Heros Unwelcome

[IDBillzFan]

You went to Fisher right?

Wrong. Yet again.

 

I give you credit for consistency, though. When your own logic contradicts itself, and it is pointed as cleanly as possible, what's the first thing you do? Go after the messenger. As predictable as ever.

[RkFast]

Joe THE Six cant be serious....he cant.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Wrong. Yet again.

 

I give you credit for consistency, though. When your own logic contradicts itself, and it is pointed as cleanly as possible, what's the first thing you do? Go after the messenger. As predictable as ever.

 

Oops sorry... I must have you mixed up with another poster. I will try to be better, you should too do the same by really practicing what you preach. Again, please except my apology. Peace.

 

That wasn't my point.

 

We aren't talking about you and your ability to change the topic. You replied to my post and that was MY point. Don't reply specifically and change the topic. Geez... lets stay with the program here!

 

Actually no, they are unrelated. The only relationship is war veterans.

 

The students have no class. If you fail to see that, you're the idiot.

 

True. But who cares... People every day have no class. I agree, people should be able to have respect for one and another... But you just don't walk into a hornet's nest like CU and garner it... ESPECIALLY the military establishment!

 

Grow a pair... We all get hurt over things... Yet, the object is to move on. Play the moral high ground if you want.

 

Why is this even an issue? Because people want to make political/patriotic hay from it. It is like anything else from BOTH/ALL sides of the political debate(s).

Edited February 28, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois

[GG]

True. But who cares... People every day have no class. I agree, people should be able to have respect for one and another... But you just don't walk into a hornet's nest like CU and garner it... ESPECIALLY the military establishment!

 

Excuse me, a wounded combat veteran needs to garner respect from a bunch of elitist spoiled teenagers who've never lifted a finger in their lives other than to text daddy for more money?

[truth on hold]

Excuse me, a wounded combat veteran needs to garner respect from a bunch of elitist spoiled teenagers who've never lifted a finger in their lives other than to text daddy for more money?

First off, you have no idea the economic backgrounds of the students protesting his speech. They could be working full time jobs to pay their way thru, for all you know.

 

But what we do know is that George Bush had two kids of perfect age to serve in the military during the Iraq war. They opted instead to enjoy the silver spoon lifestyle in Washington.

 

Didn't see anyone named Lieberman, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Miller, O'Reilly, Hannity, Miller, Libby, Murdoch, Perle, etc etc ... over there either.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack

[meazza]

First off, you have no idea the economic backgrounds of the students protesting his speech. They could be working full time jobs to pay their way thru, for all you know.

 

But what we do know is that George Bush had two kids of perfect age to serve in the military during the Iraq war. They opted instead to enjoy the silver spoon lifestyle in Washington.

 

Didn't see anyone named Lieberman, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Miller, O'Reilly, Hannity, Miller, Libby, Murdoch, Perle, etc etc ... over there either.

 

Once again. You're WAY off. Stick to the topic.

 

!@#$ing douchebag.

[DC Tom]

Joe THE Six cant be serious....he cant.

 

I'm waiting for him to break out with "Flight suit! Halliburton! Nose Pick! Goat Story!"

[truth on hold]

I'm waiting for him to break out with "Flight suit! Halliburton! Nose Pick! Goat Story!"

And I'm waiting for a critic of the students to defend the actions of the politicians who wrecklessly and calously put soldiers in harm's way in the first place. All I'm getting are evasive maneuvers, name calling and sarcasm. Sad, our troops deserve better.

[GG]

First off, you have no idea the economic backgrounds of the students protesting his speech. They could be working full time jobs to pay their way thru, for all you know.

 

But what we do know is that George Bush had two kids of perfect age to serve in the military during the Iraq war. They opted instead to enjoy the silver spoon lifestyle in Washington.

 

Didn't see anyone named Lieberman, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Miller, O'Reilly, Hannity, Miller, Libby, Murdoch, Perle, etc etc ... over there either.

