I am not frist! That's trite....

In reich-wing world:
war = good
Kos = KKK
Money from Norman Hsu = Bush Lying About WMD
Code Pink = Rev. Fred Phelps

Here is the reality:
The GOPigs = the party of irrelevance

Anti-war theater tactics of Code Pink (Masked devil and all...) can hardly be compared to the means and messages of the general hate group who blame homosexuals for the war and the lives lost.

We're talking about one group making news in order to demand peace, and another making news in order to demand the expulsion of homosexuals from our nation.

Perhaps now, all critical voices of any kind can be defined as "bizarre tactics," and therefore nullified?

Since our votes are treated as inconsquential or thrown away, what is left to the American people but demonstrating and shouting? To compare these women in pink to a group of religious zealots who attack grieving relatives at funerals is beyond belief. George Bush is not buying time to win the war, he is buying time to provoke a war against Iran. When did war become the American way of life? Our soldiers are only pawns in George's war.

on the leftside you have what looks like some very pleasant ladies.......on the right side.......you have what looks like some very pissed off loons..........hmmmmmmmmmm...whom would you gather with......?...inquiring minds want to know

Rusty Shackleford @ 2:

Holding signs is a "bizarre tactic"?

Yes... it totally is a bizarre tactic.

Now i am being told that silence is my greatest opportunity to be heard; that inaction is my most efective course of action.

BULLSHIT!

The members of Code Pink who stood up and disrupted the propaganda machine reminded people that the lies did not go unnoticed. The Republican propaganda talking point memo about the Move On ad certainly got circulated but that does not mean we have to buy it.

Bush the devil? Hell, if he was i might feel less ashamed of him.

J Smith @ 9:

Unfortunately, this sort of article represents the very worst in C&L.com. It is blatantly partisan and relies on the sort of unethical word games that we have come to expect from the unscrupulous right. This guy does not pronounce the moral equivalence of Code Pink with Phelp's loonies. Rather, he simply asks a not unreasonable question as to whether or not Code Pink is equally damaging to the left's image as Phelps is to the right. This is an interesting question, and worth a bit of discussion. C&L should be ashamed at its sensationalist and misleading headline. Please guys - let's leave the 'use any weapon, us-vs-them football game mentality' to the wastebasket of the Fox-news earlt 200s. You shouldn't have to stoop to such levels.

Ok, explain to me how sitting at home, on your ass, watching Petreaus and his Power Point presentation of pure bullshit helps the Left look good.

That reich wing bitch with the "God Hates Fags" T-shirt really IS wrapped in the American flag. Can she be arrested for flag desecration?

How mentally fucked are the idiots who come up with this shit? Really. Do they ever actually go outside or talk to people. No I mean PEOPLE, not politicians. Not talking point parrots.. actual PEOPLE. Do they not get that the pounding noise they hear at the gate are the CITIZENS who they pretend they are there to represent?
How exactly is wearing pink and protesting the illegal occupation of a foreign country "crazy" ? How is that "fringe" ?
I suppose some religious nut will stand up and suggest the pink means they've also got a "gay" agenda. Next there'll be articles discussing the evil feminist aspects of the "crazies" that protest the glorious ameriken march to world domination. Women are the enemy. Well.. one of the enemies. There's so many to choose from... especially since everyone qualifies except gw moron and co. I guess you have to fail an IQ test to join.

Ruthless People @ 16:

That reich wing bitch with the "God Hates Fags" T-shirt really IS wrapped in the American flag. Can she be arrested for flag desecration?

Nope. Because she's invoking jebus while doing it. If you touch her you're part of the WAR on the xian cultists.

Code pink HELPS!
What are you gonna tell your grandkids. I didn't want to protest...it doesn't make us look good.

Remember who was at the Boston Tea Party. Activists, protesters, progressives and patriots.

The conservatives and the ugh...'undecided' were tories and loyalists.

Oh, until the war was won. Then it's freedom for every white man.

So, I guess some posters think those ladies should just be quiet [tone it down ladies] and go home to their kitchens and children, right? Preferbaly we will confiscate their shoes while we pat them on the head and send them home. Silly little girls, trying to protest and have your voices be heard.

Code Pink is on the news, is it not? They are getting heard and getting attention, aren't they? Theatrics are necessary in this snip and clip, sound bite era.

#17-Deezus

You are certainly right. If Code Pink continues to act in such an ostentatious manner, then those on the right will be forced to use one of the most vile words in the English language and that is to accuse Cod Pink of being shrill. If a liberal or a progressive dares to act up or to question authority then conservatives slam them for being shrill. All this, of course, is code for saying that liberals should know their place by not being too demonstrable and it is the hope of the conservatives into shaming them into not speaking out. But this position now seems to be acquired by so-called liberals as well as those on the far right. Mr. or Ms. Deezus as well as that liberal icon Jon Stewart would do well to remember what Amy Goodman and Jane Fonda and Cindy Sheehan have reminded this country, which is that silence is no longer an option.

