Dissed! The Jarheads know the deal. Next Marine I see eats and drinks for free.
[NY Post, July 31, 2004 -- SCRANTON, Pa. — John Kerry's heavily hyped cross-country bus tour stumbled out of the blocks yesterday, as a group of Marines publicly dissed the Vietnam War hero in the middle of a crowded restaurant.
Kerry was treating running mate Sen. John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, to a Wendy's lunch in Newburgh, N.Y., for their 27th wedding anniversary — an Edwards family tradition — when the candidate approached four Marines and asked them questions.
The Marines — two in uniform and two off-duty — were polite but curt while chatting with Kerry, answering most of his questions with a "yes, sir" or "no, sir." . . .
"He imposed on us and I disagree with him coming over here shaking our hands," one Marine said, adding, "I'm 100 percent against [him]."
A sergeant with 10 years of service under his belt said, "I speak for all of us. We think that we are doing the right thing in Iraq," before saying he is to be deployed there in a few weeks and is "eager" to go and serve.]
RLTW
You left out an important part.
The "Marines" were too cowardly to tell us their names.
Maybe they were the ones torturing and killing innoceet Iraqis at Abu Ghraib.
to quote the article you failed to post in it's entirety:
The Marines — all of whom serve at nearby Stewart Air Force Base — wouldn't give their names.
Why don't you just refuse them the right to vote...
OH, WAIT!! Been there, done that!
... because they represent war, the single thing the far Left and European-educated elites abhor most. In their view, and history proves this out, there is no cause worth fighting for. Not ever. War is evil. Give peace a chance, baby. Enlightened dialogue between factious parties will win the day. Only animals engage in war. The U.S. or A is far above animals, although it IS being led by a primate, they'll tell you. Here's the history on this enlightened Left European mindset: The idea of peace at ANY cost gave the world World War I and World War II. The fact is, the Left, who claims to cherish liberty so much, will never ever find a cause worth dying for (welll, maybe environmentalism). They never have. They never will. I'd respect the opinions of my Lefty friends a lot more if they'd call themselves what they really are: Pacificists.
We do despise being lied to when someone wants to simply be beligerant and launch an offensive war against someone else, on their soil, and claim that it is to further OUR liberty, when in fact, there is ZERO threat to our liberty from the target of our invasion. All the while, our "leaders" are passing laws in our own land which restrict our liberties, and propping up fake security alerts based on obsolete information in order to properly panic the citizenry into allowing this to happen.
We DO believe that War is to be avoided at all costs, EXCEPT in defense of our liberty. And I'd be happy to respect any of my righty friends who disagree, if they'd call themselves what they really are: Warmongers.
Most of youer posts have merit- this one is baseless.
Read about the Lincoln brigade in the Spanish Civil War and the other international fighters and sit the fuck down.
How about the Russian Army in WWII -. THEY DID ALL THE HEAVY LIFTING. The western front was bubble on a gnats ass of the Eastern Front! And the Yugoslavian commies actually killed jerry -while the right wingers collaborated.
Warriors come from all stripes. As do cowards. Am I a pacifist? How about the lefies in the Haganah?
Pacifist are often liberals. But not always. And not all liberals are pacifist.
But wanting a good almost iron-clad reason for going to war is a basic american ethos. We like to leave pure adventurism to the old colonial powers.
Spanish Civil War? Cossacks? Yugoslav commies? I wasn't talking about ANY of these things. If you thought I was disparaging the bravery of rank-and-file European foot soldiers in history, I said nothing of the sort. You needn't remind me that peoples of Europe have suffered some of the bloodiest wars on earth, in their own backyard. And, mostly caused by themselves, I might add. And which the U.S. had to mop up for them. In this sense, the war-wariness of typical Europeans is wholly understandable, albeit self-inflicted. And we're supposed to be seeking the approval of these clowns? HA!
What I WAS disparaging was the self-appointed intellectual elite in Europe and their coat-carriers here in the U.S. who can't accept any use of military force under any circumstances. I concede your point that not all Liberals are Pacifists. That's paying them more of a compliment than they deserve. Actually, they're much worse. Folks, ask yourselves what was the last war Liberals or even Democrats supported? Ohhhhh. Bosnia. Right. The one conducted under a liberal democrat president. I get it now. Use of military force is justified ONLY when it's a Democrat, but NOT when it's a Republican as commander-in-chief. So, in essense, for a Liberal, or Democrat, matters with the gravity of war, or national security are just part of political game-playing. Shame that the Democrats see issues as grave as this as nothing more than another poker chit with which to gain political advantage over there foes. And with that incendiary blast, I'll bid you adieu from the New York Stock Exchange. HA!
