L.A. Times writer does not support troops.

[dolanp]

Best thing is to ignore him. He is feeding off of the reaction.

 

[Wllm. Legrand]

I think the point the writer is trying to make is that this thing about serving in the military "protecting" the citizens is so much crap most of time. It is exactly that. You want to "protect" the people of this country? Put the military on the g.d. BORDER! At least protecting the border is a legitimate governmental responsibility.

I know, I know, so many of you think that serving in the mlitary is "serving your country". Wrong. You are serving your government. That's a big difference.

Like the fellow who posted that he "supports my country". What the heck does THAT mean? Really, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

I hate to belabor the point but there is significant "hardheadness" ingrained out there...maybe its due to years of government schooling, but you do not serve your country, despite how YOU may view the exercise, by going in the military. You serve your government. And the government is NOT your country.

By the reasoning of some of you, only unpatriotic Germans opposed going into Poland. Or France. Or the Low Countries. Or whatever.

Or unpatriotic British were those that opposed her iron-fisted rule over her colonies in the 19th century.

Supporting the mission of an unconstitutional, unnecessary war, with a subsequent occupation is unAmerican. But maybe I'm still stuck in another century when there were still legal, political, and social checks and balances against government aggression...or at least the pretense of the same.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

2. Assume that some war is simply a bad idea, and it's results are likely to be against the interests of the country engaging in it. Assume also that that war was protested before it started, but the leaders didn't listen. Are the citizens of that country now obligated to support their leaders' policies, even though they are harming the nation?

In what way is anyone obligating anyone in the USA to support anything? "Ain't no Draft no more Son..."

Arguing against dissent (especially when idiotic and narcissistic) is also free speech.

I DO appreciate the author's candidness. Apparently he's standing up for the right to not stand up for anything in particular. Basically the progressive playbook - at least this guy admits it.

Sickening...but unfortunately the Left has such a slippery moral base that this kind of worthless tripe isn't even worth a good old punch in the nose anymore.

It's kind of like fighting the melting robot in Teminator 2.

 

[Basura Blanca]

Sickening...but unfortunately the Left has such a slippery moral base that this kind of worthless tripe isn't even worth a good old punch in the nose anymore.

I wish that the "left" had a less slippery moral base.

Perhaps they should hire Duke Cunningham as a consultant for that purpose.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Put the military on the g.d. BORDER! At least protecting the border is a legitimate governmental responsibility.

Yeah -- Isolationism worked SO WELL for both Japan and China.

And kowtowing to the UN worked so well that nearly 3000 Americans were killed on 9/11.

I support an America that participates in the world and shines a light on individual liberty, not one that protects our little diminishing treasure in a hidey hole.

 

[Wllm. Legrand]

Fortunately, all of us have the pristine, morally consistent Right to protect us from the socialist Left.

The Right (which I will not dignify with the adjective "conservative) give us clear moral actions to emulate, such as unprecedented debt to leave our children and grandchildren, the piecemeal degradation of the once clearly understood Bill of Rights, unprecedented wars of aggression, wholesale destruction of the fiat currency of the nation, dishonesty and incompetence on a grand scale with regrads to the invasion and subversion of our culture and land from south of the border, growth of government by one third in less than 6 years, etc., etc., etc...

Thank heaven we have the Right to protect us from the socialists of the Left...Yeah...right...

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Basura Blanca -- I did not say "The Democrats", I said "The Left". There is a difference.

 

[Basura Blanca]

Basura Blanca -- I did not say "The Democrats", I said "The Left". There is a difference.

And I said Randy Duke Cunningham.
There was no mention of Dems. or Pubs. anywhere as I recall. Do you not agree that "Duke" is a self-proclaimed champion of the right?

 

[Old Dog]

but you do not serve your country, despite how YOU may view the exercise, by going in the military. You serve your government. And the government is NOT your country.

Ah, Wllm. LeGrande, I just don't think you ... can ... ever ... understand the concept. To those who've served, most know they're serving their country. At no time during the last quarter-century of my life did I ever feel as though I was merely serving my government. Yes, I served my country, and not a day went by that I didn't feel proud about this. And since you clearly don't have a clue as to what I, and my brothers and sisters, may have ever accomplished in the service of our country, don't insult us with your cynical rhetoric.

 

[Basura Blanca]

I see a big difference between being opposed to the decision to go to war in Iraq and being against the war. The time to protest a war is BEFORE it starts. At this stage you cannot be against the war without supporting the terrorists, no matter how you dress it up. The only choices are to either give in to the bombings and let the terrorists win or to push through no matter what.

Again, in that fabled binary land, this probably would make sense. However...

