SURRENDER IS NOT AN OPTION

When Move America Forward asked if they could use my son's picture for an ad, I was honored. The message on the poster and print ad is "Surrender Is Not an Option!" These would have been Derek's very words. Because of my son, I continue the fight. Will you please help? Speaker Pelosi is guilty of many things, but mainly abandoning our troops. She continues to say that "America has spoken." I'm not sure who she is listening to, but it is not my voice or the voice of my son's. I will join Move America Forward in San Francisco on Thursday morning, outside Nancy Pelosi's office so that she can hear my voice. Will you please join us? If you can't please pass this message on to supportive groups in that area. We need Patriot Guard, Veterans, good Rupublicans, and good Americans. We need people who want to continue to support our troops. Please join Melonie Morgan, Gold Star father, Joseph Williams, John Ubaldi and myself and let our voices be heard. We owe this much to our troops with boots on the ground and those that have made the ultimate sacrifice to this country! See time and place at MoveAmericaForward.com Thank you, Debbie Argel Bastian Proud mother of Capt. Derek Argel, USAF Combat Control Deployed to heaven, Memorial Day, 2005

"jazusamo" said --

WOW!! I'm impressed. Do spam posts have any meaning if no one reads them? :-)

LOL...

You know..., I'm often reminded of "Newspeak" when I see political conversations. In fact, I see "Newspeak" more and more these days.

And Newspeak is alive and well on Free Republic, too, as it seems to cross all political boundaries, and all disciplines. So, when I see "Support the troops" in light of what I was saying in my above post (Fifth Point) it starts sounding more and more like Newspeak. It starts to fall into the category of other Orwellian Newspeak phrases, such as "Ignorance is Strength," "Freedom is Slavery," and "War is Peace -- all of such phrases being amazingly valid here on Free Republic, too (as I just contemplated them...)." Of course not everyone engages in this, but a certain some of Free Republic does.

Mind you, this prevails in all of the political process, it seems. And whenever someone strives to get out of "Newspeak" and go to "Oldspeak" for clarity of thought and to sharpen the issues involved, the calls become strident for "Newspeak" to be spoken here -- only! -- "Support the Troops."

And so, by "framing the conversation" at the very beginning, one seeks to accomplish what is accomplished in "Newspeak," of George Orwell fame, in which it was supposed to be impossible to think any "thoughtcrime" if there weren't any words for it. Thus, if one cannot voice or say any other words, or do any other analysis, other than the false linkage of a particular policy (of the U.S. Government) being particularly in "support of the troops" while another policy is being "against the troops" -- it certainly seems that Newspeak has crept in very strongly into these discussions.

So, it goes also when using certain words as "whiney" or (like you say) "spam" or any number of other words and phrases with the intent of framing the argument before any thought has the capability of even being entertained in one's mind. "If you don't have the words for it (or as in here, you can't speak the words), then it's impossible to think any differently (or "say" any differently).

All that contributes to is a denial of reality, just as it was in George Orwell's book of 1984....

It's very interesting to see this process at work on Free Republic.

Regards,
Star Traveler

"mimaw" said --

He’s been living in Oregon. They all tilt left in Oregon.

Well, obviously you haven't been keeping up with my posts recently, have you? You missed the ones where I was talking about the tornadoes in Dallas and in Tulsa, didn't you? Well, of course you did, or you wouldn't have been saying that.

But, actually, I'm an Okie, in Texas, having some connections to Oregon (having been there, too). I'm currently in Texas and have been for a while, having lived in Texas for many years (a long time ago, too) and have been here for a while, recently (a few years).

I'll probably end up in Oklahoma, as that's where I'm from originally. And I've still got stuff in Oregon, so I'll be picking that up and then back down to this part of the country again.

However, what this really represents, is what I was saying in the previous post, talking about "Newspeak". This is another half-way example of it, in that it's supposed to be giving people a way to "frame" their thought processes before they even think about something. The issues don't matter any more, as long as you can "frame it" the way you want at first -- then there is no more "thinking" involved.

That's why you find a lot of references here to liberals, and conservatives, and support the troops and left and right and..., well, you name it. You can find it all here on Free Republic. The idea is the same as is presented in 1984 (by George Orwell), in that it doesn't matter what you're yelling and screaming for, as long as y'all are doing it together using Newspeak. Next year, everyone will be yelling about a completely different and very much possibly, an opposite thing. But, no one will know or understand that, because Newspeak is cast in only supoort or opposition and only in black and white, with no understanding of any other issues.

