Troops silent to Obama's arrival

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Julius Shark
?I don't see how Obama "won't have a choice in slipping towards the right". Care to explain??

I will give you a name that explains the slide to the right, Rick Warren.

You should read this article by passionate gay rights advocate Melissa Etheridge on Jeff Warren. He is for equal rights, he regrets words, he struggled with Prop 8, he and Melissa are planning to work together on positive things such as AIDS help. The anti-gay rhetoric has been removed from his web site. Looks like it's your guy moving left.

 

[Rainsford]

I'm not sure the content of this thread deserves a reply, but as a general rule, it's worth remembering that wishing hardly ever makes it so. While it would be convenient for the OP, and a lot of Republicans, for people in uniform to be 100% staunch Republicans, that's obviously not even remotely true...whatever pictures you can produce and whatever analysis you can provide with them. And while the past several years of Republican behavior might suggest otherwise, "the troops" have the job of fighting wars, not acting as a poorly regarded prop for Republican political smear-fests.

I honestly don't know (or care too much) who the troops respect, but while I don't wear a uniform, I know who *I* would respect in their position...and it wouldn't be the people who keep trying to use me for political gain.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: winnar111
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot....-met-with-silence.html

Barack Obama with US Marines in Kailua, Hawaii. Obama, on vacation in Hawaii, made a Christmas Day stop at a Marine Corps base in Hawaii, where he greeted troops and their family members during holiday dinner. (AFP/Tim Sloan)

Barack Obama visited US Marines in Hawaii on Christmas.
...He was met with silence.
Political Punch and PL Forum reported:

President-elect Obama stopped by the Marine Corps base in Hawaii Kaneche Bay where servicemen and -women were eating Christmas dinner in Kailua Thursday evening.

?Just wanted to say hi, hey guys,? Obama said as he walked into the Anderson dining hall which was decked out in Christmas decorations.

The diners represented seven military units -- Marine and Navy -- some of whom were joined by their families for Christmas dinner.

As Obama entered the room, it was absent of the regular fanfare of cheering and clapping. The diners were polite, staying seated at their respective tables and waited for the president-elect to come to them to stand up.


And this picture is priceless:

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/...bffc907183a248d869f01/


Compared to President Bush, with video.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot....e-bush-tremendous.html



Damn, nobody even gives him any token applause. You can see that Obama is tremendously popular with these veterans! :laugh:

The troops are tremendously forthcoming and eager to meet our current President, but not our next one. I wonder why.

I see you are applying for a Ministry Of Truth position. Don't think it will get you in the door anywhere else.

 

[UberNeuman]

Bill knows Bushit when he hears it...

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not sure the content of this thread deserves a reply, but as a general rule, it's worth remembering that wishing hardly ever makes it so. While it would be convenient for the OP, and a lot of Republicans, for people in uniform to be 100% staunch Republicans, that's obviously not even remotely true...whatever pictures you can produce and whatever analysis you can provide with them. And while the past several years of Republican behavior might suggest otherwise, "the troops" have the job of fighting wars, not acting as a poorly regarded prop for Republican political smear-fests.

I honestly don't know (or care too much) who the troops respect, but while I don't wear a uniform, I know who *I* would respect in their position...and it wouldn't be the people who keep trying to use me for political gain.

Who said it was for political gain or the troops were being used for policial props? It's just a comparison of two incidents made not by Bush himself but an analytical person who found it interesting. You sound like your nailed to a cross because this is being pointed out, but it's nothing but portraying the truth about a situation. You watch any amount of fake news on Comedy Central, and you'll get non-stop verbal and visual diarreah from the Daily Show taking a sh*t day after day on Republicans using 1% truth and 99% flippant stupid stoner humor.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not sure the content of this thread deserves a reply, but as a general rule, it's worth remembering that wishing hardly ever makes it so. While it would be convenient for the OP, and a lot of Republicans, for people in uniform to be 100% staunch Republicans, that's obviously not even remotely true...whatever pictures you can produce and whatever analysis you can provide with them. And while the past several years of Republican behavior might suggest otherwise, "the troops" have the job of fighting wars, not acting as a poorly regarded prop for Republican political smear-fests.
I honestly don't know (or care too much) who the troops respect, but while I don't wear a uniform, I know who *I* would respect in their position...and it wouldn't be the people who keep trying to use me for political gain.

