General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI "Fuck"ing support Will Pitt!
His post calling out Obama for using a vet as a prop was right and I support his guts for telling the truth. He's taking a lot of flack for standing up for what he believes and should know that he's not alone in thinking that our vets deserve better.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)The lessons of the last fifty years should have taught us all to stand in solidarity, to shelter those among us who have the skills and courage to speak truth and seek truth. The enemy of liberty is not Will Pitt. The cause of the day is not Obama's legacy, nor winning political arguments. The cause of the day is pushing back imperialism and corporatism and conservatism and bigotry and economic oppression.
Ellipsis
(9,123 posts)a few back biters looking to earn points they dont deserve should have their credentials questioned.
Not his. And I have bitterly disagreed with some of his mistakes.
I remember when free speech was the most important value this country could hold.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)the Govt cannot impede free speech...it is not guaranteed on a political forum...
But you knew that right?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)LuvNewcastle
(16,820 posts)People who spit blood about a reporters opinion on the SOTU address reveal their misplaced priorities, in my opinion.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)or who just accepted on posters opinion of the SOTU? Because THAT is exactly what happened first...saw that with my own eyes!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Courage is how we meet the cause of our times.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I am not part of that bipartisan, Third Way group of people.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3117028/posts
FR | 1/29/2014 | self
Posted on January 29, 2014 at 11:24:55 AM EST by logi_cal869
I first caught wind of a thread about "the use of a soldier as a prop" less than an hour ago; it's amazing how little interest it's generated, aside from the ad hominem attacks against those that saw it less about 'honoring' SFC Remsburg, than 'using' him.
Late to rise & without coffee, it was easier than normal to not react and I took a devil's advocate stance, looking for fact, as I did not watch SOTU.
Where to go first? Web search came up with little; I went to DU and found this
Conclusion:
"Sometimes we stumble, we make mistakes..."
Frankly, I have to agree with the DU poster, title & all, but have to add my disgust at not honoring the fallen. But that would have drawn more attention to the fact that more soldiers have died under Obama than Bush, wouldn't it?
The soldiers I, & my boy, know, would not have permitted themselves to be used in such a manner without that honor, that of his fallen comrades.
What say you?
Free Republic stands with y'all. Congrats.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Your "thinking" will constitute REACTING oppositely to whatever the fucktards in Freeperville think.
That type of thinking could EASILY be programmed into a robot.
Stopped watch and all
There will be VERY, VERY few times that I ever agree with a Freeper, but there will be a few times.
I think for myself.
Freepers will be against Obama pretty much always. They don't think very clearly. I'll be damned if MY thinking will be a reactive and reflexive gesture based on anything they "think".
bvar22
(39,909 posts)....and was roundly condemned on DU?
I have been consistent in my condemnation of ANY President using our soldiers as props.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)another DUer and everyone knows it.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)It used to be funny,
now just pathetic.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)Because based on what I've observed that fits you to a T.
Maybe a look in the mirror is in order.
Skittles
(152,966 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Just as I would not feel particularly bad for a burglar who injures himself when he falls through a skylight trying to break into a home.
Are there good soldiers out there? Of course. But they are vastly outpaced by the hundreds of thousands of others who knowingly carry out illegal wars.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)to find a good post at FR to compare it to.
And it's never quite as effective to equate me with the radical left.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)is an extreme outlier anywhere. Thankfully.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)I'm indicting a piece of your life. Any normal person would be bothered by that.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Hate the war, not the warrior.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Without the soldier, war would not exist.
If you knowingly fight in an illegal, immoral war, I do not feel bad for you.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Who then objectively determines which specific soldiers have absolute knowledge of whether any given war is illegal or not?
reddread
(6,896 posts)one of the premiere problems the Democratic Party seems to have (from a lifelong supporter and anti-war/imperialism, pro-peace and justice point of view) is a military migration of victimized soldiers, who, if they know nothing else for a fact, harbor distinct suspicions about the party of Bush and Cheney. As they flock to the blue tent, they bring with them a number of likely tendencies and beliefs which further the militarized agenda within the Democratic base. These are basic psychological conditions which reflect their own experiences, their concern about the safety and respect due fellow service people AND most likely a dyed in the wool belief in the relative moral rectitude of a machine that from other points of view CANNOT behave morally under the control of bought and paid for politicians who work for donors who collect military contracts.
I suppose its simply another Catch 22.
