Bill Maher Insults Troops - Again

[Gunny]

UN observer... Lebanon.

Yeah, that's what it was. Since that's not a permanent assignment nor an MOS, I guess there's no inconsistency.

 

[glockmail]

Can you support that with some facts?

MM and I probably couldn't agree on what color the sky is under normal circumstances, but one thing I figured out pretty quick, the odds are damned-good he was a Naval officer just as he says.

And since the question seems to be en vogue in this thread ... what qualifies me to make that judgement is I served with Naval officers for 20+ years. I don't know for sure one way or the other, or if it's even been mentioned, but I'll even go so far as to say IMO, he sounds like a Naval Academy graduate.

Dog his politics, his attitude or whatever, and I'm not going to say shit, but don't go dogging vet's service to this nation just because you don't like their politics. I'll say something EVERY time.

He's the one making the claim, so the burden of proof is on him. As far as you know he could just be a lunatic Tom Clancy fan.

And its not about his politics- its about his posts about my family.

 

[Gunny]

He's the one making the claim, so the burden of proof is on him. As far as you know he could just be a lunatic Tom Clancy fan.

And its not about his politics- its about his posts about my family.

The burden of proof is on you. No other military people have questioned his service; yet, you, who have never served has. You made a statement of fact:

He's a liar; he was never in the Navy except to clean toilets.

I asked for the evidence to support THAT statement.

And again, since I served under and with Naval officers for 20+ years, I'll take MY word for it that he sounds and acts like he is exactly what he claims to be. That is not necessarily complimentary, but it IS an opinion based on experience and observation of the poster in question.

Your problem with him ain't my problem as long you aren't questioning a vet's service. I mean, GMAFB .... any fool can see he and I get along about as well as my ex-wife and I do. But that isn't grounds to disrespect his service to this Nation. Especially from one who has not served.

 

[red states rule]

Like John Kerry, the liberal media continues attacking the US military





CNN's Carol Costello: Pace Controversy 'Just Won't Go Away'
Posted by Michael M. Bates on March 14, 2007 - 23:04.
On Wednesday's The Situation Room, CNN's Carol Costello did a story on Senator Hillary Clinton's response to General Peter Pace's statement that homosexual acts are immoral.

COSTELLO: You know, Wolf, gay groups have strong denounced General Peter Pace's comments about homosexuality. They're angry, and they expected Senator Clinton to show her anger, too. She didn't.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COSTELLO (voice over): It has become the controversy that just won't go away.

GEN. PETER PACE, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral.

Yes, it just won't go away. It's a story that's been dragging on for all of two days now, since the Chicago Tribune reported the General's comments.

Ms. Costello could have more accurately said: It has become the controversy that those in the mainstream media hope just won't go away. And they'll do their best to make certain it doesn't.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11431

 

[red states rule]

and we cannot forget CBS.........


In Advocating Draft, Andy Rooney Smears Volunteer Soldiers
Posted by Justin McCarthy on March 14, 2007 - 16:34.
On the March 14 edition of "Imus in the Morning" guest and "60 Minutes" commentator Andy Rooney discussed the possibility of a draft with Don Imus. In that exchange Rooney, like Senator Kerry and Congressman Rangel, implied that those who volunteer to serve do so out of desperation rather than patriotism.

DON IMUS: Tell me about your thoughts on re-instituting the draft.

ANDY ROONEY: Well, I think a draft produces a better army than the one we would have with all volunteers. Because I think you get average Americans if you, if you have a draft. And if it’s an all volunteer army, you get people who join up because of some problem in their own lives. They don’t have anything else to do, they don’t have a job, or they can’t find what they want to do, so they join the Army. And it doesn’t produce the best army.

Rooney should have checked over his facts before making such a statement. This recent study directly contradicts his assertions.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11419

 

[Gunny]

and we cannot forget CBS.........


In Advocating Draft, Andy Rooney Smears Volunteer Soldiers
Posted by Justin McCarthy on March 14, 2007 - 16:34.
On the March 14 edition of "Imus in the Morning" guest and "60 Minutes" commentator Andy Rooney discussed the possibility of a draft with Don Imus. In that exchange Rooney, like Senator Kerry and Congressman Rangel, implied that those who volunteer to serve do so out of desperation rather than patriotism.

DON IMUS: Tell me about your thoughts on re-instituting the draft.

ANDY ROONEY: Well, I think a draft produces a better army than the one we would have with all volunteers. Because I think you get average Americans if you, if you have a draft. And if it’s an all volunteer army, you get people who join up because of some problem in their own lives. They don’t have anything else to do, they don’t have a job, or they can’t find what they want to do, so they join the Army. And it doesn’t produce the best army.

Rooney should have checked over his facts before making such a statement. This recent study directly contradicts his assertions.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11419

Obviously Andy is getting a bit senile. His logic is faulty. A conscriped military may very-well better represent "average" Americans. Easily offset by the fact that good percentage of draftees resent being drafted/don't want to be there, and hav ethe potential to become beligerent nonconformists.

Volunteers, for whatever reason -- and I disagree that it's always "some problem -- at least want to be there for the most part.

 

[CSM]

Obviously Andy is getting a bit senile. His logic is faulty. A conscriped military may very-well better represent "average" Americans. Easily offset by the fact that good percentage of draftees resent being drafted/don't want to be there, and hav ethe potential to become beligerent nonconformists.

Volunteers, for whatever reason -- and I disagree that it's always "some problem -- at least want to be there for the most part.

Isn't it strange that people who have no idea what the hell they are talking about can give you all the supposed reasons young men and women join the military and none of those reasons include things like patriotism, love of country loyalty to the nation, a desire to serve...not even "I always wanted to be a soldier." It's always the lazy, drifting, misguided, ignorant, uneducated misfit that supposedly joins the military. But hey, we all support the troops right?

 

[red states rule]

Isn't it strange that people who have no idea what the hell they are talking about can give you all the supposed reasons young men and women join the military and none of those reasons include things like patriotism, love of country loyalty to the nation, a desire to serve...not even "I always wanted to be a soldier." It's always the lazy, drifting, misguided, ignorant, uneducated misfit that supposedly joins the military. But hey, we all support the troops right?

Sound like the kind of support the military can do without. It seems Andy agrees with John Kerry's when it comes to the uneducated members of the US military

 

[glockmail]

The burden of proof is on you. No other military people have questioned his service; yet, you, who have never served has. You made a statement of fact:



I asked for the evidence to support THAT statement.

And again, since I served under and with Naval officers for 20+ years, I'll take MY word for it that he sounds and acts like he is exactly what he claims to be. That is not necessarily complimentary, but it IS an opinion based on experience and observation of the poster in question.

Your problem with him ain't my problem as long you aren't questioning a vet's service. I mean, GMAFB .... any fool can see he and I get along about as well as my ex-wife and I do. But that isn't grounds to disrespect his service to this Nation. Especially from one who has not served.

I have my opinion, and you have yours. I think he's been cleaning toilets and reading Tom Clancy novels.

 

[Gunny]

Isn't it strange that people who have no idea what the hell they are talking about can give you all the supposed reasons young men and women join the military and none of those reasons include things like patriotism, love of country loyalty to the nation, a desire to serve...not even "I always wanted to be a soldier." It's always the lazy, drifting, misguided, ignorant, uneducated misfit that supposedly joins the military. But hey, we all support the troops right?

I joined to serve. I was raised to believe that we each have a responsibility to give back to the society from which we take our freedoms. That does nto necessarily dictate military service. There are plenty of people who serve this Nation/society without donning the uniform.

As far as needing a job goes .... I had two of them when I joined, and I made more money than the pitiful $399. monthly my military E-1 pay netted me.

So I agree. Seems there are a lot of people willing to speak for the troops who have no idea what the troops think or feel.

 

[Gunny]

I have my opinion, and you have yours. I think he's been cleaning toilets and reading Tom Clancy novels.

Seems we go through this every topic, and every topic it boils down to your opinion being based on your personal, emotional likes/dislikes and kneejerk reactions versus and real fact.

FYI, I have read more than few Tom Clancy novels in the past and one could not pose as a Naval officer based on reading them to anyone but people like you -- that have never served with Naval officers and base your opinions of them on Tom Clancy novels.

And let me correct you .... if you question the integrity and/or service of a veteran who is accepted as vet by other vets, even if our politics are 180 degree opposites, plan on hearing from me. I won't tolerate the shit.

The US military is not made up of just conservatives. The liberals who serve and earn the right to wear the uniform earn it no less than conservatives who do. We all go to the same boot camps/academies, respective to our branches of serves, and we all pass the same tests, and we all get shot at by the same enemies with the same real bullets.

I realize this is a hard concept for you to grasp, the US military is a team and we ALL work together. The 10% that are pieces of shit don't represent one political ideology any more than the other. They represent what is known in military circles as the infamous "10%".

Lastly, when YOU are willing to put out here for all to see, your military service and credentials that qualify you to disrespect those who have served this Nation in its armed forces, I'll alter my opinion of your opinion; which, at this point, lacks credibility completely.

 

[CSM]

Seems we go through this every topic, and every topic it boils down to your opinion being based on your personal, emotional likes/dislikes and kneejerk reactions versus and real fact.

FYI, I have read more than few Tom Clancy novels in the past and one could not pose as a Naval officer based on reading them to anyone but people like you -- that have never served with Naval officers and base your opinions of them on Tom Clancy novels.

And let me correct you .... if you question the integrity and/or service of a veteran who is accepted as vet by other vets, even if our politics are 180 degree opposites, plan on hearing from me. I won't tolerate the shit.

The US military is not made up of just conservatives. The liberals who serve and earn the right to wear the uniform earn it no less than conservatives who do. We all go to the same boot camps/academies, respective to our branches of serves, and we all pass the same tests, and we all get shot at by the same enemies with the same real bullets.

I realize this is a hard concept for you to grasp, the US military is a team and we ALL work together. The 10% that are pieces of shit don't represent one political ideology any more than the other. They represent what is known in military circles as the infamous "10%".

Lastly, when YOU are willing to put out here for all to see, your military service and credentials that qualify you to disrespect those who have served this Nation in its armed forces, I'll alter my opinion of your opinion; which, at this point, lacks credibility completely.

Absolutely dead on! MM can be grating and obnoxious but that does not make him less of a vet or his service less valuable. I have even had a reasonable conversation with the guy on a message board. I have no doubt he is as he says he is.

 

[red states rule]

clearly then, you understand that debating the efficacy of our foreign policy and how we use the military to implement it is a natural part of the process of American governance..... it is NOT, in any way, a failure to "support our troops" to debate how they are used.

Good News For America......................


Good news from the US Senate. Harry Reid could not deliver on his cut and run promise to the kook left

The Dems are undermining the war and military, and finally Republicns stood up to the near treasonous actions of the Defeatocrats



Senate rejects Iraq withdrawal
By Christina Bellantoni


Senate Democrats yesterday failed to get enough votes for a bill to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by next March, the first test of new Democratic leaders who will spend the next weeks challenging President Bush's war strategy.
Senators rejected on a near party-line 50-48 vote the proposal by Majority Leader Harry Reid that called for troops to start leaving Iraq in four months.
Only one Republican -- Sen. Gordon H. Smith of Oregon -- backed the proposal. Just two Democrats -- Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas -- joined Democrat-leaning independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut in opposing it. Two senators -- Democrat Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Republican John McCain of Arizona -- did not vote.
Earlier, on the other side of the Capitol, a Democratic war-spending plan cleared its first hurdle yesterday in the House Appropriations Committee, setting the stage for a floor battle next week. That measure, which passed on a mostly party-line vote, puts a framework to withdraw U.S. troops by September 2008 as a condition on a $124 billion supplemental appropriation bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Leaders from both parties hailed the Senate vote as a victory.
"We've had a very good day for the Democrats," Mr. Reid said.
Five minutes later, Republicans came to the microphones with a similar message.
"I think this is a good day," Republican Whip Trent Lott of Mississippi said.
"Well obviously I'm very pleased," agreed Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican.
Democrats said they did not look at the Senate vote as a failure, and pointed out they picked up votes since June, when the Senate voted 60-39 against a nonbinding Democratic resolution calling for the start of troop withdrawal.
"We're going to continue to pick up steam, because we're going to continue to make the case that the current course is not successful, and that the way to succeed in Iraq is to change the direction of Iraqi policy and to focus on the Iraqi leaders, putting pressure on them to achieve a political settlement of their differences," said Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who wrote the withdrawal measure last summer.
Mr. Reid called the day's events "a process of working every step of the way to bring our troops home."