I've seen this rhetoric before somewhere too. Hmmm... isn't this basically parroting Bush's "You are either with us or against us in the war on terrorism" tagline?

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Um...Wllm - You seem to lump me into some sort of "holier than thou" conservative "right". Possibly because of my member name.

"Ready on the Right" is a range command for competition shooting. My politics are as right as Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand, but I abhor the slew of big government conservatives with whom we're saddled.

This is a SHOOTING forum. I've never noticed your stance on RKBA - AWB, "sensible gun control", trigger locks, armour-piercing ammo, cop-killer bullets, etc. - and where the LEFT stands on that topic.

 

[Wllm. Legrand]

Ah, Wllm. LeGrande, I just don't think you ... can ... ever ... understand the concept. To those who've served, most know they're serving their country. At no time during the last quarter-century of my life did I ever feel as though I was merely serving my government. Yes, I served my country, and not a day went by that I didn't feel proud about this. And since you clearly don't have a clue as to what I, and my brothers and sisters, may have ever accomplished in the service of our country, don't insult us with your cynical rhetoric.

Go watch a John Wayne movie. Your self-congratulations are boring. You're living in the past.

 

[Old Dog]

Go watch a John Wayne movie. Your self-congratulations are boring.

Self-congratulations? Wow. John Wayne movie? Good idea.

You're living in the past.

And you, sir, are rude. At least some of us live in some tense where we're not bitter old men who feel the need to attempt to invalidate honorable notions and worthwhile careers for hundreds of thousands of Americans.

 

[Wllm. Legrand]

Um...Wllm - You seem to lump me into some sort of "holier than thou" conservative "right". Possibly because of my member name.

"Ready on the Right" is a range command for competition shooting. My politics are as right as Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand, but I abhor the slew of big government conservatives with whom we're saddled.

This is a SHOOTING forum. I've never noticed your stance on RKBA - AWB, "sensible gun control", trigger locks, armour-piercing ammo, cop-killer bullets, etc. - and where the LEFT stands on that topic.

My stance is categoric. No gun control whatsoever on individual firearms. No laws at all. As in, "What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?"

Ayn Rand (whose biography by Barbara Brandon I highly recommend) was no lover of conservatism, only anti-communism, something they had in common. I would never classify her as "conservative"...as her magna opus "Atlas Shrugged" chapter John Galt Speaks (or something like that) has quite a bit against classical conservatism.

Neither would I classify Friedman as "conservative", more libertarian in his economics...as in "Austrian School".

I judge/evaluate on the writings of posters. There is nothing else upon which to build an opinion. Your moniker was not part of the mix. I describe the Right as a contrast to your reference of the Left.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Do you not agree that "Duke" is a self-proclaimed champion of the right?

I only agree that the morals of those who don't support the troops who protect their rights to speak out against the troops are "slippery".

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Ayn Rand (whose biography by Barbara Brandon I highly recommend) was no lover of conservatism, only anti-communism, something they had in common. I would never classify her as "conservative"...as her magna opus "Atlas Shrugged" chapter John Galt Speaks (or something like that) has quite a bit against classical conservatism.

Neither would I classify Friedman as "conservative", more libertarian in his economics...as in "Austrian School".

Exactly.

So...Do you prefer 45acp or 9mm?

.223 or .308?

 

[tube_ee]

Arguing against dissent (especially when idiotic and narcissistic) is also free speech.

Granted... And I wasn't trying to shut anyone up.

In what way is anyone obligating anyone in the USA to support anything? "Ain't no Draft no more Son..."

The post to which I responded contended that once the shooting starts, the time for dissent is over. From where I sit, (over here on the left side of the couch) that's wrong in principle. I simply don't buy the argument that the only time that it's OK to criticize a mistake is before it's made, and that, once the decision is made, everyone has to either go along or be quiet.

If I (or anyone else, even a reporter) think that the war in Iraq is a huge mistake from the perspective of American interests, wouldn't it be "anti-American" to remain silent? How does continuing to endorse the sacrifice of American blood and treasure for no good end "support the troops?" How can promoting American interests (as I see them) "support the terrorists?"

--Shannon

 

[Basura Blanca]

I only agree that the morals of those who don't support the troops who protect their rights to speak out against the troops are "slippery".

That's kind of evasive, but whatever.

I think that you've made a rather broad brushstroke by painting the entire "left" as lacking in morals. This is especially true if it's based simply on a silly editorial from a nothing journalist.

That was my point.

 

[Basura Blanca]

The post to which I responded contended that once the shooting starts, the time for dissent is over. From where I sit, (over here on the left side of the couch) that's wrong in principle. I simply don't buy the argument that the only time that it's OK to criticize a mistake is before it's made, and that, once the decision is made, everyone has to either go along or be quiet.