But, if soldiers cannot tell right from wrong, then we might want to give them just a little less say so in making decisions that effect everyone.
for myself, I think they are as capable and responsible for knowing right from wrong as anyone, but may have abandoned that choice through coercion, force or weakness.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I suggest all soldiers contact GC before they are deployed to ensure they are not allowing themselves to fight an GC unapproved war!
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)As if it isn't possible to produce a philosophical or legal argument for or against a war that is objectively true.
Were you a big fan of the Iraq war? Did one person decide it was immoral or illegal?
This subject demands critical thinking skills. I kindly suggest you utilize your own.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Regardless of bullshit arguments to the contrary. From there, we can observe other less obviously illegal but no less immoral wars. Like the Afghan war.
If you don't know such wars are wrong by now, I have to seriously doubt your intelligence. As a soldier, you have a moral obligation to know if the war you go off to fight in is justified.
Are there going to be gray areas? Of course. But the argument that all soldiers are simply following orders, that they are victims of corrupt superiors, doesn't hold up to critical analysis. It's a cop out. And the general public laps it up like a bunch of idiots.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Kudos! Hung on his own Petard!
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)With their past statements of they still agree with them. I hold no shame over my comments on the matter. What I said before is what I say now.
If you knowingly fight in an illegal and/or immoral war, I do not have sympathy for you if you are injured. Just as I don't care much if a murderer is injured when killing his or her victim. That is the risk you take when you exit the bounds of what is ethically sound.
Systematic Chaos
(8,601 posts)On Fri Jan 31, 2014, 10:08 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Many across the Internet agree, but
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4418790
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This is getting ridiculous. You can disagree hugely with Pitt, but it's just low to try left and right to equate him with the scum at Free Republic.
Has some cooth, for God's sake.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jan 31, 2014, 10:18 AM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The equating to free republic is essentially name-calling and I believe name-calling gets us nowhere, in a forward direction at least. People, be civil to one another. MoY
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Proof that even a broken, stuck-in-1995 website is right twice a...very long period of time. But regardless, to make this comparison is completely rude and unnecessary.
--Systematic Chaos
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)with the Freepers via the broken clock analogy but then claiming it's an insult for people to point out that agreement .
Systematic Chaos
(8,601 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)about what I wrote!"
Systematic Chaos
(8,601 posts)This is the first time I've had a go-around with anyone else on the DU in as long as I can remember. Frankly, it ain't accomplishing shit and it's not healthy. I think I'm done in that regard. I know what I think and why, and it sure as shit isn't because I'm a right-winger.
Mind if I ask you where your opinions lie about the whole SotU? The Obama Presidency in general?
I missed the SotU and intend to go back by tomorrow afternoon and watch it all. So give me all the crap you want about defending Will Pitt without having watched the speech, but based upon my general overall opinion of this Administration I am more than somewhat confident that Mr. Pitt has it right. As for this Administration, I don't remember which issue it was published in, but The Nation magazine ran a piece about Obama's corporatist ties in probably 2005, maybe 2006, which warned us what we'd be in for if he were elected. From that moment on, I knew I was miles to the left of Obama and that if he were elected I would find myself at odds with how he ran the country. Well...here we are.
So what say you? Is this another eight years of Camelot or something in your eyes?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)of power and our dysfunctional system. He's a generally well-intentioned centrist squish.
His biggest sin has been to win elections. Lots of ideologues on both sides prefer to be out of power so they can complain without having any consequences attached to their decisions.
SOTU is a Rorschach test--those determined to praise it will find a way, those determined ahead of time will find a way to do so.
Systematic Chaos
(8,601 posts)I still think Obama needs to go on an almost unprecedented offensive against the 1% if he wants to make real changes, though. The status quo at this point is little more than a road to a slow, agonizing death for the country. This level of misery for so many people is simply not sustainable.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)"A man is very apt to complain of the ingratitude of those who have risen far above him."
- Oscar Wilde
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)They speak for themselves. Not even necessary to argue with them anymore. Please continue ...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)The enemy of liberty is not Will Pitt. The cause of the day is not Obama's legacy, nor winning political arguments. The cause of the day is pushing back imperialism [and militarism] and corporatism and conservatism and bigotry and economic oppression.
Very frankly, your apparent cause (protecting Obama from criticism) is largely irrelevant in comparison to the life-and-death, overwhelming struggles that are facing our country and our earth home.
I wish you could see the whole of the reality.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the President.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)attacking their common enemy.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)step outside and look at the stars. The paranoia may subside, with perspective.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)angry or hysterical? Isn't that on page 7?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)from Republican propaganda sites?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)How else are you supposed to prove that the Far Left are in alignment with the beliefs of the Far Right? If you don't use their own words too?
