agreed to meet with her or until his monthlong vacation ended, but she flew to Los Angeles last week after her 74-year-old mother had a stroke.

Fucking quitter.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by jeff061

That town needs to be firebombed. Clear 'em all out.

you're a sick man who desperately needs a trout in your rectum

[jeff061]

I wasn't being serious, at least not totally.

[Airhog]

Originally Posted by duckman

"We don't want to debate with people who don't understand our point of view."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This line just shows how closed minded this lady really is. If she doesnt want to debate with people who doesn't understand her point of view, then why does she want to meet the president? Obviously she doesn't want to debate with him, probably just read him the riot act for getting her son killed.

I an understand that she is upset because her son was killed. However, its not like this kid was an innocent bystander just visiting Iraq for fun. She fails to realize that if you join the Army, and you are sent off to war, there is a distinct chance that you won't be coming back alive.

[NoMyths]

Nice. He says he'd sacrifice his whole family for freedom, and yet he doesn't support Sheehan using her freedom to lawfully speak her mind. Regardless of whether or not you support the woman (I for one am troubled by her), this guy seems representative of all "freedom-loving patriots" who don't understand, let alone love, the freedoms the ostensibly would kill or die to defend.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Nice. He says he'd sacrifice his whole family for freedom, and yet he doesn't support Sheehan using her freedom to lawfully speak her mind. Regardless of whether or not you support the woman (I for one am troubled by her), this guy seems representative of all "freedom-loving patriots" who don't understand, let alone love, the freedoms the ostensibly would kill or die to defend.

I think it has to do more with the fact they kept putting his son's name on those crosses at the demostration site. She has no right to use his name to push her political agenda. It pissed him off, so he's doing something about it. Good for him.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Nice. He says he'd sacrifice his whole family for freedom, and yet he doesn't support Sheehan using her freedom to lawfully speak her mind. Regardless of whether or not you support the woman (I for one am troubled by her), this guy seems representative of all "freedom-loving patriots" who don't understand, let alone love, the freedoms the ostensibly would kill or die to defend.

So he doesn't have the freedom to disagree with her? Anybody who supports the war and what is going on over there isn't allowed to speak out against those who don't support it?

[Greyroofoo]

i think i just have the question the guy who uses his freedom of speech to protest someone else's freedom of speech

[Cringer]

Ok, if I'm that Bush neighbor I am popping off that gun every hour or so now. Guy has to be going nuts with all those people right in front of his house. I know I would be doing things to people just to get them to move and stay away from my property, I don't what side they are on.

But then again, I have always taken pleasure in fucking with people who park in front of my house without permission.

[jeff061]

That argument is used far to often, and it rarely ever works. He is not protesting someone elses freedom of speech other than removing his son's name from the cross. Letting a difference of opinion be known is not the same has muzzling the other side.

I am left leaning, hate Bush, but this Sheehan pack agitates me a bit.

She was saying how good and supportive Bush was just after her son died, a year later she is saying the opposite.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

i think i just have the question the guy who uses his freedom of speech to protest someone else's freedom of speech

So he's not allowed to question her motives for using his son's name to make her protest? She made it his business the moment she put his name on one of those crosses. This is not difficult to understand. Would you like it if someone took one of your children's name without your permission to make a political statement you don't endorsed?

[duckman]

Originally Posted by jeff061

She was saying how good and supportive Bush was just after her son died, a year later she is saying the opposite.

Exactly. Someone convinced her to protest the war using her son as the main theme of it. First, she thought of Bush as a honest individula and now he's liar and cover-up artists. Somebody started putting shit in her head that led her to believe differently. I'm curious as who were initial supporters when she began this "crusade".

[NoMyths]

His son died in Iraq. I see no reason why the name shouldn't be placed on one of the crosses, and I definitely don't believe he should take the cross down. He certainly didn't not die in Iraq, which the cross makes clear, while taking it down doesn't.

