You guys did a great job of covering the Demonstation (see 20th Ann. Rolling Thunder events book mission statement) again, Great Job I hope you do the same thing next year.
The Veterans Administration with the assistance of federal agencies associated with money laundering had me forcibly injected and tortured. The same VA, the LA VA Weswood did forced experiments on vets in 1999. Never serve the regime. Never trust the VA. see Mobile Audit Club and saintrambone videos.
No, they weren't asked if the Bush administration is doing enough to help veterans, they were asked if "The Governement is doing enough to help POW's". The government, btw, includes Congress (now democratically controlled), not to mention a vast majority of non-political civil employees.
I'd say you're an optimist but that wasn't their intent - to push it off Bush and onto Congress. Don't you know it's "Bush's war" per the anti-war creeps?
If the Democrats don't support it--and ain't you guys constantly saying they don't--it's a Republican war. If we win, you get the credit and the Dems look really bad. If we lose, the Dems say they told you so & you guys get the blame.
That said, the war to which the videographers & Ryan are referring is Viet Nam... that's not Bush's war, no matter who you talk to.
I guess you miss all the quotes by Dems that compare the Iraq War to Vietnam? Quaqmire? And the modern-day Winter soliders pretending they were in Iraq. It's the anti-war asshats trying the same ol tricks and the Democrats backing them.
I don't miss 'em... I even agree with some of 'em... ...but I can still tell the difference between the two conflicts, anyway... The POW's of 'Nam and the occupation of Iraq have nothing to do with each other.
That said, neither is being handled all that well by either party... Soldiers deserve better.
Axon: If you were askin' me; No, I'm not pro-war, and have no intention of enlisting. I am pro-troops, pro-veterans, and pro-bringing everyone--POWs, MIAs, & current troops--back home, and treating them well when they get here. There should be no homeless, hungry vets in America. Every vet deserves whatever medical care s/he needs, both physical & mental. Such things shouldn't be a partisan issue.
I meant that Nodem2 idiot. Sorry I wasn't clearer. I'm a vet and I rode in Rolling Thunder, people like him irritate me - all hat and no cattle, as the Texans say.
That's why I support Rolling Thunder's mission, and don't want to see it get mixed up in pro- (or anti-) -war, -republican, -Bush partisan bullshit. What RT does in advocating for American veterans and the POWs & MIA's is too important to be diluted by any political party or other unrelated cause.
The poster of this video has as favorites a Hillary video and a Michael J Fox video. I'm against both..and it shows he/she leans far left in my opinion. And that's in addition to covering the anti-war freaks in January.
The "Hillary" video is actually a pro-Obama political ad that recreates a notorious Apple commercial from 1984. The Michael J. Fox video is a political ad that resonates unlike any other during the 2006 election season. They do not represent my liberal views, they are simply the most powerful campaign ads in the past two years, which is why they are on my favorites list. Furthermore, it's callous to label the anti-war protesters as "freaks," they are just a reflection of yourself.
So if what you say is true then you think the Fall Out Boys video is one of the greatest ads? LOL And I see you admit that you are liberal, which was no surprise to me.
Seems like the video person wanted controversy and did a lot of religious shots (you know, war supporters are wacked out religious nut cases). So I'm not sure I like this video at all. The real purpose of this commemoration seems to have been lost in the quest for another meaning - by a peace nut?
I didn't see it as lookin' for controversy, but as capturing as much of the flavor as possible...
I had forgotten that Rolling Thunder is really all about drawing attention to the POW-MIA cause, and like Memorial Day itself, isn't meant to be a political, war supporter, or even a veteran's rally. I hope their more recent associations don't muddy that message.
Some old & new media are using the RT vets & this rally for political purposes & making them out to be something they're not.
Christian groups and supporters were extremely prevalent at the Rally. All we did was videotape it.
I don't know if you actually watched "Why We Are At War in Iraq", but we gave almost equal interview time to the war supporters who were at that January rally even though they were severely outnumbered.