Who said it was for political gain or the troops were being used for policial props? It's just a comparison of two incidents made not by Bush himself but an analytical person who found it interesting. You sound like your nailed to a cross because this is being pointed out, but it's nothing but portraying the truth about a situation. You watch any amount of fake news on Comedy Central, and you'll get non-stop verbal and visual diarreah from the Daily Show taking a sh*t day after day on Republicans using 1% truth and 99% flippant stupid stoner humor.

Do you realize the "analytical person" you cite is winnar111?

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not sure the content of this thread deserves a reply, but as a general rule, it's worth remembering that wishing hardly ever makes it so. While it would be convenient for the OP, and a lot of Republicans, for people in uniform to be 100% staunch Republicans, that's obviously not even remotely true...whatever pictures you can produce and whatever analysis you can provide with them. And while the past several years of Republican behavior might suggest otherwise, "the troops" have the job of fighting wars, not acting as a poorly regarded prop for Republican political smear-fests.
I honestly don't know (or care too much) who the troops respect, but while I don't wear a uniform, I know who *I* would respect in their position...and it wouldn't be the people who keep trying to use me for political gain.

Who said it was for political gain or the troops were being used for policial props? It's just a comparison of two incidents made not by Bush himself but an analytical person who found it interesting. You sound like your nailed to a cross because this is being pointed out, but it's nothing but portraying the truth about a situation. You watch any amount of fake news on Comedy Central, and you'll get non-stop verbal and visual diarreah from the Daily Show taking a sh*t day after day on Republicans using 1% truth and 99% flippant stupid stoner humor.

Do you realize the "analytical person" you cite is winnar111?

Do you realize you're an intellectual coward if all you do is attack the messenger? That's par for the course around here I know.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Do you realize the "analytical person" you cite is winnar111?

Do you realize you're an intellectual coward if all you do is attack the messenger? That's par for the course around here I know.

There's nothing cowardly about my intellect; I happen to think winnar111 is a possible valid application of the ad hominem attack. His posts rely heavily on non sequiturs and Straw Man arguments; this very thread is a riff on a contrast of two very different events involving our current and future presidents.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not sure the content of this thread deserves a reply, but as a general rule, it's worth remembering that wishing hardly ever makes it so. While it would be convenient for the OP, and a lot of Republicans, for people in uniform to be 100% staunch Republicans, that's obviously not even remotely true...whatever pictures you can produce and whatever analysis you can provide with them. And while the past several years of Republican behavior might suggest otherwise, "the troops" have the job of fighting wars, not acting as a poorly regarded prop for Republican political smear-fests.

I honestly don't know (or care too much) who the troops respect, but while I don't wear a uniform, I know who *I* would respect in their position...and it wouldn't be the people who keep trying to use me for political gain.

Who said it was for political gain or the troops were being used for policial props? It's just a comparison of two incidents made not by Bush himself but an analytical person who found it interesting. You sound like your nailed to a cross because this is being pointed out, but it's nothing but portraying the truth about a situation. You watch any amount of fake news on Comedy Central, and you'll get non-stop verbal and visual diarreah from the Daily Show taking a sh*t day after day on Republicans using 1% truth and 99% flippant stupid stoner humor.

winnarr111 is not an "analytical person", and you're damn right he's using the troops for political gain. Based on some random pictures he's ready to make all sorts of statements or suggest things about what the troops do or do not think about Bush and Obama. His mind-reading abilities aside, there seems to be little proof of his position, but that doesn't stop him from drafting the troops into supporting his political position. And he's hardly alone among Republicans...it's hard to turn around without some right-winger gesturing wildly at the troops alleged support of some right-wing position, as if that's even remotely accurate or at all changes the validity of the position.

"The truth" is a useful thing, but only if one is making an attempt to reach it. Right-wing, troop based fantasies aren't even remotely close.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not sure the content of this thread deserves a reply, but as a general rule, it's worth remembering that wishing hardly ever makes it so. While it would be convenient for the OP, and a lot of Republicans, for people in uniform to be 100% staunch Republicans, that's obviously not even remotely true...whatever pictures you can produce and whatever analysis you can provide with them. And while the past several years of Republican behavior might suggest otherwise, "the troops" have the job of fighting wars, not acting as a poorly regarded prop for Republican political smear-fests.
I honestly don't know (or care too much) who the troops respect, but while I don't wear a uniform, I know who *I* would respect in their position...and it wouldn't be the people who keep trying to use me for political gain.