I DO protest. But not by making shrieking sounds during the proceedings which can only lead people, who are unfamiliar with the organization, to conclude "wow! those motherfuckers are nuts!".

I do my protest bit, but i also write, phone, and email my representatives. Which, I believe, carries more weight than the aforementioned shrieking and wearing bright colors so that i may be parodied and cast into the "looney bin"

Deezus @ 28:

I DO protest. But not by making shrieking sounds during the proceedings which can only lead people, who are unfamiliar with the organization, to conclude "wow! those motherfuckers are nuts!".

I do my protest bit, but i also write, phone, and email my representatives. Which, I believe, carries more weight than the aforementioned shrieking and wearing bright colors so that i may be parodied and cast into the "looney bin"

Different strokes for different folks. Try it sometime.

For conservatives who are always decrying 'moral relativism' - how relativistic of them. Only someone with no values whatsoever could compare these two groups as similar.

Deezus @ 28:

I DO protest. But not by making shrieking sounds during the proceedings which can only lead people, who are unfamiliar with the organization, to conclude "wow! those motherfuckers are nuts!".

I do my protest bit, but i also write, phone, and email my representatives. Which, I believe, carries more weight than the aforementioned shrieking and wearing bright colors so that i may be parodied and cast into the "looney bin"

Oh really? More wieght?

You are either very naive or you get a computerized form letter back in a timely manner.

Do you think that the members of Code Pink do not write letters?

I am waiting to see a news report about people writing letters to Congress. Did i miss it?

xoites defends Constitution @ 36:

I am waiting to see a news report about people writing letters to Congress. Did i miss it?

Just because something gets news coverage doesn't mean it makes a more persuasive or important argument. The news spent more time in the last year on a dead, overweight, ex-playmate of the year than on the atrocities in Darfur.

Headlines do not equal news.

Hell, I could make headlines by chucking babies into the street as a protest to the war. However, I somehow think that my message will be lost.

Deezus @ 38:

xoites defends Constitution @ 36:

I am waiting to see a news report about people writing letters to Congress. Did i miss it?

Just because something gets news coverage doesn't mean it makes a more persuasive or important argument. The news spent more time in the last year on a dead, overweight, ex-playmate of the year than on the atrocities in Darfur.

Headlines do not equal news.

Hell, I could make headlines by chucking babies into the street as a protest to the war. However, I somehow think that my message will be lost.

So now Code Pink standing up and protesting a sham hearing is the equivelent of chucking babies out the window?

xoites defends Constitution @ 39:

Deezus @ 37:

hadenuf @ 30:

Deezus @ 28:

Different strokes for different folks. Try it sometime.

I guess, dude. I just don't think it is ultimately helpful. Just like it isn't helpful, in my opinion, for right wingers to cozy up to Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. It only energizes the base, it wins very few new recruits. (I couldn't think of a better word than recruits, it'll come to me after i hit submit)

I am not looking for "recruits." We have the majority already. What we don't have is our will being implemented.

And it won't be implemented until we find ways of putting pressure on the Administration and Congress.

Move on spent $70,000 to post a full page ad in the New York Times. Code Pink, while bearing a higher risk got just as much if not more attention at a much lower price.

Try to comprehend the brilliance of getting the anti war message on tv when the Corporate Media does all it can to keep it off the air.

Ok, I hear you on this front. With this argument I suppose I'll concede. It's just not the way that i think is most effective.

For the record, Fred Phelps is a Democrat. In fact he frequently participates in the Kansas State Democratic primaries as a canidate for Govener. Furthermore, prior to protest military funerals "Rev." Phelps was a radical left-wing civil-rights lawyer and even has a certificate of appreciating from his local chapter of the NAACP. Songs like "God Hates the World" and websites like "GodHatesSwitzerland.com" should be enough to convince you that Phelps is a hoax, the WBC does not exist and that the media and the blogsphere are a buch of thick idiots for not recognizing a good parody when they see it. You can verify much of what I have said here:

http://www.nndb.com/people/908/000025833/

Fanon @ 41:

Deezus @ 37:

hadenuf @ 30:

Deezus @ 28:

Different strokes for different folks. Try it sometime.

I guess, dude. I just don't think it is ultimately helpful. Just like it isn't helpful, in my opinion, for right wingers to cozy up to Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. It only energizes the base, it wins very few new recruits. (I couldn't think of a better word than recruits, it'll come to me after i hit submit)

Wasn't the Rev Yearwood "appropriately" dressed when they broke his leg as they arrested him?