You can take a look at the idea of "support the troops" and how people have put a wrong linkage in there, which causes a denial of reality, that is evident on a lot of threads that pop up with this.

I must say that Free Republic does make a good case study for Newspeak. It's very interesting...

Regards,
Star Traveler

"The Spirit Of Allegiance" said --

Thanks for the concern about the eternal salvation of souls. Sin IS at the heart of the matter. However, resolving aggressive, national/terrorist sin in an imperfect world must include application of the Biblical passages that those who can, MUST stand up for the weak and defenseless.

There was only one reason to put that part in there about Salvation, which is provided by Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, who was and is sent by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- and that was to put the death (of anyone) into God's perspective and also to take it out of an "policy issue" of the United States Government.

First and foremost there is something much more to be concerned about in "death" and that is what is called the "Second Death" in the lake of fire, as told to us in Revelation 20. That is for all those who are unsaved, and that is "unsaved" by means of the only salvation that there is, as the Bible tells us that there is no one else (other than the Messiah of Israel) who may save anyone from their sins (no other religion and no other god and no other faith).

Therefore, when one is contemplating and considering the death of anyone, that salvation of Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, is of paramount concern. It has nothing to do with policy of the U.S. or the government's role in restraining and/or punishing evil doers or acting for the good of the people over which it governs.

So, don't take it any further (as far as I was concerned) about policy, about the government, about anything else -- other than the personal salvation of the individual. And that came at the head of the list as one of the most important things.

I regret that you escalated your answer to 'so many levels' and hijacked the thread with what, frankly, reads almost as a verbose cut-and-run apologetic.

Well, first of all, look around on this thread and look around on a few other threads. There's not too many people accusing me of "cutting and running" when I post on a thread. LOL...

Most of my posts are really in direct response to something else that has already been raised here, prior to my post. In fact, what you'll see is that I usually put in my posts the actual quote that my direct responses are for, which helps the reader see that I'm actually directly responding to something, as opposed to bringing in a foreign and outside idea that was never expressed in the thread in the first place. It always relates to the quoted portion.

How about standing with an American Flag somewhere in honor of our Armed Forces this weekend?

I put my flags out and wave them, too. I even go to the national cemeteries, as there are some people there that I know. I'll probably be going to another cemetery in Tulsa, when it comes up to the day or remembrance coming up soon.

And, all that does not take away from or add to -- whatever the comments are here. These comments can stand on their own, with their own manner of speech and/or persuasion or whatever way someone wants to take them.

Regards,
Star Traveler

"Brad's Gramma" said --

Mr. Traveler...you do NOT know StarCMC very well, do you?

Well, that's the first time that anyone has ever said that I was supposed to be introduced or get to know someone before posting comments. Did they just start that rule? All I've ever done in the past many years on Free Republic is respond strictly to statements and ideas, never having any idea in the slightest, who the people were behind those ideas.

As far as I'm concerned, ideas are what speaks here, on Free Republic, in terms of policy issues and the other subjects that we discuss.

Your insults are....pithy.

Those are not what I would call insults. That's what I would call a description of a "mindset". And it is an appropriate description of a mindset from the post that was given -- in response to a comment made prior to that, for which he was replying.

It's a really simple process, actually. It goes like this... (1) I make a comment about a political issue, (2) StarCMC makes a comment about my political statement, (3) I respond with a description of the worldview that he's representing by his comment.

It couldn't be much simpler than that. Just think "ping-pong ball" going back and forth...

Support the troops, will ya? They are individual men and women who are deserving of such.

Ah, I take it that you're falling into the same false linkage of "support the troops" that I was speaking about in the above post (Fifth Point). I see you missed it...

From that you see that the troops are supported in all that they do, in regards to whatever the policy of the government is, at the time. That's because they are supported as a separate issue from policy, since they do not form the policy but only carry it out.

In fact, I'm sure that I'll continue supporting the troops when they execute the policy of the U.S. Government to withdraw from Iraq, too.

Now, on the other hand, the questions relating to the policy of the U.S. government in Iraq are quite another matter and that's open for discussion, apart from anything to do with the troops. That's one where there's lot of room for discussion.