Who said it was for political gain or the troops were being used for policial props? It's just a comparison of two incidents made not by Bush himself but an analytical person who found it interesting. You sound like your nailed to a cross because this is being pointed out, but it's nothing but portraying the truth about a situation. You watch any amount of fake news on Comedy Central, and you'll get non-stop verbal and visual diarreah from the Daily Show taking a sh*t day after day on Republicans using 1% truth and 99% flippant stupid stoner humor.

Do you realize the "analytical person" you cite is winnar111?

Do you realize you're an intellectual coward if all you do is attack the messenger? That's par for the course around here I know.

It's not the messenger, it's the message. For all I know winnar111 is a thoughtful, intelligent person who makes non-partisan comments based on honest interpretation of the facts. But winnar111's comment that started this thread is among the most ridiculous things I've ever read in P&N. They lack supporting evidence, they reek of naked partisanship, and most of all, they seem calculated to appeal to fire-breathing ring-wing assholes instead of people intent on finding out what's REALLY going on.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not sure the content of this thread deserves a reply, but as a general rule, it's worth remembering that wishing hardly ever makes it so. While it would be convenient for the OP, and a lot of Republicans, for people in uniform to be 100% staunch Republicans, that's obviously not even remotely true...whatever pictures you can produce and whatever analysis you can provide with them. And while the past several years of Republican behavior might suggest otherwise, "the troops" have the job of fighting wars, not acting as a poorly regarded prop for Republican political smear-fests.

I honestly don't know (or care too much) who the troops respect, but while I don't wear a uniform, I know who *I* would respect in their position...and it wouldn't be the people who keep trying to use me for political gain.

Who said it was for political gain or the troops were being used for policial props? It's just a comparison of two incidents made not by Bush himself but an analytical person who found it interesting. You sound like your nailed to a cross because this is being pointed out, but it's nothing but portraying the truth about a situation. You watch any amount of fake news on Comedy Central, and you'll get non-stop verbal and visual diarreah from the Daily Show taking a sh*t day after day on Republicans using 1% truth and 99% flippant stupid stoner humor.

winnarr111 is not an "analytical person", and you're damn right he's using the troops for political gain. Based on some random pictures he's ready to make all sorts of statements or suggest things about what the troops do or do not think about Bush and Obama. His mind-reading abilities aside, there seems to be little proof of his position, but that doesn't stop him from drafting the troops into supporting his political position. And he's hardly alone among Republicans...it's hard to turn around without some right-winger gesturing wildly at the troops alleged support of some right-wing position, as if that's even remotely accurate or at all changes the validity of the position.

"The truth" is a useful thing, but only if one is making an attempt to reach it. Right-wing, troop based fantasies aren't even remotely close.

And you discounting the whole notion that the Military is more supportive of Republicans than Democrats, Bush over Obama is based on what?

Republicans in general join the military in much larger numbers than Democrats. It's totally logical for them to want to shake Bush's hand over Obama's. You seem to disagree that this is even possible to happen the way the OP describes it, right?

 

[miketheidiot]

once again


why does it matter who the troops like? Is this fucking rome where the praetorian guard is going to start installing new president?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not sure the content of this thread deserves a reply, but as a general rule, it's worth remembering that wishing hardly ever makes it so. While it would be convenient for the OP, and a lot of Republicans, for people in uniform to be 100% staunch Republicans, that's obviously not even remotely true...whatever pictures you can produce and whatever analysis you can provide with them. And while the past several years of Republican behavior might suggest otherwise, "the troops" have the job of fighting wars, not acting as a poorly regarded prop for Republican political smear-fests.

I honestly don't know (or care too much) who the troops respect, but while I don't wear a uniform, I know who *I* would respect in their position...and it wouldn't be the people who keep trying to use me for political gain.

Who said it was for political gain or the troops were being used for policial props? It's just a comparison of two incidents made not by Bush himself but an analytical person who found it interesting. You sound like your nailed to a cross because this is being pointed out, but it's nothing but portraying the truth about a situation. You watch any amount of fake news on Comedy Central, and you'll get non-stop verbal and visual diarreah from the Daily Show taking a sh*t day after day on Republicans using 1% truth and 99% flippant stupid stoner humor.

winnarr111 is not an "analytical person", and you're damn right he's using the troops for political gain. Based on some random pictures he's ready to make all sorts of statements or suggest things about what the troops do or do not think about Bush and Obama. His mind-reading abilities aside, there seems to be little proof of his position, but that doesn't stop him from drafting the troops into supporting his political position. And he's hardly alone among Republicans...it's hard to turn around without some right-winger gesturing wildly at the troops alleged support of some right-wing position, as if that's even remotely accurate or at all changes the validity of the position.