Of course not... he's black, so no matter what he dressed like, they were going to attack him anyway. Gotta watch out for dem wily negroes, y'know.

Blue Buddha @ 46:

Fanon @ 41:

Deezus @ 37:

hadenuf @ 30:

I guess, dude. I just don't think it is ultimately helpful. Just like it isn't helpful, in my opinion, for right wingers to cozy up to Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. It only energizes the base, it wins very few new recruits. (I couldn't think of a better word than recruits, it'll come to me after i hit submit)

Wasn't the Rev Yearwood "appropriately" dressed when they broke his leg as they arrested him?

Of course not... he's black, so no matter what he dressed like, they were going to attack him anyway. Gotta watch out for dem wily negroes, y'know.

Another reason I wouldn't wear pink. As a black male, I'm already a threat, no need to compound said threat by becoming day-glo

Only a conservative parasite could willingly confuse the rational hate required to create change with the irrational hate it takes to objectify something that can not be changed as "evil".

xoites defends Constitution @ 49:
Truce?

xoites defends Constitution @ 53:

Deezus @ 52:

xoites defends Constitution @ 49:
Truce?

I am arguing a point, not starting a war. :)

As am I, but i'm growing weary of the argument.

By the way, war is an example of an argument, is it not?

xoites defends Constitution @ 55:

Deezus @ 54:

xoites defends Constitution @ 53:

Deezus @ 52:

I am arguing a point, not starting a war. :)

As am I, but i'm growing weary of the argument.

By the way, war is an example of an argument, is it not?

"War is the last resort of the incompetent."
Arthur C. Clark

ok.....um, so are you calling me.....you know what? I don't care, never mind.

Deezus @ 56:

xoites defends Constitution @ 55:

Deezus @ 54:

xoites defends Constitution @ 53:

As am I, but i'm growing weary of the argument.

By the way, war is an example of an argument, is it not?

"War is the last resort of the incompetent."
Arthur C. Clark

ok.....um, so are you calling me.....you know what? I don't care, never mind.

Unless you are conducting a war i don't think i am calling you anything. :)

Fanon @ 57:

J Smith @ 45:

jtmonty46 @ 33:

J Smith @ 9:

To quote the first line of the Politico blog:

"Is Code Pink to the left what the Westboro Baptist Church is to the right?"

How does this not cast Code Pink as the moral equivalent of Fred Phelps band of wretched people? This is the classic right-wing method of guilt by association, through sentence structure. It sets the whole tone of the rest of the article. How can you not equate them with Felps after reading that sentence?

Wow. Just wow. You people are really not doing the good guys any favors today.

What part of the the fact that he posed a question don't you understand? The guy is acting a question. Sometimes, the interesting bits of a question on a topic such as this are not simply the yes-no answers, but the details for discussion, as in this case. If i ask "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" I am not saying that you are a summer's day. The yes/no answer to this question is also not particularly interesting. What is interesting is in the analysis of the question.

As for the rest of you lot. Logic seems to have fallen by the wayside today. It's ridiculously disingeneous of some of you to, when presented with an opinion that suggests that Code Pink may not be doing the good guys favors to then sqeal "well what the heck are YOU doing for the cause?" First of all, very few of you know what anybody here is doing. Perhaps some people here are disabled or have a tons of real life commitments that make a sane evaluation of the situation about the most which they can contribute. This is about all that Thomas Payne, did, after all (for those of you who still don't understand the use of comparisons in the English language - I am not saying that I or anybody else here is EXACTLY like Payne - I am saying that some people here might share some notable attributes with him). I don't know the exact latin form of "argument from what the hell are you doing to help the cause", but it certainly falls into some flavor of ad-hominem. As this discussion forum is a place for--discussion, the correct way to address the issue is "If you think that Code Pink is counterproductive, how would you suggest that they, or similar groups change it?"

I mean really people. The answer to a decade of republican stupidity is not an equivalent dose of illogic and ad-hominem from the left.

Speaking of ad-hominem. You accuse people of ignoring the content of the article because they were distracted by the author asking (or in your words "acting") a question. Apparently you missed the point of the article. He posed an over-the-top question about "moral" equivalency, which he never proved or disproved. He did, however, go on to call a peaceful protest group a "parody" and indicated that their protests were just as ridiculous as offensive as holding signs that "God Hates Fags".

The terms 'moral' nor 'equivalency' don't occur anywhere either in the linked-to article or in the original bloggers posts. In fact, if you read the original blogger's post, it is ENTIRELY rational. In fact, if you read some of the nutjob comments that follow the blogger's post, you will see that the bloggers words are entirely correct in that it is clear that the image of some of Code Pink's actions have given unnnecessary ammo to the other side.

