| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| The Flag Bearer - Casy Sheehan |
| 2005-08-20 |
| Cindy Sheehan has announced that she will return to Crawford to continue her message that America is not worthy... In battles past at the sound of the trumpet a soldier designated to carry the flag in the battle would charge forward into the face of evil. The flag bearer represented the spirit of the soldiers in the charge and ensuing battle. There is no doubt that this war pits good mounting a charge against evil. In most cases before the battle the flag bearer volunteers to carry the flag. Therefore, all the soldiers in this days army are flag bearers as all volunteered to enter this battle against terror and possibley die young so that others may live a long and full life of freedom from fear and terror. Each time a flag bearing soldier falls as they surge forward in battle another soldier takes up the flag and continues the great charge holding the colors high for all to see. Cindy Sheehan has shamed her son who fell holding the colors by telling the others do not pick up the flag he bore in the charge. Cindy Sheehan says the colors her son died holding high representing the ideals of freedom, justice, liberty and peace is not worthy. But the day will come when at the sound of the trumpet these fallen who by then may have been forgotten will rise again and shout their names to remind the world that they are now eternal. And the voices of those who dishonored their valor while they were fallen will NOT have a voice on that day but will be silent forever. |
| Posted by:RG |
| #30 "Dissidents are hounded, and if they bite back, they are banned. You haven't learned a thing. The problem is not dissiention. The problem is that dissidents think they can come to RB and fire some nonsense and not be challenged. Also, the problem is that dissidents resorts eventually to name calling a personal attacks when they can't anyone to agree with them. Please refer to Exibit A at page 1 "Bad guys meeting, training in Bosnia." Back up your opinions with solid research links and you won't get bit. |
| Posted by: Poison Reverse 2005-08-20 23:59 |
| #29 I still remember Aris saying he wasn't going to post here anymore. Not that he was banned. Self-exile isn't the same. I don't see you getting banned here, Mike. Just shot down repeatedly. Not quite the same thing. |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2005-08-20 23:59 |
| #28 test test test tesin me testes, why ima not able post to mrr? |
| Posted by: muck4doo 2005-08-20 23:53 |
| #27 Dissenting views are not tolerated well at Rantburg either. Dissidents are hounded, and if they bite back, they are banned. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-08-20 23:52 |
| #26 Fred banned Aris. |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-08-20 23:51 |
| #25 Mike, I wasn't throwing a fit about my comments being thrown out at the Left wing site. I was stating that ALL comments are thrown out because Left wingers don't like dissenting views. Re-read #7 and click on the link. |
| Posted by: Poison Reverse 2005-08-20 23:50 |
| #24 Uh, wait a minute Mike. I thought that Aris voluntarily left before he got banned......not quite the same thing as getting banned. |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2005-08-20 23:49 |
| #23 Yes, Fred can ban whoever he wants. So can people who run other blogs. I was responding to Poison Reverse throwing a fit here about comments being cut off at some other blog. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-08-20 23:45 |
| #22 Aris made a decision before his required service time started...he crossed lines, something even he admitted. It's Fred's blog. If you, I, or Aris get out of favor due to our comments, it's Fred's prerogative to bar access. "Get your own" is always in order... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-08-20 23:26 |
| #21 Fred himself said he banned Aris. |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-08-20 23:17 |
| #20 banned? If you say so. If some other blog owner chooses to filter comments, you are right, that is their choice. To my knowledge, Fred, et al, are pretty lenient and notify when lines are crossed. "Relentlously arrogant and obnoxious" is a slur from you that I wear as a badge of accomplishment. I've made myself clear on how esteemed I hold you. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-08-20 23:16 |
| #19 Well, Aris and Gentle are banned here at Rantburg. From that perspective, it's silly for Poison Reverse to make such a big deal about comments being cut off at some other blog. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-08-20 23:10 |
| #18 by the way, MS - I don't think you should be banned. Shamed and ridiculed for your defense of anti-american tyrants stealing OFF money to pad their pockets while keepind Saddam et al in power, yes. Abused for your nonsensical JUS posts to try and do what? Yes. I've called you a moral cretin and worse, but I stand by it. Banned? Noooooo you provide an example of what BDS and moral equivalence can lead to.... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-08-20 21:51 |
| #17 Mike, Don't use my comments to promote your filthy Anti-American/Semite agenda. Use the US taxpayer funded UN money to get yourself a thesaurus and stand in your own sinking tar pit. Now, I think I will take a trip to Bangeldesh to have some jihadi throw some acid on me so I can be cleansed of yours and Aris's hatred. |
| Posted by: Poison Reverse 2005-08-20 21:23 |