He certainly has the freedom to disagree with her, but censoring her protest by damaging the display is infringement. The fact that the soldier who died was his son doesn't supercede his son's sacrifice for the country, nor the fact that his name is now part of the public record as a soldier who died in combat.

[jeff061]

Because she is using the crosses for no other reason but to push her agenda.

I'm not saying I support the guy who drove a truck through them, he's a dick. I'd like to think if someone is using my or my family's name to promote something I am not affiliated with people would understand me taking it down.

What she is doing down there is not cool, she is just a kook who makes liberals look bad.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

His son died in Iraq. I see no reason why the name shouldn't be placed on one of the crosses, and I definitely don't believe he should take the cross down. He certainly didn't not die in Iraq, which the cross makes clear, while taking it down doesn't.

He certainly has the freedom to disagree with her, but censoring her protest by damaging the display is infringement. The fact that the soldier who died was his son doesn't supercede his son's sacrifice for the country, nor the fact that his name is now part of the public record as a soldier who died in combat.

She's exploiting the man's son for her own political agenda. Fine if she wants to drag what her son did through the mud, but she has no right to use his son's name to make her case. He's protecting the image of his son, so he has the right to make sure that it is not exploited for her own selfish political views. He has every right to demand that his son's dead memories not be used for her own use and she has no other choice but to not use it. It's not censorship, but common decency towards others' wishes which this woman fails to abide to.

[NoMyths]

But he (or you) can't take it down. You can ask to have it taken down. You can petition to have it taken down. All lawful intervention--and remember, super-patriots are all about the rule of law (theoretically). If I were the guy, I'd pursue all those avenues.

[jeff061]

I wouldn't. I'd go in there and take it down. Any reasonable or logical person would leave it down after this happened.

Christ her whole family is publically discouraging her and her husband is divorcing her. She's a nut.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by duckman

...her own selfish political views...

Could you go into detail what these are? They don't seem to have been reported in any of the articles I read.

[NoMyths]

Any reasonable or logical person would obey the law. It's what our country relies on to keep running, and all countries collapse in the absence of. And any reasonable and logical American would understand that while supporting the freedoms our country endorses and protects can be frustrating when actions one doesn't agree with happen, it doesn't mean that you get a free pass. Democracy is for grown-ups, not kindergarteners.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

But he (or you) can't take it down. You can ask to have it taken down. You can petition to have it taken down. All lawful intervention--and remember, super-patriots are all about the rule of law (theoretically). If I were the guy, I'd pursue all those avenues.

Whose to say he didn't asked for it to be taken down? You're forgetting she doesn't paid heed to any reasoning. Her own family has asked her to stop using her son to prtoest the war and it hasn't stopped her from doing it anyways. Personally, I would sue her organization for every red cent it has for the emotional distress it's caused for putting name up.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by duckman

Whose to say he didn't asked for it to be taken down? You're forgetting she doesn't paid heed to any reasoning. Her own family has asked her to stop using her son to prtoest the war and it hasn't stopped her from doing it anyways. Personally, I would sue her organization for every red cent it has for the emotional distress it's caused for putting name up.

Perhaps he did and she declined. That's how it goes. One can then pursue other legal avenues and hope for the best. But at the end of the day it's the name of a soldier who died for his country...it's pretty hard to keep that out of the public domain, and it's one of the things that comes along with the territory.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by jeff061

I wouldn't. I'd go in there and take it down. Any reasonable or logical person would leave it down after this happened.

Christ her whole family is publically discouraging her and her husband is divorcing her. She's a nut.

Ok. So, if someone comes along and defaces a nativity scene, any reasonable or logical person would leave it that way? Am I taking it too far? How far does this go and what does it apply to? Only political demonstrations?

If your whole family is against you, and your spouse is leaving you, that nullifies your protest and invalidates your position? I hope everyone is put through this same test in the future, then, on all sides of every debate.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Could you go into detail what these are? They don't seem to have been reported in any of the articles I read.