"The truth" is a useful thing, but only if one is making an attempt to reach it. Right-wing, troop based fantasies aren't even remotely close.

And you discounting the whole notion that the Military is more supportive of Republicans than Democrats, Bush over Obama is based on what?

Republicans in general join the military in much larger numbers than Democrats. It's totally logical for them to want to shake Bush's hand over Obama's. You seem to disagree that this is even possible to happen the way the OP describes it, right?

You're right, the military folks tend to be Republican as opposed to Democratic (although there is a significant minority of Democratic troops). But the "logical" conclusion you and the OP come up with doesn't quite follow. Are you arguing that military people are willing to completely ignore the authority of the office and show favoritism to the man instead of the position? Because that doesn't quite fit with what I know about people in uniform, and it's certainly a bold assertion to be making. Plus you're assuming that every single soldier supports the President (or not) based on the views of the majority of his or her fellows. Support for Bush is portrayed as universal, while hatred for Obama is apparently equally uniform...are the Democratic troops who like Obama and dislike Bush totally silent? Because they make up a large percentage of the military population...

In the end though, my point is that the OP presented a convenient representation of the troops greeting a Republican and a Democrat with virtually no proof about the accuracy of those portrayals. Obviously the assumptions were made for political convenience, whatever the views of the actual soldiers might be, which makes me think that this is about Republicans far more than it's about people wearing a uniform and serving their country.

 

[SagaLore]

So what you're saying is that Obama got the same reaction that you get every time you post a thread.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
once again


why does it matter who the troops like?

It's an interesting analysis, not necessarily about the Military but about Obama. I for one, would hate to be a soldier under Obama because I'd have absolutely zero confidence that he knows what he's doing. Everyone could be wrong of course, but we have no reason to believe that Obama will a good commander in chief, where Bush has proven himself a great commander of the troops, and they love him for it.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
once again


why does it matter who the troops like? Is this fucking rome where the praetorian guard is going to start installing new president?

Republicans are all about symbols, and "the troops" are the best one they've found so far. In the US, for better or worse, we have a lot of respect for people who wear a military uniform, and the Republicans decided that's a feeling worth exploiting.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
once again


why does it matter who the troops like?

It's an interesting analysis, not necessarily about the Military but about Obama. I for one, would hate to be a soldier under Obama because I'd have absolutely zero confidence that he knows what he's doing. Everyone could be wrong of course, but we have no reason to believe that Obama will a good commander in chief, where Bush has proven himself a great commander of the troops, and they love him for it.

Bush has been a fucking terrible commander of the troops, the fact that any of them at all still support him says a lot about those individuals (none of it very good). He's shown he's willing to sacrifice them for political gain in a heartbeat, and that he supports them only as much as is political convenient. He's willing to waste their lives on a pointless mission because it helps him get reelected, and he's show that he only cares about their problems when it's a good photo-op. Obama may be an unknown, but Bush has spent his entire Presidency demonstrating that his a fucking disgrace as Commander in Chief.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
once again


why does it matter who the troops like?

It's an interesting analysis, not necessarily about the Military but about Obama. I for one, would hate to be a soldier under Obama because I'd have absolutely zero confidence that he knows what he's doing. Everyone could be wrong of course, but we have no reason to believe that Obama will a good commander in chief, where Bush has proven himself a great commander of the troops, and they love him for it.

Bush has been a fucking terrible commander of the troops, the fact that any of them at all still support him says a lot about those individuals (none of it very good). He's shown he's willing to sacrifice them for political gain in a heartbeat, and that he supports them only as much as is political convenient. He's willing to waste their lives on a pointless mission because it helps him get reelected, and he's show that he only cares about their problems when it's a good photo-op. Obama may be an unknown, but Bush has spent his entire Presidency demonstrating that his a fucking disgrace as Commander in Chief.

Not from myself or the vast majority of the troops point of view. They believe in the mission, they believe the mission is just. We've had a decent discussion going but the assertion that Bush made military decisions for political gain is just a flat out lie. If you have some proof to backup the claim i'd love to see them, but I have no reason to believe he was a "bad commander in chief" for the Military.

