The GOP Convention Guide to the Dogs of War

[Larry Gude]

It is truly...

...entertaining to watch sparx's drive by's.

As per drive by's, there is ill intent but bullets fly all over the place, never hit the target and as often as not, hit innocents and the odd foot here an there of the sender.

Bruz:

What about Bugala, Combs, or "The Rajun Cajun?"

Whoops! Suppossed to disparage Rove but not, of course, his peers.

And Bob Dole, 'an honorable veteran'.

That's it? Not the flowery rhetoric saved for Gore the Destroyer?

A new low sparxs but keep up the good work!

Maybe you ought to get some new Dixie cups? I mean, you missed Abraham Lincoln (R) Illinois. What did that lazy chicken hawk ever accomplish?

 

[Sparx]

If you have no "leg" to stand on (like a distinguished career, such as John McCain's) don't knock anyone else's service.

I hope your not talking to me. I didn't knock the service career of anyone on this board.

 

[Bruzilla]

*zing* That's the sound of a point going over someone's head.

Thanks for being the voice of reason yet again Vrai.

I have nothing but respect for your service Sparx, as I have nothing but respect for anyone who serves honorably. It doesn't matter if you served in the Navy or the Coast Guard, whether you served stateside or deployed overseas. We, as you know, don't get to pick where we go or what we do... we go where we meet the needs of our service at the time.

My point was that it's wrong to judge a person based on where they served. What's important is how they did their job when they wore whatever uniform they served in. The fact that Bush served in the Guard in Texas rather than in the Navy in Viet Nam means nothing more than what I did in 81-85 compared to what you or thousands of other fellow service people did.

Feel The Love Bro

 

[vraiblonde]

And just to make sure Sparx really gets the point Bru is making:

Hey, Sparx? Was your Daddy a powerful man who got you an easy assignment when others were actually serving in combat and risking their lives?

 

[Toxick]

Hey, I work for a living. It's a rare time when I get a chance to post here at all. How many of you are spending your whole work day doing this stuff?

Then why bother?

It's obvious that you don't like anyone here - so you're not dropping these tidbits for our enlightenment and edification, because that would indicate that you give a rat's ass.

The only other conclusion I can come to is that you enjoy it when people consider you to be an arrogant leftist shmuck.

Because, personally, if I was as busy as you obviously are, and I only get brief moments where I could actually check e-mail, or chat, or read the news, I wouldn't waste these moments dive-bombing a discussion board with my unwelcome propaganda and self-indulgent "replies", and further alienating people who already thought I was an obnoxious twonk.



I know that sounds snarky and sarcastic, but I'm really trying to honestly figure out what it is you're trying to accomplish here with this stuff.

 

[Sparx]

And just to make sure Sparx really gets the point Bru is making:

Hey, Sparx? Was your Daddy a powerful man who got you an easy assignment when others were actually serving in combat and risking their lives?

Nope My daddy was an electrician and he actually served on the same ship I did. Only difference is, he was on it when it was in harms way in the battle for Midway. Don't compare our duty to bush's we showed up for every day of duty. Didn't get time off for political campaigning for someone else.

 

[Tonio]

I'm really trying to honestly figure out what it is you're trying to accomplish here with this stuff.

My guess is he enjoys verbal abuse. He seems to put himself in the Forum dunking booth with almost every visit.

 

[Sparx]

My guess is he enjoys verbal abuse. He seems to put himself in the Forum dunking booth with almost every visit.

I keep coming back because of the many views to these posts that I know (because of PM's and e-mails) that ask me to keep it up. These good folks just can't take the abuse I can. If they could, you wouldn't consider this a conservative forum.

 

[vraiblonde]

Don't compare our duty to bush's we showed up for every day of duty. Didn't get time off for political campaigning for someone else.

What makes you think Bush didn't show up for duty? Do you have any proof of this or is it just something that you "know"?

 

[Toxick]

I keep coming back because of the many views to these posts that I know (because of PM's and e-mails) that ask me to keep it up. These good folks just can't take the abuse I can. If they could, you wouldn't consider this a conservative forum.

Makes sense. I guess that's why your Karma is so high.

Because of the massive underground Super Sekrit Sparx Supporters Society.

And we all know how non-vocal the typical liberal is. Always content to stand on the sidelines and watch as people speak for them. I guess that's why you never see large crowds of vocal liberals screaming in unison together while, say, protesting.