And whoever it is that I am replying to: while I give you props for your spelling flame of me (rolls eyes), I do suggest you look up the term 'ad hominem.'

This thread is really depressing. I thought 'the left' was better than this.

As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

Deezus @ 48:

Blue Buddha @ 46:

Fanon @ 41:

Deezus @ 37:

Wasn't the Rev Yearwood "appropriately" dressed when they broke his leg as they arrested him?

Of course not... he's black, so no matter what he dressed like, they were going to attack him anyway. Gotta watch out for dem wily negroes, y'know.

Another reason I wouldn't wear pink. As a black male, I'm already a threat, no need to compound said threat by becoming day-glo

Day-glo...bwahahahahahahah. I don't know how old you are, but the 80's were very painful. I, myself, have destroyed all evidence of my lapse in fashion sense. But I do have to admit, I wish Code Pink would take off the stupid hats and cutesy crap. I find my self cringing at the carnival type attitude they bring to the debate.

60 J Smith
"...Code Pink’s actions have given unnnecessary ammo to the other side."

Don't look now but "the other side" has all the guns and all the ammo. They have the media. Until Monday i had not heard an anti war voice on tv for several months. You seem to miss the point of protest. Code Pink raised my spirits on Monday. I knew that people were willing to go to jail to protest this war and the Corporate Media was held hostage because they COULD NOT turn off the cameras.

calscientist @ 61:

Comparisons to Fred Phelps are inane.

But, I am not at all sure Code Pink is effective. Jon Stewart had a clip last night of one of the protesters screaming in the hearing room before she was escorted out. Frankly, she seemed weird and incoherent and looked pretty ridiculous. Stewart had a follow clip suggesting that she reminded him of Sam Kennison. She did. I have never been convinced with Medea Benjamin that what she does is not just about Medea Benjamin. They have the right to protest, and they are nothing like Fred Phelps, but I do question their effectiveness.

You might want to leave this alone. Soon enough someone will ask "what have you done to end the war", "what right do you have to question these ladies of the day-glo", "WHAT?!? You write your representative? Idiot!"

Just walk away.

calscientist @ 61:

Comparisons to Fred Phelps are inane.

But, I am not at all sure Code Pink is effective. Jon Stewart had a clip last night of one of the protesters screaming in the hearing room before she was escorted out. Frankly, she seemed weird and incoherent and looked pretty ridiculous. Stewart had a follow clip suggesting that she reminded him of Sam Kennison. She did. I have never been convinced with Medea Benjamin that what she does is not just about Medea Benjamin. They have the right to protest, and they are nothing like Fred Phelps, but I do question their effectiveness.

The interesting thing about being in a group of people who are organizing a protest of any kind is that it is very difficult to impossible to decide who is going to join your group or control how they behave. Focusing on one person out of the many who stood up and got arrested makes no sense to me.

This entire questioning of Code Pink's action makes no sense to me.

You don't like what they did? Or you don't like how they did it?

Do something better.

J Smith @ 60:

Fanon @ 57:

J Smith @ 45:

jtmonty46 @ 33:

Wow. Just wow. You people are really not doing the good guys any favors today.

What part of the the fact that he posed a question don't you understand? The guy is acting a question. Sometimes, the interesting bits of a question on a topic such as this are not simply the yes-no answers, but the details for discussion, as in this case. If i ask "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" I am not saying that you are a summer's day. The yes/no answer to this question is also not particularly interesting. What is interesting is in the analysis of the question.

As for the rest of you lot. Logic seems to have fallen by the wayside today. It's ridiculously disingeneous of some of you to, when presented with an opinion that suggests that Code Pink may not be doing the good guys favors to then sqeal "well what the heck are YOU doing for the cause?" First of all, very few of you know what anybody here is doing. Perhaps some people here are disabled or have a tons of real life commitments that make a sane evaluation of the situation about the most which they can contribute. This is about all that Thomas Payne, did, after all (for those of you who still don't understand the use of comparisons in the English language - I am not saying that I or anybody else here is EXACTLY like Payne - I am saying that some people here might share some notable attributes with him). I don't know the exact latin form of "argument from what the hell are you doing to help the cause", but it certainly falls into some flavor of ad-hominem. As this discussion forum is a place for--discussion, the correct way to address the issue is "If you think that Code Pink is counterproductive, how would you suggest that they, or similar groups change it?"

I mean really people. The answer to a decade of republican stupidity is not an equivalent dose of illogic and ad-hominem from the left.

Speaking of ad-hominem. You accuse people of ignoring the content of the article because they were distracted by the author asking (or in your words "acting") a question. Apparently you missed the point of the article. He posed an over-the-top question about "moral" equivalency, which he never proved or disproved. He did, however, go on to call a peaceful protest group a "parody" and indicated that their protests were just as ridiculous as offensive as holding signs that "God Hates Fags".

