Joel Stein la times columnist - traitor, or honest american? - Page 4

o_geokill-----> · 01-29-2006, 04:00 AM

Agree With Article, I will suport Troops only if they are draft but that is it.

o_etzell · 01-29-2006, 04:30 AM

Ah, so, Geokill, you'll support troops that are fighting a war that they don't want to be in? Newsflash: Not all of the troops in Iraq want to be there. A lot of people don't join the army to fight wars like the one in Iraq, they join the army to DEFEND the nation.

o_geokill-----> · 01-29-2006, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Etzell

Ah, so, Geokill, you'll support troops that are fighting a war that they don't want to be in? Newsflash: Not all of the troops in Iraq want to be there. A lot of people don't join the army to fight wars like the one in Iraq, they join the army to DEFEND the nation.

Then that means I disagree with the article and I support the troops?

I dunno why but I just don't support the troops, meh I blame Society for this

o_etzell · 01-29-2006, 04:38 AM

You sad you support drafted troops. IE, you support the troops that have no choice in where they go to fight, especially if these troops are opposed to the war they're going to fight in. Look at the military right now and tell me that everyone who is fighting is damn happy to be doing it, 'cause I've got 3 examples in my family that will be damn happy to prove you wrong.

And as for blaming society, no, it's your fault.

o_geokill-----> · 01-29-2006, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Etzell

You sad you support drafted troops. IE, you support the troops that have no choice in where they go to fight, especially if these troops are opposed to the war they're going to fight in. Look at the military right now and tell me that everyone who is fighting is damn happy to be doing it, 'cause I've got 3 examples in my family that will be damn happy to prove you wrong.

And as for blaming society, no, it's your fault.

So your saying I shouldn't support drafted troops and I should support non-draft troops?

o_etzell · 01-29-2006, 04:58 AM

I'm saying that if you only support drafted troops, that's a dumb, dumb stance. If you're going to not support the troops, you should have a better reason then: "They aren't drafted." I'm suggesting either supporting them all, supporting none of them, or refining your reasoning. Obviously you haven't been reading my responses at all...

o_geokill-----> · 01-29-2006, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Etzell

I'm saying that if you only support drafted troops, that's a dumb, dumb stance. If you're going to not support the troops, you should have a better reason then: "They aren't drafted." I'm suggesting either supporting them all, supporting none of them, or refining your reasoning. Obviously you haven't been reading my responses at all...

I read every word, but I was going to say I support drafted troops b/c they where force to figh the war. Well I see your point now, draft and non draft are the same, they both kill and are in the war, whether they like it or not.

So I came in conclusion That I don't support the war but I do support the Troops b/c all they are doing is to protect us and they are only following orders. Which means I don't agree with article, but I still don't support troops at 100% b/c Like you said not everyone happy about the war

o_ekim · 01-29-2006, 12:02 PM

I still don't know what "support the troops" means.

o_yomamashouse · 01-29-2006, 04:58 PM

There really isnt one definition, A lot of Americans just like to say buttered up garbage like that to feel important. Canada is still having trouble FINANCING the troops so we havent got to that point.

o_|404|innoc-tpf- · 01-30-2006, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dospac

lol that's a good one noc. But yeah.. what I've been tryin to figure out, is the neocons made a huge deal of tubby's pot smoking, then we get Georgie with his cocaine abuse, alcoholism, drunk driving, rampaging kids, etc. I mean, it's obvious he's backed because he won't get in their way like Bush 1 and Reagan did, but come on. I can't believe they're so brazen. =[

I don't think either party has an exclusive hold on hypocracy. The are quick to point out flaws that someone from the opposition party has and equally quick to deny the same glaring deficiency in their own party or, heaven forbid, in themself. I can't help but laugh everytime I see or hear Ted Kennedy trying to convict someone on something immoral or unethical.

o_fathom · 01-30-2006, 08:22 PM

http://www.radioblogger.com/images/01-24stein.mp3

Here is a telephone interview with Joel Stein by Hugh Hewitt.

www.hughhewwit.com

Dospac · 01-31-2006, 02:33 PM

But the whole problem is the dems are pussies. They aren't doing anything in the political arena, and they're afraid to speak out against any of the crap that's going on.

There's a whole lot of seriously wrong shit happening, it doesn't matter who comes forward, either party. The checks and balances need to start checking and balancing. And somebody give McCain a medal or something while we're at it. And Arlen Spector too. . .

o_salty milkshake · 01-31-2006, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dospac

And somebody give McCain a medal or something while we're at it.

For inventing the oven chip and more recently the micro chip?

Does anyone else think it's time for Bartlett to take over? Or Santos or Vinig? Or anyone with a backbone who can string a coherent sentence together.

Geena Davis can fuck right off though!

o_fresh · 01-31-2006, 02:50 PM

yeah, love all that. burn he jews. right on.

o_|404|innoc-tpf- · 01-31-2006, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dospac

But the whole problem is the dems are pussies. They aren't doing anything in the political arena, and they're afraid to speak out against any of the crap that's going on.

There's a whole lot of seriously wrong shit happening, it doesn't matter who comes forward, either party. The checks and balances need to start checking and balancing. And somebody give McCain a medal or something while we're at it. And Arlen Spector too. . .