Mr. Bush had threatened to veto the Senate bill, which would have required 60 votes to pass but could not muster even a majority.
In a speech last night to the National Republican Congressional Committee, Mr. Bush praised the Senate for having "wisely rejected a resolution that would have placed an artificial timetable on our mission in Iraq."
He also warned the House against using the war-spending bill "as an opportunity to micromanage our military commanders, or to force a precipitous withdrawal in Iraq, or threaten vital funding for Iraqi security forces, and fund projects that have nothing to do with the war on terror."
Mr. Nelson and Mr. Pryor had supported their Democratic leaders on procedural votes last month on whether to consider a nonbinding resolution criticizing Mr. Bush's plans for a troop surge in Iraq.
The two absent senators had very different reasons for missing the vote. Mr. Johnson is recovering from a brain hemorrhage and surgery, while Mr. McCain was in Iowa campaigning for the presidency, which quickly drew political fire.
The senator was putting his "ambition for higher office ahead of a debate and a vote on the future of a policy impacting the lives of those who are serving today," said Jeremy Funk of anti-war group Americans United for Change.
Mr. McCain also was a no-show for last month's vote on the Democrats' nonbinding resolution.
There was just part of a single day for pre-vote debate, much less than usual, but several Democrats stood to condemn the handling of the war, which Monday will enter its fifth year.
"Let this debate mark the beginning of a way out, out, out of Iraq," said Sen. Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia Democrat, lamenting five years of a "misbegotten war."
But Republicans assailed the Reid measure as giving the insurgents in Iraq a date to mark on their calendars.
"I hope all these deadlines are as confusing to our enemies as they are to everyone else," said Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Republican Conference chairman, when excoriating the plan.
Mr. Kyl urged patience to allow Mr. Bush's surge of nearly 30,000 troops time to work. "The signs of success are unmistakable, and this is the wrong time to be pulling out the rug from under our troops," he said.
The House supplemental spending plan will be the focus of debate next week when it comes to the floor.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, called the plan "a victory for the American people who want the Congress to do what the president has not: Propose a plan to bring the war to an end."
The Appropriations Committee voted 36-28 to pass the "emergency" supplemental bill, now totaling $124 billion, which funds the wars but also contains billions in added spending for what Republicans call "unnecessary" projects.
"We still have $25 million for spinach, $50 million for a Capitol Hill power plant, we've got $5 million for tropical fish," said Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio. "We shouldn't be putting this unnecessary spending on the backs of our soldiers."
Mr. Boehner said he expects 99 percent of his Republican members to vote against the supplemental-spending bill.
Senators also will consider their version of the supplemental war-spending bill in the coming weeks. They hope to consider it on the floor by the end of this month before Congress goes into a spring recess. Mr. Reid said he might attach yesterday's defeated resolution as an amendment to the Senate's supplemental spending bill.
Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland Democrat, noted the difficulty balancing her desire to end the war with the need to fund the troops.
"There is no one line item that says 'War, yes or no,' " Miss Mikulski said. "I say to those well-intentioned liberal activists: Know that we're on your side ... [but] I won't cut off the money going to our kids."
Also yesterday as part of the Iraq debate, senators approved two nonbinding declarations offering support for the troops.
The Republican measure, authored by Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, said "no funds" would be cut for troops in the field. It passed 82-16.
Democrats countered with a proposal by Sen. Patty Murray of Washington that called for supporting the troops in Iraq and when they come home by taking care of veterans.
Democrats opposing the Gregg measure said it gives Mr. Bush a blank check to do what he wishes in Iraq.
"We're not just going to be a rubber stamp for the president's war without end," said Mrs. Murray, whose resolution passed 96-2.
• Joseph Curl and Eric Pfeiffer contributed to this report.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3428-2652r.htm
__________________