The terms 'moral' nor 'equivalency' don't occur anywhere either in the linked-to article or in the original bloggers posts. In fact, if you read the original blogger's post, it is ENTIRELY rational. In fact, if you read some of the nutjob comments that follow the blogger's post, you will see that the bloggers words are entirely correct in that it is clear that the image of some of Code Pink's actions have given unnnecessary ammo to the other side.

And whoever it is that I am replying to: while I give you props for your spelling flame of me (rolls eyes), I do suggest you look up the term 'ad hominem.'

This thread is really depressing. I thought 'the left' was better than this.

Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as being guilty of the same thing that he is arguing against.

Isn't that exaclty what you did? Directed your argument to the circumstance of the arguer? You thought the "left was better" than this? People were being illogical and disingenuous because they didn't agree with you? There is more than one type of ad hominem attack, my friend.

I didn't find the author genuine or ENTIRELY rational. I found him to be attacking a group who's methods he didnt' agree with by ridiculing their use of banners and theatrics which, while not to some people's taste, have been effective in garnering media attention and spreading their message.

Rusty Shackleford @ 67:

J Smith @ 60:

...it is clear that the image of some of Code Pink's actions have given unnnecessary ammo to the other side.

That can't be the standard. The other side can manufacture ammo out of anything. The only way to avoid giving the other side ammo is to say or do NOTHING.

I think yours is a good point. However, it's too broad. I suppose you wouldn't disagree with the statement that, say, in your eyes Pat Robertson's words are more infuriating than, say, Arlen Specter's. By the same token, I think if the lot of us acted more like, say, Russ Feingold, with reasoned and intelligent comments rather than acting like something that is easier to caricature and bash, I think our position would be far stronger. By all means - go out and protest! But remember that the very goal of this sort of protest is to raise awareness and change perceptions, and in communication 101 the very first thing you learn is not to alienate your audience. If you, for whatever reason, piss off your audience, you will be ineffective, no matter how righteous your cause. This was the message of the blog author, and, well, it's worth keeping in mind. While certainly there are large portions of the C&L comments-area readership who are apparently not offended by Code Pink's actions and methods (and count me among them), certainly we collectively be so blind as to realize that we are exceptional in this regard?

Sigh. It's odd that im defending some blog author.

J Smith @ 72:

Rusty Shackleford @ 67:

J Smith @ 60:

...it is clear that the image of some of Code Pink's actions have given unnnecessary ammo to the other side.

That can't be the standard. The other side can manufacture ammo out of anything. The only way to avoid giving the other side ammo is to say or do NOTHING.

I think yours is a good point. However, it's too broad. I suppose you wouldn't disagree with the statement that, say, in your eyes Pat Robertson's words are more infuriating than, say, Arlen Specter's. By the same token, I think if the lot of us acted more like, say, Russ Feingold, with reasoned and intelligent comments rather than acting like something that is easier to caricature and bash, I think our position would be far stronger. By all means - go out and protest! But remember that the very goal of this sort of protest is to raise awareness and change perceptions, and in communication 101 the very first thing you learn is not to alienate your audience. If you, for whatever reason, piss off your audience, you will be ineffective, no matter how righteous your cause. This was the message of the blog author, and, well, it's worth keeping in mind. While certainly there are large portions of the C&L comments-area readership who are apparently not offended by Code Pink's actions and methods (and count me among them), certainly we collectively be so blind as to realize that we are exceptional in this regard?

Sigh. It's odd that im defending some blog author.

I totally disagree. Pissing people off is the first step in jolting them out of their comatose lockstep ways. I am having a hard time with all of us being like Russ Feingold. We do not need cookie cutter people. We need activists.

When you can't justify the behavior of your constituency, you transfer the bad qualities to those you oppose.

Typical psychotic behavior. Not surprising...sexual deviants are usually psychotic as well.

J Smith @ 77:

Deezus @ 73:

J Smith

Are you not growing tired talking to the brick wall?

(Nice name, my grandad's name is John Smith!)

I've never actually posted on any political comment board before though I watch the c&l clips regularly since I am outside of the USA. once or twice before the C&L editorial choices have struck me as ridiculously inappropriate and sensationalistic, and this one clearly went over the line, so I decided to have a go. But yes, 4 posts in, and I'm not exactly overwhelmed with the quality of discussion here. It's very disheartening to see several posters here who, a prima facie, appear to be simply spitting out the mirror image of the thoughtless cheerleading-for-our-side-while-having-a-we-can-so-no-wrong-because-we-are-the-victims mentality of the right.

J Smith isnt actually my real name. :), shock of shocks.

