Republican 2012 Nomination Thread

[BigSqwert]

I don't really give a s*** if a troop is gay or not.

 

Are you cool with fellow conservatives booing your gay and lesbian comrades in the military? Wouldn't that be an example of "not supporting the troops"? If I booed a soldier your brain would explode with anger. I mean you've already made it clear in the past that liberals are unamerican and don't support troops. How do you classify the bolded in the first sentence?

Edited October 1, 2011 by BigSqwert

[The Sir]

Are you cool with fellow conservatives booing your gay and lesbian comrades in the military? Wouldn't that be an example of "not supporting the troops"? If I booed a soldier your brain would explode with anger. I mean you've already made it clear in the past that liberals are unamerican and don't support troops. How do you classify the bolded in the first sentence?

 

That was one or two turds in that crowd, Sqwert, and the rest of the crowd reacted swiftly in telling him to shut the hell up. It's unfortunate that hateful bigots like that would show up to a GOP debate, but please realize that they didn't speak for that entire audience.

[bigruss]

well, just want to point out that this is the 'GOP 2012 Nomination Thread'.

That's my point, it's about the GOP nominees, not about the left.

[The Sir]

How do you sign up in support of a cause that hasn't even started? Are you seriously claiming that every war action the US is involved in should be 100% supported? Morally and legally aren't you required to not follow an order that you believe to be illegal or immoral? Shouldn't the citizens be allowed that same right?

 

They're allowed to be against the war. I have no problem with that. But you simply can't claim to support us while refusing to support the cause for which we are prepared to give our lives. Support who we are but not what we are doing? Yeah, right. If what we are doing and signing up for is wrong, then why do you support us in the first place? Is there an actual reason for it? Or is it just the politically correct thing to do?

 

Take it from

guy. Yeah, he's a pompous, twatty Mao-wannabe who spouts unfounded bulls*** and taunts internet critics while hiding in his ridiculously decorated bedroom, but he's picked up on the concept of not supporting the troops if you don't support the war they are so eagerly fighting.

 

Don't take that as me putting that guy on a higher level than you. I'd feel bad about that. I mean, I really, really f***ing hate that guy. I'm just curious how people claim to support the troops and don't support their causes. Really, why is it? Is it because bashing the troops is such a quick way to receive vitriol and bile from other citizens? It just confuses me.

 

On another note, I want to talk about how much I hate that f***ing guy. He's a fat 30 year old loon who lists Miley Cyrus and Avril Lavigne amongst his favorite musicians. He bashes militarism and sits there in his bedroom wearing a fake Soviet military uniform. He bashes capitalism and preaches communism as the true path while feeling to realize that communism murdered 100,000,000 people in the past century. He comes up with some bogus number of people killed by capitalism, including in it 60,000,000 from WWII for some inexplicable reason and 306,000,000 killed by smoking since 1960, as if those are somehow capitalism related and Fidel Castro isn't famous for chomping on huge cigars. He preaches the awesomeness of North Korea where people starve to death daily under an insane dictator, all while he lives comfortably in Canada. You'd think if the DPRK rocked so much, he'd f***ing live there. This FARC guerrilla poser dips*** probably works as a barista at Starbucks. f***ing loser.

[illinilaw08]

They're allowed to be against the war. I have no problem with that. But you simply can't claim to support us while refusing to support the cause for which we are prepared to give our lives. Support who we are but not what we are doing? Yeah, right. If what we are doing and signing up for is wrong, then why do you support us in the first place? Is there an actual reason for it? Or is it just the politically correct thing to do?

 

Take it from

guy. Yeah, he's a pompous, twatty Mao-wannabe who spouts unfounded bulls*** and taunts internet critics while hiding in his ridiculously decorated bedroom, but he's picked up on the concept of not supporting the troops if you don't support the war they are so eagerly fighting.

 

Don't take that as me putting that guy on a higher level than you. I'd feel bad about that. I mean, I really, really f***ing hate that guy. I'm just curious how people claim to support the troops and don't support their causes. Really, why is it? Is it because bashing the troops is such a quick way to receive vitriol and bile from other citizens? It just confuses me.

