Obama's War Speech and what he Didn't Say

He and Dayton are both right when they say that you can still have an opinion about military action even if you didn't serve.

When those people are the ones beating the war drums, though, they deserve to be mocked for not stepping up when they had the chance.

I don't even think it's that. Most of us haven't served in the armed forces. That does not at all mean we can't argue for military action. The issue I have with Dayton is his complete disdain for the lives of the soldiers he would like to see in action. In Federal Farmer's case, it's his complete disdain for the country itself much of the time that makes me suspicious when he suddenly gets behind government initiation of force.

Neither is serious or responsible when they consider the use of military force. That is the true offense, and one that I would call anybody on, regardless of their military status.

Makes them like Kantorek from "All Quiet on the Western Front." This is especially ironic given Dayton's position as a teacher.

This is another question that you ask to score a political point garamet.

Besides.

How do you expect me to answer without knowing how many of the lives are Christians rather than Jews or black people?

Meh, not interested in that hysterical bipartisan bollocks. I'm a foreigner innit. I judge him by what he actually does or does not do.

I loathe what our misrepresentatives have turned this country into. As Castle has pointed out any times, we the people are not being represented.

Okay, now there's a valid point. Is there any period in American history after 1791 where you believe the people were truly represented? Well, the white male propertied people, anyway.

I'm going to guess he'll say up until 1913, no, maybe only through 1860.

Pfft! Good luck with that attitude, mister! Clearly, you don't understand how things are done in the real world. :squints: Maybe we need to come over there and explain our 'Muircan values to you people, so you'll be able to do this democracy thing right, and stop worshipping the queen and her faggoty assed son that's married to his horse. :spits tobacco:

Why? If I had enlisted out of high school I probably wouldn't have heard a shot fired in anger.

If I had enlisted just after college I MIGHT have still been in the military for Desert Storm. Might.

But I have no regrets about not enlisting when I was 34 years old (after 9-11) or nearly 36 (Initial Invasion of Iraq).

At any rate, the odds of me being in a combat unit in either of the latter two are remote at best.

Where do you get off saying I have "disdain" for the lives of soldiers? Not true in the least.

As for being "neither serious or responsible when considering the use of military forces" in case you haven't noticed my skimming acquaintance, I've been one of the most restrained persons here recently when it comes to calling for military action.

I have noticed, and noted that it was out of character. But my guess is that you prefer ground actions, and so far that doesn't seem on order for the US and ISIS.

And what did you base this inference upon?

As opposed to Koch brothers! War on women! Race Card! And when all else fails.....BUSH!!!!!!!

Most of the WF vets didn't see combat, either.

At least we were willing to sign up knowing that we might be called to fight.

You and Felatio Farmer weren't.

Things would have been so much easier on Dayton if he'd just said..."yeah, you got me, I was bullshitting to look tough, I never woulda gone. ".

Or, never lied in the first place.

But no, that primal ego part of the human brain goes "don't admit you're wrong! You'll DIE!! You'll DIE!! YOU'LL FUCKING DIIIEEE!!! ".

So, we've had to put up with 14 years of self-justifying bullshit.

Yup, you're right. No commonality between the two groups at all.

Not seeing your point.

You can cloak all the "you didn't serve" rhetoric as much as you like.

The bottom line is that deep down you truly do not believe someone who never served in the military has no moral right to advocate military action.

That attitude is abominable.

And completely antidemocratic.

See?
He folds reality into an origami swan so that everyone else is evil, and he's a heckuva guy.

That is a major reach.

But.

Unless everyone here is willing to defer to my opinion on public schools, agriculture, and religion. Things I have literally a DECADE or more experience in each, then I do not see why my opinions about military operations and foreign affairs should be insulted or demeaned.

If you can't see the difference between "advocating for military action" and what you do...then bless your little heart.

"Everyone"?

Let's see...

Chuck and Aenea have as much or more experience in that area than you do.

evenflow and his wife have far more experience there than you do.

Asycritus can school you all day long seeing as he's had decades of experience there.

The thing is, that people who have less experience than you in those areas don't try to come off as experts in those areas like you do with military stuff.

The progressive era did a lot of damage by limiting the amount of representatives in the House and by making the Senate popularly elected, but we've already had that discussion. The ever expanding federal bureaucracy and welfare state eroded representation. Couple that with the last few decades of ever increasing lobbyists and crony capitalists writing laws (including the ACA) and an increasingly dummbed down electorate and you're left with very littele proper representation. Plain and simple, our votes don't count.

I have no evidence any of those people mentioned have noticeably more experience than I do.

Though to be honest, I have trouble keeping track of critics. After a while they all run together. Especially if they make a practice of being insulting.

You are saying this about Chuck? Seriously,

Hey, now, we all know Chuck is evil. I hear he rips the mattress tag right off the mattress while it's in the store. I mean, not even Hitler did that.

Good post - thank you! The way I look at it, though, crony capitalists have always held sway in politics, and there's always been corruption. Greed and power-brokering are embedded in the political DNA. I just don't see this as the most corrupt era, simply another phase of the cycle.

As for votes counting? They won't ever, truly, on the federal level as long as there's an Electoral College.

But on behalf of those whom the Founding Fathers disenfranchised on the basis of superficial nonsense, I have to say the system's a little more equitable than it was before the 15th and 19th Amendments.

Yes, thanks to the 15th and 19th amendments, more people's votes won't count. Not saying they shouldn't be allowed to vote, just saying it doesn't matter. What a great achievement. I'm not sure if this is the most corrupt period, but it's definitely equal to the 1890s. You wanted equality, well, you got it.