 

Not that I wasn't expecting this response...

 

But, let's take a wild guess and say that I'm far more familiar with the Columbia student body than you are, and while there are certainly a lot of children of working class stiffs who are matriculated there, there's a great humongous large chance that they were not the ones who were among the protesters. (You know, because they were at work paying for their education).

[DC Tom]

And I'm waiting for a critic of the students to defend the actions of the politicians who wrecklessly and calously put soldiers in harm's way in the first place. All I'm getting are evasive maneuvers, name calling and sarcasm. Sad, our troops deserve better.

 

1) For the most part, it was neither "wreckless" (sic) or "calous" (sic). Badly formulated policy? Yes, very. Reckless and callous? Hardly.

2) Many of the people you mention (Miller, O'Reilly, Hannity, Miller (sic), Murdoch, Perle) had little or no influence on policy; they're nothing more than convenient boogeymen for your partisan idiocy.

3) Your lack of censure for the Democrats that "wrecklessly and calously [sic] put soldiers in harm's way" is noted...let me repeat: partisan idiocy.

4) You're bitching about people not defending the indefensible? What the !@#$ is wrong with you?

5) Ever think that maybe you're not getting any answer because, given the above four points, nobody takes you seriously?

[truth on hold]

Not that I wasn't expecting this response...

 

But, let's take a wild guess and say that I'm far more familiar with the Columbia student body than you are, and while there are certainly a lot of children of working class stiffs who are matriculated there, there's a great humongous large chance that they were not the ones who were among the protesters. (You know, because they were at work paying for their education).

Why would spoiled rich kids be protesting? They're not the ones fighting. And if they are, then heck I have that much more respect for them. Better than Bush-type war cheerleader kids, thanking the troops for defending their right to attend lobbyist parties in DC.

 

1) For the most part, it was neither "wreckless" (sic) or "calous" (sic). Badly formulated policy? Yes, very. Reckless and callous? Hardly.

2) Many of the people you mention (Miller, O'Reilly, Hannity, Miller (sic), Murdoch, Perle) had little or no influence on policy; they're nothing more than convenient boogeymen for your partisan idiocy.

3) Your lack of censure for the Democrats that "wrecklessly and calously [sic] put soldiers in harm's way" is noted...let me repeat: partisan idiocy.

4) You're bitching about people not defending the indefensible? What the !@#$ is wrong with you?

5) Ever think that maybe you're not getting any answer because, given the above four points, nobody takes you seriously?

1) Thank you for correcting spelling errors

2) Utter nonsense saying certain people in the media weren't key players selling the WMD-BS to the American public. Complete BS calling me partisan ... IVE NEVER VOTED DEMOCRAT IN MY LIFE.

3) Continued canned nonsense implying I'm a partisan Liberal ... in your wildest imagination, can you imagine patriotism as the reason for objecting to BS getting Americans killed?

4) no idea what that means

5) no I hadn't, but now that misguided concerns have been addressed, I would hope to see substantive replies

[GG]

Why would spoiled rich kids be protesting? They're not the ones fighting. And if they are, then heck I have that much more respect for them. Better than Bush-type war cheerleader kids, thanking the troops for defending their right to attend lobbyist parties in DC.

 

You'd have to ask the rich spoiled kids themselves why they are protesting in the same way you'd ask their 12 year old brothers & sisters why they think Justin Bieber is great.

[DC Tom]

Why would spoiled rich kids be protesting? They're not the ones fighting. And if they are, then heck I have that much more respect for them. Better than Bush-type war cheerleader kids, thanking the troops for defending their right to attend lobbyist parties in DC.

 

 

1) You're welcome.

2) What did I say? I said POLICY, you dolt.

3) You're a partisan liberal. It shows in your posts...not just this one. I don't care how you've voted...you're partisan, and you're liberal.

4) The policy of invading Iraq was indefensible. You say as much yourself. So what kind of a moron does that make you, expecting a defense of it?