Shame about the name. You can trust a Smith (none of us have ever been president!)

J. Smith

"I’m not exactly overwhelmed with the quality of discussion here. It’s very disheartening to see several posters here who, a prima facie, appear to be simply spitting out the mirror image of the thoughtless cheerleading-for-our-side-while-having-a-we-can-so-no-wrong-because-we-are-the-victims mentality of the right."

I find doing something imperfectly superior to doing nothing well.

xoites defends Constitution @ 80:

J. Smith

"I’m not exactly overwhelmed with the quality of discussion here. It’s very disheartening to see several posters here who, a prima facie, appear to be simply spitting out the mirror image of the thoughtless cheerleading-for-our-side-while-having-a-we-can-so-no-wrong-because-we-are-the-victims mentality of the right."

I find doing something imperfectly superior to doing nothing well.

I also find acting superior and judgmental tends to spur open discussion.

Fanon @ 82:

xoites defends Constitution @ 80:

J. Smith

"I’m not exactly overwhelmed with the quality of discussion here. It’s very disheartening to see several posters here who, a prima facie, appear to be simply spitting out the mirror image of the thoughtless cheerleading-for-our-side-while-having-a-we-can-so-no-wrong-because-we-are-the-victims mentality of the right."

I find doing something imperfectly superior to doing nothing well.

I also find acting superior and judgmental tends to spur open discussion.

Ok, so what is the basic criticism here? That Code Pink wears outlandish clothes? That a Code Pink member screamed? That General Petraeus was interupted while lying?

What!?

xoites defends Constitution @ 84:

Fanon @ 82:

xoites defends Constitution @ 80:

J. Smith

I find doing something imperfectly superior to doing nothing well.

I also find acting superior and judgmental tends to spur open discussion.

Ok, so what is the basic criticism here? That Code Pink wears outlandish clothes? That a Code Pink member screamed? That General Petraeus was interupted while lying?

What!?

The argument (as i see it) is that Code Pink isn't spreading the message as much as they are creating spectactle. Said spectacle is more easily translated into "boy these motherfuckers are out of their rabid minds!!!" than "Wow! This war is wrong!"

xoites defends Constitution @ 84:

Fanon @ 82:

xoites defends Constitution @ 80:

J. Smith

I find doing something imperfectly superior to doing nothing well.

I also find acting superior and judgmental tends to spur open discussion.

Ok, so what is the basic criticism here? That Code Pink wears outlandish clothes? That a Code Pink member screamed? That General Petraeus was interupted while lying?

What!?

Xoites, I believe in the message, but the messenger seems to be making a mockery of the message. Like I said, I cringe when I see them looking so silly. How can anyone take the message seriously? Anger, outrage, passion, all fine by me, but for crying outloud, dump the silly outfits. Remember it's the squishy center we're trying to get off their collective asses and do something. OK, sweetie, let me have it, I can take it, I'm a big girl.

xoites defends Constitution @ 84:

Fanon @ 82:

xoites defends Constitution @ 80:

J. Smith

I find doing something imperfectly superior to doing nothing well.

I also find acting superior and judgmental tends to spur open discussion.

Ok, so what is the basic criticism here? That Code Pink wears outlandish clothes? That a Code Pink member screamed? That General Petraeus was interupted while lying?

What!?

That they were shrill and viewed as hurting the left because they used slogans (they lie and people die) and had a devil dressed up as GW. That's what I got out the bloggers opinion. That he felt their tactics detracted from the cause of the left to withdraw the troops because, in his opinion, their antics were sophomoric.

Strawberry @ 87:

xoites defends Constitution @ 84:

Fanon @ 82:

xoites defends Constitution @ 80:

I also find acting superior and judgmental tends to spur open discussion.

Ok, so what is the basic criticism here? That Code Pink wears outlandish clothes? That a Code Pink member screamed? That General Petraeus was interupted while lying?

What!?

Xoites, I believe in the message, but the messenger seems to be making a mockery of the message. Like I said, I cringe when I see them looking so silly. How can anyone take the message seriously? Anger, outrage, passion, all fine by me, but for crying outloud, dump the silly outfits. Remember it's the squishy center we're trying to get off their collective asses and do something. OK, sweetie, let me have it, I can take it, I'm a big girl.

As someone who agrees with their message but not how they go about it i suggest (as i have above) that you take what they do and have done as a challenge to do better.

And, yes, we should do constructive self critizism. In this case that is for Code Pink to do not us.

In the 1970's i met twice a week for two years with Phil Berrigan. Very structured stuff. Exactly two hours each and every meeting. It had a regular cycle: theory of why we do an action, planning of an action (then of course the action itself) and then, most importantly, evaluation of the action and criticism of it.

the message is being clouded by spectatcle. It is easier to look at their actions and say "boy, these motherfuckers are out of their rabid minds" than "Wow. this war is wrong!!"