Exactly. That logic is deeply flawed any way you look at it.

Substitute gun control for the w.o.t. in the equation and read it. Is it not ok to question the mistakes (say, NFA '34) now that they've been implemented and in existence for 70 plus years?
Should we just "stay the course" on gun controls in the same manner and not question anything?

No. Not in my opinion.

 

[Wllm. Legrand]

Self-congratulations? Wow. John Wayne movie? Good idea.
And you, sir, are rude. At least some of us live in some tense where we're not bitter old men who feel the need to attempt to invalidate honorable notions and worthwhile careers for hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Rude? I simply tired of the tripe of veterens who claim exalted status for their "sevice" as if any service in the military entails heroism. There is some...rare...but that's not what I'm talking about. Sure, it's an honorable career, as many others, if done honorably. As for "old", I'm not there yet. Bitter? Not hardly. I've plenty to be happy about, and am. Cynical maybe. Only because I've seen phony patriots, poltroons, liars, and charlatans working overtime to steal my country and convince a population of uncritical thinkers that everything's a-okay. That's enough to make anyone cynical. Who was it that said or wrote in their sigline "Of all the things I've lost, I miss my country the most."

It ain't 1941, or 68. I think you'd better wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[Wllm. Legrand]

Exactly.

So...Do you prefer 45acp or 9mm?

.223 or .308?

No question here.

.308 It turns cover into concealment.

As for handgun, I'm old school revolver nut. .44 mag and .357 in all their varied appliances.

I could talk Friedman and Rand (and Murray Rothbard) all night.

And The Art of the Rifle...

 

[ReadyontheRight]

If I (or anyone else, even a reporter) think that the war in Iraq is a huge mistake from the perspective of American interests, wouldn't it be "anti-American" to remain silent? How does continuing to endorse the sacrifice of American blood and treasure for no good end "support the troops?" How can promoting American interests (as I see them) "support the terrorists?"

Shannon -- My belief is in line with Cosmoline's...which, if I can presume, is along the lines of "politics stop at the shore" or "the family sticks together".

IMHO...the terrorist strategy to defeat the USA took hold after Bosnia. With a solid background in the USA's approach to Vietnam. Focus on high-profile, news-worthy, murderous attacks on Americans to get onto the news and the American "peace movement" will do the rest.

This L.A. Times author's contention that there is nothing worth fighting for is the death-knell of Liberty.

If you can't understand that...no amount of typing can convince you of what I'm trying to say.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

This is especially true if it's based simply on a silly editorial from a nothing journalist.

Or a silly, selfish payoff from a nothing politician. This post IS about that "nothing journalist", not "Duke".

Do I need to counter "Duke!" with Rose Law Firm! Chappaquiddick! James McDougal! Mary Mahoney! Vince Foster! Ron Brown! James Bunch! James Wilson! Kathy Ferguson! Bill Shelton! Danny Casolaro!

Sickening, but not pertinenet to the current argument.

 

[Basura Blanca]

Or a silly, selfish payoff from a nothing politician. This post IS about that "nothing journalist", not "Duke".

Do I need to counter "Duke!" with Rose Law Firm! Chappaquiddick! James McDougal! Mary Mahoney! Vince Foster! Ron Brown! James Bunch! James Wilson! Kathy Ferguson! Bill Shelton! Danny Casolaro!

Sickening, but not pertinenet to the current argument.

LOL. You brought it up.

You assigned the "left" label to Joel Stein and then went on to paint the entire "left" as lacking morals. Nowhere in the editorial did Joel Stein say anything to the effect of "I'm a representative of the 'left' and the 'left' shares my views", did he?
I didn't see it.

Basically, your assertion was rather assumptive. For that matter, when I see similar smear-jobs being spewed up by the gun haters, I usually weigh in on the subject for the same reasons.

Imagine reading this line somewhere: "...unfortunately the gun nuts have a slippery moral base, yadah-yadah..."

Would you comment because the author has lumped all "gun nuts" into a category with which you disagree?
I would.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

You assigned the "left" label to Joel Stein and then went on to paint the entire "left" as lacking morals.

Well...Here is what I said:

I DO appreciate the author's candidness. Apparently he's standing up for the right to not stand up for anything in particular. Basically the progressive playbook - at least this guy admits it.

Sickening...but unfortunately the Left has such a slippery moral base that this kind of worthless tripe isn't even worth a good old punch in the nose anymore.

It's kind of like fighting the melting robot in Teminator 2.

My point is that the Left is building itself upon a belief that there is nothing worth fighting for (except perhaps fighting George Bush). Ripping on those who protect your ability to thrive in such a protected world where you can loudly espouse a belief in .... nothing.... is extremely pathetic and sad.