5) You didn't address a single one. You ignored what I said in (1) and (2), misrepresent yourself in (3) and (4), and somehow pretend that addressed (5). You dodged and evaded everything I mentioned...just like you accuse others of doing. Why should anyone take you seriously?

[Wacka]

Why would spoiled rich kids be protesting? They're not the ones fighting. And if they are, then heck I have that much more respect for them. Better than Bush-type war cheerleader kids, thanking the troops for defending their right to attend lobbyist parties in DC.

 

 

 

Because the spoiled rich kids that had college deferments and wouldn't go any way were the ones protesting the Vietnam War. The kids who didn't go to college were busy working. I bet if you did research, most 60s hippies were from well off families.

[truth on hold]

 

1) You're welcome.

2) What did I say? I said POLICY, you dolt.

3) You're a partisan liberal. It shows in your posts...not just this one. I don't care how you've voted...you're partisan, and you're liberal.

4) The policy of invading Iraq was indefensible. You say as much yourself. So what kind of a moron does that make you, expecting a defense of it?

5) You didn't address a single one. You ignored what I said in (1) and (2), misrepresent yourself in (3) and (4), and somehow pretend that addressed (5). You dodged and evaded everything I mentioned...just like you accuse others of doing. Why should anyone take you seriously?

2) Actually a lot of the media did influence policy directly as they had the ears of politicians, and politicians would cite their news "reports" as part of the "evidence" (see Judith Miller's "Smoking Gun" NY Times article.) But what's the point of debating "policy" versus "selling" it? Point is they ENABLED it. Yet is was so important to them that not a single one had a family member fighting it?

3) continued nonsense. Show me the posts where I'm for wealth redistribution and big government. And "partisan" means "party", so by your own words someone who's never voted Democrat can't be defending them for "partisan" reasons. You seem to be equating a stance against the manipulation of our military for foreign interests as somehow anti-conservative. How then do you explain the purest conservative in the Congress, Ron Paul, sharing that same view?

4)If you concede the invasion of Iraq was indefensible, how do take issue with anyone (students, etc), who oppose the use the continued manipulation of our military by the same forces behind it? Joe Lieberman, for example, to this day still claims Saddam had WMDs, and is cheerleading for US to attack other mideast countries. Seriously, what's a greater threat to Americans: a handful of college kids with signs, or a highly influential Senator who lead the charge for, in your words, an "indefensible" war, who continues to push a war agenda?

Edited February 28, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack

[ieatcrayonz]

 

4)If you concede the invasion of Iraq was indefensible, how do take issue with anyone (students, etc), who oppose the use the continued manipulation of our military by the same forces behind it? Joe Lieberman, for example, to this day still claims Saddam had WMDs, and is cheerleading for US to attack other mideast countries. Seriously, what's a greater threat to Americans: a handful of college kids with signs, or a highly influential Senator who lead the charge for, in your words, an "indefensible" war, who continues to push a war agenda?

 

I think what the uninformed minds in this thread are saying is that the students were taking it out on the wrong person. What they fail to understand because they have not listened to you is that when the hippies were yelling "racist, racist, racist" at the paralyzed soldier as he tried to speak, they were showing a deep compassion for him and his right to free speech. They had to yell over him to prove they respect him and his right to speak. If they ever had actually let him speak, he would have only said something pro-military. Letting him talk would have been a very disrespectful thing for them to do. By yelling racist, they displayed a touching empathy for their fellow man. It is sad that you were the only one who understood, but now you have taught me.

 

On a related note, and although I am not fully there yet, I am starting to understand the way you feel about Mark Sanchez. Let me see if I have this right:

 

Once the girl told him 17 was legal in New Jersey, it would have been wrong of him to say:

 

"That may be the case, but you are still too young for me." Similarly, it would have been rude for him to determine if this statement were actually true from an independent source. The heroic action, and the one Sanchez took, would be to take her word for it on the age of consent, take her back to his apartment, and have his way with her.