Deezus @ 92:

the message is being clouded by spectatcle. It is easier to look at their actions and say "boy, these motherfuckers are out of their rabid minds" than "Wow. this war is wrong!!"

Don't the majority of Americans already thing the war is wrong? That doesn't seem to matter to the powers that be, so what should we do? Also, isn't this the same criticism that happened in the late 60's? The only people protesting this war are "the dirty hippies". It had to start somewhere, it started with the 'dirty hippies" until the movement was too overwhelming to ignore. Right?

you dipshits piss me off worrying about what a bunch of god damned repigs are going to think about a few ladys whove got more guts then you ever had stand up to these faschist cocksuckers wearing pink and shouting that bush is a lame brained dickwad , no matter what you do its never enough at least they show up every day !

xoites defends Constitution @ 93:

Deezus @ 92:

the message is being clouded by spectatcle. It is easier to look at their actions and say "boy, these motherfuckers are out of their rabid minds" than "Wow. this war is wrong!!"

If you decide the war is right or wrong based on the clothing worn by people protesting against it i would prefer you be for the war. You blend right in.

It's not about the clothing. It's about the entire spectacle not imparting knowledge nor awareness. Common people need to see that people just like them are standing up against the war. Not crazy, pink, shrieky.

Don't pretend to not understand what i'm talking about to win an argument.

Fanon @ 94:

Deezus @ 92:

the message is being clouded by spectatcle. It is easier to look at their actions and say "boy, these motherfuckers are out of their rabid minds" than "Wow. this war is wrong!!"

Don't the majority of Americans already thing the war is wrong? That doesn't seem to matter to the powers that be, so what should we do? Also, isn't this the same criticism that happened in the late 60's? The only people protesting this war are "the dirty hippies". It had to start somewhere, it started with the 'dirty hippies" until the movement was too overwhelming to ignore. Right?

Yes, the majority (vast majority) think the war is wrong, but they're not standing up! If regular people started to stand up, other regular people wouldn't think it so "fringe-y".

Deezus @ 98:

xoites defends Constitution @ 93:

Deezus @ 92:

the message is being clouded by spectatcle. It is easier to look at their actions and say "boy, these motherfuckers are out of their rabid minds" than "Wow. this war is wrong!!"

If you decide the war is right or wrong based on the clothing worn by people protesting against it i would prefer you be for the war. You blend right in.

It's not about the clothing. It's about the entire spectacle not imparting knowledge nor awareness. Common people need to see that people just like them are standing up against the war. Not crazy, pink, shrieky.

Don't pretend to not understand what i'm talking about to win an argument.

Then find a way to do it better.

It's madness. Politico (and other news organs up the Bush/Cheney ass) have been brainwashed into believing that opposing this war of lies is blasphemy. No wonder they see any questioning of a war hyped on lies and driven by private "moral values" and corporate profiteering to be radical and extreme.

Code pink disputes the war and calls peace and government transparency. OMFG ... protect the war ... protect the war ...

I think that dead horse has been soundly beaten

Code Pinkers with their diametric opposites are underscoring a certain deterioration in the message and awareness Pinkers originally attempted to put before the public eye. Undoing the power of Cindy's pure intentions.

They've lost their dignity and discipline. The hysterics, the sea of bubblegum, an embarrassing adolescent loss of solemnity and gravitas. Looking and sounding like the loonies they've attracted on the other side of the street.

To compare them to Phelps is patently absurd, but I think Jon Stewart nailed it when he started his new Daily Show feature last night, "You're Not Helping". Showing up like screeching harridans at Petraeus's testimony was stupid and made them look bad. They looked like luntic harpies. That's not helping the opposition to the war. Cartoonish behavior only confirms the low opinions other hold of some anti-war activists.

Me either...

Fecalphilia anyone?

Deezus @ 92:

the message is being clouded by spectatcle. It is easier to look at their actions and say "boy, these motherfuckers are out of their rabid minds" than "Wow. this war is wrong!!"

But someone might also see this spectacle and wonder, "why are these seemingly nice women acting so foolish? What could have spurred them to engage in this conduct?"

Fingerbo @ 115:

To compare them to Phelps is patently absurd, but I think Jon Stewart nailed it when he started his new Daily Show feature last night, "You're Not Helping". Showing up like screeching harridans at Petraeus's testimony was stupid and made them look bad. They looked like luntic harpies. That's not helping the opposition to the war. Cartoonish behavior only confirms the low opinions other hold of some anti-war activists.