 

On another note, I want to talk about how much I hate that f***ing guy. He's a fat 30 year old loon who lists Miley Cyrus and Avril Lavigne amongst his favorite musicians. He bashes militarism and sits there in his bedroom wearing a fake Soviet military uniform. He bashes capitalism and preaches communism as the true path while feeling to realize that communism murdered 100,000,000 people in the past century. He comes up with some bogus number of people killed by capitalism, including in it 60,000,000 from WWII for some inexplicable reason and 306,000,000 killed by smoking since 1960, as if those are somehow capitalism related and Fidel Castro isn't famous for chomping on huge cigars. He preaches the awesomeness of North Korea where people starve to death daily under an insane dictator, all while he lives comfortably in Canada. You'd think if the DPRK rocked so much, he'd f***ing live there. This FARC guerrilla poser dips*** probably works as a barista at Starbucks. f***ing loser.

 

Ridiculous statement. I can support our troops (and their sacrifice) and hope they come home safe while disagreeing with our reason for being in a foreign country. That doesn't mean that I hope that troops die (as you seem to indicate), but rather it means that I don't believe that we should have ever been engaged in said foreign engagement.

 

As I have mentioned before with you, though, you put the military on a pedestal and seem to believe that it is the only noble service to country. Without discounting your service, or the service of your brothers, I would like to see you acknowledge that there are plenty of people that work at home (Teach for America, Americorps, Policemen, Firemen) who sacrifice for their community and Americans that work abroad (Doctors Without Borders, Peace Corps, etc.) that sacrifice for the greater good. I respect the military. I don't support all the decisions that those in the upper levels of command make. But that doesn't mean I don't support the troops.

[The Sir]

As I have mentioned before with you, though, you put the military on a pedestal and seem to believe that it is the only noble service to country. Without discounting your service, or the service of your brothers, I would like to see you acknowledge that there are plenty of people that work at home (Teach for America, Americorps, Policemen, Firemen) who sacrifice for their community and Americans that work abroad (Doctors Without Borders, Peace Corps, etc.) that sacrifice for the greater good.

 

I'll give you policemen and firemen. They risk their lives for the public good. I'll absolutely give you that one.

 

But the others? Where's their sacrifice? How many Peace Corps members have died in the line of duty? Or Americorps members, or TFA, or whatever. Yeah, that's great...they go abroad and build huts for the less fortunate. Awesome. But what risk is there? What sacrifice do they make? It's an acceptable thing to do, but I'm not going to throw them up there on the same level as the armed forces.

 

So yes, not everyone can be a troop. We need members of society to do other things. Teachers, doctors, lawyers, janitors...we need people to do these things. That doesn't mean I'm going to afford them the same respect and level of nobility that I give to Soldiers.

 

I will never apologize for putting the military on a pedestal.

[The Sir]

Ridiculous statement. I can support our troops (and their sacrifice) and hope they come home safe while disagreeing with our reason for being in a foreign country. That doesn't mean that I hope that troops die (as you seem to indicate), but rather it means that I don't believe that we should have ever been engaged in said foreign engagement.

 

Hoping I don't get my head blown off is all it takes to support me? I'm glad you don't want me dead. Hell, I don't even think Maoist Rebel News wants me to get killed. But that doesn't mean either of you support me.

[illinilaw08]

Hoping I don't get my head blown off is all it takes to support me? I'm glad you don't want me dead. Hell, I don't even think Maoist Rebel News wants me to get killed. But that doesn't mean either of you support me.

 

You cannot recognize the fact that supporting the war does not necessarily = supporting the troops? Doesn't mean I want your mission to fail. Doesn't mean that I'm not rooting for the success of American troops. It means I don't think you should be there in the first place. If you don't recognize that distinction then there is honestly no reason to discuss this with you.

 

What do you think equates to supporting the troops? What should I do to support the troops to have you accept that I support you?

 

[The Sir]

A few years ago, a friend of mine deployed to Iraq. He was involved in an engagement where he opened up on enemy forces with his M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, killing 34 of them. He was awarded the Silver Star for his actions and he still proudly wears this medal. But if you don't support the war, he killed thirty four people who, whether they were bloody insurgents or not, should never have been killed because my friend never should have been there to confront them in the first place. He supported it though, and to this day, he believes his actions were absolutely just. So where do you draw the line on that one? Are you glad he came home safely but upset that he killed 34 bad people in a war you find unjust? Are you supportive of the fact that he did what he had to do for the survival of his squad? This is why I just think it's difficult to support the troops without supporting their cause. It's a blurry line.

[The Sir]

Doesn't mean I want your mission to fail. Doesn't mean that I'm not rooting for the success of American troops. It means I don't think you should be there in the first place.

 

I'll accept that. I'm still curious what you would say to the situation of my friend, though.