 

So I now have come to understand that Mark Sanchez is a hero and the paralyzed soldier needs to understand that the hippies shouting him down were enlightened and that he should aspire to be like them.

 

I know I am still learning but can you let me know how I'm doing?

[erynthered]

From the Military times poll from 2007. I would suspect that these numbers probably hold true to todays military.

 

In politics today, do you consider yourself a:

 

Democrat

14.4%

Independent

21.1%

Libertarian

3.1%

Republican

48.9%

Other

4%

Decline to answer

8.5%

 

Didn't see anyone named Lieberman, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Miller, O'Reilly, Hannity, Miller, Libby, Murdoch, Perle, etc etc ... over there either.

 

 

You're an idiot.

[DC Tom]

2) Actually a lot of the media did influence policy directly as they had the ears of politicians, and politicians would cite their news "reports" as part of the "evidence" (see Judith Miller's "Smoking Gun" NY Times article.) But what's the point of debating "policy" versus "selling" it? Point is they ENABLED it. Yet is was so important to them that not a single one had a family member fighting it?

3) continued nonsense. Show me the posts where I'm for wealth redistribution and big government. And "partisan" means "party", so by your own words someone who's never voted Democrat can't be defending them for "partisan" reasons. You seem to be equating a stance against the manipulation of our military for foreign interests as somehow anti-conservative. How then do you explain the purest conservative in the Congress, Ron Paul, sharing that same view?

youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0

4)If you concede the invasion of Iraq was indefensible, how do take issue with anyone (students, etc), who oppose the use the continued manipulation of our military by the same forces behind it? Joe Lieberman, for example, to this day still claims Saddam had WMDs, and is cheerleading for US to attack other mideast countries. Seriously, what's a greater threat to Americans: a handful of college kids with signs, or a highly influential Senator who lead the charge for, in your words, an "indefensible" war, who continues to push a war agenda?

 

2) Policy is not public opinion.

3) "Partisan" does not mean "party". It means a militant proponent or defender of a particular point of view - in this case, the point of view that the neo-cons were exclusively and criminally (and "wrecklessly" and "calously") responsible for lying about the war, and somehow using that incorrect point of view to justify a bunch of college kids acting like !@#$s.

4) What the !@#$ are you talking about? "The use the continued manipulation of our military by the same forces behind [the war]"? And if the soldier in question was manipulated, then why are Columbia students so callous as to boo and heckle him?

 

You want to take a minute and get your thought process in order? We'll wait...

[truth on hold]

2) public opinion enabled the policy. If not, what explains all the media cheerleading and manipulation? Why the heavy sell job?

3) Partisan (political) In politics, partisan literally means organized into political parties. The expression "partisan politics" usually refers to fervent, sometimes militant, support of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisan

4) Because he's there as a cheerleader for a body that sadly at this time is being directed by special interest groups that are not acting in US interests.

 

There, that took about 40 seconds ....

[DC Tom]

2) public opinion enabled the policy. If not, what explains all the media cheerleading and manipulation? Why the heavy sell job?

3) Partisan (political) In politics, partisan literally means organized into political parties. The expression "partisan politics" usually refers to fervent, sometimes militant, support of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisan

4) Because he's there as a cheerleader for a body that sadly at this time is being directed by special interest groups that are not acting in US interests.

 

There, that took about 40 seconds ....

 

Should have taken my advice and taken longer...you might have approached something that made sense.

 

2) Media cheerleading explains itself: the press loves a good war. You also forget that the administration was trying to sell it to a doubtful internation community and UN...if they were selling it to the US public they did a decidedly ****ty job, given how many people were against the war.

3) Partisan literally means what I said it meant, dumbass. Don't tell me how I'm using a word I defined for you.

3) You're an idiot. Had you not posted a Ron Paul video earlier, I'd have taken you for one of his supporters anyway. What's next...you going to tell us how 9/11 was an inside job? PLEASE tell me you think a supersonic cruise missile hit the Pentagon...