U.S. Troops Support McCain 3-1

[barfo]

What?

I was responding to your claim that

Random polling if done right would show that this race is tied 50-50.

which is unsupported by any objective evidence.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

It's wrong to thing that their opinion doesn't matter

Yes, that would be wrong. No one has said that. Please try to argue things people are actually saying.

 

[Minstrel]

Your article didn't even mention who did the report. (this is what it says "a nonpartisan group reported Thursday")

Incorrect. The very next paragraph was:

Troops serving abroad have given nearly six times as much money to Obama's presidential campaign as they have to McCain's, the Center for Responsive Politics said.

 

[CelticKing]

Yes, that would be wrong. No one has said that. Please try to argue things people are actually saying.

You and barfo are trying to downplay the significance of the military supporting McCain, saying that they only get to vote just like us, and basically are hired killers, so who gives a crap about them. That is wrong, but you can't expect much more from the liberals. Just like Obama who is ready to hand the victory to the terrorists.

 

[Denny Crane]

Troops don't make much. $6 for Obama and $1 for McCain isn't saying much.

 

[Minstrel]

You and barfo are trying to downplay the significance of the military supporting McCain

The military has supported Obama more, actually. As I showed.

saying that they only get to vote just like us

This is inaccurate?

and basically are hired killers, so who gives a crap about them.

*laugh* "and basically [made-up assertion]"

There's no point talking to you if you're simply going to invent things we said.

 

[barfo]

You and barfo are trying to downplay the significance of the military supporting McCain, saying that they only get to vote just like us,

Perhaps you could explain to us the significance, then?

barfo

 

[Shooter]

Let's get one thing clear. Barfo made an outrageous comment about our troops that was really despicable. But then, as most of you know, barfo likes to be outrageous. He can argue till he's blue in the face about what he really "meant," but all you have to do is read his comment to see how disrespectful it is. If a conservative had said something like that about the victims of Katrina or kids in the inner city, liberals would be outraged.

 

[CelticKing]

The military has supported Obama more, actually. As I showed.

You showed a USA Today article.

*laugh* "and basically [made-up assertion]"

There's no point talking to you if you're simply going to invent things we said.

Well then don't talk to me.

But don't come into these threads showing your support for the messiah and expect nothing out of me, of course I'm going to disagree with your points and views because you support Obama and I support McCain. If you can't live with that, big deal.

 

[CelticKing]

Let's get one thing clear. Barfo made an outrageous comment about our troops that was really despicable. But then, as most of you know, barfo likes to be outrageous. He can argue till he's blue in the face about what he really "meant," but all you have to do is read his comment to see how disrespectful it is. If a conservative had said something like that about the victims of Katrina or kids in the inner city, liberals would be outraged.

They bring out the race card immediately.

 

[CelticKing]

Perhaps you could explain to us the significance, then?

barfo

See that's the whole point, you don't care that much about the military, so what they think is no significance to you. It's like a bunch of bums talking in the streets, (who could be hired to kill, and each get a vote).

 

[barfo]

See that's the whole point, you don't care that much about the military, so what they think is no significance to you. It's like a bunch of bums talking in the streets, (who could be hired to kill, and each get a vote).

So is that a no? You can't explain the significance?

barfo

 

[barfo]

Let's get one thing clear. Barfo made an outrageous comment about our troops that was really despicable. But then, as most of you know, barfo likes to be outrageous. He can argue till he's blue in the face about what he really "meant," but all you have to do is read his comment to see how disrespectful it is. If a conservative had said something like that about the victims of Katrina or kids in the inner city, liberals would be outraged.

Oh, noes, I've disrespected the military by not seeking their counsel on who I should vote for.

Sure.

barfo

 

[CelticKing]

So is that a no? You can't explain the significance?

barfo

The US Military.....is.......supporting (backing up, are for)......John McCain.......3....to........1.........that is.


Get it?

 

[CelticKing]

Oh, noes, I've disrespected the military by not seeking their counsel on who I should vote for.

Sure.

barfo

No one said seek their counsel, I said they are supporting him, gave you the article, the link, plus a pdf file to see for yourself.

