Word.

Reminds me of Adbusters: http://www.adbusters.org/home/

It's definitely a start.

Wow-in Richmond, my home town, essentially. THAT's a statement; Richmond's a fairly conservative burg.

Wonder what me mostly Republican family thinks about this?

What are people thinking in Richmond or anywhere? Let me ask, how would you react to a prominent billboard being defaced to express a conservative/pro-war message? Would you consider that a "start"? My feeling is that those opposed to the war will say, "Yeah!" to the billboard pictured above, while those on the other side will be further galvanized in their opinions. While flashy, I can't help feeling that this kind of message is polarizing more than anything else, just more anonymous sound and fury.

Let me ask, how would you react to a prominent billboard being defaced to express a conservative/pro-war message?

They have rich people to pay for that kind of thing(ever notice a giant "we support the troops" billboard near you?) That way young republicans can spend their time in internships learning to defraud people when they grow up.

What DID the ad say?

Yes, it's good that you can cheer outright treason like that. Bravo.

Let me ask, how would you react to a prominent billboard being defaced to express a conservative/pro-war message?

Your question is too vague. Any bulletin advertising for the Armed Forces can be considered 'pro war' (and perhaps Conservative since Liberals hate the military).

But an ad defaced to display a war-mongering message, such as 'kill them all', would of course be reprehensible. We both know that; the difference is that I understand that this does not justify or excuse the opposite.

'End the occupation' assumes and supports the viewpoint of the enemy. That is the definition of treason. Any argumentation you make for it is nothing but an attempt to obfuscate that fact.

"Liberals hate the military" - nope - sorry, that statement is just wrong.

Secondly, I think in this case, "end the occupation" supports an anti-Bush government policy. To those of us paying attention, Bush has been an enemy to America, the Constitution and the American government for almost eight years....so, I just don't see where this is treason.

And last - this is an advertisement. It is not sacrosanct. It is probably messing with the words of Idea City - the agency of record who recently lost the Chili's account (and I think WalMart, too...)....

"End the occupation' assumes and supports the viewpoint of the enemy. That is the definition of treason. Any argumentation you make for it is nothing but an attempt to obfuscate that fact."

Not necessarily; the invasion and occupation is considered by many to be illegal. It could easily be construed as 'stop breaking the law'. Seeing it in the context of protesting something someone sees as illegal can not be considered treasonous. I see America like my child, I always love her, even if she disappoints and infuriates me occasionally. I love America, it's Americans with whom I have the problem.

Drove by last night, BTW, it's now a Red Cross billboard.

Wonder what me mostly Republican family thinks about this?

Rhetorical question: I know what they think, cause they helped put Bush and Co. in office both times.

What DID the ad say?

Occupancy and maybe something else. ocgii - do you know? Now that it's down and all.

'End the occupation' assumes and supports the viewpoint of the enemy.

Are you Dick Cheney?

As ocgiii already noted, many in this country feel that our current war/occupation/quagmire is at least wrong, or worse, an illegal disaster.

Giving intelligence to Al Quaeda would be treason. Suggesting out occupation is wrong is not. It is an opinion.

You can argue that the defacement is vandalism. That would be accurate and stand up in a court of law.

As ocgiii already noted, many in this country feel that our current war/occupation/quagmire is at least wrong, or worse, an illegal disaster.

When emotion changes the definition of a word, that will be a relevant argument. Until then, the fact that it's treason is not in any way mitigated by polls.

As a side note, it was also treason when Jane Fonda posed on the AA gun in Vietnam.

The statement in question endorses the viewpoint of an enemy who is actively engaged in the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilian, to occasionally kill one of the soldiers you infrequently claim to support (while opposing the war, of course). You're actively rooting for the defeat of your country - that is what being against a war means.

If having that pointed out to you makes you uncomfortable, perhaps you should re-evaluate your ideology.

You're actively rooting for the defeat of your country - that is what being against a war means.

Huh?

Ah yes, the great war hero, caligraph. Veteran of countless internet battles as an anonymous warrior for the right. A staunch opponent of billboard defacers and tireless defender of America’s war in Iraq, but strictly on symbolic and philosophical terms—actual military service can just get too messy what with the bombs and the bullets and the blood and the death (this last part to be read in your best Professor Frink voice).

'End the occupation' assumes and supports the viewpoint of the enemy. That is the definition of treason. Any argumentation you make for it is nothing but an attempt to obfuscate that fact.

Not only is this statement stupid, it is downright Stalin-esque. This takes the view that any opposition to the war is treason.

It’s sad to think that the democratic process failed so miserably to carry out the will of the people (to end the war) and now citizens have to resort to childish acts of vandalism to voice their opinions. I think that most Americans want the war to end and voted along these lines in the last congressional elections.

P.S. I’m a veteran.

Liberals hate the military

Tell that to my liberal in-laws in the airforce. What they do hate is the misuse and abuse of the military.

Seeing their National Guard buddies sent off on their third deployment to fight a war sold to us under false pretenses ... well you're probably too patriotic to understand.

'End the occupation' assumes and supports the viewpoint of the enemy.

The occupation comes at a cost, and there are reasons to end it that do not include sympathizing with the enemy.

That is the definition of treason.

Not yet, but we're moving in that direction. Dissenting opinions alone do not qualify as treason. McCarthy, Stalin, Beijing officials in Xinjiang Uighur ... these are the self-proclaimed defenders of liberty that would sympathize with the argument you're making. You're in poor company.

"When emotion changes the definition of a word, that will be a relevant argument. Until then, the fact that it's treason is not in any way mitigated by polls."

You're assuming your definition of the word is being changed, which is strikingly similar to the one being disseminated by the Fox/Murdoch/Coulter/O'Reilly machine, which, like the repeated 'Hitler' and 'Nazi' references, is reflexive and derived from emotion, and eventually loses all meaning or substance.