You're so focused on looking for a partisan battle you can't even see that our video benefits Rolling Thunder and their cause.
You're wrong. I'm a big supporter of Rolling Thunder and I think this video is trying to disparage them. Perhaps you didn't view the video carefully enough...there's a hidden anti-war message in it. Didn't the videographer say that the "pro-war" group were outnumbered 10,000 to 1? You need to review it more closely and stop thinking it's a tribute to R.T.
I'm half the team that made the videos so I reviewed them pretty damn carefully.
Whether my personal feelings are for or against war is irrelevant. I completely support Rolling Thunder's efforts to get the help for our veterans that our government promised them and never delivered.
The counterprotesters WERE outnumbered about 10,000 to 1. There were over 100,000 protesters and only a couple dozen counter protestors.
Don't put words into my mouth. Rolling Thunder voted for Bush because the alternative (Kerry) was unimaginable to them...I understand that and agree with that. But you seem to be convinced the videographer supports R.T. I'm not sure one of them does.
I don't believe I put any words into your mouth. (If I did, it wasn't intentional.)
I'm expressing my own thoughts, and yes, I do believe that this video has very little (if any) hidden message. Christianity (along with most mainstream religiosity) is not "nutty," and its inclusion doesn't paint anyone in a bad light.
How the hell did you come to this conclusion? All we did was videotape the presentations that were there. We didn't distort it in any way. You're the one that initially called Christianity nutty. In my opinion it's only you who sees it this way
I've always been a Rolling Thunder supporter, to the point that part of me still thinks the FReepers tricked them back in March with invented threats to the Wall, and that RT has no intention of becoming foot soldiers for any political party.
The recent alliance between RT & GoE is going to end up damaging the intent & reputation of both groups. Sad, especially for RT.
Liberals hate it when the patriot groups decided to get together for the cause of supporting the troops against anti-war idiots who defaced government buildings. And you act surprised that they freaks wouldn't do it again at the wall? They said they would so the Freepers had zero to do with it except to join with RT and GoE to support the troops.
I know of no govt buildings were defaced. (If you do, please be more specific.) The Capital police ALLOWED some Black Blocers to spraypaint steps in January. It was all cleaned up & no one was arrested. (watch?v=PwbudsVNlBU)
There was one threat on one anarchist website, and there is some question as to whether it was made by a troll... or a winger plant. Either way, the police easily could've handled it.
well, the word was given from higher than the police to let the anarchists deface the Capitol steps. Taxpayer money wasted on fools in my opinion. Of course the anarchists would say it was a right-wing plant...lol! And what if the police got orders from "on high" again to let them spray paint the wall? You'd be okay with that?
Many (& not just anarchists) are saying it could've been a plant... I just think that it wouldn't've taken much time for the police to've tracked this single threat down & stopped it, rather than getting a bunch of vets out for a political counterprotest with vague illusions to vandalism...
I'm sorry... That wasn't what I meant when I asked whether you had proof... I was questioning your claim that there were orders from on high for the police to allow the black bloc kids to spraypaint the steps. I hadn't heard that anywhere before.
No one has any proof as to who put that one threat on that one website. My contention is that the police should've found out in the weeks before the March 17 demo.
I don't believe there were or would be any such orders from on high to allow real vandalism to the Wall or any other structure.
I believe that the police don't need (& shouldn't allow) folks to deputize themselves to prevent crimes. It sets a dangerous precident, and when someone gets hurt, I predict a significant lawsuit against the police department & city that allows it to happen.
You believe that someone with authority over the Capitol Police department would instruct their officers to allow people to deface the Viet Nam War Memorial?!?!
I have more faith in American Law & Order than that. I trust cops and lawyers to do their jobs for the people.
Yes, it is a blessing. But when they allow their group & their Memorial Day rally to get tied in with support for this (or any) military mission, this (or any) president, or either political party, they dilute the original mission that brought them out for the last twenty years and make them just another partisan political gathering.