You came with reply telling us that it doesn't matter because we only hire them to kill so their opinion really doesn't matter.


But you really love to twist things around don't you barfo?


Here is your post again

Who cares? We hire those kids to fight and die for us, not to choose our president for us.

 

[barfo]

The US Military.....is.......supporting (backing up, are for)......John McCain.......3....to........1.........that is.


Get it?

No, that isn't the answer. Let's try again.

What is the significance of the military (supposedly) supporting McCain?

barfo

 

[barfo]

No one said seek their counsel, I said they are supporting him, gave you the article, the link, plus a pdf file to see for yourself.

You came with reply telling us that it doesn't matter because we only hire them to kill so their opinion really doesn't matter.

That's correct! Very good. Now, explain why their collective opinion about politics matters.

barfo

Edit: well, mostly correct. I said die, you said kill.

 

[BrianFromWA]

It doesn't matter. So why are we talking about it?

1) It shows a demographic of society that some people (perhaps not you, but still...) find interesting, even if they don't agree with.

2) If someone were to say (and I think I've seen it somewhere here) that percentages among white voters making less than 50k are 4% in favor of Obama, I'm not sure there would be a backlash. Wait, there was, and there wasn't a backlash. Why not? No one to say "we just hire those people to be our grocery store clerks and plumbers, not to tell us how to vote"?

3) It could spark discussion about why one segment of the population is heavily behind the minority candidate, or why it seems to be very closely drawn across racial lines, even though the military is perhaps the most successfully integrated aspect of our society.

But, whatever. As Kerry said, it's just a bunch of people who meet the following criteria:
“You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

 

[Денг Гордон]

Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Ron Paul have little in common politically, except their opposition to the Iraq war.

Both top a new list of presidential candidates receiving campaign contributions from people who work for the four branches of the military and National Guard, according to a study released Thursday by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Obama, an Illinois senator, brought in more donations from this group than any White House contender from either party. The Democrat announced Wednesday his plan to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2008.

Paul, a Texas congressman and the only GOP presidential hopeful who supports an immediate troop withdrawal, comes in second.

"Paul and Obama are talking straight to soldiers, and what they are saying is resonating," said Larnell Exum, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, who gave $500 to Obama. Exum, who works for the Army as a congressional liaison, is a Democrat but voted for George Bush in 1992.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3601542

 

[barfo]

Let's get one thing clear. Barfo made an outrageous comment about our troops that was really despicable.

I'm baffled as to what interpretation you could put on it that would be despicable. Did you think I was saying that soldiers shouldn't have the right to vote? That could be called despicable, I guess, but it seems like a stretch that that would be what I meant. Do you have some other interpretation in mind?

But then, as most of you know, barfo likes to be outrageous.

Moi?

He can argue till he's blue in the face about what he really "meant," but all you have to do is read his comment to see how disrespectful it is. If a conservative had said something like that about the victims of Katrina or kids in the inner city, liberals would be outraged.

Let's try, shall we?

News: Katrina victims favor Obama 3-1.
Conservative: Who cares? The victims of Katrina aren't going to choose our president for us.
News: Kids in the inner city favor Obama 3-1
Conservative: Who cares? The kids in the inner city aren't going to choose our president for us.

I don't see the problem. Those are simply true statements (although with a broad enough definition
of kids, maybe the second one isn't completely true).

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

of course I'm going to disagree with your points and views

Disagreeing with my points is fine. Pretending I said things that I didn't isn't.

 

[barfo]

It doesn't matter. So why are we talking about it?

1) It shows a demographic of society that some people (perhaps not you, but still...) find interesting, even if they don't agree with.

That's fair, and an appropriate response to my "who cares?" would have been "I care". Given the context of the board, I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that this was being presented as evidence of McCain's chances in the election, rather than a military-interest story.

2) If someone were to say (and I think I've seen it somewhere here) that percentages among white voters making less than 50k are 4% in favor of Obama, I'm not sure there would be a backlash. Wait, there was, and there wasn't a backlash. Why not? No one to say "we just hire those people to be our grocery store clerks and plumbers, not to tell us how to vote"?

The difference is that white voters making less than $50K are a significant swing voting block; active duty military are not.