 

[glockmail]

...when YOU are willing to put out here for all to see, your military service and credentials that qualify you to disrespect those who have served this Nation in its armed forces, I'll alter my opinion of your opinion; which, at this point, lacks credibility completely.

1. My military service: zero. My reverence for those who have served honorably and are honorable: huge.
2. My credentials that qualify me to disrespect the toilet-cleaning maineman: http://usmessageboard.com/reputation.php?p=530891
http://usmessageboard.com/reputation.php?p=531116
http://usmessageboard.com/reputation.php?p=531121

3. So I'll ask you a third time, Gunny: Do you think its appropriate for someone to make sexual innuendos about your wife and family?

 

[maineman]

Seems we go through this every topic, and every topic it boils down to your opinion being based on your personal, emotional likes/dislikes and kneejerk reactions versus and real fact.

FYI, I have read more than few Tom Clancy novels in the past and one could not pose as a Naval officer based on reading them to anyone but people like you -- that have never served with Naval officers and base your opinions of them on Tom Clancy novels.

And let me correct you .... if you question the integrity and/or service of a veteran who is accepted as vet by other vets, even if our politics are 180 degree opposites, plan on hearing from me. I won't tolerate the shit.

The US military is not made up of just conservatives. The liberals who serve and earn the right to wear the uniform earn it no less than conservatives who do. We all go to the same boot camps/academies, respective to our branches of serves, and we all pass the same tests, and we all get shot at by the same enemies with the same real bullets.

I realize this is a hard concept for you to grasp, the US military is a team and we ALL work together. The 10% that are pieces of shit don't represent one political ideology any more than the other. They represent what is known in military circles as the infamous "10%".

Lastly, when YOU are willing to put out here for all to see, your military service and credentials that qualify you to disrespect those who have served this Nation in its armed forces, I'll alter my opinion of your opinion; which, at this point, lacks credibility completely.

Absolutely dead on! MM can be grating and obnoxious but that does not make him less of a vet or his service less valuable. I have even had a reasonable conversation with the guy on a message board. I have no doubt he is as he says he is.

Thank you both.

 

[sitarro]

Seems we go through this every topic, and every topic it boils down to your opinion being based on your personal, emotional likes/dislikes and kneejerk reactions versus and real fact.

FYI, I have read more than few Tom Clancy novels in the past and one could not pose as a Naval officer based on reading them to anyone but people like you -- that have never served with Naval officers and base your opinions of them on Tom Clancy novels.

And let me correct you .... if you question the integrity and/or service of a veteran who is accepted as vet by other vets, even if our politics are 180 degree opposites, plan on hearing from me. I won't tolerate the shit.

The US military is not made up of just conservatives. The liberals who serve and earn the right to wear the uniform earn it no less than conservatives who do. We all go to the same boot camps/academies, respective to our branches of serves, and we all pass the same tests, and we all get shot at by the same enemies with the same real bullets.

I realize this is a hard concept for you to grasp, the US military is a team and we ALL work together. The 10% that are pieces of shit don't represent one political ideology any more than the other. They represent what is known in military circles as the infamous "10%".

Lastly, when YOU are willing to put out here for all to see, your military service and credentials that qualify you to disrespect those who have served this Nation in its armed forces, I'll alter my opinion of your opinion; which, at this point, lacks credibility completely.

