a significant number of those on the left do not respect the military and even dislike the military. I’m sure Chris Mathews spoke for many of his fellow left when he spoke about the United States Military Academy at West Point.
heard West Point referred to as a "Strange Venue"
What does it say about a President who is out of place in front of the troops...
A significant number of those on the left do not respect the military or even dislike the military?
All I can say is WOW.
Of course, we know the right just loves the military. That's why the Republicans passed the GI Bill. Oh wait.....that was DEMOCRATS who did that.
Of course, it's always right who say "bring the troops home NOW" to keep them out of harms way. Oh wait...that's LIBERALS who do that.
Of course, that's why Democratic presidents always want to cut COMBAT PAY for our troops. Oh wait...that was BUSH who did that.
Of course, that's why Dems wanted to privatize Walter Reed so that our troops wouldn't get the are that they need. Oh wait...that was BUSH who did that.
Of course, that's also why Dems severely cut V.A. services to our veterans and ignored our troops when they began committed suicide for untreated PTSD. Oh wait....that was Bush who did that.
Of course, that's why Dems wanted to hire private contractors like Halliburton to go to Iraq and offer our troops services...like providing them with unclean drinking water that gave them dysentery. Oh wait...it was BUSH who did that, and Cheney PROFITED from that.
And of course, it was a Dem who sent 5,000 US soldiers to their DEATHS in a WAR OF CHOICE. No...wait.....that was the Republican George Bush who did that. Need I go on?
How any US soldier could support a single Republican is beyond me. George Carlin said it best when he said that conservatives are against abortion because they want them to grow up and be dead soldiers.
It must be the reason they don't like unnecessary war. Republicans love the military so much that, they are in perpetual war.
Crock of shit.
Yet, even after all the things you enumerate they are still referred to as "The Enemy." Why is that?
You cite some social programs (spending other peoples money I might add) directed at vets and active duty that dems pushed more than republicans and you think that buys your way out of trouble. That's the equivalent to a parishioner that generously tithes to the church but never shows up on Sunday, never actually participates in the giving of his time and sweat. You consider programs such as those you cite as no more than the modern day equivalent of 14th century Papal indulgences, paid as penance for your sins of thought and sometimes deed.
There rest you cite is garbage. Your last agreement with Carlin demonstrates how little you actually understand.
You're a bright guy and I generally respect your views, but stop beating this dead horse. You're making yourself look foolish.
Anyone with half a brain knows that Mathews was speaking metaphorically. Still, the politically correct police beat him over the head with it, and he apologized later for saying it.
And even if HE did mean it in a negative way, which he obviously didn't, ONE person making such a statement certainly wouldn't "end all criticism of the right when we claim that a significant number of those on the left do not respect the military and even dislike the military."
And where do you get off drawing the conclusion that you're sure "Chris Mathews spoke for many of his fellow left when he spoke about the United States Military Academy at West Point." Are you a mind reader? Do you have some magical insight into the unspoken thoughts of liberals?
Your analogy about the church goer tithing money but not attending church is spurious. Willie, along with most liberals have no need to "buy their way out of trouble". The only trouble is the one you've manufactured in your mind. You're assertion that liberals hate the military is assinine. Much of what Willie cited is irrefutable, no matter how much you try to divert it by saying they were trying to "buy their way out of trouble". Liberals don't hate the military. They hate the MISUSE OF THE MILITARY by a dick-swinging conservative president who used it to go after the guy who tried to kill his daddy. To extrapolate that to say that liberals hate the military, and then go even further to draw the conclusion that therefore they hate soldiers, and then cite the Chris Mathews incident as your "proof" that you were right is patently absurd, and shows you're grasping at straws.
-- Modified on 12/2/2009 10:58:13 PM
once again you assert things to my post that I never said. I did not say liberals hate the military. I said "some."
you said "a significant amount", which is no where close to saying "some". "Some" is a general figure that could mean anything above zero percent.
But again, you're deflecting... go back to my post and insert the words "a significant amount of" in front of the word liberals. It doesn't change the validity of my reply at all! My observations stand up either way.
Stop looking for technicalities and address the issues. You're a smart guy, but when you can't defend your statements you always fall back on misdirection.
I indeed used "a significant amount".
You then trid to rstate my postioon as "You're assertion that liberals hate the military is assinine." This strictly implies that I said "all".
"some" is indeed very similar to a "significant amount." Much more similar than "all".
