That makes, sense. Doesn't that make sense? Was I for the troops before I was against them? Were they soldiers before they were mercenaries? Weren't they stupid before they were stick in Iraq?
For the ironically and satirically challeneged, when one supports the troops but not their mission, one is demonstrating a fundamental, virtually moronic lack of understanding of the nature of the military and its place in our democracy. One cannot support the police but be upset when they make arrests. One cannot support teachers but scream bloody murder when they teach. One cannot claim to support women but treat them as cattle.
Our military exists for one to-the-basics reason: To kill the enemies of the United States. In so doing, they must use extreme, ruthless and unrelenting violence. To support the troops but not their very reason for existing is to demonstrate a profound lack of intelligence and a crippling misunderstanding of the foundations of constitutional democracy.
You're not a very bright guy, are ya? The players' jobs are to play football. Soldiers' jobs do not consist of fighting wars (failed invasions) that our "Commander" lied about.
Most recent anonymous, our soldiers are there *precisely* to follow the orders of their Commander in Chief. I'm not convinced you're very bright. Please do better at convincing me.
Or leave. I can stomach those who disagree, but I have a difficult time with dumb people.
This one has always bothered me. If you really believe that the war is immoral and that Bush is evil, which is what I've seen posted over and over in liberal fora, then you must also believe that the troops are wrong wrong wrong and that they are consciously choosing to do evil themselves. You can't have it both ways.
11 comments:
You are really weird.
Thank you for contributing to intelligent, mature discussion.
That makes, sense. Doesn't that make sense? Was I for the troops before I was against them? Were they soldiers before they were mercenaries?
Weren't they stupid before they were stick in Iraq?
For the ironically and satirically challeneged, when one supports the troops but not their mission, one is demonstrating a fundamental, virtually moronic lack of understanding of the nature of the military and its place in our democracy. One cannot support the police but be upset when they make arrests. One cannot support teachers but scream bloody murder when they teach. One cannot claim to support women but treat them as cattle.
Our military exists for one to-the-basics reason: To kill the enemies of the United States. In so doing, they must use extreme, ruthless and unrelenting violence. To support the troops but not their very reason for existing is to demonstrate a profound lack of intelligence and a crippling misunderstanding of the foundations of constitutional democracy.
Why would you object to being called weird? I don't think I am normal and I rather rejoice in the fact that I am weird.
Not the earlier "Anonymous'
So why is it that you do not support the Superbowl?
You're not a very bright guy, are ya?
The players' jobs are to play football. Soldiers' jobs do not consist of fighting wars (failed invasions) that our "Commander" lied about.
Most recent anonymous, our soldiers are there *precisely* to follow the orders of their Commander in Chief. I'm not convinced you're very bright. Please do better at convincing me.
Or leave. I can stomach those who disagree, but I have a difficult time with dumb people.
This one has always bothered me. If you really believe that the war is immoral and that Bush is evil, which is what I've seen posted over and over in liberal fora, then you must also believe that the troops are wrong wrong wrong and that they are consciously choosing to do evil themselves. You can't have it both ways.
haha.....i loved some of the comercials....that's all i care about
Let's try to keep the comments somewhat civil, somewhat mature, shall we?
Post a Comment