dale blanker wrote:Reply in Bold.
baldeagle wrote:
In 2007 there was about 10,000 at the A.N.S.W.E.R. protest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_17, ... ar_protest
Wikipedia does not support your claim. Have you even read it???
dale blanker wrote:Anyway, thanks for protecting The Wall - I would too if I was sure the threat was real and not contrived to get attention.
It was not contrived. There were threats on anarchist and anti-war discussion forums and active plans to deface the Wall. The Gathering of Eagles was a grassroots reaction to that threat.
Defacing The Wall makes no sense for pacifists who are objecting to war. The memorials are honoring those who gave their lives and are not glorifying war. But of course there are some that will believe anything.
We stood in line, three abreast, waiting to get in to the Wall while the protesters marched past us, heads down, signs down and reversed so they couldn't be read until they passed us. There were vets there spoiling for a fight, and if one protester had said something, they would have been cold cocked right there.
Hmm, so those who fought and died for our freedoms, including the 1st amendment, would have been proud(?) Don't think so. If the media saw this threat and did not report it maybe the media was doing the country a favor.
If Wikipedia doesn't support a claim it must not be true.
There for sure haven't been any "pacifists" (except maybe Quakers) in the US since around November 2008, so unless they all magically disappeared by January 20th, 2009, then there weren't really any pacifists around this century, just some George Bush haters. This has to be the case because we all know that if there were any pacifists or war protesters they'd be all over the media, which of course, is completely objective, never lies, and does it's absolute best to paint an accurate picture of reality to ensure an informed populace for the benefit of the Republic.
You have be wandering through life with blinders on to believe otherwise, especially if you're a gun owner and take any interest in 2nd Amendment issues. For instance, how can anyone miss the fact that practically any public misuse of a gun, even one that doesn't result in causalities, is national news, whereas even heroic uses of a gun in legitimate self-defense are almost always only reported in the local news? And that's aside from the obvious manipulation in support of the liberal narrative and the general use of well documented propaganda techniques.