Regards,
Star Traveler

"Star Traveler" said --

You need to be talking in terms of whatever policy that is set up as succeeding or failing.

Then "StarCMC" said --

And you need to quit telling everyone else what to do.

Now that one is what I would call a real "Laugh-a-minute" -- especially here on Free Republic. It's a real laugh, considering that this very thread is doing that very thing. It's saying what people should do or tell certain Congessmen. Just look at the ad in Post #9. Go to the web site and it's telling people what they should do in regards to our government (i.e., what to tell them). It's telling people what to do in regards to the Congressmen (tell them this or that).

On this very thread, I've already got many posts telling me exactly what to do.

So, now you come up and say, "And you need to quit telling everyone else what to do." -- which you probably missed the "fact" that you were doing exactly what you were telling me not to do. Isn't that a mind twister.

That's why I LAUGHED-OUT-LOUD the second I saw that. Thanks for the hearty laugh. It must have been a joke, I'm sure...!

I find your tone and your insinuations incredibly insulting. As for my usage of "whiny droppings" - trust me - it was used out of respect for the owner of this site.

Okay, I think I've got it now. In other words, if it weren't for respect for the "owner of this site" -- you would be getting incredibly insulting yourself, right? Well..., don't let me hold you back. I would not want to restrain your natural instincts.

As far as your perceptions in my "tone" and "insinusations" -- well..., all I can say is thank goodness I don't have to worry about someone else's perceptions as I go through life. I'm only concerned about how I state things. If my statements are taken as "incredibly insulting" -- hmmm..., all I can say is get better control over yourself. It doesn't pay to harbor bad feelings.

What I said stands and it stands on its own and within the words as stated. If someone doesn't like them, they'll just have to live with it.

THIS THREAD was posted by a Gold Star mom who is going to address Nancy Pelosi's abandonment of the troops AND their mission. You hit this thread and started with predictions of doom...

And is anyone stopping anyone from posting here? Did I miss something?

Furthermore, you'll notice that you're engaging in that very thing I was talking about in Post #42 in regards to "Newspeak".

You see, there's the immediate "framing" comment by saying "abandonment of the troops". Then there's the "hit this thread". And following up with "predictions of doom".

Well, heck..., you know..., with those three phrases, I don't even have to know what the topic is about -- I just know from those phrases that I want nothing to do with it, no matter what it's about, because whoever is doing that is a really bad person...

You see..., that's how Newspeak works and how "framing the argument" works when commenting or replying. And that's all that is going on here. There's no discussion of the issue, no realization or understanding of the concept that the troops merely follow U.S. Government policy, and to the extent they follow it, they are successful. And also, no understanding that the policy may change and often does change with different political parties in power, as is happening now. And then, no understanding of when the policy does change to withdrawal from Iraq -- the troops will be just as successful in withdrawing as they've been in carrying out their present duties.

It has nothing at all to do with supporting the troops, in discussing the policies of the U.S. Government and discussing what the public is doing in shifting their viewpoint on staying in Iraq or not. What this does -- with the "linkage" that some FReepers want to attach to "policy" being directly related to "supporting the troops" -- is contribute to a denial of reality.

And lastly, so-called "predictions of doom" are simply that methodology of "Newspeak" in which someone says you cannot examine the consequences of policy and determine what happens if another and possibly bad policy is enacted. Apparently to even discuss a bad policy that will be coming about soon, is to succumb to "predictions of doom" -- instead of being able to engage in anything intelligent.

"Star Traveler" said --

And then, it's also very apparent that there are significant numbers of Americans who are now starting to say, "It's enough in Iraq; time to get out!" That's being heard, too. And so, "the handwriting is on the wall" and the pull-out is probably going to start by around the elections of 2008. There are going to be a number of Republicans who will join in on getting that date set up for the beginning of withdrawal in Iraq, because they'll want to trade that off for getting re-elected.

Then "StarCMC" said --

It is NOT apparent to me. What IS apparent is that the media can bend and twist anything they want to say whatever they want. You can find a statistic to "prove" anything you want. It doesn't make it truth. The handwriting you see on the wall is your own screed. The rest of us are too busy doing something about the state of things to spend time reading what you've scrawled.

I suspect it is apparent to you, because what I've found out that the more apparent that something is going to happen against one's better judgement, the more excited they get about the topic. Soon, the discussion becomes very shrill and filled with accusations.

Thus, my estimation, in reading these kinds of threads is that the people here are definitely getting the sinking feeling that this is indeed about to happen and they are getting more upset about it.

Now, here is what is going to make it "the truth" for you. See what the elections of 2008 brings. I believe you're going to be seeing people coming out of the woodwork, screaming for withdrawal, to the point where politicians are going to fear for their "political lives" and are going to get on the bandwagon for the beginning of the withdrawal from Iraq.

So, I'll keep talking about what I see coming, and you can simply wait to see the "truth of the matter" when the 2008 elections come up.

And as far as "doing something" about the state of things, well..., you can write, call, wave flags, and do all sorts of nice and whatever-else you want. But, the fact of the matter is -- when public opinion shifts and it shows itself in elections -- your posturing will do you no good other than for you to say, "I tried something." That's about it....

Regards,
Star Traveler

"The Spirit Of Allegiance" said --

Proverbs 12:18
There is one who speaks rashly like the thrusts of a sword,
But the tongue of the wise brings healing.

Well, fortunately for me, I have to do this slowly. So, that makes stuff here not so rash, as it could possibly be, if someone was just pounding the keyboard back in an instant. With me, I think it through and post the analysis of the matter, along with whatever other thoughts I have. I've seen "rash" on these boards, and believe me, there's nothing rash about those statements related to the fact that "support the troops" has nothing to do with the "policy of the U.S. Government," and especially not, if and when it changes. Those are two separate matters. And it's the confusion over the matter, with several others here on this board, which contributes to a lot of the rash replies that do come back.

What's going to come out of this is that there are going to be a lot of mad people, commiserating with one another, on this board, come around the elections of 2008, when it gets to be really clear that there is no way that the politics of the country is going to sustain any further involvement in Iraq and the withdrawal will start. The only question then will be how hasty it will be. And there will be a lot of back-biting at that time, I'm sure. It's all coming down the road...

Proverbs 29:9
When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man,
The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest.

Well, I'm seen the "rage moments" here on the board, that's for sure. It usually comes in the form of "support the troops" but gets mixed up in the fact that the U.S. Government policy is about to change and withdrawal is about to happen. So, the rage comes out of the fact of that confusion of the two, unable to separate one from the other and "support the troops" -- in all policies, no matter whether it's withdrawal or staying. The one has nothing to do with the other. But, the rage comes anyway, it seems...

Aside from that, I've had my "laugh-out-loud" moments, reading some of these comments and seeing how misguided they are. There a few laughing moments, that's for sure...

Psalm 122:8
For the sake of my brothers and my friends,
I will now say, “ May peace be within you.”

And that one would be a good one to take, once the withdrawal of the troops from Iraq happens. Those who will be inclined to rage and anger because of it, will need to take that one to heart. I wonder if they will?

Then "StarCMC" said --

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet.

Well, I can certainly see one big problem here, if someone is trying to attribute some U.S. Government policy to something from God and is "holy". I've hardly ever seen anything come out of the U.S. Government that would be considered "holy" in the sense that God is. That's a real big mistake that some people will make, thinking that their government equates to the holiness of God.

In fact, in the Bible we see that God is going to take every nation on the face of this earth (and that includes the United States) and condemn it for their evil ways. God says He's going to judge every nation on the face of this earth. Some Bible scholars even say that the U.S. does not even exist anymore, because it gets destroyed before the time of the Tribulation. So much for "holiness". But, I personally don't think that's the case (just saying what some Bible scholars say).

In any case, we can never take a single government policy of any kind and attribute it anywhere near the holiness of God. Government is of the making of mankind, and although God has instituted certain rulers and governments for the restraining of evil, as we see in Romans (by the Apostle Paul), the governments of the world (and also of the United States) are not doing a very good job of that and seem more to promote evil than restrain it.

This is very much so in the United States, that's for sure. In fact, it was one of the members of the Graham family (of Billy Graham's family; can't remember which one) who said that if God does not judge the United States of America for its sins, then God is going to owe an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah. And that's very true. That's why the judgement from God will be coming, at some time in the not so distant future.

Regards,
Star Traveler

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.