[illinilaw08]

I'll give you policemen and firemen. They risk their lives for the public good. I'll absolutely give you that one.

 

But the others? Where's their sacrifice? How many Peace Corps members have died in the line of duty? Or Americorps members, or TFA, or whatever. Yeah, that's great...they go abroad and build huts for the less fortunate. Awesome. But what risk is there? What sacrifice do they make? It's an acceptable thing to do, but I'm not going to throw them up there on the same level as the armed forces.

 

So yes, not everyone can be a troop. We need members of society to do other things. Teachers, doctors, lawyers, janitors...we need people to do these things. That doesn't mean I'm going to afford them the same respect and level of nobility that I give to Soldiers.

 

I will never apologize for putting the military on a pedestal.

 

Really? Doctors that sacrifice 100k + paychecks to help sick kids in Africa don't sacrifice? That's just "acceptable"?

 

People that accept poor wages to work in the worst schools and communities in the country don't sacrifice? The only sacrifice is putting your own life on the line?

 

Do members of the armed services that are not on active duty deserve less credit for what they do? Is the only acceptable sacrifice being in the literal line of fire?

[illinilaw08]

A few years ago, a friend of mine deployed to Iraq. He was involved in an engagement where he opened up on enemy forces with his M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, killing 34 of them. He was awarded the Silver Star for his actions and he still proudly wears this medal. But if you don't support the war, he killed thirty four people who, whether they were bloody insurgents or not, should never have been killed because my friend never should have been there to confront them in the first place. He supported it though, and to this day, he believes his actions were absolutely just. So where do you draw the line on that one? Are you glad he came home safely but upset that he killed 34 bad people in a war you find unjust? Are you supportive of the fact that he did what he had to do for the survival of his squad? This is why I just think it's difficult to support the troops without supporting their cause. It's a blurry line.

 

He did what he was ordered to do. He did what he needed to do to come home safe. He deserved the Silver Star and the respect that comes with that.

 

I have friends that are active duty military. I want them to do what they need to do to come home safe.

 

That doesn't mean I think American troops should be dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. I can support the troops without supporting the fact that boots are on the ground in foreign countries.

[The Sir]

Really? Doctors that sacrifice 100k + paychecks to help sick kids in Africa don't sacrifice? That's just "acceptable"?

 

People that accept poor wages to work in the worst schools and communities in the country don't sacrifice? The only sacrifice is putting your own life on the line?

 

Do members of the armed services that are not on active duty deserve less credit for what they do? Is the only acceptable sacrifice being in the literal line of fire?

 

I'm deleting what I originally posted because comparing people's sacrifices just bothers me when I reread it. I still put the military on a pedestal because it's been my life. I grew up in it and my children will grow up in it. The enormous amount of respect I pay to the military that some of you view as unreasonable is because of this. I will always hold the military in this sacred manner, and I won't apologize for it. But to say that one sacrifice is greater than another is an immature thought that I don't really like having said. Oh well.

Edited October 1, 2011 by God Loves The Infantry

[BigSqwert]

I'll give you policemen and firemen. They risk their lives for the public good. I'll absolutely give you that one.

 

But the others? Where's their sacrifice?

Nothing even needs to be said after a statement like that. The only people worth admiring are people directly involved in violence. Everyone else is expendable.

 

This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

[The Sir]

Nothing even needs to be said after a statement like that. The only people worth admiring are people directly involved in violence. Everyone else is expendable.

 

Give me a f***ing break. I'm supposed to equate some Peace Corps dork with the American Soldier? No. Not happening.

 

This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

[Balta1701]

The last bit there crossed my line. Please guys, it does not need to come to that level.

[The Sir]

The last bit there crossed my line. Please guys, it does not need to come to that level.

 

Well, I'll thank you for editing both insulting parts and not just the one from the conservative. I appreciate that.

[Texsox]

They're allowed to be against the war. I have no problem with that. But you simply can't claim to support us while refusing to support the cause for which we are prepared to give our lives.

 

Simple, you will understand why some of us do not support some of the causes when you understand why you do not support the Commander in Chief. How can you support the military then rip the Commander?

[Texsox]

Give me a f***ing break. I'm supposed to equate some Peace Corps dork with the American Soldier? No. Not happening.

 

This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

 

I'm guessing you are unfamiliar with either the cause of the Peace Corp or the causes you are fighting for. There are many ways to secure our borders from enemies, one of which is to stop creating them. Perhaps you are embarrassed when some military dork is photographed feeding a little kid, handing them a doll, or handing out water bottles in a disaster zone.