But then....you knew that right?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Skittles
(152,966 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Pitt 's main beef was that Obama didn't use Remsburg as a prop for an anti-war speech.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)at Obama won him fans over at Freeperville.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, they figured .
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)It is trite and passé. And only a hand and foot full of DUers fall for that crap any more.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)echo the far-right, they do not get to play the solidarity card.
The assumption that Obama is evil and fu of ill intent is not a valid merely because the left and right fringe elements agree on it.
Ellipsis
(9,123 posts)it makes this topic extremely intriguing.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Ellipsis
(9,123 posts)G'night
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)No one is going to believe what you're trying to insinuate. You do this often, with anyone who dares to disagree with you. I think you're smart enough not to need to stoop to such low tactics.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I'm confident that he can answer for himself. 'Leftists'. Being a Leftist I would never use that term in a 'I'm not one of them' context and as an insult.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)just like you. If you don't like my observations, that's too damn bad.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)my asking someone who goes to Right Wing sites and bring their garbage over here, then refers to people here as 'hate filled' and 'leftists' as if they are not part of this forum, that's not my problem. If that person refuses to explain his attacks on 'Leftests' then the question is answered.
I don't see why the question bothers YOU so much.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)I just thought I'd point that out for anyone who wasn't aware of it.
I'm no fan of GT's, and I have no problem with anyone giving him shit, but he is a leftist.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to do so regardless of whether or not it bothers you.
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)...isn't far-fetched:
"Leftist" connotes a certain ideological rigidity, as opposed to a compromising or pragmatic approach. There is a place for that in politics, and I, for one, very very much prefer our side's ideologues to the right's. But it's true that many of us who consider ourselves deeply liberal are still not so sure (or even wishy-washy, if you like) on a variety of things that "leftists" might take a strong and immediate stance on.
In my view, both ways are valid and healthy for our party. We need the push-and-pull, especially since those across the aisle have basically fled so far from reality that they're a worthless, inconsequential caricature of the counterbalance they would provide were they a healthy, functioning party.
I say all this, of course, completely independently of the overarching discussion in this thread. In general, I take this view of the "soldier as prop" thing: every person serving in our military is an adult. If SFC Remsburg feels used, betrayed, shat-upon, whatever, I trust he will have plenty of opportunity to speak for himself.
He didn't look offended. Are those who cry foul at Obama going to get all over him for being a tool, too?
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)I won't puke at you, this time it's just funny.
RL
pintobean
(18,101 posts)with yet another comprehension fail.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)RL
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you sure have them rocked back on their heels tonight!
The truth hurts!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)a shit what Fox has to say. At least you have finally admitted what we all knew, that you are desperately trying to discredit a DUer. So thanks finally for that admission.
840high
(17,196 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)What an endorsement!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Other than you are attacking Democrats. That's pretty obvious.
brush
(53,475 posts)This was not a "use" of a solder as prop, imo. This was the 3rd time this president had met with Remsburg. The first two were before his injury. And after acknowledging his TEN DEPLOYMENTS and honoring him, the President said that it was time for us as a country to "GET OFF OF OUR PERMANENT WAR FOOTING" (his actual words).
I've never in my life time, and I suspect the same is the case of everyone else on this thread, ever heard a U.S. President utter such a profound anti-war statement. And that juxtaposed next to the honoring of a 10-deployment, disfigured solder was a not-so-subtle jab at the military industrial complex to stop with the wars where we need to keeping sending troops so many time that they get life-changing injuries.
If you call that "using" the solder then I guess the President is guilty.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I'm surprised more don't get it.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)The histrionic grandstanding on display here is just senseless.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Do you really not understand that people of differing viewpoints can agree about some things?
Also, Freepers are always going to criticize Obama whether it's legit or not, so it stands to reason that if there's anything to legitmately criticize him on, and there's plenty, that the right wing is going to criticize him on it as well as the left.
And when the left does it it is out of patriotism and in defense of democracy.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Only the rightwing and a certain faction at this website are.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)In ay event, I would say Will Pitt is on the left, you don't think he is?
And others who agree with him, and there are a lot. A lot. Just look at the responses and recs to his threads. Those people are left as well, at least many of them I know are.
It's not a certain faction on DU who agrees with Will, it's a bunch of people who are on the left, and some who are center as well I'm sure.