You are the one that tried to change what I said, yet you try to put ME in the box for putting what I said back on point? Sheedh.
-- Modified on 12/3/2009 10:13:51 PM
You are STILL trying to misdirect the issue with technicalities.
First of all, "some" is not VERY similar to "a significant amount". "Some" people are left-handed... yeah, about 14%. That's not even close to a significant amount.
Second of all, I ACKNOWLEDGED that I substituted "all" for a "significant amount". There was nothing nefarious there; I read your reply, answered it and erroneously replaced significant with all, just as you yourself erroneously replaced signigicant with some. I didn't accuse you of trying to change your original statement intentionally. But I'll admit it again if it will make you feel better... YES I INADVERTENTLY REPLACED THE WORDS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT WITH THE WORD ALL.
HOWEVER... I said that if you went back and replaced "all liberals" with "a significant amount of liberals", it wouldn't change the validity of my observations. Stop nit-picking and address the real issue!
Isn't it interesting how we both think the other is nit-picking?
I never even came CLOSE to making a claim that liberals hate soldiers. Another example of straw man debate.
But as long as you bring it up. What political persuasion do you suspect most of the baby boomers are today that participated in the spitting on returning Vietnam soldiers?
The truth of that last statement has got to hurt, doesn't it Eddie?
I can't wait to hear the excuses you are going to try to make on behalf of the people that attacked the biggest "victims" of the Vietnam War. Well at least the only American victims, but victims nonetheless.
I make no excuses for them. It was a horrible thing and those people should be totally ashamed for doing it, and as I mentioned, I'm guessing many of them are today.
You are correct. I searched out the thread that started this debate, thinking it was yours, and I realize that it was dncphil. You never said that liberals hate soldiers; my bad.
Regarding the second part of your post; if you feel you need to go back 40 years to make your point, yes, most of the spitting baby boomers were liberals... no, in fact, I'd say ALL of them were liberals; but you have to admit that it was a different time, a different country then it is today, and an entirely different dynamic... with an unpopular war, a draft, and students shot down at Kent State, MOST people our age were liberals. Understand, I'm ONLY talking about the political culture of the late 60's and early 70's... I'm in NO way making excuses for those people who spat on the returning soldiers... it was a digusting display of insensitivity to what we veterans sacrificed in those stinking rice patties, and they should have been thouroughly ashamed of themselves. I'll even go as far as to say that they should have been prosecuted.
I'm guessing (guessing, not assuming) that many of those who spit on the soldiers back then are ashamed today for doing so.
But as long as YOU bring it up, what political persuasion do you suspect most of them are NOW?
And, just out of curiosity, what political persuasion were YOU in 1969?
-- Modified on 12/3/2009 8:25:11 PM
I went back 40 years to demonstrate a pattern of behavior.
Of the significant portion of the liberals that hate the military, very few actually hate the people of the miltary. There is a significant number that do though, not portion but numbers. But you can find real haters in any group of nearly anything.
Most of the young war protestors of the 60s and 70s are still liberal. But I'd be willing to bet that more switched to conservatism than did people in my conservative crowd switch to liberalism. Ageing does allow some people to see their errors.
So as you've already guessed I've always been on the right. I was fortunate to attend a non liberal school in engineering. My first Presidential vote was to reelect Nixon, LOL. I’m sure though that I was on J.Edgar’s list of communist sympathizers though since I regularly received propaganda mail from Castro in the 70’s (I was an avid shortwave radio listener and had applied for a Radio Habana Cuba QSL card.)
Actually your claim that I'm a closet conservative at heart has a basis in reality. I was a strong supporter of the Viet Nam war and served two tours of duty. I campaigned for Nixon in '68. The war, and Watergate changed me. I'm firmly convinced that those two things, taken together, caused the American people to stop trusting their government and established an us-vs-them mentality. First Agnew turned out to be a petty crook, using the office of the vice-president to shake down a lousy $10,000 bribe, then you had Bebe Rebozo (sp), then Watergate. People realized that their leaders were no more than criminals, and not particularly exceptional criminals.
It also broke the unspoken agreement between the government and the press that if it didn't have any real affect on the country, it didn't need to be reported. FDR was never shown in public photos in his wheel chair, everyone in Washington knew the Elenor Roosevelt had a female lover, everybody around the Beltway knew that JFK was a whoremonger, etc. etc. etc. There were rules, and both sides played by them. The press was somewhat a partner of government, in that they would protect politicians when it was only a matter of personal faux pas. After watergate, all bets were off between govenment and the press, and that has led us to the advesarial, and for the most part worthless media we have today.
