Un-F&%$-ing BELIEVABLE

[TypicalFish 0]

Regardless of how you feel about the conflict, this is ridiculous. Entitled B%$#@.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1792200&partnersite=espn

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[panzwami 0]

[SARCASM]

I think Tillman's Ranger unit needs to take down this moron's house.

[/SARCASM]

(edited because some people evidently don't get it.)

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I think Tillman's Ranger unit needs to take down this moron's house.

Yes, exactly, because Tillman would have wanted it that way: he would have wanted someone punished for exercising his first amendment right to express his opinion, whether it's ill-informed and arrogant or rational and well-presented. Yes, Pat Tillman would smile if he knew that on his behalf, vigilante assholes torn down someone's house just because he voiced an unpopular opinion.

Hey, I'm not saying a word about Tillman or his military service or his decisions or his fantasies or his realities. To be frank, I haven't thought much about it. We look at our actions as Americans through a tinted glass, and if we in fact were doing wrong over there, being "imperialistic" or whatever, it would be hard to see. Some of the Gonzales' comments about the "necessity" of Tillman's service, and of our military's actions, are being debated by our top leaders and philosophers and analysts as we speak. So it is by no means a given that we are right to be doing what we're doing. (Although I like the fact that we removed Hussein from power -- that evil fuck!)

But come on, knee-jerk reactions to someone commenting negatively about a popular "hero" are ridiculous -- especially when it descends to something like "someone should do this or that (violent) to him or his property." Grow up. Either grow up, or admit that you don't really want people to have freedom of speech unless what they say meets with your personal approval. Well, that ain't the way it works.
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[TypicalFish 0]

For me; it's not a question of the "comments" meeting (or needing) my apporoval. I just think it is completely boorish and inappropriate behaviour to actively and maliciously insult someone who gave their life defending their principles. Which, by the way, also happen to be the same principles that allow the commentator to make the statements in the first place.

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[pajarito 0]

I seriously doubt that you have any idea whatsoever as to what Pat Tillman might have thought about this article.

Quote

But come on, knee-jerk reactions to someone commenting negatively about a popular "hero" are ridiculous -- especially when it descends to something like "someone should do this or that (violent) to him or his property." Grow up. Either grow up, or admit that you don't really want people to have freedom of speech unless what they say meets with your personal approval. Well, that ain't the way it works.

I guess "freedom of speech" expressed in the 1st Amendment just means a bit more to some of us who have served to make it a possibility. It means that, even though we could say degrading things as were stated in the article, we wouldn't out of respect. Kind of like the whole "burning the flag" issue. Sure, you've got the right to do it but any descent American with respect for his/her country wouldn't. It shouldn't even be an issue. No matter what political party you adhere to.

[kiltboy 0]

The paper's webaddress is,

http://www.dailycollegian.com

The site is experiencing heavy traffic right now so I couldn't read the column myself.

David

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I guess "freedom of speech" expressed in the 1st Amendment just means a bit more to some of us who have served to make it a possibility. It means that, even though we could say degrading things as were stated in the article, we wouldn't out of respect. Kind of like the whole "burning the flag" issue. Sure, you've got the right to do it but any descent American with respect for his/her country wouldn't. It shouldn't even be an issue. No matter what political party you adhere to.

So what are you saying- are you defending what Jeffrey is attacking, or attacking what Jeffrey is saying. Because if you think the punk should be beaten up, you've missed the point of the 1st Amendment. I suspect you don't, but I'm a bit confused by the reference to serving.

The writer has lost any respect readers had for him. They can all say what a jackass he is. And that's the end of it. As you write: "you have the right, but should know better."

I wonder if the reaction would be any different if he was writing for the Daily Californian. I'd like to think not; even in Berkeley most blame the politicians not the soldiers for the consequences of war.

[pajarito 0]

I’m not defending what panzwami said about “taking down the guy’s house.” Although, I doubt that he was serious and expected to be taken literally. I can understand his frustration, however, and understand why he might say something like that in casual conversation. I support the 1st amendment and freedom of speech. I just think it is a shame that some people use it in ways such as was expressed in the article. Like I said and you paraphrased, “you have the right, but should know better.” My reference to serving was just that. I think, for the most part, those of us who have served in the military have a greater love and respect for the rights that are our privilege to have as Americans. That’s because, we have a greater perspective as to what is required to keep those rights. They weren’t given to us. They were fought for and earned.

[TheAnvil 0]

It's the worthless cocksucker's first ammendment right to say and write whatever he wishes. It's our right to have nothing but contempt for the SOB and those who laud/agree with him if we so desire. Think how he's going to vote and reflect on if you want him as a co-worker/companion.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

For me; it's not a question of the "comments" meeting (or needing) my apporoval. I just think it is completely boorish and inappropriate behaviour to actively and maliciously insult someone who gave their life defending their principles. Which, by the way, also happen to be the same principles that allow the commentator to make the statements in the first place.

Yes, but you'll notice that when someone like me objects to the statements of someone like the writer of the post I singled out, he doesn't say that because the poster wrote something objectionable, illegal and immoral vigilante action should be taken against him or his home for offending our sensibilities. That was just juvenile. I have an idea: if you don't like what someone said, attack what they said on its merits. But if all you can muster is some pathetic-assed wish that someone should do the speaker harm, best to shut up yourself.
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[TypicalFish 0]

Agreed.

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[Unstable 9]

That was the most terrible article I've ever read. Far As I'm concerned, Lets deport that Writer to somewhere where he can really gain an appreciation for what he once had.....

=========Shaun ==========

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

That was the most terrible article I've ever read. Far As I'm concerned, Lets deport that Writer to somewhere where he can really gain an appreciation for what he once had.....

*sigh*

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[newsstand 0]

My God a topic we can agree on!

The article writer is clearly an idiot but it is his inalienable right to be an idiot.

The sad thing is that he does have valid points but choose the wrong vehicle for delivering them.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[newsstand 0]

Quote

.... I just think it is completely boorish and inappropriate behaviour to actively and maliciously insult someone who gave their life defending their principles. ...

So no more slamming the insurgents in Iraq please

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes