PDA

View Full Version : "Marlboro Man" says 'I support the troops, not the war'


Taco John
05-19-2006, 12:37 PM
http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2006-05/23476278.jpg

A very compelling article about what the war is doing to these poor souls. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-marlboro19may19,0,4643056.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines)


...Meanwhile, he has slowly turned against the war. "We've done some humanitarian aid," Blake said, "but what good have we actually done, and what has America gained except a lot of deaths? It burns me up."

Jessica, who sports an "I Love My Marine" sticker on her car, says she and Blake are behind the troops though they no longer support the war...




God Bless you, brother. A lot of us feel the same way, but obviously not with the knowledge and experience that you've got. Hope you get your life back on track soon.

Pitt Gorilla
05-19-2006, 12:44 PM
Doesn't he realize that it is impossible to support the troops and not the war (according to some "geniouses" on CP)?

Baby Lee
05-19-2006, 12:45 PM
I hope the future holds the developments that realize the good he'd hoped they were doing.

NewChief
05-19-2006, 12:58 PM
Boy oh boy. I bet he just screwed himself when it comes time to reevaluate his condition. I doubt he's going to keep collecting that disability check after his new psyche eval.

That being said, that's a pretty moving article.

Radar Chief
05-19-2006, 01:07 PM
Boy oh boy. I bet he just screwed himself when it comes time to reevaluate his condition. I doubt he's going to keep collecting that disability check after his new psyche eval.

I’d personally doubt that. I’ve never met a military doc that was too beholden to anyone, even his/her own commander, other than the patient.

jiveturkey
05-19-2006, 01:32 PM
I’d personally doubt that. I’ve never met a military doc that was too beholden to anyone, even his/her own commander, other than the patient.They are also beholden to the makers of Mortin.

Bastards!

NewChief
05-19-2006, 01:34 PM
I’d personally doubt that. I’ve never met a military doc that was too beholden to anyone, even his/her own commander, other than the patient.

Well, that's good, then. Though this admin's record on funding treatment for PTSD ain't so good:

http://www.epluribusmedia.org/features/20060206PTSD_intro.html

Taco John
05-19-2006, 01:35 PM
It's hard to believe he's only 21...

jAZ
05-19-2006, 03:09 PM
Doesn't he realize that it is impossible to support the troops and not the war (according to some "geniouses" on CP)?
I'm sure no one will address this issue directly.

Baby Lee
05-19-2006, 03:45 PM
"it is impossible to support the troops and not the war "
I'm sure no one will address this issue directly.
In contemplation of that, could you give us a list of the people on here who have said that?

Taco John
05-19-2006, 03:47 PM
What is he? Liberal Santa Clause? What makes you think he's keeping a list?

Taco John
05-19-2006, 03:49 PM
*singing*

He's making a list!
And checking it twice!
He's gonna find out if you're using derisive rhetoric or not!
Liberal Clause is coming! TO TOOOOOWN!

jAZ
05-19-2006, 03:56 PM
"it is impossible to support the troops and not the war "

In contemplation of that, could you give us a list of the people on here who have said that?
I'd hate the throw out some names without confirming it with a search (which sucks ass and won't be easy to narrow down in any case).

The last of the many, many times I've been subjected to that bit of disgusting horseshit rhetoric was last Christmas when my family was in town (both my wife's brothers are Iraq War vets multiple times). I've been told that I can't support my own brothers without agreeing with the war they have been ordered to fight in. I've also been told that my wife (who I've said in the past is a pacifist) can't support her own brothers because she doesn't support this war.

I'm a little suprised that you seem to think that there is some value in questioning that such a discussion hasn't happened here.

patteeu
05-19-2006, 04:11 PM
Doesn't he realize that it is impossible to support the troops and not the war (according to some "geniouses" on CP)?

Can we agree that many of the people who say they support the troops but not the war, don't.

jAZ
05-19-2006, 04:15 PM
Can we agree that many of the people who say they support the troops but not the war, don't.
Some, I'm sure. But those are pretty vocal about that. They tend not to hide such pointed and strong beliefs.

In that same spirit, I'm sure that you will agree "many" Republicans tend to only support the troops while they are in battle, then cut funding for their VA care once they return?

BucEyedPea
05-19-2006, 04:18 PM
I think all those who support the Iraq thing should join up.
I heard they're taken them up as high as age 49...is that true?
Certainly, everyone can do something over there.
That goes for all the NeoCons in the Bush administration particularly Bush and Che, Che, Cheney.

Baby Lee
05-19-2006, 04:18 PM
What is he? Liberal Santa Clause? What makes you think he's keeping a list?
I don't think he's keeping a list. I think he and Pitt are moving the issue by remarking that 'some' people around here have outlandish views, and winking and nodding in an effort to suggest more have those views than do.
Kind of like priming a discussion of homosexuality, with 'some people around here. . . [cite some Fred Phelps rhetoric].'

Baby Lee
05-19-2006, 04:20 PM
I think all those who support the Iraq thing should join up.
I heard they're taken them up as high as age 49...is that true?
Certainly, everyone can do something over there.
That goes for all the NeoCons in the Bush administration particularly Bush and Che, Che, Cheney.
Seriously asking, what do you think they'd do with a 5'10" 270 lb, 34 yo?
Best I could hope for, were I to sign up, is cooking up some grub in a green zone a year or two from now.
No joking, I think me signing up would yield a net reduction in our fighting strength.

jAZ
05-19-2006, 04:22 PM
Seriously asking, what do you think they'd do with a 5'10" 275 lb, 34 yo?
Best I could hope for, were I to sign up, is cooking up some grub in a green zone a year or two from now.
No joking, I think me signing up would yield a net reduction in our fighting strength.
Shouldn't you let them make that decision?

Radar Chief
05-19-2006, 04:24 PM
I think all those who support the Iraq thing should join up.

Been there, done that. Your turn.

I heard they're taken them up as high as age 49...is that true?

No. I don’t even think they’ll take prior service members that old. Generally, ‘round that age is when they start push’n people out.

BucEyedPea
05-19-2006, 04:27 PM
Seriously asking, what do you think they'd do with a 5'10" 270 lb, 34 yo?
Best I could hope for, were I to sign up, is cooking up some grub in a green zone a year or two from now.
No joking, I think me signing up would yield a net reduction in our fighting strength.
Why do men lie about their weight on the net?


j/k

I know a guy on another board who couldn't sign up for some health reason. He's age 32 and big...he went to work for Halliburton instead..making 6 figures tax free doing inventory for the army. Doesn't see his wife or kid but for a few times a year. Puts up his pics on life in the Green Zone. Heck! They even get steak and lobster for dinner on occasion. Sometimes their building shakes and vibrates etc. He's a big supporter of the Iraq invasion too.

Radar Chief
05-19-2006, 04:28 PM
Seriously asking, what do you think they'd do with a 5'10" 270 lb, 34 yo?
Best I could hope for, were I to sign up, is cooking up some grub in a green zone a year or two from now.
No joking, I think me signing up would yield a net reduction in our fighting strength.

Aw come’on BL, I’m sure there’s an MOS for “Biting Sarcasm” somewhere. ;)

jspchief
05-19-2006, 04:29 PM
Shouldn't you let them make that decision?They already made the decision that they don't want him. They have strict fitness requirements for their older enlistees. BL is too fat to be accepted into the military at his age. (no offense BL).

Besides, I find that argument ridiculous. That's like saying I should join have to join the police force if I support fighting crime.

No one was drafted. Every soldier that is over there joined the military voluntarily. When they did so, they probably did it thinking it was a one in a million chance that they would actually have to go to war for their college money, but unfortunately they were wrong. People that join the military to take advantages of the opportunities provided also have to accept that they may be called on someday to do this. I refuse to act like it's some unfortunate situation that they got suckered into. Everyone knows that militarys exist to fight wars.

BucEyedPea
05-19-2006, 04:31 PM
Been there, done that. Your turn.

Me?

Why should I go?

I didn't support the Iraq thing from day one.
Besides I'm a woman and I don't believe in such things. It's not lady like.


No. I don’t even think they’ll take prior service members that old. Generally, ‘round that age is when they start push’n people out.

I read somewhere they were. I heard they lowered all the standards because they weren't meeting their recruitment goals. Not saying you're not right...I just read that is all I'm saying. But Tommy Franks looked pretty old to me.

Pitt Gorilla
05-19-2006, 04:33 PM
Can we agree that many of the people who say they support the troops but not the war, don't.I don't know; can we agree that many of the people who say they support the war and the troops, don't do so any more than lip service?

jAZ
05-19-2006, 04:34 PM
They already made the decision that they don't want him. They have strict fitness requirements for their older enlistees. BL is too fat to be accepted into the military at his age. (no offense BL).

Besides, I find that argument ridiculous. That's like saying I should join have to join the police force if I support fighting crime.

No one was drafted. Every soldier that is over there joined the military voluntarily. When they did so, they probably did it thinking it was a one in a million chance that they would actually have to go to war for their college money, but unfortunately they were wrong. People that join the military to take advantages of the opportunities provided also have to accept that they may be called on someday to do this. I refuse to act like it's some unfortunate situation that they got suckered into. Everyone knows that militarys exist to fight wars.
I'm not supporting the arguement (though there is a seam of meaning value in the idea). I'm simply addressing BL's wiggling out of the issue. Not commenting on the value of the suggestion by Buc

Radar Chief
05-19-2006, 04:37 PM
Me?

Why should I go?

I didn't support the Iraq thing from day one.
Besides I'm a woman and I don't believe in such things. It's not lady like.

Oh, I thought the game was volunteering each other. :shrug:

I read somewhere they were. I heard they lowered all the standards because they weren't meeting their recruitment goals. Not saying you're not right...I just read that is all I'm saying. But Tommy Franks looked pretty old to me.

Yea, but he didn’t get out then want to rejoin. He stayed in ‘till retirement. Plus he’s one of the higher rank’n officers, not some newby enlisted. Huge difference.

Mr. Laz
05-19-2006, 04:42 PM
the marlboro man is really a terrorist who wants to kill your family.

Baby Lee
05-19-2006, 04:42 PM
Shouldn't you let them make that decision?
Don't underestimate my willingness.
Both grandparents served. My paternal grandfather was married 11/27/41, within a month later he was shipping off for basic, then to the Aleutians, then to the Pacific for the duration. My maternal grandfather didn't talk a lot about his experience, but we know he was there first day on Omaha Beach, and his unit worked their way inland to the end. My dad showed up on HS graduation [spring '67], but they would take his flat feet and nearsightedness.
My biggest hurdle would've been the training process. I have no urge to be broken down and reassembled. I don't need a new daddy. If there had been a unit that trained their soldiers like Vermiel ran his offense, I'd have jumped at the chance.
And when I graduated Law School, I applied for and interviewed for a JAG position, but I got a job offer before they got back with me, and with $75K in law school debt, my fate was sealed.
Finally, a number of times I have embarked on a fitness 'regimen' with part of my motivation being, 'if I get in good enough shape. . .'
No wiggling, just pointing out that my own personal shortcomings, not my willingness, are the biggest impediment.

Also, and this may be a TMI moment, or just plain creepy for some, but for my shortcomings for bowing to authority, I know my psychological makeup would serve me well in being dispassionate about executing orders. Part of what makes me lean towards striving for this [though it's ridiculous at this point in my development/life], is thinking I could spare some guy like Marlboro man the psychic pain he suffers by taking those shots for him.

patteeu
05-19-2006, 04:43 PM
Some, I'm sure. But those are pretty vocal about that. They tend not to hide such pointed and strong beliefs.

In that same spirit, I'm sure that you will agree "many" Republicans tend to only support the troops while they are in battle, then cut funding for their VA care once they return?

Yes, I admit that many Republicans don't endorse unlimited VA care funding. I don't know what the statistics are on cut's in VA funding, but would be happy to review some data if you link it.