NealK
(1,791 posts)Yep, as low as the bottom of the Mariana Trench. Totally inexcusable.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)would get people to stop and think at what they're supporting but my guess is many will double down. I think the Commander in Chief acknowledging the real effect of war is exactly the kind of thing he should be doing with a large audience. Rather than showing the troops eating a turkey or petting a dog - Pres Obama showed what war does. Why are people here against that?
brush
(53,475 posts)Can't understand why so many others don't get this?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Now we know.
Peter King, Sarah Palin, Bush, Cheney, Karl Rove, Limbaugh, Hannity and a whole host of right wing liars and war criminals, support Obama's position on the NSA and on the TPP and the Keystone Pipeline.
THEY stand with you. Congrats.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Yes, because that's how the real world works
Your remarks are exactly what I was talking about in my last post. You try to stifle discussion, on a discussion board, with playground taunts.
Some of us can handle the complex subtlety of agreeing with some things, disagreeing with others, all in the same person.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)brush
(53,475 posts)before agreeing with the poster.
The President not only honored Sgt Remsburg, he made an unprecedented "anti-war comment" against the military industrial complex and it's need to deploy solders as much as 10 times.
Pls try to find the address and view it for yourself.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)As was everyone else the President introduced, just like every state of the union ever televised. SOTU addresses are politics as theater. So what's new? You all just wake up to this reality? Would you have preferred he not mention the war so you didn't have to think about it?
last1standing
(11,709 posts)I want to make sure we're talking about the same war that he's using vets as props for.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)Afghanistan: the very war the President you voted for in 2008 RAN on expanding. Pay attention to what they say during the election. They sometimes follow through.
Now why you picked that particular vet to get pissed off about, I have no idea. The whole reaction strikes me as a display of naivety. Like I said, what do you think those speeches are for?
last1standing
(11,709 posts)I'll go even further to say that I absolutely will not vote for him in 2016 should he run.
As for the rest of your comment, I don't believe in voting for someone then giving them a free pass to do whatever they like. It's called accountability. Maybe you should look into it.
Systematic Chaos
(8,601 posts)2016, indeed.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)My point is that focusing on that one vet in particular makes no sense to me. It's like you all don't think about something until it's on TV and cable news, and what matters most seems to be what's on TV more than actual policy.
I'm all for ending involvement in Afghanistan and avoiding other entanglements. What I am not going to get upset about is introducing a vet at the SOTU, no more than I would about the teacher or Punch Pizza guys.
kjones
(1,053 posts)Systematic Chaos
(8,601 posts)...and end the unjust wars.
And holy shit but do I know this will never happen, but maybe he could have even spent a good third of that speech completely lambasting the rich fucks who are destroying the country. Maybe even call a few out by name and invite them to pack their shit and leave.
But what do I know. I'm just an impoverished soul, watching me and my wife get slowly crushed to death by the lack of safety nets and policy makers actually acting like they give fuck one.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)Seriously? What good does that do? How about proposing some actual policies to address equality? Or is this like MSNBC now: He's supposed to make you feel good by affirming your views ?
One president can't "end unjust wars." He can hasten withdraw from Afghanistan. But getting bent out of shape because he introduced a vet doesn't further that. You voted for a guy who ran on expanding the war in Afghanistan, and that is exactly what you got.
Systematic Chaos
(8,601 posts)Guess that makes it a wash.
Edit to add: I voted for the Obama corporatist because he wasn't as terrifying as the other two nitwits who ran against him both terms. But who do I support? Anyone who will run on a true Progressive platform a la FDR. Who does that leave us with?
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)that bears no relation whatsoever to anything I've said, so enjoy.
Systematic Chaos
(8,601 posts)I wonder what they're planning?
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)... that the GOP and FoxNews are using to bash Obama.
Are you saying that Democrats are using the Republican talking point to bash President Obama too?
What a shame.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)I hear republicans breath air so you should probably start holding your breath now.
Skittles
(152,966 posts)no indeed
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Maybe if I'd included some pictures of Bo or Obama emerging from the ocean in his swimsuit they'd see the light.
Skittles
(152,966 posts)just sayin'
last1standing
(11,709 posts)With accompanying artwork, of course.
Skittles
(152,966 posts)but I must say, our First Family (AND THEIR DOG) hit the genetic lottery
last1standing
(11,709 posts)No arguments here.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)are just biased against Obama?
It used to be frowned upon here to echo rightwing attacks on Democratic presidents.
Skittles
(152,966 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)while feigning outrage over an agreement of the left and right about a criticism of Obama.