I don't know if you were there or were watching on TV, but I saw NO signs of mixing pro-troop support with their standard Memorial Day message of find/recover the MIA and supporting better benefits for Vets. But many vets also support present-day soldiers so the same things that happened to them by anti-war protestors doesn't happen to current day soldiers. That is two separate messages and they don't have to mix. They can be separate.
I disagree. Even after their first joint rally, those who inhabit my side of the political spectrum were beginning to question their support for RT. (Somewhere there's a vid of the March protest where I defended RT against what I thought at the time to be unfair scorn for partisan views.) The more often they do these joint apearances, the worse it'll get, and the more their non-partisan message gets muddled.
In fact, I've seen some idiots arguing that there are no more POW-MIAs left, anyway... (Check the comments on the recent WaPo article.) Some might look on their teaming with GoE & actively becoming more pro-Republican, pro-Iraq war as some kind of tacit admission that their current focus is out of date or unnecessary.
You might not have said "Bush" but you said "pro-Republican and pro-Iraq" which I guess are your code words for Bush? Your true meaning came through loud and clear, trust me.
I'm not denying being anti-Bush, so I'm not sure what you're proving... Whatever my "code words" (& since it's your side politically, you're welcome to choose your own "code words" if you're unhappy with mine), I don't want RT to become a partisan political group. Not a Republican group, a Democratic group, a Libertarian group or a Green group.
So did you vote for Kerry if you are so pro-RT? You know the RT hate Kerry. Kerry helped to destroy all records of U.S. POWs in Vare a ietnam. So? Did you? Your answer will reveal whether you are a Democrat or a RT supporter FIRST.
Well, I voted for Nader, cause I thought both Bush & Kerry pretty much sucked... (Same for Bush/Gore, actually.) That, and I most support the GP platform, and think most Green candidates do, as well. (I don't think the same can be said of either major party's candidates, generally.)
I'm many things, but a partisan Dem isn't one of them.
Now is the time to remember, to realize, that those who die in support of their nation, either, soldier, enemy or victim, do so with the express intent of securing peace for all nations, and it is this effort that the living hold the soul responsibility to actively achieve, through the strength, unity and peaceful change offered by the dawn of this precious tomorrow so costly secured . . .
You guys did a great job of covering the Demonstation (see 20th Ann. Rolling Thunder events book mission statement) again, Great Job I hope you do the same thing next year.
S/F
CplFattig 4 years ago
The Veterans Administration with the assistance of federal agencies associated with money laundering had me forcibly injected and tortured. The same VA, the LA VA Weswood did forced experiments on vets in 1999. Never serve the regime. Never trust the VA. see Mobile Audit Club and saintrambone videos.
saintrambone 4 years ago
I have a feeling, though, that whenever you are talking to a special interest group, nothing is ever "enough" for their cause.
RyanControl 4 years ago
No, they weren't asked if the Bush administration is doing enough to help veterans, they were asked if "The Governement is doing enough to help POW's". The government, btw, includes Congress (now democratically controlled), not to mention a vast majority of non-political civil employees.
RyanControl 4 years ago
I'd say you're an optimist but that wasn't their intent - to push it off Bush and onto Congress. Don't you know it's "Bush's war" per the anti-war creeps?
nodem2 4 years ago
If the Democrats don't support it--and ain't you guys constantly saying they don't--it's a Republican war. If we win, you get the credit and the Dems look really bad. If we lose, the Dems say they told you so & you guys get the blame.
That said, the war to which the videographers & Ryan are referring is Viet Nam... that's not Bush's war, no matter who you talk to.
repsac3 4 years ago
I guess you miss all the quotes by Dems that compare the Iraq War to Vietnam? Quaqmire? And the modern-day Winter soliders pretending they were in Iraq. It's the anti-war asshats trying the same ol tricks and the Democrats backing them.
nodem2 4 years ago
I don't miss 'em... I even agree with some of 'em... ...but I can still tell the difference between the two conflicts, anyway... The POW's of 'Nam and the occupation of Iraq have nothing to do with each other.
That said, neither is being handled all that well by either party... Soldiers deserve better.
repsac3 4 years ago
So, Pro War are you? Fine, so when's your enlistment date? You joining the Army, Navy, Marines or Air Force?
axonneuron 4 years ago
Axon: If you were askin' me; No, I'm not pro-war, and have no intention of enlisting. I am pro-troops, pro-veterans, and pro-bringing everyone--POWs, MIAs, & current troops--back home, and treating them well when they get here. There should be no homeless, hungry vets in America. Every vet deserves whatever medical care s/he needs, both physical & mental. Such things shouldn't be a partisan issue.
repsac3 4 years ago
I meant that Nodem2 idiot. Sorry I wasn't clearer. I'm a vet and I rode in Rolling Thunder, people like him irritate me - all hat and no cattle, as the Texans say.
axonneuron 4 years ago
That's why I support Rolling Thunder's mission, and don't want to see it get mixed up in pro- (or anti-) -war, -republican, -Bush partisan bullshit. What RT does in advocating for American veterans and the POWs & MIA's is too important to be diluted by any political party or other unrelated cause.
repsac3 4 years ago
When you enlisting?
axonneuron 4 years ago
The poster of this video has as favorites a Hillary video and a Michael J Fox video. I'm against both..and it shows he/she leans far left in my opinion. And that's in addition to covering the anti-war freaks in January.
nodem2 4 years ago
The "Hillary" video is actually a pro-Obama political ad that recreates a notorious Apple commercial from 1984. The Michael J. Fox video is a political ad that resonates unlike any other during the 2006 election season. They do not represent my liberal views, they are simply the most powerful campaign ads in the past two years, which is why they are on my favorites list. Furthermore, it's callous to label the anti-war protesters as "freaks," they are just a reflection of yourself.
jmans08 4 years ago
As an anti-war protester, I don't want to be anyone's reflection, thanks. 8>)
repsac3 4 years ago
So if what you say is true then you think the Fall Out Boys video is one of the greatest ads? LOL And I see you admit that you are liberal, which was no surprise to me.
nodem2 4 years ago
Seems like the video person wanted controversy and did a lot of religious shots (you know, war supporters are wacked out religious nut cases). So I'm not sure I like this video at all. The real purpose of this commemoration seems to have been lost in the quest for another meaning - by a peace nut?
nodem2 4 years ago
I didn't see it as lookin' for controversy, but as capturing as much of the flavor as possible...
I had forgotten that Rolling Thunder is really all about drawing attention to the POW-MIA cause, and like Memorial Day itself, isn't meant to be a political, war supporter, or even a veteran's rally. I hope their more recent associations don't muddy that message.
Some old & new media are using the RT vets & this rally for political purposes & making them out to be something they're not.
repsac3 4 years ago
Look at the poster's favorites: Why are we at War
is one of them. He's a anti-war loser!
nodem2 4 years ago
Christian groups and supporters were extremely prevalent at the Rally. All we did was videotape it.
I don't know if you actually watched "Why We Are At War in Iraq", but we gave almost equal interview time to the war supporters who were at that January rally even though they were severely outnumbered.
You're so focused on looking for a partisan battle you can't even see that our video benefits Rolling Thunder and their cause.
jerbear250 4 years ago
You're wrong. I'm a big supporter of Rolling Thunder and I think this video is trying to disparage them. Perhaps you didn't view the video carefully enough...there's a hidden anti-war message in it. Didn't the videographer say that the "pro-war" group were outnumbered 10,000 to 1? You need to review it more closely and stop thinking it's a tribute to R.T.
nodem2 4 years ago
I'm half the team that made the videos so I reviewed them pretty damn carefully.
Whether my personal feelings are for or against war is irrelevant. I completely support Rolling Thunder's efforts to get the help for our veterans that our government promised them and never delivered.
The counterprotesters WERE outnumbered about 10,000 to 1. There were over 100,000 protesters and only a couple dozen counter protestors.
jerbear250 4 years ago
that is at the January antiwar protest we covered in "Why We Are At War In Iraq" where the counter protesters were severely outnumbered.
jerbear250 4 years ago
Well, I suppose you'd consider me an "anti-war loser" too ...
I want Rolling Thunder to continue to be about the veterans and their issues, and not remade into some kinda pro-war, pro-Republican rally.
Up till recently, Rolling Thunder's message & purpose was as non-partisan as Memorial Day, itself.
repsac3 4 years ago
Don't put words into my mouth. Rolling Thunder voted for Bush because the alternative (Kerry) was unimaginable to them...I understand that and agree with that. But you seem to be convinced the videographer supports R.T. I'm not sure one of them does.
nodem2 4 years ago
I don't believe I put any words into your mouth. (If I did, it wasn't intentional.)
I'm expressing my own thoughts, and yes, I do believe that this video has very little (if any) hidden message. Christianity (along with most mainstream religiosity) is not "nutty," and its inclusion doesn't paint anyone in a bad light.
repsac3 4 years ago
I wholehearted agree that Christianity is not nutty. But one of the videographers is trying to make that point in my opinion.
nodem2 4 years ago
How the hell did you come to this conclusion? All we did was videotape the presentations that were there. We didn't distort it in any way. You're the one that initially called Christianity nutty. In my opinion it's only you who sees it this way
jerbear250 4 years ago
I've always been a Rolling Thunder supporter, to the point that part of me still thinks the FReepers tricked them back in March with invented threats to the Wall, and that RT has no intention of becoming foot soldiers for any political party.
The recent alliance between RT & GoE is going to end up damaging the intent & reputation of both groups. Sad, especially for RT.
repsac3 4 years ago
Liberals hate it when the patriot groups decided to get together for the cause of supporting the troops against anti-war idiots who defaced government buildings. And you act surprised that they freaks wouldn't do it again at the wall? They said they would so the Freepers had zero to do with it except to join with RT and GoE to support the troops.
nodem2 4 years ago
I know of no govt buildings were defaced. (If you do, please be more specific.) The Capital police ALLOWED some Black Blocers to spraypaint steps in January. It was all cleaned up & no one was arrested. (watch?v=PwbudsVNlBU)
There was one threat on one anarchist website, and there is some question as to whether it was made by a troll... or a winger plant. Either way, the police easily could've handled it.
repsac3 4 years ago
well, the word was given from higher than the police to let the anarchists deface the Capitol steps. Taxpayer money wasted on fools in my opinion. Of course the anarchists would say it was a right-wing plant...lol! And what if the police got orders from "on high" again to let them spray paint the wall? You'd be okay with that?
nodem2 4 years ago
Orders from on high? You have proof of this?
Many (& not just anarchists) are saying it could've been a plant... I just think that it wouldn't've taken much time for the police to've tracked this single threat down & stopped it, rather than getting a bunch of vets out for a political counterprotest with vague illusions to vandalism...
repsac3 4 years ago
I have as much proof of this as you have that a right-wing plant put that message on the Web site.
nodem2 4 years ago
I'm sorry... That wasn't what I meant when I asked whether you had proof... I was questioning your claim that there were orders from on high for the police to allow the black bloc kids to spraypaint the steps. I hadn't heard that anywhere before.
repsac3 4 years ago
No one has any proof as to who put that one threat on that one website. My contention is that the police should've found out in the weeks before the March 17 demo.
repsac3 4 years ago
I don't believe there were or would be any such orders from on high to allow real vandalism to the Wall or any other structure.