Today the majority of the "news" isn't the news... it's Op-Ed pieces disguised as news.
that I hardly see Matthews as a liberal at all, much less someone who speaks for the left. In fact, he is the most conservative guy on MSNBC in the evening by far. Matthews has been bitch slapped by both Jon Stewart and Keith Olbermann for his conservative positions. He also tends to have a big mouth in which he frequently puts his foot in it.
I don't think this is necessarily a right left thing. The military isn't left or conservative per se. However when you have a jingoistic president, then the military will respond to that. If you have a president is not jingoistic, then they will respond to that as well.
You are correct.
Republicans say they love and support the troops, and I do think that they are sincere.
But its the Democrats who support the returning troops, and veterans.
Republicans always find the money for the tools of war, but somehow never have the money for programs for returning veterans. Democrats would prefer to avoid war and needless loss of life, but are the ones introducing programs to help the returning and wounded serviceman.
Finding oneself in the "enemy's camp" just means that you didn't receive a very warm welcome, which was Chris Matthew's point. And, that seemed to be the case, and is usually the case with any Democratic President. There is, no doubt, many more on the left that "do not respect the military," than on the right, but then you have plenty of Republican politicians who did not serve when they easily could have, and were needed; Cheney, Romney, etc. I really don't think they respect the military either; not really.
I think you are right, but even still, it was an extremely, EXTREMELY poor choice of words on Matthew's part.
as being the enemy, no matter what the context. He definitely put his foot in his mouth.
It was a metaphor, pure and simple, and a commonly used metaphor at that. It's perfectly obvious that there was no ill will or criticism of our soldiers intended.
It may not have been the best choice of words, but it's also not the big deal that the conservatives are making it out to be.
And Mathews has already apologized for it.
Even looking at the venue of this speech in political terms is wrong. The speech yes, the forum no, even though President Obama opened the door by going to West Point.
Military in uniform are forbidden to participate in the political arena, PERIOD. So to even pit the President against a room full of uniformed soldiers and cadets as Mathews did, to me is absolutely ABHORENT, regardless the phraseology. He did make it 100 times worse by his poorest choice of words. There's so many other ways he could have phrased it that would have wrong as well, but to call the MILITARY the enemy (AND THAT"S WHAT HE DID) is simply unacceptable. Yes, he apologized (to save his ass) but he revealed who he really is after the speech.
Every other news organization implied the same thing, and all of them "pitted the President against a room full of uniformed soldiers and cadets". And not only Fox, but CNN, MSNBC and a few of the broadcast new reports. They made the observation that the cadets did not seem to respond well to Obama's speech, and that it was an "odd" place for the president to chose to make his announcement. So they all did the same as Mathews, they just didn't do it as stupidly.
But come on... You know very well that Mathews meant it simply as a figure of speech. He wasn't implying that the military is our ememy, or that the military is Obama's enemy.
I'm sure you or someone you know has said to his wife, a friend of a family member, "I'll kill you"! He didn't literally mean he was going to end their life; his wife/sibling/friend didn't suddenly fear him, or even take his word seriously. It's exactly the same thing here.
Conservative rant and rave about the new "mambie-pambie liberal politically correctness" (and rightly so; so do I), but apparently they feel that one should be politically correct about conservative issues.
One more point... apparently, since you've stated this yourself, when a pundit like Limbaugh makes a mistake but admits his mistake and apologizes for it right away, well, it's end of story, no big deal; but when a liberal makes a mistake, admits it and apologizes for it right away, it's different... he's "saving his ass" and "revealing his true self".
Aren't we being a hypocrite here??
-- Modified on 12/3/2009 8:45:39 PM
There were many on this board that excused what he did, rationalizing that they actually knew what he meant. There are others that think he had nothing for which he should apologize, yet what did Mathews do the next day? He apologized, profusely.
I do NOT think he made a mistake. I think he meant what he said. It’s too strong a phrase to be classified as a gaffe. Of course he had to apologize after he saw the reception to his words if he were to keep his audience let alone his job. I do not accept Mathew’s apology.
Hey, you're entitled to your opinions, and as I said I generally respect them. In this case, I happen to think that you're letting your consevatism blind you to the reality of the situation. So it goes...