I wish just once I would see a credible argument that was about policy and issues from you guys. Just once.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)The tactics are precisely the same that the RWNJ and Bushies have used for years now. Slash and burn, rude and crude tactics. Used now by Obama groupies. To what end? To what end? All this damage to DU, to what ultimate end? The tactics sure aren't winning Obama any supporters. The tactics sure aren't making common progress toward Democratic or democratic goals.
To what end, all this effort to divide?
kjones
(1,053 posts)All I keep hearing is "if you aren't mad at Obama for this, you're probably stupid, that or a mindless supporter. (groupie, I guess you say)."
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)on a Democratic forum....called "groupies" etc....but you guys are just saints....The supporters are the ones here being accused of being the "divisive ones"!!! For simply supporting the SUCCESSFUL and twice elected by a majority vote Democratic President!
Whisp
(24,096 posts)on a democratic forum
tripping all over yourselves, aren't you.
carry on.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Better safe than sorry, off to my sun rock.
And it "sickens my stomach." (The dumb phrase they all seem to use)
Ellipsis
(9,123 posts)at the expense of the individual. Something this society does way to often, disenfranchising someone who ends up exploited and their accomplishments minimized. Attempting to make a point at the fruitlessness of the conflict this soldier got fucked over. It wasn't intentional but it's what happened... and I'd guess this will be revisited.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)People can arrive at similar conclusions for vastly different reasons.
The GOP/Fox/FR are going to oppose anything the Kenyan Muslim socialist traitor does almost simply by virtue of who he is and what party he's a part of.
People on the left can be against it because they're sick of seeing soldiers exploited for nationalistic purposes.
So this disgusting "you're just FREEPERS!!" ad hominem is not only low, it's a complete logic fail. It's as stupid as "you like the interstate highway system, therefore you approve of the Holocaust."
Skittles
(152,966 posts)lack of critical thinking skills
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Commander in Chief.
Skittles
(152,966 posts)William doesn't hate Obama OR our troops - what he hates is the never-ending SENSELESS carnage that is the war in Afghanistan
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)for the President pretty regularly--hence the hilarious comment that Obama's speech was "poison " that made poor Will "sick to my soul." Also Pitt commented that the president was someone he " used to respect."
It's a literally visceral reaction of disgust to the President. Same shit, different pile as one finds at Free Republic.
Skittles
(152,966 posts)oooooooookay
Ellipsis
(9,123 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)sites. It definitely explains for me why I always wondered where they got their right wing talking points from.
And the fact that it is so important to them what anyone on those sites has to say, says a lot, but not what they apparently think it says.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)LOL!
RL
grasswire
(50,130 posts)City Lights
(25,171 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)who they think slighted Obama...they have lost their minds and covet the POTUS like a god. It is sick watching supposed progressives refuse to think for themselves.
JohnnyRingo
(18,581 posts)While I often disagree with Pitt's commentary, I'm glad he has a forum, and I'm privileged to read his posts. I believe it's good to expand my horizons.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Response to last1standing (Original post)
Post removed
Ellipsis
(9,123 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)tenderfoot
(8,424 posts)Happy misogyny!
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)Actually, it really didn't. Keep that shit a'stirrin though I suppose.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Did it make you feel better about yourself?
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)I haven't even given my personal opinion on any of it, yet here you are with guns blazing.
But no, my post was not meant to make myself feel better. I was fine to begin with. I just know an easy "fishing" thread when I see one.
Enjoy your thread though, it's got all the right elements to get you onto the greatest page in no time.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Then you double down with more insults and asinine accusations.
I'd suggest looking in a mirror if I thought you'd see a reflection.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)the first thread got 300+ recs.
Are we supposed to believe that almost nobody is standing with him?
Very few posts around here draw 300+ recs.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Agree or disagree, Pitt wrote a heartfelt and passionate OP. I'm glad he didn't back down from it, despite the insane rage and crazed reactions from unhinged quarters.
Speaking personally, I would never let what a hard core fan club thinks or says alter or influence my opinions on these matters of importance. It would be like being afraid to say Justin Bieber has no talent, in a forum of fanatical Bieber fans. In other words, fuck 'em. It would be cowardly not to say what you really think. That is my opinion.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Sir, ma'am?? I think I'm lost. Will you please show me the way out of Free Republic?? I seem to have lost DU.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)The Will Pitt love fest is getting so bad that now people are starting posts stating so.
Come on people.
Number23
(24,544 posts)supporting him. And this person feels compelled to "brag" about how they supported said moronic thread as if anyone gives a...