3) It could spark discussion about why one segment of the population is heavily behind the minority candidate, or why it seems to be very closely drawn across racial lines, even though the military is perhaps the most successfully integrated aspect of our society.

Those would be interesting discussions.

But, whatever. As Kerry said, it's just a bunch of people who meet the following criteria:
“You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

barfo

 

[Shooter]

Let's try, shall we?

News: Katrina victims favor Obama 3-1.
Conservative: Who cares? The victims of Katrina aren't going to choose our president for us.
News: Kids in the inner city favor Obama 3-1
Conservative: Who cares? The kids in the inner city aren't going to choose our president for us.

I don't see the problem. Those are simply true statements (although with a broad enough definition
of kids, maybe the second one isn't completely true).

Let's try and be honest, for once, okay, barfo? In your examples above, you conveniently left out the kind of outrageous statement that you made about our troops, i.e. that we "hire them to fight and die for us." Without the whole quote, the context is not the same, and the statement doesn't have the same kind of impact.

But you know that, don't you? I suspect that you know exactly what made your original statement so offensive, and now you are playing games with us. I have said all I'm going to on this topic, so good evening.

 

[MARIS61]

...the anti-war nuts...

Being against raping, murdering and pillaging means one is "nuts" in your view?

I suspect most of the world disagrees with that assessment.

 

[MARIS61]

Troops don't make much. $6 for Obama and $1 for McCain isn't saying much.

It's the thought that counts.

 

[MickZagger]

Random polling if done right would show that this race is tied 50-50. The problem is we have the liberal media going to "democrat" voters and doing the random polling with them, which then in turn gives you the 54-46 (for obama, or other numbers that we keep getting)

You cannot believe the polls, especially the ones by the media which are backing up Obama, of course they're not going to say that McCain is ahead when they're supporting the other one.

What does that say about the Fox News/Rasmussen poll which is conducted by a network clearly backing McCain and have Obama up by 6 points?

 

[MARIS61]

Barfo said:

Who cares? We hire those kids to fight and die for us, not to choose our president for us.

Who cares (whom each of them supports)? Not me, nor do I care whom anyone else supports. I'm pretty certain I know better than most people.

We hire those kids to fight and die for us. Not by choice I don't, and I'm outraged that they claim that I have anything to do with them murdering people in Iraq. I don't support their actions (other than with taxes against my wishes), and am appalled that they have no moral compass that tells them when using the excuse "just following orders" puts them in the company of Hitler's troops. Right is right and wrong is wrong, but wrong is the path of least resistance, and the road most often travelled by cowards.

 

[BrianFromWA]

"they have no moral compass that tells them when using the excuse "just following orders" puts them in the company of Hitler's troops"

Sometimes I wish I could tell when people actually meant some of the spew put onto this board, and when they're joking, trying to pull the chain of others. I just had my chain pulled for a second. Well done.

Lemme guess...you don't want your taxes to pay for policemen, either? Because they kill people sometimes? Do you not like doctors, because in the course of their work people sometimes die?

The military has more restrictive laws governing its behavior than you do. (Just off the top of my head...drug use, "prejudicial to good order and discipline", sodomy, etc) Are there those who do bad things? Yes. Are they caught and punished? ALmost 100% of the time. You probably have no idea, but most defense counsels would like their military clients tried in civil courts, since in the military you generally don't get off because you luckily found the stupid end of the jury pool that week.

Oh yeah, and if you "just follow" an illegal order, you're held responsible.

 

[Minstrel]

You probably have no idea, but most defense counsels would like their military clients tried in civil courts, since in the military you generally don't get off because you luckily found the stupid end of the jury pool that week.

I think most people prefer to be tried in civil trials because there is much greater transparency than in military tribunals. That's why citizens are given the right to a civil trial and cannot be tried by military tribunals.

 

[BrianFromWA]

There is a large difference between a "tribunal" and a court martial. "Tribunals" are not generally for military members.

"Much greater transparency"? I'm not sure how you can say that, unless you have been a part of both.

Me? Never been in a tribunal. Been in a few "non-judicial punishments", one court-martial, and no civil trials (though I saw most of OJ)