[Texsox]

Really, thirty year old dirt about a name that Perry wasn't even involved in?

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_...11-10-02-11-34-

 

 

[The Sir]

Simple, you will understand why some of us do not support some of the causes when you understand why you do not support the Commander in Chief. How can you support the military then rip the Commander?

 

I have a certain level of resentment for any CiC who never served. He holds this authority over our Armed Forces but never wore the uniform himself? How is he supposed to understand our lives and the challenges we face?

 

Now, I'll follow the CiC's orders no matter what his background. And if you've read enough of my posts, you know I also resent people like Terrence Lakin, the field grade officer who refused to deploy until Obama provided his birth certificate. The man brought his politics into the workplace and his career was rightfully ended in disgrace. My personal distaste for how the CiC spent his youth is my problem alone.

 

Of course, you already know my solution. Never vote for non-veterans. I, personally, will never support a man for the position of my boss if he hadn't once been in my shoes. I don't think that's unreasonable.

[Texsox]

I have a certain level of resentment for any CiC who never served. He holds this authority over our Armed Forces but never wore the uniform himself? How is he supposed to understand our lives and the challenges we face?

 

Now, I'll follow the CiC's orders no matter what his background. And if you've read enough of my posts, you know I also resent people like Terrence Lakin, the field grade officer who refused to deploy until Obama provided his birth certificate. The man brought his politics into the workplace and his career was rightfully ended in disgrace. My personal distaste for how the CiC spent his youth is my problem alone.

 

Of course, you already know my solution. Never vote for non-veterans. I, personally, will never support a man for the position of my boss if he hadn't once been in my shoes. I don't think that's unreasonable.

You will vote for a republican regardless of their military service.

 

So how can you support the military if you don't support the CiC? You're questioning others that they can support the personnel but not the cause, how can you support the cause without supporting the CiC?

 

 

[The Sir]

So how can you support the military if you don't support the CiC? You're questioning others that they can support the personnel but not the cause, how can you support the cause without supporting the CiC?

 

This is ridiculous. I will follow all orders of the CiC. That's my "support" for him and for the cause he now claims to lead. But for the man himself, in 2012, and in any other year where a non-veteran runs, I will not vote for them. By your logic, 90% of the military doesn't support the cause.

[Texsox]

You presented the idea that you either support 100% or not at all. I am just pointing out it is really easy to support some but not all. People make decisions on where to deploy our Troops and under what conditions. Sometimes those decisions are wrong. Supporting, for example, ridiculous rules like only return fire, do not initiate or do not follow combatants into Cambodia, because to question it somehow doesn't support the Troops, is silly. Just like you can support some of the military but not everyone, others can support the Troops while while being critical of how they are being used. I find it morally reprehensible to cause the deaths of American soldiers for certain gains. Just because Congress or the CiC decides something is a worthy cause is not reason enough I should support that cause. That is your job. To blindly follow their orders. My responsibility as a citizen is to question why soldiers are being used. That's one of the oversights we have as part of the Constitution.

 

And I lol at you voting for a liberal candidate who is a vet over a non serving conservative candidate. It just ain't going to happen vato.

[The Sir]

You presented the idea that you either support 100% or not at all. I am just pointing out it is really easy to support some but not all. People make decisions on where to deploy our Troops and under what conditions. Sometimes those decisions are wrong. Supporting, for example, ridiculous rules like only return fire, do not initiate or do not follow combatants into Cambodia, because to question it somehow doesn't support the Troops, is silly. Just like you can support some of the military but not everyone, others can support the Troops while while being critical of how they are being used. I find it morally reprehensible to cause the deaths of American soldiers for certain gains. Just because Congress or the CiC decides something is a worthy cause is not reason enough I should support that cause. That is your job. To blindly follow their orders. My responsibility as a citizen is to question why soldiers are being used. That's one of the oversights we have as part of the Constitution.

 

And I lol at you voting for a liberal candidate who is a vet over a non serving conservative candidate. It just ain't going to happen vato.

 

I can respect that post. Except for the end part.

 

Where did I ever say military service was the only requirement? We went over this a long time ago. Conservative ideals, fidelity to your wife, honorable military service. I'm not voting for a liberal in any circumstances, and if it was a liberal vet against a conservative non-vet, I won't vote at all. Or I'll write somebody in.