BucEyedPea
05-19-2006, 04:43 PM
Oh, I thought the game was volunteering each other. :shrug:

No the game was for those who support it to go, as proof of their support of the troops. I actually feel bad for those guys. I wouldn't want to be them.


Yea, but he didn’t get out then want to rejoin. He stayed in ‘till retirement. Plus he’s one of the higher rank’n officers, not some newby enlisted. Huge difference.

I know. I was being facetious. :)

BucEyedPea
05-19-2006, 04:46 PM
Yes, I admit that many Republicans don't endorse unlimited VA care funding. I don't know what the statistics are on cut's in VA funding, but would be happy to review some data if you link it.

That's sad. I'll admit I'm a cheap semi-libertarian but defense is constitutional spending and if they have a single health problem, particularly related to service I'd be willing to pay for things like that. I only insist that it be for necessary and defensive wars and not agendas like spreading democracy...but
even then it our govt put them in harms way....well......

Taco John
05-19-2006, 04:46 PM
I like the minute men. They are in favor of protecting the border, and instead of volunteering our National Guard to do the job while they sit at home cheering, they picked up a pair of binoculars and hit the border themselves.

Good guys.

patteeu
05-19-2006, 04:47 PM
I don't know; can we agree that many of the people who say they support the war and the troops, don't do so any more than lip service?

Sure. Other than lip service, voting the right way, and paying taxes, what should they be doing to be able to legitimately claim that they support the war and the troops? (Assume for the sake of this question that the person is unqualified to serve in the military).

jAZ
05-19-2006, 04:47 PM
Yes, I admit that many Republicans don't endorse unlimited VA care funding. I don't know what the statistics are on cut's in VA funding, but would be happy to review some data if you link it.
I didn't ask if they endorsed "unlimited VA funding". I don't know if it's even physically possible to have "unlimited (anykind of) funding". It's a very nice non-statement you've made. Care to get back to the issue that I raised?

jAZ
05-19-2006, 04:49 PM
I like the minute men. They are in favor of protecting the border, and instead of volunteering our National Guard to do the job while they sit at home cheering, they picked up a pair of binoculars and hit the border themselves.

Good guys.
While I didn't agree with the it at the beginning (in large part due to concerns about vigilantism), I've been won over based upon their professional approach. And yes, that just-do-it attitude earns them some respect points.

patteeu
05-19-2006, 04:54 PM
That's sad. I'll admit I'm a cheap semi-libertarian but defense is constitutional spending and if they have a single health problem, particularly related to service I'd be willing to pay for things like that. I only insist that it be for necessary and defensive wars and not agendas like spreading democracy...but
even then it our govt put them in harms way....well......

I think maybe you misunderstood me (possibly my fault for being unclear). All I admitted to jAZ is that there are people who aren't willing to spend an unlimited amount on post-service healthcare. That should be the position of all of us (keyword=unlimited). I agree that we should be treating service related issues up to a point, but as anyone who is familiar with medical care knows, there is always another test or treatment that can be done and lines have to be drawn somewhere. In most cases, these lines are drawn by a collaberative effort on the part of doctors and insurance companies. In the case of the VA, these lines have to involve politicians because the insurance is effectively provided by the government (one of the drawbacks of socialized medicine).

Having said all that, I'm not up to speed on any cuts in VA spending and I'm somewhat skeptical about the idea that there were any.

patteeu
05-19-2006, 04:56 PM
I didn't ask if they endorsed "unlimited VA funding". I don't know if it's even physically possible to have "unlimited (anykind of) funding". It's a very nice non-statement you've made. Care to get back to the issue that I raised?

See what I mean BucEyedPea? jAZ is right about what I said. ROFL

Sorry, jAZ, I just don't have enough information to agree with you about VA cuts and whether or not Republicans endorse them. I don't know.

BucEyedPea
05-19-2006, 04:57 PM
Good points. I don't know much about it...but it makes sense. My neighbor is a pharmacist at a VA health clinic and I know of a older 'Nam relative who got his recent cancer treatment at one who was very happy with it.

Guess, I'm sayin' is I'm not opposed to that type of spending.
Maybe such costs would make us think twice about certain military actions.

jAZ
05-19-2006, 04:59 PM
That's sad. I'll admit I'm a cheap semi-libertarian but defense is constitutional spending and if they have a single health problem, particularly related to service I'd be willing to pay for things like that. I only insist that it be for necessary and defensive wars and not agendas like spreading democracy...but
even then it our govt put them in harms way....well......
Good for you. Seriously, that's a pretty pragmatic view of things.

Loki
05-19-2006, 06:55 PM
Me?

Why should I go?

I didn't support the Iraq thing from day one.
Besides I'm a woman and I don't believe in such things. It's not lady like.




I read somewhere they were. I heard they lowered all the standards because they weren't meeting their recruitment goals. Not saying you're not right...I just read that is all I'm saying. But Tommy Franks looked pretty old to me.

lol... tommy franks is/was a general who has been in the army for a number of years. they're not going to hand out general stars to someone who just joined up... ROFL

Pitt Gorilla
05-19-2006, 10:30 PM
Sure. Other than lip service, voting the right way, and paying taxes, what should they be doing to be able to legitimately claim that they support the war and the troops? (Assume for the sake of this question that the person is unqualified to serve in the military).Send money, care packages, playing cards, letters, etc, and continually do it.

NewChief
05-19-2006, 11:25 PM
Sure. Other than lip service, voting the right way, and paying taxes, what should they be doing to be able to legitimately claim that they support the war and the troops? (Assume for the sake of this question that the person is unqualified to serve in the military).


There's always slapping a yellow ribbon magnet on your car.

jAZ
05-20-2006, 12:23 AM
There's always slapping a yellow ribbon magnet on your car.
I've always wanted to get this one...

http://supportourribbons.com/store/item/8_small.jpg

penchief
05-20-2006, 11:51 AM
I don't know anyone that doesn't support our troops except for our enemy. Maybe someone could compile a list of those people for me.

I do know that many people who have stated the suppport for the troops and their opposition to the war have been mocked on this board.

Of course, the same people who say that you can't support the troops without supporting the war may be the same people that say you can't criticize the administraion without "blaming America first" or wanting America to fail.

patteeu
05-20-2006, 12:13 PM
Send money, care packages, playing cards, letters, etc, and continually do it.

So anyone who doesn't do these things doesn't have a legitimate right to claim to support the troops? I suspect that's going to knock out most of the people who say they support the troops but don't support the war. It will probably knock out most of the people who say they support the war too, but you've given me the distinct impression that you think that skepticism about the "I support the troops but not the war" claims is largely unfounded. Of course, it's often difficult to know what you believe because you rarely do anything but snipe from the sidelines.

banyon
05-20-2006, 01:20 PM
Can we agree that most of the debate about suporting the troops is filled with vapid, empty rhetoric?

penchief
05-20-2006, 02:24 PM
So anyone who doesn't do these things doesn't have a legitimate right to claim to support the troops? I suspect that's going to knock out most of the people who say they support the troops but don't support the war. It will probably knock out most of the people who say they support the war too, but you've given me the distinct impression that you think that skepticism about the "I support the troops but not the war" claims is largely unfounded. Of course, it's often difficult to know what you believe because you rarely do anything but snipe from the sidelines.

For me, the bottom line is this; all Americans support the troops except for the extremists on either end of the political spectrum that may have their own agenda.

Supporting the troops is a moot point when opposing the war. And I believe that it has been a vile tactic utilized by this administration and it's surrogates to promote the idea that opposing the war is hurting the troops. To make such claims for political advantage, as this administration has consistently done, earns them a special place in hell. That alone makes them unqualified to call themselves patriotic Americans, IMO.

When will the sheep wake up and figure out that the manipulations of this administration and their surrogates only undermines what all of us want; a free and open democracy where civil liberties and privacy are protected and transparency in government is the order of the day instead of fascist-like secrecy.

It's time to put a stop to the intolerant rhetoric, the bought-and-paid-for "free" press, and an administration that will exploit America's virtues for their own political gain.

stevieray
05-20-2006, 02:43 PM
For me, the bottom line is this; all Americans support the troops except for the extremists on either end of the political spectrum that may have their own agenda.

Supporting the troops is a moot point when opposing the war. And I believe that it has been a vile tactic utilized by this administration and it's surrogates to promote the idea that opposing the war is hurting the troops. To make such claims for political advantage, as this administration has consistently done, earns them a special place in hell. That alone makes them unqualified to call themselves patriotic Americans, IMO.

When will the sheep wake up and figure out that the manipulations of this administration and their surrogates only undermines what all of us want; a free and open democracy where civil liberties and privacy are protected and transparency in government is the order of the day instead of fascist-like secrecy.

It's time to put a stop to the intolerant rhetoric, the bought-and-paid-for "free" press, and an administration that will exploit America's virtues for their own political gain.


what a load of crap. you are delusional.

banyon
05-20-2006, 03:11 PM
The only guy that I know that definitively does not support the troops is Fred Phelps.

Logical
05-20-2006, 03:35 PM
I'd hate the throw out some names without confirming it with a search (which sucks ass and won't be easy to narrow down in any case).

The last of the many, many times I've been subjected to that bit of disgusting horseshit rhetoric was last Christmas when my family was in town (both my wife's brothers are Iraq War vets multiple times). I've been told that I can't support my own brothers without agreeing with the war they have been ordered to fight in. I've also been told that my wife (who I've said in the past is a pacifist) can't support her own brothers because she doesn't support this war.

I'm a little suprised that you seem to think that there is some value in questioning that such a discussion hasn't happened here.

jAZ I will help you out. Once in a day long past I made that very argument against you. I have since seen the error of my views but just to satisify Baby Lee I will admit it. We had a knock down drag out over it including nasty PMs back and forth. This was in the beginning of 2003. I am not proud of it, but it is unfair that BL or others get away of accusing you of making it up when I know it is true and can by my own admission exonerate you.

Logical
05-20-2006, 03:40 PM
Me?

Why should I go?

I didn't support the Iraq thing from day one.
Besides I'm a woman and I don't believe in such things. It's not lady like.




I read somewhere they were. I heard they lowered all the standards because they weren't meeting their recruitment goals. Not saying you're not right...I just read that is all I'm saying. But Tommy Franks looked pretty old to me.

You managed to add a decade, they upped it to 39 not up to 49.

go bowe
05-20-2006, 04:01 PM
what a load of crap. you are delusional.well, that sure wasn't too cryptic, was it? :p :p :p

go bowe
05-20-2006, 04:03 PM
jAZ I will help you out. Once in a day long past I made that very argument against you. I have since seen the error of my views but just to satisify Baby Lee I will admit it. We had a knock down drag out over it including nasty PMs back and forth. This was in the beginning of 2003. I am not proud of it, but it is unfair that BL or others get away of accusing you of making it up when I know it is true and can by my own admission exonerate you.you dastardly villain, you...

go bowe
05-20-2006, 04:05 PM
You managed to add a decade, they upped it to 39 not up to 49.picky, picky, picky...

Logical
05-20-2006, 04:11 PM
well, that sure wasn't too cryptic, was it? :p :p :pLOL no, now that is really easy to understand.

Logical
05-20-2006, 04:14 PM
Can we agree that most of the debate about suuporting the troops is filled with vapid, empty rhetoric?Yes

BucEyedPea
05-20-2006, 04:30 PM
You managed to add a decade, they upped it to 39 not up to 49.
Yeah...of the top off my head without checking I guess I did.
I don't have the best recall everytime but I thought it was up there.

Nevertheless...my point still applies.
Which means BabyLee still qualifies. :p


*leaves to prepare a care package with homemade cookies*

penchief
05-20-2006, 09:26 PM
what a load of crap. you are delusional.

How so?

So where's your list? And how many times has the administration and it's sheep (some on this board) suggested that others are only hurting the troops by criticizing the war?

Huh? Funny, I can't hear you.

How many times has this administration and it's sheep (some on this board) suggested that criticizing the war or this administration was unpatriotic? Huh?

Oh....if we could only dig up the chiefplanet archives. How interesting that would be. Maybe that's why so many of the Bush apologists have exited this place.

You are in denial.

stevieray
05-20-2006, 09:29 PM
How so?

So where's your list? And how many times has the administration and it's sheep (some on this board) suggested that others are only hurting the troops by criticizing the war?

Huh? Funny, I can't hear you.

How many times has this administration and it's sheep (some on this board) suggested that criticizing the war or this administration was unpatriotic? Huh?

Oh....if we could only dig up the chiefplanet archives. How interesting that would be. Maybe that's why so many of the Bush apoligists have exited this place.

You are in denial.

Your "Integrity of America" speech is not only misplaced, it's played out... :shake:

penchief
05-20-2006, 09:34 PM
Your "Integrity of America" speech is not only misplaced, it's played out... :shake:

It's right on target and needed now more than ever. Cheneyburton has a deathgrip on our government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

What is misplaced is your contentment with the status-quo and your approval of the path this administration has railroaded our country down.

stevieray
05-20-2006, 09:36 PM
It's right on target and needed now more than ever. Cheneyburton has a deathgrip on our government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Your contentment with the status-quo and approval of the path this administration has railroaded our country down is misplaced.

your need to put others in groups is the problem, you whiny bitch.

penchief
05-20-2006, 09:41 PM
your need to put others in groups is the problem, you whiny bitch.

Sounds a little hypocritical to me.

I'm not putting anybody in groups other than those who continue to criticize Bush's critics and blindly defend and advocate the indefensible behavior of an administration that has put greed and politics ahead of America.

And by the way, you are the one that sounds like a whiny bitch. Just listen to yourself. You sound bitter.

I'm just trying to make the same point I've been trying to make for the past three plus years. A point that appears to be more accurate than the one you've been trying to make when it comes to Cheneyburton's numerous seemingly intentional fiascos.

penchief
05-20-2006, 09:56 PM
your need to put others in groups is the problem, you whiny bitch.

And by the way, what does that have to do with the topic. Does psychoanalyzing me make Bush look better? Does it help our country? Is it going to make Iraq work out?

No, wait.......you're right. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all those other so-called neocons have got the right prescritption for what ails America. And we have been reaping the benefits. We are sooooo much better off than we were before.

Everything that is screwed up is 9/11's fault and not the Reagan retrocon's fault.

Taco John
05-21-2006, 12:53 AM
your need to put others in groups is the problem, you whiny bitch.



17The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

18Jesus said, "You whiny bitch."

Logical
05-21-2006, 02:04 AM
17The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

18Jesus said, "You whiny bitch."I know I should not have laughed, but dang it that was funny.

Taco John
05-21-2006, 04:09 AM
Yeah. People that believe in hell are sure that's straight where I'm headed for that one... :)

patteeu
05-21-2006, 08:53 AM
For me, the bottom line is this; all Americans support the troops except for the extremists on either end of the political spectrum that may have their own agenda.

Supporting the troops is a moot point when opposing the war. And I believe that it has been a vile tactic utilized by this administration and it's surrogates to promote the idea that opposing the war is hurting the troops. To make such claims for political advantage, as this administration has consistently done, earns them a special place in hell. That alone makes them unqualified to call themselves patriotic Americans, IMO.

When will the sheep wake up and figure out that the manipulations of this administration and their surrogates only undermines what all of us want; a free and open democracy where civil liberties and privacy are protected and transparency in government is the order of the day instead of fascist-like secrecy.

It's time to put a stop to the intolerant rhetoric, the bought-and-paid-for "free" press, and an administration that will exploit America's virtues for their own political gain.

Irony?

patteeu
05-21-2006, 08:58 AM
It's right on target and needed now more than ever. Cheneyburton has a deathgrip on our government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

What is misplaced is your contentment with the status-quo and your approval of the path this administration has railroaded our country down.

Your speech has to be tolerated, penchief, but if you ever acted in a way that measured up to your speech and all the extreme things you say about the current administration, it would be the equivalent of revolution. IMO, that would be traitorous. [/extreme speech intended to confront an extreme speaker]

penchief
05-21-2006, 11:50 AM
Irony?

I'm not accusing anyone of hating America or hating our troops.

The irony exists when patriotic Americans feel compelled to group other patriotic Americans together and marginalize them by using such tactics simply because the oppose the policies of an administration.

That, IMO, is unAmerican.

penchief
05-21-2006, 12:05 PM
Your speech has to be tolerated, penchief, but if you ever acted in a way that measured up to your speech and all the extreme things you say about the current administration, it would be the equivalent of revolution. IMO, that would be traitorous. [/extreme speech intended to confront an extreme speaker]

How so? You are beginning to sound like you are advocating fascism more and more. I'm not advocating anything but a revolution of the mind. I've been trying to get people to wake up for three years.

Voting is the key. That is, only if we can ensure fair campaigns and elections, and an honest media that is not bought and paid for, ala the corporate American Press. We'll also have to stop having questionable crap happening in critical swing states every four years. Of course, we'll also have to either get rid of Diebold or create a verifiable paper trail (ala, a receipt) that can be counted after the initial vote to verify the outcome.

Time will reveal the sinister behavior of this administration. It has already begun to happen but it's been a slow slow process and it will probably take years or decades before the extent of their misdeeds is fully known.

stevieray
05-21-2006, 01:40 PM
How so? You are beginning to sound like you are advocating fascism more and more. I'm not advocating anything but a revolution of the mind. I've been trying to get people to wake up for three years.

Voting is the key. That is, only if we can ensure fair campaigns and elections, and an honest media that is not bought and paid for, ala the corporate American Press. We'll also have to stop having questionable crap happening in critical swing states every four years. Of course, we'll also have to either get rid of Diebold or create a verifiable paper trail (ala, a receipt) that can be counted after the initial vote to verify the outcome.

Time will reveal the sinister behavior of this administration. It has already begun to happen but it's been a slow slow process and it will probably take years or decades before the extent of their misdeeds is fully known.

you spin me right round baby like a record baby right round round.


