I do believe that Kerry messed up. However all he did was reword a statistic, and he did it badly. The statistic he was quoting is how some 90% of enlisted personnel come from poor families with little or no income. It's their way of getting out of da hood so to speak. And he was trying to emphasize staying in school and getting a good education so you don't have to enlist and go to a war that most of the country is against.
I don't believe he was trying to disrespect the people serving, even though he did. He just wanted to get his message across to stay in school. One of those cases of the mouth speaking before the brain can catch up and process what it is you are actually saying.
It's this kind of ignorance that annoys me the most. Just because Charlie Rangle and the Liberal elite keep claiming that the military is a tool of exploitation of the "poor masses" to do the dirty work for America does NOT make it true.
Try reality people, you'll find it refreshing:
"Regardless of ZIP code area, we also find that enlistees are almost universally better educated than the general population"
The old saying, "If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth" is inaccurate. The reality is that if you repeat a lie often enough AND the media backs that lie up then you actually have a chance of gaslighting the electorate to endores that position out of fear of being isolated from those who can't or won't see through the BS.
Kerry CLEARLY believes that the average US soldier is stupid. I don't find this shocking since the liberal elite thinks EVERYBODY who is not one of "them" is stupid. I am stupid, you are stupid, the world is stupid, only Liberals are smart.
It just distresses me to see a liberal actually get caught saying what he REALLY feels and then have to have the irony explained to him such that he is forced to render an apology for a comment he still does not think was wrong.
[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 11-04-2006).]
IP: Logged
01:55 PM
NEPTUNE Member
Posts: 10199 From: Ticlaw FL, and some other places. Registered: Aug 2001
While not the military genius that Todster thinks himself to be, GENERAL Wesley Clark has something to say on the subject of the Bush juntas "War On Terrorism." http://securingamerica.com/
Be sure to watch tonights news or read Army Times to learn of other Genuine, Actual, military experts who have gone on record demanding that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld be fired. This was brought to a head when the president told the public, with a straight face, that Rumsfield was doing a great job. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/03/rumsfeld.resign/index.html
The Army Times: " One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “mission accomplished,” the insurgency is “in its last throes,” and “back off,” we know what we’re doing, are a few choice examples. Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success."
There is no such offense for an enlisted person. Conduct unbecoming is a Commissioned Officer offense only. So unless there are a bunch of "Os" holding the banner, that will not stick.
Oh, I am an active duty First Sergaent.
BTW, the pic was funny...
Really, tell that to my roommate at fort hood who got an article 15 for flipping off a civilian, he was busted a pay grade and 14 days extra duty. On the article 15 was conduct unbecoming of an NCO. he was an E-4, and last time I checked or at least back then E-4 was an enlisted rank.
Really, tell that to my roommate at fort hood who got an article 15 for flipping off a civilian, he was busted a pay grade and 14 days extra duty. On the article 15 was conduct unbecoming of an NCO. he was an E-4, and last time I checked or at least back then E-4 was an enlisted rank.
That is an obscene gesture though and is considered to be aggressive. Not quite the same as answering one theoretical joke with a real one.
IP: Logged
06:06 PM
aceman Member
Posts: 4899 From: Brooklyn Center, MN Registered: Feb 2003
Really, tell that to my roommate at fort hood who got an article 15 for flipping off a civilian, he was busted a pay grade and 14 days extra duty. On the article 15 was conduct unbecoming of an NCO. he was an E-4, and last time I checked or at least back then E-4 was an enlisted rank.
See previous statement of Sect 117 of the UCMJ. There is no conuct unbecoming of an enlisted servicemember.
IP: Logged
06:18 PM
Uaana Member
Posts: 6570 From: Robbinsdale MN US Registered: Dec 1999
They are people too, and have their own opinions about politics, religion, etc. Some are smarter than others.
My Btn XO actually told us that most of us would die when breaching the Iraqi lines. Didnt happen that way, and it's not generally a good idea to tell the troops they're all gonna die as a motivational speech.