I don't know. You may want to ask her own husband (who is divorcing her over this very thing) and her other son. I bet they would have a better idea what they are. She hasn't thought too highly of their wishes.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by duckman

I don't know. You may want to ask her own husband (who is divorcing her over this very thing) and her other son. I bet they would have a better idea what they are. She hasn't thought too highly of their wishes.

You specifically mentioned "her own selfish political views." I figured you knew what they were if you were talking about them. I shouldn't have to go and ask her family about things you were writing on FOFC, should I?

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Ok. So, if someone comes along and defaces a nativity scene, any reasonable or logical person would leave it that way? Am I taking it too far? How far does this go and what does it apply to? Only political demonstrations?

If your whole family is against you, and your spouse is leaving you, that nullifies your protest and invalidates your position? I hope everyone is put through this same test in the future, then, on all sides of every debate.

???? Maybe if my kids name was written on the forehead of the baby and I wiped the name off. I'm specifially talking about involving people in your protest who want nothing to do with it.

One does not have anything to do with the other

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by jeff061

???? Maybe if my kids name was written on the forehead of the baby and I wiped the name off. I'm specifially talking about involving people in your protest who want nothing to do with it.

One does not have anything to do with the other

Do the rights to the name of a dead adult revert to their family? I'm not so sure. While it may be in good taste to seek the approval of their family, I'm not sure there is a legal requirement to do so.

[jeff061]

The kid is not dead.

And if he was, in a situation like this, yes I think the kid's family should have the right to protect his legacy.

Edit: forget 1st line, mis-read part of article .

[jeff061]

And as far as all this legal talk going around, I don't care. I like to have my OWN mind, and I know what is right or wrong reguardless of the law. This will probably spark some sharp reaction and is a point we will no doubt fundamentally differ on. So it's not worth arguing .

[duckman]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Perhaps he did and she declined. That's how it goes. One can then pursue other legal avenues and hope for the best. But at the end of the day it's the name of a soldier who died for his country...it's pretty hard to keep that out of the public domain, and it's one of the things that comes along with the territory.

This is about using someone's name for political gain without permission and you know it. She's not honoring his memory, but using it for her political agenda. This has nothing to do with keeping his name out of the public domain.

You can't even admit at what she is doing is wrong.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by jeff061

And as far as all this legal talk going around, I don't care. I like to have my OWN mind, and I know what is right or wrong reguardless of the law. This will probably spark some sharp reaction and is a point we will no doubt fundamentally differ on. So it's not worth arguing .

Sigh.

[jeff061]

Yeah, I had a response written up to your post about going throught he proper channels(which would likely lead to an improper outcome), but I sighed and deleted it.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by duckman

This is about using someone's name for political gain without permission and you know it. She's not honoring his memory, but using it for her political agenda. This has nothing to do with keeping his name out of the public domain.

You can't even admit at what she is doing is wrong.

What are you talking about? I've already indicated that I am troubled by the woman and that if I were the father I would want to get the name removed as well.

There really doesn't seem to be much point in continuing this "discussion" when two of the major participants a) aren't interested in what it takes to be a law-abiding, democracy-supporting American and/or b) can't read. So I'll let my above posts stand as my statement on the matter and move on.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

You specifically mentioned "her own selfish political views." I figured you knew what they were if you were talking about them. I shouldn't have to go and ask her family about things you were writing on FOFC, should I?

Is not selfish to disregard what her own husband is saying on the matter? She basically threw her family's wishes in the garbage and went ahead with using her dead son for political gain. Sounds selfish to me.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Nice. He says he'd sacrifice his whole family for freedom, and yet he doesn't support Sheehan using her freedom to lawfully speak her mind. Regardless of whether or not you support the woman (I for one am troubled by her), this guy seems representative of all "freedom-loving patriots" who don't understand, let alone love, the freedoms the ostensibly would kill or die to defend.

Well, said.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Any reasonable or logical person would obey the law. It's what our country relies on to keep running, and all countries collapse in the absence of. And any reasonable and logical American would understand that while supporting the freedoms our country endorses and protects can be frustrating when actions one doesn't agree with happen, it doesn't mean that you get a free pass. Democracy is for grown-ups, not kindergarteners.

And any reasonable and logical person would have common respect for the wishes of other people.

[jeff061]

Yeah, I'm sure people making sure their dead family members names aren't dragged through the dirt by some mentally unbalanced women will cause Democracy to fail.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by jeff061

I like to have my OWN mind, and I know what is right or wrong reguardless of the law.

I am totally onboard with the idea that people should be governed by a different standard than the simple question of legality.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by duckman

Is not selfish to disregard what her own husband is saying on the matter? She basically threw her family's wishes in the garbage and went ahead with using her dead son for political gain. Sounds selfish to me.

Is that a political view? Using your son's name in a political protest, against your husband's desires, is a selfish political view? Let's assume it is one. What are the others?

[jeff061]

It's a selfish action to support a political view. Maybe the initial wording wasn't for the best.

And it's not just the husband, it's also the aunts, uncles, grandparents, the works.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

What are you talking about? I've already indicated that I am troubled by the woman and that if I were the father I would want to get the name removed as well.

There really doesn't seem to be much point in continuing this "discussion" when two of the major participants a) aren't interested in what it takes to be a law-abiding, democracy-supporting American and/or b) can't read. So I'll let my above posts stand as my statement on the matter and move on.

You said that you were troubled by the woman's action, but not exactly what action you were so troubled about. Instead, you said that the soldier's name is public domain. Now, I maybe an illiterate redneck hillbilly, but I take that as it's okay for her to use the name.

On second part of your response, I never said that it was okay for him to physically take the crosses himself. However, I can sympathize with him because I wouldn't want my son to be used that way. I would appreciate it if you don't put words in my mouth.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by jeff061

It's a selfish action to support a political view. Maybe the initial wording wasn't for the best.

Doesn't sound unusual when it comes to politics in the US.

And it's not just the husband, it's also the aunts, uncles, grandparents, the works.

I'm not sure how it changes anything if it is a whole bunch of people in the family or just one. Right or wrong is not determined by how many people are on your side.

[Galaril]

I am a little surprised at this father's seemingly small regard for his family. Since, he is willing after just losing a son to offer to give the rest up. I am sure his family appreciates it. As a father I would respect my childrens wishes though I might disagree. But, I wouldn't be willing to lose anymore after the terrible sacrifice he has already suffered. And jsut as a note I served in the Gulf albeit 1990-1992 so would not consider myself one to not know what it is to go off to war.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Using your son's name in a political protest, against your husband's desires, is a selfish political view?

Yes. Last I checked, there was two people who are parents to a child.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by duckman

Yes. Last I checked, there was two people who are parents to a child.

A selfish action, perhaps, but I fail to see it being a "selfish political view." Still, I granted that point for the sake of argument. What are the other "selfish political views" you were alluding to?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Doesn't sound unusual when it comes to politics in the US.

So that makes it ok?

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Galaril

I am a little surprised at this father's seemingly small regard for his family. Since, he is willing after just losing a son to offer to give the rest up. I am sure his family appreciates it. As a father I would respect my childrens wishes though I might disagree. But, I wouldn't be willing to lose anymore after the terrible sacrifice he has already suffered. And jsut as a note I served in the Gulf albeit 1990-1992 so would not consider myself one to not know what it is to go off to war.

Once the kid turns 18, there is not much you can do but be supportive. If it was my kid, I would try my best to talk him out of it before he got old enough to sign up on his own.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

A selfish action, perhaps, but I fail to see it being a "selfish political view." Still, I granted that point for the sake of argument. What are the other "selfish political views" you were alluding to?

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you want from me. I thought I gave a pretty good explanation of this.