ROFL

Logical
05-21-2006, 01:53 PM
How so? You are beginning to sound like you are advocating fascism more and more. I'm not advocating anything but a revolution of the mind. I've been trying to get people to wake up for three years.

Voting is the key. That is, only if we can ensure fair campaigns and elections, and an honest media that is not bought and paid for, ala the corporate American Press. We'll also have to stop having questionable crap happening in critical swing states every four years. Of course, we'll also have to either get rid of Diebold or create a verifiable paper trail (ala, a receipt) that can be counted after the initial vote to verify the outcome.

Time will reveal the sinister behavior of this administration. It has already begun to happen but it's been a slow slow process and it will probably take years or decades before the extent of their misdeeds is fully known.

Just like I know you are honest and forthright in your beliefs and have indeed been consistent over the last three years, I know Stevie and I do not believe he advocates fascism, he just has what I believe is a misplaced trust in this administration who are working diligently on destroying the checks and balances of our system and achieving an imperial presidency. Given time and the right set of characters (more of the Cheney ilk) I believe fascism would be a path that could be followed if not halted soon.

jAZ
05-21-2006, 06:50 PM
jAZ I will help you out. Once in a day long past I made that very argument against you. I have since seen the error of my views but just to satisify Baby Lee I will admit it. We had a knock down drag out over it including nasty PMs back and forth. This was in the beginning of 2003. I am not proud of it, but it is unfair that BL or others get away of accusing you of making it up when I know it is true and can by my own admission exonerate you.
Jim,

I'm pretty much speechless. That's such a standup and honest thing to do. It says a lot about you character as a person. I don't think it's fair that you end up being the only one putting themselves out there like this, because believe me... you weren't the only one.

But in any case, I hope everyone here sees what kind of character it takes to make such a post here. You deserve tremendous credit for having such character.

Thank you.

patteeu
05-21-2006, 09:06 PM
I'm not accusing anyone of hating America or hating our troops.

The irony exists when patriotic Americans feel compelled to group other patriotic Americans together and marginalize them by using such tactics simply because the oppose the policies of an administration.

That, IMO, is unAmerican.

It's not enough for you to disagree with the policy positions of this administration, you have to go farther and suggest "sinister behavior" and "misdeeds" and unfavorable motivations like "greed." It's not enough to disagree with other posters, you have to associate them with a desire for fascism.

Don't get me wrong, I generally find your posts as entertaining as they are misguided (IMO), but when you accuse your opponents of intolerant rhetoric, the comparison to your own words jumps to mind.

patteeu
05-21-2006, 09:09 PM
How so? You are beginning to sound like you are advocating fascism more and more. I'm not advocating anything but a revolution of the mind. I've been trying to get people to wake up for three years.

Voting is the key. That is, only if we can ensure fair campaigns and elections, and an honest media that is not bought and paid for, ala the corporate American Press. We'll also have to stop having questionable crap happening in critical swing states every four years. Of course, we'll also have to either get rid of Diebold or create a verifiable paper trail (ala, a receipt) that can be counted after the initial vote to verify the outcome.

Time will reveal the sinister behavior of this administration. It has already begun to happen but it's been a slow slow process and it will probably take years or decades before the extent of their misdeeds is fully known.

FWIW, I know that your extreme rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. I don't think you intend anything more than revolution by vote. I'm sure the same can be said of almost everyone here.

BTW, did it ever cross your mind that there has been just as much questionable election crap at the hands of democrats as there has been at the hands of Bushron?

penchief
05-21-2006, 09:34 PM
FWIW, I know that your extreme rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. I don't think you intend anything more than revolution by vote. I'm sure the same can be said of almost everyone here.

BTW, did it ever cross your mind that there has been just as much questionable election crap at the hands of democrats as there has been at the hands of Bushron?

No. And I think I've been paying attention.

On another note; when I express my opinion I'm exercising my rights. George Bush is not America. Criticizing the dishonesty and incompetence of this administration is not a betrayal of my country but rather my duty.

On the other hand, if this administration has been as dishonest as it appears they have been then they may be the traitors. My standing up for our country's founding principles is the patriotic thing to do. And having those principles betrayed by my own government does not sit well with me.

By the way, explain to me what is so extreme about my rhetoric. The fact that I believe this administration is intentionally betraying so many of our country's prinicples and I'm not timid about saying so?

patteeu
05-22-2006, 06:42 AM
No. And I think I've been paying attention.

Of course you do.

On another note; when I express my opinion I'm exercising my rights. George Bush is not America. Criticizing the dishonesty and incompetence of this administration is not a betrayal of my country but rather my duty.

When others express their opinions about people who say they support the troops but don't support the war, they are exercising their rights. War protesters are not America. Criticizing those protesters' lack of appreciation for the best interests of the US is not a betrayal of their country but rather their duty.

On the other hand, if this administration has been as dishonest as it appears they have been then they may be the traitors. My standing up for our country's founding principles is the patriotic thing to do. And having those principles betrayed by my own government does not sit well with me.

You're a socialist, penchief. Our country's founding principles weren't based on socialism. Our founding principles embraced the right to be free to discriminate based on race and just about anything else. Our founding principles rejected progressive income taxes. Our founding principles allowed for state endorsed religions and rejected federal social safety nets. You're standing up for something, but it's not our country's founding principles.

By the way, explain to me what is so extreme about my rhetoric. The fact that I believe this administration is intentionally betraying so many of our country's prinicples and I'm not timid about saying so?

I already did. See post 75 for examples.

stevieray
05-22-2006, 09:05 AM
You're standing up for something, but it's not our country's founding principles.






:clap:

go bowe
05-22-2006, 01:54 PM
Irony?ya think?

go bowe
05-22-2006, 01:56 PM
It's not enough for you to disagree with the policy positions of this administration, you have to go farther and suggest "sinister behavior" and "misdeeds" and unfavorable motivations like "greed." It's not enough to disagree with other posters, you have to associate them with a desire for fascism.

Don't get me wrong, I generally find your posts as entertaining as they are misguided (IMO), but when you accuse your opponents of intolerant rhetoric, the comparison to your own words jumps to mind.intolerant rhetoric?

in d.c.?

how can this be? :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

go bowe
05-22-2006, 02:02 PM
It's right on target and needed now more than ever. Cheneyburton has a deathgrip on our government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

What is misplaced is your contentment with the status-quo and your approval of the path this administration has railroaded our country down.now, c'mon...

stevie is not a fascist, he's an artist for criminey sakes...

and i don't see him as being content with the status quo in national politics and i don't think he'd agree with your assessment of the country being railroaded...

hell, i don't think the country's been railroaded, and i'm not even a republican...

usually i can take your posts with a grain of sand, salt? wth is it?

but you are way off the mark on this one, even for you...

jmho...

go bowe
05-22-2006, 02:13 PM
How so? You are beginning to sound like you are advocating fascism more and more. I'm not advocating anything but a revolution of the mind. I've been trying to get people to wake up for three years.

Voting is the key. That is, only if we can ensure fair campaigns and elections, and an honest media that is not bought and paid for, ala the corporate American Press. We'll also have to stop having questionable crap happening in critical swing states every four years. Of course, we'll also have to either get rid of Diebold or create a verifiable paper trail (ala, a receipt) that can be counted after the initial vote to verify the outcome.

Time will reveal the sinister behavior of this administration. It has already begun to happen but it's been a slow slow process and it will probably take years or decades before the extent of their misdeeds is fully known.now why do you have to go and do that (again)?

jeez, of all the self-described conservatives on this board (all 6 or 7 of them), pattycakes is the least draconian... (draconian, is that what i was going for?)

seriously, i see him as always being reasonable and quite clear in his thinking and his posts...

as he says, misguided, but fascist?

if you want to call people silly names, why don't you just say asshole or pole smoker or something equally creative?

fascist, socialist, communist - we don't have any of those around these parts, imo...

quite far left (you and jaz, and a little farther to the left, meme, etc.), quite far right in some respects (patteu, loki, and even farther right like latimer)...

and then there's kotter?

is he left of far right but right of left?

a conservative democrat (yeah, right)...

see, this becomes a never ending somewhat repetitive... something...

when you toss around terms like fascist and the like...

you dirty liberal, you...

Baby Lee
05-22-2006, 02:17 PM
now why do you have to go and do that (again)?

jeez, of all the self-described conservatives on this board (all 6 or 7 of them), pattycakes is the least draconian... (draconian, is that what i was going for?)

seriously, i see him as always being reasonable and quite clear in his thinking and his posts...

as he says, misguided, but fascist?

if you want to call people silly names, why don't you just say asshole or pole smoker or something equally creative?

fascist, socialist, communist - we don't have any of those around these parts, imo...

quite far left (you and jaz, and a little farther to the left, meme, etc.), quite far right in some respects (patteu, loki, and even farther right like latimer)...

and then there's kotter?

is he left of far right but right of left?

a conservative democrat (yeah, right)...

see, this becomes a never ending somewhat repetitive... something...

when you toss around terms like fascist and the like...

you dirty liberal, you...
I think the term you're looking for is 'glittering generalities.' ;)

penchief
05-22-2006, 04:36 PM
When others express their opinions about people who say they support the troops but don't support the war, they are exercising their rights. War protesters are not America. Criticizing those protesters' lack of appreciation for the best interests of the US is not a betrayal of their country but rather their duty.

Everybody has the right to express their opinions. My complaint is not about what those opinions might be but rather about those who would criticize others as being traitors because those opinions do not agree with their own or because they are criticizing the administration or it's policies. I don't ever recall Clinton-bashers being called traitors.


You're a socialist, penchief. Our country's founding principles weren't based on socialism. Our founding principles embraced the right to be free to discriminate based on race and just about anything else. Our founding principles rejected progressive income taxes. Our founding principles allowed for state endorsed religions and rejected federal social safety nets. You're standing up for something, but it's not our country's founding principles..

I am not a socialist. I'm a pragmatist. Balance is key. Our founding principles were not soley economic or Christian. And I don't believe that our founding fathers endorsed state sponsered religion. I don't worry about taxes as much as I do regulation. Unfettered greed is the road to ruin, even for a free-enterprise democracy such as our own. Our country also does not stand for exploitation. It is not freedom when one economic class can set limits for the rest.

I'm standing up for liberty and self-determination. However, when power and wealth is allowed to become consolidated to the point that it is now becoming, we are in jeopardy of putting a ceiling on the American dream for everyone but the ruling class.

And I also believe that the ideal of open government is a founding principle that is being betrayed by this administration. I'll quote the Rolling Stones from their song Fingerprint File when they said, "It's all secrecy and no privacy." That's what is quickly happening to our great way of life.

You can criticize me for being an alarmist all you want and I respect your right to do so but please don't label me as a socialist or a traitor because that would be inaccurate.

penchief
05-22-2006, 04:40 PM
By the way, way does everybody think that I said stevieray sounded like he was endorsing fascism more and more? I was responding to a post from Patteau that criticized me as potentially traitorous because of my criticizing the conduct of this administration.

Just for the record, I did not make that statement in response to stevieray.

penchief
05-22-2006, 04:51 PM
now why do you have to go and do that (again)?

jeez, of all the self-described conservatives on this board (all 6 or 7 of them), pattycakes is the least draconian... (draconian, is that what i was going for?)

seriously, i see him as always being reasonable and quite clear in his thinking and his posts...

as he says, misguided, but fascist?

if you want to call people silly names, why don't you just say asshole or pole smoker or something equally creative?

fascist, socialist, communist - we don't have any of those around these parts, imo...

quite far left (you and jaz, and a little farther to the left, meme, etc.), quite far right in some respects (patteu, loki, and even farther right like latimer)...

and then there's kotter?

is he left of far right but right of left?

a conservative democrat (yeah, right)...

see, this becomes a never ending somewhat repetitive... something...

when you toss around terms like fascist and the like...

you dirty liberal, you...

I was merely responding to his accusation that my criticisms of the Bush administration were borderline treasonous when all I was doing was exercising my right to speak out against policies and conduct that I feel are detrimental to the future of my country.