BTW since we all "care about the troops" now, where were you whining pantywaiste gits when GW1 was going on, all I had was a flack jacket (80's style) and lousy line charges that didnt work right.
Ahh right, we won that one before you had time to bitchnmoan.. "Troops didnt have the body armor, Hummers werent armored enough" STFU you didnt care in 91 or 93 (GW1/Somalia) now you care.. right, libs just looking for another reason to ***** about Bush.
D leaders like Kerry and Pelosi have never cared about the military.. we're all just knuckle dragging grunts to them. Only time they seem to care is when they can gain political points against the current admin.
Hummers were introduced in" 86" they've been used in Iraq, Kuwait, Somalia, Hati etc. Not once since their introduction till now did any member of congress or the senate say anything about their being under armored. The damn thing was designed as a Jeep replacement! which had even less coverage. Ballistic vests have been around almost as long, and again nobody said "what about the troops" until they actually needed them.
Kerry, Murtha and others are doing a hell of a job Monday morning QB'ing Iraq, When we rolled over the 4th biggest standing army in the world with our outdated flacks and hummers nobody said crap, it wasnt until we started dealing with insurgents, and IED's that the "liberal" leadership started to care about equipment. Everytime before this that the military has asked for more funding the Libs saw it as a waste of money.
IP: Logged
06:19 PM
Scott-Wa Member
Posts: 5392 From: Tacoma, WA, USA Registered: Mar 2002
I'll preempt the attacks on me... I'm just linking to actual government studies and find it interesting that minority soldiers make up a higher percentage of soldiers than in the civilian world, yet the white soldiers make up a higher percentage of the dead compared to the porportion of them in the military. No idea what that means... maybe the the minority soldiers really believe someone is out to get them and act accordingly... or less minority soldiers in combat mos's that are in the line of fire.
[This message has been edited by Scott-Wa (edited 11-04-2006).]
Originally posted by aceman: I don't know who you are or how you hijacked Bill's account, but release Bill and go away. Bill may be a crusty jackass, but that gives you no right to hijack his user name and kidnap Bill.
Ok Sarge... it won't happen again.
quote
Originally posted by RandomTask: But bill, just a suggestion, sometimes its not what you say, but how you say it. You come off as pretty harsh, just FYI.
I cant change the way I am. It's easy to blame the sandspurr for your pain and allot harder to admit you were the one that stepped on it. If you don't like barbs in your feet then it might be best to watch your step. You either accept it or you don't.
Nobody likes waking up from a bad dream and the definatly don't like waking up from a good one...
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:
I dunno what military YOU belonged to, but in the US Navy, there was one and only one chain of command, it it started with the commander in chief: The President of the United States of America. I was never ordered, trained, or expected to show any specific respect to anyone except him and superior military officers. Period. Senators, congressmen, and civilians alike could all kiss my big white behind. They were NO WHERE in my chain of command, no matter WHAT you say.
I'm not even going to argue this because your ignorance is glairing. I will state the facts again. The military chain of command starts with THE PEOPLE you serve(ed)
quote
I'm pretty sure that no soldiers will be sanctioned for that sign. There was nothing but hystrical laughter over the blatent disrespect that was directed at Hillary Clinton when the Marines in Afghanistan (and secret service agents) referred to her plane as "Broom One".
There is nothing wrong with EXPRESSION but there are time where expression is directly related to a lack of discipline. Evidently there is a problem that I can see but you do not. :::shruggs::: No problemoooo..
quote
Originally posted by blackrams: Bill, Quite frankly, I'm am totally blown away seeing something like this in a posting with your name attached to it. I can't count the number of inflamatory posts that I've read where you are DIS-Respecting a number of political figures that didn't see things the way you do. There's a name for this, but I'm not going there.
No need to go there, you are already there.
quote
Originally posted by Toddster: The way YOU respect President Bush no doubt. 84Bill's hypocricy train rolls on.
Originally posted by frontal lobe: In fairness to John Kerry, when I first heard the quote, I thought the "stuck in Iraq" reference, which is the part that has everyone all upset, was referring to Bush putting himself in a position where he got "stuck in Iraq."