Thank you Fingerbo. OK, you can put aside the question of `no such thing as bad publicity'. With the majority of the country behind the war, I think we need constant pressure and convincing of the reps to act to end this war. What is the effective way to get the dems some backbone and get the scared repubs to jump off the SS Bush? I am not sure I know, but I can tell you that screaming women in weird pink outfits who are largely led at least from the liberal Bay Area enclave trying to take over a congressional hearing or Congressman Conyers' office does not work and gets those reps' backs up.

I would say that a million faxes calling for Adm. Fallon to testify about Iraq/Iran would help.

I would say that getting the surviving soldiers of the NYT Op-ed piece from a few weeks back to testify would help.

I would say that getting someone like Charles Ferguson who directed No End In Sight to testify would help.

This said, they (Code Pink) are free to do what they want, as I said in my earlier post. But I agree with Jon Stewart-that they are not helping. Frankly, I largely see them as a self absorbed irrelevancy-I don't think any rep will go the other way because of them, and I don't think the majority of the population will change their minds because of them (that we should be getting out of Iraq-oh wait, those weird code pinkers are into it, maybe I should think again...). They just are being annoying.

Rusty Shackleford @ 121:

Deezus @ 92:

the message is being clouded by spectatcle. It is easier to look at their actions and say "boy, these motherfuckers are out of their rabid minds" than "Wow. this war is wrong!!"

But someone might also see this spectacle and wonder, "why are these seemingly nice women acting so foolish? What could have spurred them to engage in this conduct?"

Possibly. But it seems unlikely. to me, at least.

The Code Pink ladies do look rather goofy. Given how superficial our culture (and media in particular) is, I'm not sure if that's the best tactic. They make peace protesting seem like the priority of, well, silly people. You see this at other leftist rallies as well.

It is a must that we make absurd spectacles of ourselves? Ending this war is a serious goal. So why not look and act like you're engaged in important business?

Deezus @ 84:

Blue Buddha @ 79:

Deezus @ 68:

Strawberry @ 64:

I'm 32 y.o. I didn't wear pink then, and i sure as hell ain't wearing that garbage now!

Oh man... I remember back in the mid-80's when Reebok's were big. My mother went to a hunting/camping supply place in the middle of nowhere, because that was about the only place where she could find a decent selection of Reebok's. She bought a pair that was that same exact shade of fuscha/bubble-gum pink... I think she only wore those shoes two or three times.

Reeboks? Hast thou forgotten about British Knights?!? the predecessor to the Reeboks. (I hear they were made in South Africa out of the souls of little black children!)

Hahahaha! I actually had a pair of Black Knights. I didn't heard about the SA rumor tho.

This is so totally laughable I don't even know where to begin!

The Politico is like the National Enquirer of politics.

Seriously, does anyone but themselves take them seriously?

They are obnoxious, absurd, ridiculous looking and look to persuade people by being louder than them. They are just as persuasive as the Phelps clan in their self-righteousness, and make as much progress to boot. We can do better.

LMAO.

At first glance I thought the anti-abortionists were atheists.
"God is your enemy", "Don't worship the dead."

ha

Bob Roberts @ 136:

Also I don't think the blog post criticizing Code Pink was out of line. Certain types of demonstrators are easier for the administration, the media and much of the populace to dismiss. Screaming in the middle of a General's testimony brings uncomfortable images of anarchy to the minds of some and represents an attack on free speech to others. Waving a demon figure representing the President is a self-limiting strategy. You won't be taken seriously by people who don't already share your views (and may be dismissed by most of them).

Code Pink doesn't need to convince other demonstrators, they need to appeal to middle of the road, middle class, sober minded, serious Americans (or however such people see themselves).

A more simple minded argument would take days to dredge up and i have other things to do, so i will settle for this one.

No, Bob Roberts (great film by the way, if you have not seen it. please do) Code Pink is not here to make YOU feel comfortable. Anyone who feels comfortable with this war or the way it is being opposed needs his head examined. Are you suggesting that the war needs to be oppossed in a manner that is sterile and and acceptable? Forget the notion. It has never existed and it will never exist.

As far as convincing people what to believe, i believe that lies beyond our responsibility.

Our responsibility is to oppose the war. It is the responsibility of others to decide if they are for or against the war. How that is expressed is up to those who wish to express it.

I draw that line at violence.

It is really funny to me that the "Left" is going ape shit over funny costumes and "shrill" voices while the right is DEAD FUCKING SILENT over abortion clinic bombings and snipers killing abortion doctors while "RAH RAHing" a fundamentally flawed and criminal war.

So what the fuck exactly is this? We can't stop Bush from illegally invading Iraq and next possibly Iran and we can't get the US out of Iraq so we may as well kick the shit out of some female activists who wear shocking pink outfits because...

Because that is the best we can fucking do?

Eat me!