Dos...the Dem's are not much different than the Rep's anymore. Things seem to cycle but the only thing that remains sure is that they're all going to spend far more money than they should. As opposed to the rest of us who are simply expected to tighten our belts to support whatever cause they think should be drowned in money.

o_puppychow · 01-31-2006, 05:44 PM

thats my numero uno beef with bush - he is the first president in wartime, not only to keep taxes at prewar levels, but actually reduce them.

it's like reducing your monthly payment on your credit card, purchacing more, and expecting that somehow your balance will get smaller itself. makes nosense.

o_|404|innoc-tpf- · 01-31-2006, 05:57 PM

He also increased spending as well. One of many areas I am not happy with him over. And I'd far rather have him in office than who tried to beat him.

In any case, seems to me that until there's some commonly agreed upon definition for support it's kind of hard to really pin the focus of this thread down. IIRC the author of the article doesn't even really nail it down. He talks around it. Personally I don't think that the existing Job benefits, allowances and perks should be considered support. YMMV

Dospac · 02-01-2006, 12:30 AM

Yeah, and it's a fucking pathetic joke how little money it would require to give the troops serving some better equipment and something else.. anything else as compensation and to boost morale.

Oh good news guys, Halliburton had their best year ever in the 86 year history of the company!

*edit* And isn't war profiteering illegal and treason? That's the next huge scandal in the Bush administration, btw. . . It's in the queue.

01-29-2006, 04:00 AM	#61
o_geokill-----> Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Fort Worth, Tejas Posts Rated Helpful 1 Times	Agree With Article, I will suport Troops only if they are draft but that is it.

01-29-2006, 04:30 AM	#62
o_etzell Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Ah, so, Geokill, you'll support troops that are fighting a war that they don't want to be in? Newsflash: Not all of the troops in Iraq want to be there. A lot of people don't join the army to fight wars like the one in Iraq, they join the army to DEFEND the nation.

01-29-2006, 04:38 AM	#64
o_etzell Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	You sad you support drafted troops. IE, you support the troops that have no choice in where they go to fight, especially if these troops are opposed to the war they're going to fight in. Look at the military right now and tell me that everyone who is fighting is damn happy to be doing it, 'cause I've got 3 examples in my family that will be damn happy to prove you wrong. And as for blaming society, no, it's your fault.

01-29-2006, 04:58 AM	#66
o_etzell Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	I'm saying that if you only support drafted troops, that's a dumb, dumb stance. If you're going to not support the troops, you should have a better reason then: "They aren't drafted." I'm suggesting either supporting them all, supporting none of them, or refining your reasoning. Obviously you haven't been reading my responses at all...

01-29-2006, 12:02 PM	#68
o_ekim Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bristol UK Posts Rated Helpful 1 Times	I still don't know what "support the troops" means.

01-29-2006, 04:58 PM	#69
o_yomamashouse Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Your Mamas House Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	There really isnt one definition, A lot of Americans just like to say buttered up garbage like that to feel important. Canada is still having trouble FINANCING the troops so we havent got to that point.

01-30-2006, 08:22 PM	#71
o_fathom Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Auburn, AL Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	http://www.radioblogger.com/images/01-24stein.mp3 Here is a telephone interview with Joel Stein by Hugh Hewitt. www.hughhewwit.com

01-31-2006, 02:33 PM	#72
Dospac Retired FF Staff Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: San Jose, CA Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	But the whole problem is the dems are pussies. They aren't doing anything in the political arena, and they're afraid to speak out against any of the crap that's going on. There's a whole lot of seriously wrong shit happening, it doesn't matter who comes forward, either party. The checks and balances need to start checking and balancing. And somebody give McCain a medal or something while we're at it. And Arlen Spector too. . .

01-31-2006, 02:50 PM	#74
o_fresh Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Brum. Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	yeah, love all that. burn he jews. right on.

01-31-2006, 05:44 PM	#76
o_puppychow Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Washington DC Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	thats my numero uno beef with bush - he is the first president in wartime, not only to keep taxes at prewar levels, but actually reduce them. it's like reducing your monthly payment on your credit card, purchacing more, and expecting that somehow your balance will get smaller itself. makes nosense.

01-31-2006, 05:57 PM	#77
o_\|404\|innoc-tpf- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: The Midtown Express Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	He also increased spending as well. One of many areas I am not happy with him over. And I'd far rather have him in office than who tried to beat him. In any case, seems to me that until there's some commonly agreed upon definition for support it's kind of hard to really pin the focus of this thread down. IIRC the author of the article doesn't even really nail it down. He talks around it. Personally I don't think that the existing Job benefits, allowances and perks should be considered support. YMMV

02-01-2006, 12:30 AM	#78
Dospac Retired FF Staff Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: San Jose, CA Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Yeah, and it's a fucking pathetic joke how little money it would require to give the troops serving some better equipment and something else.. anything else as compensation and to boost morale. Oh good news guys, Halliburton had their best year ever in the 86 year history of the company! edit And isn't war profiteering illegal and treason? That's the next huge scandal in the Bush administration, btw. . . It's in the queue.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)