Logical
05-22-2006, 05:50 PM
By the way, way does everybody think that I said stevieray sounded like he was endorsing fascism more and more? I was responding to a post from Patteau that criticized me as potentially traitorous because of my criticizing the conduct of this administration.

Just for the record, I did not make that statement in response to stevieray.

Wow I apologize, this may be my fault. I saw Steveray's response to your fascism post and just assumed it was part of the back and forth going on between you and him. I should have read who you actually quoted. Any chance you quoted the wrong person and fixed it.

Either way I apologize as I was the first to respond assuming you were responding to Stevieray. Not that I think patteeu supports fascism either. I think I would have likely made the same argument I made in support of Stevie, in support of patteeu.

go bowe
05-22-2006, 05:57 PM
I was merely responding to his accusation that my criticisms of the Bush administration were borderline treasonous when all I was doing was exercising my right to speak out against policies and conduct that I feel are detrimental to the future of my country.someone needs to adjust their sarcasm meter and humor sensor...

memyselfI
05-22-2006, 06:20 PM
http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2006-05/23476278.jpg

A very compelling article about what the war is doing to these poor souls. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-marlboro19may19,0,4643056.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines)


...Meanwhile, he has slowly turned against the war. "We've done some humanitarian aid," Blake said, "but what good have we actually done, and what has America gained except a lot of deaths? It burns me up."

Jessica, who sports an "I Love My Marine" sticker on her car, says she and Blake are behind the troops though they no longer support the war...


God Bless you, brother. A lot of us feel the same way, but obviously not with the knowledge and experience that you've got. Hope you get your life back on track soon.


I hope that each of them can find a way to lead a happy life when they are done. It would be very difficult to know you had risked so much or gave up so much for something that was merely a war of choice and a political chess match. I'm thinking of the mothers who are missing out on their children's soccer matches and talent shows. The dads who are missing out on their children being born or their first birthdays. The children who lose parents while stuck in that hell hole...some actually children others are adult children. It's infuriating.

penchief
05-22-2006, 07:56 PM
Jim,

I'm pretty much speechless. That's such a standup and honest thing to do. It says a lot about you character as a person. I don't think it's fair that you end up being the only one putting themselves out there like this, because believe me... you weren't the only one.

But in any case, I hope everyone here sees what kind of character it takes to make such a post here. You deserve tremendous credit for having such character.

Thank you.

I don't know how I missed this but I'd have to say that I have never agreed more with any single comment that has been posted on this board.

penchief
05-22-2006, 08:13 PM
Wow I apologize, this may be my fault. I saw Steveray's response to your fascism post and just assumed it was part of the back and forth going on between you and him. I should have read who you actually quoted. Any chance you quoted the wrong person and fixed it.

Either way I apologize as I was the first to respond assuming you were responding to Stevieray. Not that I think patteeu supports fascism either. I think I would have likely made the same argument I made in support of Stevie, in support of patteeu.

No, I quoted the right person and your apology is graciously accepted. If there is a standup guy on the DCplanet, it is you.

patteeu
05-22-2006, 10:43 PM
Everybody has the right to express their opinions. My complaint is not about what those opinions might be but rather about those who would criticize others as being traitors because those opinions do not agree with their own or because they are criticizing the administration or it's policies. I don't ever recall Clinton-bashers being called traitors.

No one called you a traitor, but if that kind of hyperbolic rhetoric bothers you, maybe you should check your own posts before you hit the submit button.

I am not a socialist. I'm a pragmatist. Balance is key. Our founding principles were not soley economic or Christian. And I don't believe that our founding fathers endorsed state sponsered religion. I don't worry about taxes as much as I do regulation. Unfettered greed is the road to ruin, even for a free-enterprise democracy such as our own. Our country also does not stand for exploitation. It is not freedom when one economic class can set limits for the rest.

I'm standing up for liberty and self-determination. However, when power and wealth is allowed to become consolidated to the point that it is now becoming, we are in jeopardy of putting a ceiling on the American dream for everyone but the ruling class.

And I also believe that the ideal of open government is a founding principle that is being betrayed by this administration. I'll quote the Rolling Stones from their song Fingerprint File when they said, "It's all secrecy and no privacy." That's what is quickly happening to our great way of life.

You can criticize me for being an alarmist all you want and I respect your right to do so but please don't label me as a socialist or a traitor because that would be inaccurate.

Calling yourself a pragmatist isn't very descriptive. Saddam Hussein and Joseph Stalin were pragmatists. So was Richard Nixon.

I have a hard time believing you aren't a socialist when measured by the standards of our founding fathers. I'd consider the vast majority of democrats and many (if not most) Republicans to be socialists by that standard. I'm not saying you want to replace our republic with Soviet or Chinese style socialism or anything. I'm just saying you aren't on the same page as the consensus view of our Hamiltons and Madisons (as represented by the Consitution they drafted).

Our original Constitution (along with the Bill of Rights) did nothing to prevent state governments from endorsing a state religion. It only prevented the federal government from establishing or restricting the free exercise of religion. Our founding fathers allowed for that. Is that a principle you stand up for? I didn't think so.

Our founding fathers gave birth to a nation that permitted slavery. You don't get much more exploitative than that. One class of people (slave owners) making rules for another (the slaves).

patteeu
05-22-2006, 10:46 PM
Wow I apologize, this may be my fault. I saw Steveray's response to your fascism post and just assumed it was part of the back and forth going on between you and him. I should have read who you actually quoted. Any chance you quoted the wrong person and fixed it.

Either way I apologize as I was the first to respond assuming you were responding to Stevieray. Not that I think patteeu supports fascism either. I think I would have likely made the same argument I made in support of Stevie, in support of patteeu.

No, I noticed the mistake right away. He was aiming that fascism post at me. :)

penchief
05-22-2006, 11:16 PM
No, I noticed the mistake right away. He was aiming that fascism post at me. :)

Just to be clear, I prefaced my fascism comment with a "it sounds like."

I was not calling you a fascist but only referring to your apparent intolerance of my free speech as sounding "more and more" like endorsing fascism.