Pass the pipe back- dude you are totally bogarting it.
I think you will find few peopel; here with a seriuos problem with the Aghanistan campaign.
Taking on a unneeded war before we were finished with getting Osama out of the Hindu Kush? Pricelessly stupid.
Say Hello to all the little Birchers at home!
-- Modified on 8/3/2004 3:06:40 PM
Let me get this straight: You just called my KIDS John Birch Society members? Those people are practically facists. Besides, what do my kids have to do with this? Let's have a little time-out. Like I said earlier, I'm happy to engage in fevered political discourse -- even with someone who is woefully misinformed and expresses themselves with the thin veneer of a pseudo-education -- and I'll respectfully disagree with them, provided I'm disagreed with -- respectfully.
I can take personal insults, even though name-calling during a political discussion is truly the last resort of the intellectually outmatched, wouldn't you agree, Sully? But I rather think it is unseemly for an adult to engage in name-calling with someone's kids. Could you do something adult that will really impress me Sully? Leave my kids out of the discussion from here on in. Just thought I'd nip this in the bud. Thanks, pal.
Actually I did not refer to your kids- do you have some?- but to others of the US is perfect- all other countries suck mindset. It reminds me of the Birchers.
You are clearly totally focussed on the US. Seem to have little knowledge of or use for any idea/thing that comes from overseas. Since ALL ideas/things here are orginally from overseas- mostly from Europe or other colonies, your attitude is problematic when any argument goes too far.
Chauvinism is fun and makes for good radio bytes, but is largely useless and discredited as a political idea.
And you should know that it is a slippery slope, once you are a "my country right or wrong" chauvinist (even that idea came from FRANCE)to "America First"-ism. A short ride from there to the Birchers.
I used to think a little bit this way but college, freindships with some interesting foreigners, and a bit of travel helped me see how limiting it is.
And duder- our shit DOES stink. Right now to the high heavens.
Your right these issues are grave. And what has Bush done with the WTC attacks but use it as part of his political agenda. If this is true, which I believe, then who is shameful ? I would support a focused effort to destroy Bin Laden et al but do not believe all roads lead to Iraq - that would be quite convenient though.
Is there anything you don't believe the US has been righteous about, or are you a firm believer in Manifest Destiny ?
BTW, when your SO spends hours cleaning the house (mansion ?) do you throw out the garbage and then claim to have mopped up after her (not the same as the US's contribution to WWII but in the spirit of your statements) ?
Election LAW specifically stated that any absentee ballots that were not delivered by the date of the election were invalid. If you didn't like that, why didn't you get the law changed. You DO believe that our election laws should be obeyed COMPLETELY, don't you? Or do you only believe that the law should be obeyed when it suits YOUR agenda?
Late absentee ballots, whether from the military, or anyone else, whether due to the fault of the voter themself, or anyone else, are LEGALLY invalid. That was the LAW of the land. If you don't like the law, you are welcome to try to change it for the future. But the LAW is the LAW is the LAW. Even when it hurts your candidate.
-- Modified on 8/3/2004 7:14:34 PM
"that was the LAW that did that, not the left" - sdstud
Then it is safe to say that you TOTALLY AGREE with the
Supreme Courts ruling regarding the 2000 Prediental elections.
I mean, "that is the LAW that did that, not the" right.
Good to know you support that decision.
"the LAW is the LAW is the LAW, Even when it hurts your candidate." - sdstud
Even when the Law is wrong, it is the Law and it is to be enforced - "even when it hurts my candidate". So we don't "support the decision" but we DO respect it as the law and we obey it, and we try to change the outcome the next time. Hence, even though Bush was wrongly installed as POTUS by the Supreme Court, I acknowledge that he is, in legal fact the President, and rather than riot in the streets and use force to oust him, we need to grant that he IS the President, and DOES have the legal authority that the office entails. Then we move on to the current election and use the system to oust him legally in the this election.
Similarly, it's good to see that YOU acknowledge that even though you consider it wrong that the late absentee ballots from the military are legally disallowed, that in fact, they were NOT legal ballots, and hence ought not have counted under the LAW, and perhaps you could just get the law changed for next time.
Oh, and please enlighten me as to the humor of this situation. I certainly don't think something as significant as a botched Presidential election that makes our nation look like a Banana Republic in the eyes of the world is "TOO FUNNY".
Or perhaps the humor is simply derived from your inability to properly make a deduction that is supported in logic, and rather, you jump to the completely unfounded conclusion that the acknowledgement of legality equals "TOTAL AGREEMENT" and my "support". That was simply your misapplication of logic, which you used to reach an unfounded conclusion. Which of course came as no surprise to anyone who has followed your posts in the past.