I believe that the police don't need (& shouldn't allow) folks to deputize themselves to prevent crimes. It sets a dangerous precident, and when someone gets hurt, I predict a significant lawsuit against the police department & city that allows it to happen.
repsac3 4 years ago
You don't believe it but I do. I wouldn't put anything that despicable past that group of loonies. Lawsuits are for loonies also.
nodem2 4 years ago
You believe that someone with authority over the Capitol Police department would instruct their officers to allow people to deface the Viet Nam War Memorial?!?!
I have more faith in American Law & Order than that. I trust cops and lawyers to do their jobs for the people.
repsac3 4 years ago
The FReepers pretty much are the same bunch as GoE, which is fine by me... Protest in support of the troops & the mission everyday, for all I care...
But the RT I supported was all about the vets, and not a partisan group... It's a shame if they're changing that after all these years.
repsac3 4 years ago
I'm not disagreeing...their original mission of bringing home every POW and MIA is a blessing.
nodem2 4 years ago
Yes, it is a blessing. But when they allow their group & their Memorial Day rally to get tied in with support for this (or any) military mission, this (or any) president, or either political party, they dilute the original mission that brought them out for the last twenty years and make them just another partisan political gathering.
repsac3 4 years ago
I don't know if you were there or were watching on TV, but I saw NO signs of mixing pro-troop support with their standard Memorial Day message of find/recover the MIA and supporting better benefits for Vets. But many vets also support present-day soldiers so the same things that happened to them by anti-war protestors doesn't happen to current day soldiers. That is two separate messages and they don't have to mix. They can be separate.
nodem2 4 years ago
I disagree. Even after their first joint rally, those who inhabit my side of the political spectrum were beginning to question their support for RT. (Somewhere there's a vid of the March protest where I defended RT against what I thought at the time to be unfair scorn for partisan views.) The more often they do these joint apearances, the worse it'll get, and the more their non-partisan message gets muddled.
repsac3 4 years ago
In fact, I've seen some idiots arguing that there are no more POW-MIAs left, anyway... (Check the comments on the recent WaPo article.) Some might look on their teaming with GoE & actively becoming more pro-Republican, pro-Iraq war as some kind of tacit admission that their current focus is out of date or unnecessary.
repsac3 4 years ago
I think you are grabbing at anti-Bush straws.
nodem2 4 years ago
My straws are all about being pro-Rolling Thunder, and not wanting to see them lose focus or support.
(I can be anti-Bush anytime, but this ain't one of 'those times. I've barely mentioned Bush or anything about him.)
repsac3 4 years ago
You might not have said "Bush" but you said "pro-Republican and pro-Iraq" which I guess are your code words for Bush? Your true meaning came through loud and clear, trust me.
nodem2 4 years ago
I'm not denying being anti-Bush, so I'm not sure what you're proving... Whatever my "code words" (& since it's your side politically, you're welcome to choose your own "code words" if you're unhappy with mine), I don't want RT to become a partisan political group. Not a Republican group, a Democratic group, a Libertarian group or a Green group.
I cannot be more clear.
repsac3 4 years ago
So did you vote for Kerry if you are so pro-RT? You know the RT hate Kerry. Kerry helped to destroy all records of U.S. POWs in Vare a ietnam. So? Did you? Your answer will reveal whether you are a Democrat or a RT supporter FIRST.
nodem2 4 years ago
Well, I voted for Nader, cause I thought both Bush & Kerry pretty much sucked... (Same for Bush/Gore, actually.) That, and I most support the GP platform, and think most Green candidates do, as well. (I don't think the same can be said of either major party's candidates, generally.)
I'm many things, but a partisan Dem isn't one of them.
I'm not even much of a partisan Green.
Doubt that helps, but there you go...
repsac3 4 years ago
Now is the time to remember, to realize, that those who die in support of their nation, either, soldier, enemy or victim, do so with the express intent of securing peace for all nations, and it is this effort that the living hold the soul responsibility to actively achieve, through the strength, unity and peaceful change offered by the dawn of this precious tomorrow so costly secured . . .
BL*M
PeaceProfit 4 years ago