I dont know what to make of Kerrys statements, he is just anothr part of the machine.
quote
Regarding the banner the soldiers made, I have no idea of what is considered proper military protocol as I have never been in the military and am clueless. So excluding that consideration, I thought the banner was clever and funny, and also didn't find it mean-spirited.
Well you see, thats just it. You don't see how this all is related.
It's not easy to pick a piece from here and one from there because they don't seem to fit. It's alot like the concept behind the "magic eye." The picture isn't what is seems until you bring it into focus.
IP: Logged
03:48 AM
PFF
System Bot
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
While not the military genius that Todster thinks himself to be, GENERAL Wesley Clark has something to say on the subject of the Bush juntas "War On Terrorism." http://securingamerica.com/
Would that be DEMOCRAT Wesley Clark who ran against Bush in 2004?
Thanks anyway, I'll take the opinion of our soldiers :
But thanks for the politically biased link that destroyed your credibility in one feld swoop.
Way to go Einstein.
quote
Be sure to watch tonights news or read Army Times to learn of other Genuine, Actual, military experts who have gone on record demanding that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld be fired. This was brought to a head when the president told the public, with a straight face, that Rumsfield was doing a great job. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/03/rumsfeld.resign/index.html
The Army Times: " One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “mission accomplished,” the insurgency is “in its last throes,” and “back off,” we know what we’re doing, are a few choice examples. Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success." More here" http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333360.php
"Youre doin' one helluva job, Rummy."
(Remember, the butt of Kerrys unfunny joke was Greorge Bush, not the soldiers)
Wow, so many cnn links I can barely see any other letters. How hard they must have looked to find this tid bit amongst the HUNDREDS of other news stories from the Army News website (the source) with glowing accolades for Rummy. Like:
Kid...if you are going to selectively chose the news you want to back-up your arguement rather than use the reality out there you are going to look like a fool everytime.
IP: Logged
11:35 AM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Originally posted by Toddster: Would that be DEMOCRAT Wesley Clark who ran against Bush in 2004?
Hahahahaha. Classic. That's the best one since he quoted the DNC website as PROOF of how they'd be better. Right next to the pic he posted in the last couple of days.
"We're better because WE SAY we're better!"
LOL
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 11-05-2006).]
84Bill, You state that "The military chain of command starts with the people you serve(d)". OK, would you please list the official government publication/document that backs up that statement. And if you do list a publication/document please be specific about where in that publication/document that confirmation can be found (i.e. "the Constitution" or "The UCMJ" without specifics is not allowed).
84Bill, You state that "The military chain of command starts with the people you serve(d)". OK, would you please list the official government publication/document that backs up that statement. And if you do list a publication/document please be specific about where in that publication/document that confirmation can be found (i.e. "the Constitution" or "The UCMJ" without specifics is not allowed).
What you have is a problem that can only be solved if you understood how or why it was created. You will not find the exact document that states "we the people command the government and military" because that is the power that is being usurped. That is the point of contention.
I can assure you with 100% of my being that the military chain of command starts with "We The People." If you want proof then you will have to go find it on your own. Don't be deluded into thinking you will find it without alot of trouble because I still go through hell for it.
------------------------- "Instead of subjecting the military to the civil power, [a tyrant will make] the civil subordinate to the military. But can [he] thus put down all law under his feet? Can he erect a power superior to that which erected himself? He [can do] it indeed by force, but let him remember that force cannot give right." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774.(*) ME 1:209, Papers 1:134
"No military commander should be so placed as to have no civil superior." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1801. FE 8:29
A standing army has always been used by despots to enforce their rule and to keep their people under subjection. Its existence was therefore considered a great threat to peace and stability in a republic and a danger to the rights of the nation. Since every aspect of government was designed to prevent the rise of tyranny, strict limits and control over the military were considered absolutely necessary. It was essential that the military be subordinate to civilian control.
IP: Logged
12:51 PM
Falcon4 Member
Posts: 1189 From: Fresno, CA, USA Registered: Oct 2006
The military does not and never has taken DIRECT orders from We The People.