Two other small things:

1) Abuse, my ass. When people call you a retard because you act like a retard. It's not abuse.
2) I don't consider this a conservative forum.

The majority of the members here lean right, true - but this isn't even a political forum, like the DU. It's an apolitical forum that happens to have a Political Section on it. 'Sides, there are other vocal liberals here, dems4me, jlabsher and rraley spring to mind, and I don't consider any one of them to be jerks. There are probably others.

And I myself have butted heads before with the righties where I've considered them to be wrong. The whole FCC/Howard Stern thing springs immediately to mind.

The difference is that I don't act like a twerp when I argue with these people, by targeting them with irresponsible accusations of racism, or cowardice. Both of which you've done this week.

And I don't throw news articles at people (or better yet, opinion pieces or forwarded liberal propaganda e-mail), and then act offended or put-upon when they respond, and then refuse to respond to arguments, or to back up my arguments with anything other than half-baked wisecracks.

And then claim that I'm getting "abuse".



And since you can't seem to make the connection, or comprehend the satire, Bruzilla commentary is specifically targeted at the typical liberal stance that Bush's service is less than honorable because he was in the National Guard serving stateside instead of killing commies like our beloved war-hero John "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" Kerry.

He wasn't implying that you were AWOL, he wasn't addressing anything else.


If you would take that stick out of your butt and laugh at yourself, maybe you could appreciate the humor.

 

[pvineswinger]

Implication is the same as "knocking."
And it's the collective service career of Congress- not the people on this board. As long as I've known, Congress represents the people on this board.

I hope your not talking to me. I didn't knock the service career of anyone on this board.

 

[Sparx]

The difference is that I don't act like a twerp when I argue with these people, by targeting them with irresponsible accusations of racism, or cowardice. Both of which you've done this week

That's funny, I've been in Pittsburg all week and haven't posted since sometime last week. Also, I wasn't the first to call this a conservative forum. It was one of you, a few months ago.

 

[Toxick]

That's funny, I've been in Pittsburg all week and haven't posted since sometime last week. Also, I wasn't the first to call this a conservative forum. It was one of you, a few months ago.

"Go to a Klan meeting as ask for a show of hands from Democrats"


Ring a bell?





Or did one of the people sending you PMs and emails log in as you and post that?

 

[Ken King]

Yeah, I served. US Navy 81-85. Submarine tender in Groton CT.

As long as I keep getting WAY more views to these post than negative replies I figure I'm making an impact no matter what you all think about it.
As Martha say's, IT'S A GOOD THING.

That is great that you served. I take it you did your duty as ordered and received an honorable discharge, just as Bush did. There are many ways to serve the nation and there are many times when requests for early release are honored. If I am not mistaken Kerry was also released prior to completing his obligation.

It shouldn’t be a matter of debate or a point of contention especially when Bush has made his records public. How come Kerry hasn’t done the same? Why has he refused to open them up to our scrutiny while disparaging what Bush did? One would think if he was being truthful and had nothing to hide he would readily make them available and put this to rest.

 

[Pete]

Smell that son? SNIFFFFFFFFFFFFFF thats napalm, I love the smell of Sparx burning in the morning.

 

[Bruzilla]

The difference is that I don't act like a twerp when I argue with these people, by targeting them with irresponsible accusations of racism, or cowardice. Both of which you've done this week

That's funny, I've been in Pittsburg all week and haven't posted since sometime last week. Also, I wasn't the first to call this a conservative forum. It was one of you, a few months ago.

If you were in Pittsburgh, the World's greatest city, for a week, couldn't you at least learn to spell the city's name right?

Also, as you know, the time that members of the Reserve serve is a far cry different from what we did on Active duty. I work with a lot of Naval Reservists, and many of them do make up drills because their schedule doesn't allow them to be present for regular drills. They bank up their time ahead of the gaps and then do extra drills after. If they wanted to they could do their 76 annual drill periods all in a couple of months, and take the rest of the year off, they can do that. They aren't shirking their duties any more than Bush did.

Now... you should know all this since you were in the service, so why are you repeating this BS?

 

[jlabsher]

I think the original point of this post was to show the hypocrisy of the hawkish republican leadership (and pundits) who send troops into harms way at the blink of an eye yet have never smelled napalm in the morning, pulled their buddies buddies out of the water or wreckage, or been shot at. Most people who go to war are a little cautious about going back unless it is truly necessary.