I responded to this post 2 times, didn't cuss the poster or break any rules I know of??
Not going to bother again with my long diatribe, suffice it to say sdstud is totally wrong on the post above.
Go find a Marine, then call him cowardly. Come back and let me know the results.
The fact that they didn't show blatant disrespect to the Senator by telling him how they really feel, in colorful Marine jargon, shows a level of professionalism and restraint that you probably can't comprehend.
The idiotic torture comment demostrates that you are not even worthy of shining the boots of those Marines. On second thought maybe you are, by having one shoved up your ass and vigorously twisted.
RLTW
-- Modified on 8/3/2004 6:46:47 AM
The Labanese marine who ended up in Lebanon to go see his girlfriend! I tell you, that was a great plan to escape the war, tell everyone I am a hostage!!!
And calls United States Marines cowardly for not wanting to call attention to themselves? Maybe they fear having their cars keyed by brave men like Bush Whacker!
I would laugh, but its just too sad that so many people are that dense.
The American military is comprised for the most part of citizens who freely give up 4 or more years of their lives in service to this country and then return to their civilian lives. They are us and we are them. Idiotic comments like those of Bush Whacker are far more than partisan, they are anti-American and anti-America!
BTW, RLTW, Semper Fi!
Jarheads are jarheads. Good LI. Often good guys. But no-one ever claims they are strategic thinkers. Tactics are their province.
Sounds to me like all sides had a good time. They got a major national figure to chat with them, he got his pics, they got to spout off.
Still looking for a negative to get people all worked up.
And BTW- a LOT of service personel loved McArthur and hated Truman. And I think we are all glad that interchange went the way it did. But it does go to show that wearing grean (or Camo)does not make you a political savant. But it damn sure doesn't make you less an american.
Maybe they were more concerned that insulting a sitting US senator while on camera and reported, could be considered conduct unbecomming and charged under the UCMJ. Not a penalty a civilian has to worry about.
I was in the service (4 years) and you have to think about things like that. It can and does affect careers.
When was the last time BUSH asked someone, un-vetted, in an unrehearsed fashion, what they thought of his Presidential actions, in front of a nationally televised audience? The answer is, NEVER. Because he hasn't the courage or character to ask someone who might well oppose him, what they think about him, for all to hear.
More power to John Edwards. Frankly, those Marines shrank from their duty as citizens, in being unwilling to frankly question Edwards and Kerry about things that they disagreed with about their positions.
-- Modified on 8/3/2004 6:15:18 PM
It isn't cowardly to not give their names and have to deal with the press again, again and again, until they punch a reporter's lights out.
It's obvious to me that the military doesn't like Kerry. It isn't like Clinton who avoided the draft. They don't like Kerry because he's liberal. That's it. George Bush can serve a cushy job stateside and go AWOL, and even appear in a flight suit. No question. But they'll question Kerry's medals to the hilt.
/Zin
Wish more Americans in general would stop posing with jackasses from both sides for these phony political photo ops. Good for the marines for insulting Kerry though!! Keep up the good work!!
It needs to happen more and more often to the cronies on both sides!!
for Kerry. Only one of the group said he is "100% against Kerry". Another one proclaims himself the spokesman for the group, but this is a self-appointed position, and one which the other Marines may not agree with. And even if they do agree that the US is doing the right thing in Iraq, it desn't mean they won't vote for Kerry - maybe they think Kerry's economic policies will be better for their family members back home, and so they disagree in one area (Iraq) with the candidate who they will vote for.
You, sir, are spin-doctoring!
-- Modified on 8/3/2004 7:26:34 AM
And if pigs had wings...
I'm sure your reasoning had nothing to do with the Democrats throwing out military votes in 2000! Face it, the military hated Clinton and are not to warm on Lurch, I mean Hanoi John.
I think Bush will win the military vote, but by no more than 60% to 40%.
-- Modified on 8/3/2004 8:01:04 PM
Not sure if we can find out the answer from an authoritative source after the election, but assuming we can?
In a political contest 55% feels like 90%. I have actually talked to a lot of left leaning soldiers in my day. They are perhaps on the right wing of the DEms, but are progressives. I would agree that Bush will do well with some military families. But his cavalier attitude with their lives and lack of basic forsight will lose him sonme votes too. I'd say you might get 60+, but not too much higher. And if it was 49%, I'd not be too shocked.
toilet paper. Thanks for your consideration. Luv, ST25.
Doh! You mean it WASN'T Gephardt? I guess there goes the Pulitzer Prize right down the old poop chute.