I agree with both of you Gunny and CSM and I would like to apologize for any doubt I may have displayed or any disrespect I may have shown you, Maineman, as far as your service to our country.

Maineman, you will never hear another thing from me relating to your extensive tour of service to our country except thank you, that is a promise.

One thing though.....I would only ask that you show our President, George W. Bush, the same respect you would show a fellow veteran. Not only did he serve as a fighter pilot in the National Guard but he is serving right now as Commander in Chief which is easily one of the hardest jobs anyone could do for his country. The demands are 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and the mental and physical toll is great. He is also a target for the rest of his life for any fanatical asshole that wants to make the news, I think he deserves a bit of respect from anyone that feels deserving of respect themselves.

 

[CSM]

I agree with both of you Gunny and CSM and I would like to apologize for any doubt I may have displayed or any disrespect I may have shown you, Maineman, as far as your service to our country.

Maineman, you will never hear another thing from me relating to your extensive tour of service to our country except thank you, that is a promise.

One thing though.....I would only ask that you show our President, George W. Bush, the same respect you would show a fellow veteran. Not only did he serve as a fighter pilot in the National Guard but he is serving right now as Commander in Chief which is easily one of the hardest jobs anyone could do for his country. The demands are 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and the mental and physical toll is great. He is also a target for the rest of his life for any fanatical asshole that wants to make the news, I think he deserves a bit of respect from anyone that feels deserving of respect themselves.

I don't expect him to show respect for the CinC. That's what makes him an arrogant hypocrit... that has nothing to do with his service; it's just the way he is.

 

[red states rule]

I don't expect him to show respect for the CinC. That's what makes him an arrogant hypocrit... that has nothing to do with his service; it's just the way he is.

it would also show support for the troops and the war - something he has no desire to do

 

[maineman]

I give respect to all my fellow veterans for their service.... George Bush included. I think that people here mistake disagreement with disrespect. I disagree with fellow veterans all the time about this war.... but that does not mean I do not respect their service. The discussions about the war in Iraq at my American Legion Post are quite often spirited but they always end with the clinking of beer glasses and a smile or a pat on the back.

If I say that I vehemently disagree with President Bush's foreign policy and firmly believe that he has been even more inept at attempting to execute that flawed foreign policy, that is a measure of my disagreement with his performance as President, not disrespect for his TANG service.

I think he is the worst President of my lifetime. I think he has blundered us into a mess in the middle east that we may now be incapable of "unfucking". I am not about to feel compelled to have a different opinion about our President's CURRENT PERFORMANCE as President simply because of his past service in uniform. And that is no different than republican veterans who think that Jimmy Carter was the worst President while still respecting HIS commissioned service in the US Navy.

Nonetheless, if George Bush came to speak at MY American Legion Post, I would stand at attention as he entered the room, and I would offer respectful appluase at the conclusion of his remarks.

 

[red states rule]

I give respect to all my fellow veterans for their service.... George Bush included. I think that people here mistake disagreement with disrespect. I disagree with fellow veterans all the time about this war.... but that does not mean I do not respect their service. The discussions about the war in Iraq at my American Legion Post are quite often spirited but they always end with the clinking of beer glasses and a smile or a pat on the back.

If I say that I vehemently disagree with President Bush's foreign policy and firmly believe that he has been even more inept at attempting to execute that flawed foreign policy, that is a measure of my disagreement with his performance as President, not disrespect for his TANG service.

I think he is the worst President of my lifetime. I think he has blundered us into a mess in the middle east that we may now be incapable of "unfucking". I am not about to feel compelled to have a different opinion about our President's CURRENT PERFORMANCE as President simply because of his past service in uniform. And that is no different than republican veterans who think that Jimmy Carter was the worst President while still respecting HIS commissioned service in the US Navy.

Nonetheless, if George Bush came to speak at MY American Legion Post, I would stand at attention as he entered the room, and I would offer respectful appluase at the conclusion of his remarks.

No, Pres Peanut was the worst President - ever

Thank God we had Ronald Reagan to come in and clean up the mess Pres Peanut left behind