The military chain of command stops at the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, and HE/SHE is subordinate to We The People in that if we don't like the job they're doing, we can vote them out. That is the civilian control (as well as the civilian appointees such as the Sec. of Defense) that is talked about in the quote. To mix that up with taking direct orders is foolish.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by 84Bill:
[QUOTE] The Military & the Militia
A standing army has always been used by despots to enforce their rule and to keep their people under subjection. Its existence was therefore considered a great threat to peace and stability in a republic and a danger to the rights of the nation. Since every aspect of government was designed to prevent the rise of tyranny, strict limits and control over the military were considered absolutely necessary. It was essential that the military be subordinate to civilian control.
The military does not and never has taken DIRECT orders from We The People.
The military chain of command stops at the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, and HE/SHE is subordinate to We The People in that if we don't like the job they're doing, we can vote them out. That is the civilian control (as well as the civilian appointees such as the Sec. of Defense) that is talked about in the quote. To mix that up with taking direct orders is foolish.
John Stricker
I'm not the one who is mixing it up John...... You are! You fail to see that it is We the People who control the miltary and government and for good reason
quote
The Military & the Militia
A standing army has always been used by despots to enforce their rule and to keep their people under subjection. Its existence was therefore considered a great threat to peace and stability IN A REPUBLIC and a danger to the rights of the nation. SINCE EVERY ASPECT OF GOVERNMENT WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT THE RISE OF TYRANNY, strict limits and control over the military were considered absolutely necessary. It was essential that the military be subordinate to civilian control.
There is a "disconnect" between we the people, the military and the government. That disconnect is your ignorance and your ignorance is no excuse. WE have a responsibility and it is our duty to take that responsibility. You can skew it any way you like, kick, cry, shirk it off or whatever else you want to do with it.. Hell call me a fool but the fact is you have a job to control the military and the government. If you don't want it.. then move to Russia. Actually don't bother moving, Russia will come to you.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 11-05-2006).]
No, it's common knowledge and readily avaiable to anyone who wants to find it. It's not something you will find discussed in your local school and there is a reason for that as well.
IP: Logged
01:49 PM
Falcon4 Member
Posts: 1189 From: Fresno, CA, USA Registered: Oct 2006
Originally posted by fierobear: Falcon, anyone who disagrees with 84Bill is an uneducated idiot. Just thought I'd point that out. Would you like to join our "Uneducated Idiots" club? We already have some very distinguised members.
If I present the FACTS as they are and you care to dispute them then obviously one of us isn't accepting of the truth.
It really has nothing to do with me and everything to do with you and your gross inability to grasp the facts as they are presented.
I would like to believe your ignorance were just isolated to your own little world (which is all you care about) but it is that very attitude which is adversly affecting us all. You don't understand and therefor are ignorant of how it is adversly affect you too.
It's not my fault you lack certin abilities like accepting responsibility or are willing to even accept the smallest part of it. If even the smallest fraction of what I say is true then you have made it very clear that the world is not as you believe it to be.
Believe what you want and I'll do the same but we both will be held accountable. Ignorance has never been a valid excuse.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 11-05-2006).]
IP: Logged
03:02 PM
PFF
System Bot
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
Walk up to a General in the US Army. Give him a direct order countering one he's been given by his superiors. Let me know how that one works out for you.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by 84Bill:
There is a "disconnect" between we the people, the military and the government. That disconnect is your ignorance and your ignorance is no excuse. WE have a responsibility and it is our duty to take that responsibility. You can skew it any way you like, kick, cry, shirk it off or whatever else you want to do with it.. Hell call me a fool but the fact is you have a job to control the military and the government. If you don't want it.. then move to Russia. Actually don't bother moving, Russia will come to you.
Walk up to a General in the US Army. Give him a direct order countering one he's been given by his superiors. Let me know how that one works out for you.