 

[vraiblonde]

hawkish republican leadership (and pundits) who send troops into harms way at the blink of an eye

#1, pundits do not send troops to war.

#2, apparently you didn't take that civics class I recommended or you'd know the President doesn't send troops into war, either.

#3, yeah, that damn hawkish Republican Lyndon Johnson.

#4, also that damn hawkish Republican Bill Clinton.

Rraley, if you are reading this post, take heart in knowing that you still have MUCH more on the ball than JLab, who is at least twice your age.

 

[Ken King]

I think the original point of this post was to show the hypocrisy of the hawkish republican leadership (and pundits) who send troops into harms way at the blink of an eye yet have never smelled napalm in the morning, pulled their buddies buddies out of the water or wreckage, or been shot at. Most people who go to war are a little cautious about going back unless it is truly necessary.

One hell of a long blink, don't you think? 12 years of non-compliance, attacks upon our aviators, and the thumbing of their nose at the civilized world. Add to this that we were attacked by those with the same aspirations (losing 3,000 of our citizens) and that we had exhausted all viable alternatives for dealing with Iraq and ask, what were we supposed to do? Should we have said “that’s life in today’s world” or should we have just lobbed a few cruise missiles at them in another fruitless effort.

I, like many other citizens, believe that enough is enough and we will no longer be threatened, attacked, and murdered by the thugs of the world. If they want to kill us it is about time that we say and act to demonstrate that we will no longer take it and we will kill them first before they do the damage that we know they are capable of delivering. We will take the battle to them and kill them were they lurk under the rocks or in a hole. For me it is no longer an option to be soft and impotent for that will lead to our demise and if we are to survive we can never stand for that.

Also a point for you to chew on is that the smells of napalm and burnt flesh would have been very similar to the smell filling the air in New York and at the Pentagon after those brutal attacks of 9/11. But I guess those deaths and that savagery of what we now face has already escaped your mind.

As a person that served in combat, I have seen the horrors of war and watched comrades die. After 9/11 I inquired as to what would be necessary for my return to active duty to serve my nation again as it was plainly clear that I had a combat skill that was needed and our nation was and is at war. Unfortunately, I didn’t get past the physical to return to duty. If I had been accepted of course I would have gone with caution and concern in the front of my mind, but for me there are some things more important then my life and the safety and security of this nation, my family, and those to come are some of those things.

The fact that someone has never faced war, rescued another, or been shot at does not mean that they cannot make the right decision as to our protection and survival. Ignoring any threat would have been criminal had another attack taken place and more people were lost. If such an event occurred after being threatened I am sure that you would be crying for heads to roll. The President, with Congressional declaration and authority, made the decision to take the war to them and in my mind this makes it more likely that they will have to focus their resources on that battle before attempting another attack over here thereby making us all safer.

I find it sad that you don’t see the same and I really don’t understand how so many like you would rather sit idly by and do nothing since the brutality we experienced on 9/11 and the continued acts of a hostile regime. In case you hadn’t noticed the world has changed and we can either act to protect ourselves or roll over allowing for the carnage to continue. I, for one, am damn glad we are acting and not once again responding after the fact.

 

[pvineswinger]

I was supposed to separate from active duty on Oct 13, 2001. But I had a needed skill and served a year past my original obligation. I also deployed for 5 months over Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year and Easter. (Not to mention numerous birthdays within my family.)
I didn't B!tch about it, and knew that I was needed by my country at that time. Yes it was a little inconvenient for me- but my inconvenience was NOTHING compared to what was done to my fellow countrymen (and countrywomen) on 9/11.
Anytime our government sends our troops in harms way- IT IS "truly necessary."
Service members are well aware of what we are signing up for when they join the military. That's the wonderful part of this country- we are a volunteer force. No one has been drafted to serve- everyone that is currently serving, and that could have possibly been "called back" are all VOLUNTEERS. We know the risks when we take the oath of enlistment.
As for your "napalm in the morning" statement- U.S. troops are at a higher risk of "smelling napalm in the morning" than any of our adversaries, since we do abide by the Geneva Convention. (Isn't that reason enough to protect ourselves and our allies?)

I think the original point of this post was to show the hypocrisy of the hawkish republican leadership (and pundits) who send troops into harms way at the blink of an eye yet have never smelled napalm in the morning, pulled their buddies buddies out of the water or wreckage, or been shot at. Most people who go to war are a little cautious about going back unless it is truly necessary.