On the other hand, Democrats calling the war a loss while men and women from their state are over there dying, is what you call spineless traitors who should be hung to tell you the truth.

 

[Stoneburner]

What a useless thread. Let's continue revising history as it goes along.

I'll never understand the 25 percent of delusional americans who see bush as a mix between Julius Caesar and Jeebus.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
once again


why does it matter who the troops like?

It's an interesting analysis, not necessarily about the Military but about Obama. I for one, would hate to be a soldier under Obama because I'd have absolutely zero confidence that he knows what he's doing. Everyone could be wrong of course, but we have no reason to believe that Obama will a good commander in chief, where Bush has proven himself a great commander of the troops, and they love him for it.

Bush has been a fucking terrible commander of the troops, the fact that any of them at all still support him says a lot about those individuals (none of it very good). He's shown he's willing to sacrifice them for political gain in a heartbeat, and that he supports them only as much as is political convenient. He's willing to waste their lives on a pointless mission because it helps him get reelected, and he's show that he only cares about their problems when it's a good photo-op. Obama may be an unknown, but Bush has spent his entire Presidency demonstrating that his a fucking disgrace as Commander in Chief.

Not from myself or the vast majority of the troops point of view. They believe in the mission, they believe the mission is just. We've had a decent discussion going but the assertion that Bush made military decisions for political gain is just a flat out lie. If you have some proof to backup the claim i'd love to see them, but I have no reason to believe he was a "bad commander in chief" for the Military.

On the other hand, Democrats calling the war a loss while men and women from their state are over there dying, is what you call spineless traitors who should be hung to tell you the truth.

Invading the wrong country following 9/11 is considered being a piss-poor commander in chief in my book. Charging $1 Trillion US Dollars to be the world's cops pretty much makes him the world's most retarded fiscal conservative by my book as well.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1868367,00.html?iid=tsmodule

The news that President Bush's war on terrorism soon will have cost the U.S. taxpayers $1 trillion ? and counting ? is unlikely to spread much Christmas cheer in these tough economic times. A trio of recent reports ? none by the Bush Administration ? suggests that sometime early in the Obama presidency, spending on the wars started since 9/11 will pass the trillion-dollar mark. Even after adjusting for inflation, that's four times more than America spent fighting World War I, and more than 10 times the cost of 1991's Persian Gulf War (90% of which was paid for by U.S. allies). The war on terrorism looks set to surpass the costs the Korean and Vietnam wars combined, topped only by World War II's price tag of $3.5 trillion.

Excellent leadership, wouldn't you say?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Everyone could be wrong of course, but we have no reason to believe that Obama will a good commander in chief, where Bush has proven himself a great commander of the troops, and they love him for it.

based on what?

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Everyone could be wrong of course, but we have no reason to believe that Obama will a good commander in chief, where Bush has proven himself a great commander of the troops, and they love him for it.

based on what?

The big one for me is that he had the resolve to stay the course, despite the nearly demon pitched screeching coming from the left.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Duwelon


On the other hand, Democrats calling the war a loss while men and women from their state are over there dying, is what you call spineless traitors who should be hung to tell you the truth.

the war is a loss, it is a waste. Calling it for what it is is not treason. Getting more people killed because 'men and women from their state are over their dying' is insane, and it does not make their loss any more worthwhile. there are legitimate reasons to stay over there, that is absolutely not one of them.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Everyone could be wrong of course, but we have no reason to believe that Obama will a good commander in chief, where Bush has proven himself a great commander of the troops, and they love him for it.

based on what?

The big one for me is that he had the resolve to stay the course, despite the nearly demon pitched screeching coming from the left.

might as well credit the bus driver that has the convictions to stay the course and drive his bus off a cliff. Do you have any more coherent arguments? 'Staying the course' isn't a moral or logical judgment, its an action without any meaning of its own.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Everyone could be wrong of course, but we have no reason to believe that Obama will a good commander in chief, where Bush has proven himself a great commander of the troops, and they love him for it.

based on what?

The big one for me is that he had the resolve to stay the course, despite the nearly demon pitched screeching coming from the left.

might as well credit the bus driver that has the convictions to stay the course and drive his bus off a cliff. Do you have any more coherent arguments? 'Staying the course' isn't a moral or logical judgment, its an action without any meaning of its own.

That only makes sense if we run with the premise that the Iraq war is perfectly analogous with running a bus off a cliff.