| #16 Interesting that you can defend the U.N., Kofi Annan, and Kojo Annan; you cannot stand many Rantburg regulars; and you count anyone who stood up to Aris and Gentle as part of a "dog pack" -- I'll bet you and Cindy Sheehan would get along fabulously. And yet you have not been banned. A real paradox, isn't it? |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-08-20 21:10 |
| #15 Many of the Rantburg regulars are relentlessly arrogant and obnoxious, so that doesn't explain the phenomenon. Aris and Gentle bit back at the dog packs. That's why they were banned. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-08-20 21:00 |
| #14 Mike, I would say that people who are relentlessly arrogant and obnoxious are banned here, just as they would be banned from any traditional face-to-face discussion group. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-08-20 20:49 |
| #13 I was responding to #7. People with the "wrong" opinions are banned here too. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-08-20 20:38 |
| #12 Mike, I don't get your point. What is it? |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-08-20 20:28 |
| #11 feel bad about that UN-boy? Moral birds of a feather and all that? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-08-20 20:17 |
| #10 Aris and Gentle are banned from Rantburg. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-08-20 20:13 |
| #9 SteveS, Hold on now, that's not what I meant. What I meant was, that I had factual rebuttals everytime they threw something at me and it went on all night and carried to the next day. I wasn't commenting out of subject matter. I simply asked for facts on their rebuttals and I didn't give up on it, that's not trolling. If I come to RB and ask for facts with links, I will get in 5 seconds. If I didn't get facts, I'll keep asking for it until you kick me out. Then RB would be no different than a typical Leftist blog and I don't need to waste my time or knowledge at RB. Since that's not the case, I will continue post because I don't consider it a waste of my time or knowledge to post here. I did mention words "historical facts" and "actual quote" on #7. But, you are free to judge me as you like. Bottomline, they didn't want so many factual dissenting views to distort their agenda. There is no agenda here at RB, just the facts. |
| Posted by: Poison Reverse 2005-08-20 17:39 |
| #8 We saturated it day and night. I was accused of trolling, but I wasn't Oh, really? Posting comments relentlessly? Trolling is exactly what it sounds like. Behavior like that would not be tolerated at Rantburg either. Claiming to do it in the name of a higher purpose is simply disingenuous. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2005-08-20 14:45 |
| #7 Sheehan Crawford blog update: Ever since her blog was posted, me along with other conservatives posted comment after comment on her blog. We saturated it day and night. I was accused of trolling, but I wasn't. My comments and rebbutals were backed up with historical facts and actual quotes from Sheehan. They unsuccessfully fired back with their typical feel good responses. But I insisted over and over again that they respond with the facts to disprove my view. They found out real quick that they couldn't refute my view with facts so their responses were getting angrier and angrier. But, I didn't give up. I kept on insisting that they leave out emotion, but they couldn't. Three or four days ago, they would have only a maximum of 10-15 comments per article. Maybe its coincidence, but when I started commenting two days ago, the number of comments started picking to over 50-170 on the posted Final result: The "Crawford Update" blog is NO LONGER accepting comments and archive comments are no longer available. See for yourself. Hypocrites!! They only love "Freedom of Speech" when it fits their agenda. Cinder "The Scam" Sham Blog |
| Posted by: Poison Reverse 2005-08-20 12:38 |
| #6 Are the Berrigan Brothers dead yet? This is straight from 1968, Demo-Dino pee all over it. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-08-20 11:38 |
| #5 ...she vowed to run him down with her car if he joined up So she was willing to commit violence to stop more violence? Isn't that exactly the reason we went into Iraq in the first place? |
| Posted by: SteveS 2005-08-20 11:16 |
| #4 There are over 1800 mothers who suffer from incredible void of losing a child in this conflict... She does not speak for "Them", a majority of "Them", or from the best that I can tell (since the MSM isn't spending much effort checking on it) even a significant minority of the others. Sorry Moonbeam, you are not the spark of the universe... and your handlers offer no solutions. |
| Posted by: Capsu78 2005-08-20 10:31 |
| #3 I have discovered that this woman was a little kooky before her son was killed.* Of course, being a little kooky around the dinner table and destroying your life by mounting a show like this are two different things - she was obviously traumatized by her son's death. Still - the idea being spread about - that her son's death turned her against the war - is patently wrong. * From Power Line blog - "As time goes by, and people learn more about Sheehan--e.g., her anti-Americanism, and the fact that she was so fervently anti-war BEFORE her son enlisted that she vowed to run him down with her car if he joined up--her ratings will no doubt slide further." |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-08-20 10:20 |
| #2 I'm an athiest, but the sentiment resonates strongly with me. Well said. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-08-20 08:08 |
| #1 Excelent,well said! |
| Posted by: raptor 2005-08-20 07:41 |