John Stricker
Again Jon Stikler... that is NOT what I mean when I say the military chain of command starts with We the People. Hell John, I personally can't even command one of my children to perform a task and have them follow it to a T. All I can do is ask. But with enough people believing they have a voice and are INDEED in control then We the people will deliver the orders and those who swore an oath to SERVE us will have no choice but to follow them.
They are following "our" orders right now.. Disagree if you want but thats the facts jack. We put those soldiers there and we are keeping them there...
IP: Logged
03:16 PM
Falcon4 Member
Posts: 1189 From: Fresno, CA, USA Registered: Oct 2006
Who the hell is "we" that's keeping them there? If it truly were up to the people, the guys in Iraq would have been back years ago. I don't think there's even a single person left in the country, or even the world, that "approves" of the US's continuing actions in Iraq... maybe there are but far from a majority.
IP: Logged
03:28 PM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
The military does not and never has taken DIRECT orders from We The People.
The military chain of command stops at the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, and HE/SHE is subordinate to We The People in that if we don't like the job they're doing, we can vote them out. That is the civilian control (as well as the civilian appointees such as the Sec. of Defense) that is talked about in the quote. To mix that up with taking direct orders is foolish.
Is 100% accurate but yet you continue to argue. Why am I not surprised?
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by 84Bill: Again Jon Stikler... that is NOT what I mean when I say the military chain of command starts with We the People. Hell John, I personally can't even command one of my children to perform a task and have them follow it to a T. All I can do is ask. But with enough people believing they have a voice and are INDEED in control then We the people will deliver the orders and those who swore an oath to SERVE us will have no choice but to follow them.
They are following "our" orders right now.. Disagree if you want but thats the facts jack. We put those soldiers there and we are keeping them there...
Originally posted by Falcon4: Who the hell is "we" that's keeping them there?
Thats been my point of late.
We the people are the first in the military chain of command, we write and approve the orders and those who serve us carry them out to the letter.
quote
If it truly were up to the people, the guys in Iraq would have been back years ago.
And is "the problem" now coming more into focus for you?
quote
I don't think there's even a single person left in the country, or even the world, that "approves" of the US's continuing actions in Iraq... maybe there are but far from a majority.
Thats just it. You either agree with me or you don't but regardless of that We the people are primary in the chain of command, We control the government and we control the military.
You sure as freaking hell don't want it to be the other way around..IE. government and military controlling the people. BUT that DOES appear to be the reality of the matter and why I am desperatly trying to get through to you the truth. It's there, it's fact and it's your responsibility.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 11-05-2006).]
I'm not arguing with you John, you are arguing with me (as usual) over any little tinsy tinsy bit you can possibly come up with. Why? I don't know but it is a personal problem that we both have to deal until you have decided to stop following me around like a hell bent psychopath.
You and Todd have ALOT in common. All argument, no sense.
IP: Logged
03:44 PM
Falcon4 Member
Posts: 1189 From: Fresno, CA, USA Registered: Oct 2006
I think a lot of people are arguing with you. Perhaps the problem's not with them?
Like I said, ignorance is no excuse.
I can't explain what water is but I can assure you you can drown in it even if you live in a desert. Some people living in a desert will swear on a stack of holy bibles that it is an impossibility... So be it. Call me an argumentitive fool, a charloton, a crazed lunatic but I will maintain that people who live in a desert will drown in water.
Its a fact and I don't think you want me to prove it.
IP: Logged
03:59 PM
NEPTUNE Member
Posts: 10199 From: Ticlaw FL, and some other places. Registered: Aug 2001
Wow, so many cnn links I can barely see any other letters. How hard they must have looked to find this tid bit amongst the HUNDREDS of other news stories from the Army News website (the source) with glowing accolades for Rummy. Like:
Kid...if you are going to selectively chose the news you want to back-up your arguement rather than use the reality out there you are going to look like a fool everytime.
While blowing your smoke screen, You "conveniently" forgot the link that I posted to this "left wing periodical:"
The Army Times:
" One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “mission accomplished,” the insurgency is “in its last throes,” and “back off,” we know what we’re doing, are a few choice examples. Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success."