LWolf
(46,179 posts)although I haven't read any posts giving him flack. I haven't read that many posts about the SOTU, and posted in fewer.
It's interesting because while I've enjoyed reading his work since he was a teacher, I've always thought he went way out of his way to give Obama more time and more leeway than he really deserved. He remained loyal and supportive long beyond the point I thought it was pretty obvious that Obama was not the second coming of JFK or MLK or FDR or Jesus Christ himself. When he finally does begin to step up to the plate and take a more critical look, he's now "taking flack?"
I'm sure he can handle it. Anybody who doesn't bow and toss flowers along Obama's path takes flack from those at DU who put personality before issues. I should know; I've got the scorch marks to prove it, and have been taking that flack since Obama started making appointments in November and December of '08.
But then, I'm just one of those reviled public school teachers to blame for every ill this nation suffers; nobody hangs on my words, lol.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)It's Democratic Underground.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)whatever comes into his head. I support everyone's right to do so.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)kjones
(1,053 posts)"er, I mean soldier."
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)And Will Pitt is never wrong.
Bank on it.
Sid
last1standing
(11,709 posts)But that doesn't describe anyone we know, does it Sid?
Cha
(295,926 posts)a "prop".. bank on it .
bobduca
(1,763 posts)easily remedied by IGNORING all of those same 30 posters who are calling for him to be burned in effigy.
Its the same pom pom shaking street thugs every time. ignore them and move on everybody.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
bobduca
(1,763 posts)Back to ignore with you, *smooches*
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
1000words
(7,051 posts)It failed miserably.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)On Fri Jan 31, 2014, 06:31 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Aww troll kisses so sweet!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4420855
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
a consistently anti-dem poster calling another DUer a troll.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jan 31, 2014, 06:42 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Poor choice of words, poster needs to rein it in.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Meh. Probably deserved. Leave it.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)I liked the speech up until that part - they could go outside, walk right down the street and find a homeless vet and honor him too...but we all know that will never happen.
All I really want to say about this is that 10 deployments is an obscene amount and his superiors let him down in a big way.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)because of the needless invasion of Iraq? I blame his superiors for sending him that many times, until eventually he became broken enough to not have to go anymore.
That is fucked up and you know it.
BUSH, still off the hook for various war crimes. Some things never change.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"He's taking a lot of flack for standing up for what he believes and should know that he's not alone in thinking that our vets deserve better."
...well-deserved "flack." Our vets "deserve better" than to be labeled "props" because of a tribute to personal resilience.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)Did someone say something bad about President Tiger Beat?
RL
Logical
(22,457 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)Maybe a "Tribute to the Stars" or "Tribute to the Red, White and Blue!"
If the talking point on this fiasco is going to be "Tribute to Personal Resilience" like the State of the Union is some sort of awards show, the administration is scraping the barrel dry.
randome
(34,845 posts)If so, I don't bother with threads that don't offer something interesting right off the bat.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)D's do it.
Why?
I consider it manipulative, like tear-jerker films.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)One of his worst efforts outside the "24 Business Hours" fiasco.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)but whose counting.
and Jesus rose again on the third day, for the second or third time
Number23
(24,544 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)here's a link to the famous thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1186820
Just as a note, Karl Rove has still yet to be indicted in the Plame Affair.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Magnolia/1999
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)Sycophants usually grovel around a leader who sends out talking points and expects his followers to spout them back on forums like this word for word. I supported a poster who wrote an OP and was then mercilessly attacked using the same "fuck"ing talking point in several threads. I did this because I agree with the message, not because I feel the need to protect a messiah, unlike yourself.
It would be wise of you to learn the difference. It will help you to not look like a fool.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)Actually that's a much better word to describe your OP.
Thanks for that.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)n/t
Response to last1standing (Reply #221)
LordGlenconner This message was self-deleted by its author.
Logical
(22,457 posts)William769
(55,124 posts)one_voice
(20,043 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)And I stand up for my right to disagree and say what I believe too. Life is funny that way.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)It wasn't enough to agree or disagree with him. It was all either "Obama hater" or "Obama lover" with no room for anything in between.
It was childish, irrational, and counter-productive. Not to mention, it avoids actual, you know, discussion of the issues.
Name-calling. Taunting. They aren't just for conservatives anymore, apparently
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)It is Will and posters like Will willing to speak up for liberal ideals and for the people and workers of this country and standing up to the 1% and holding our government accountable that keep me coming back to this website.
840high
(17,196 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)A better way to "honor" those who have given so much (or had so much taken from them under fraudulent conditions)
would be to:
*Double the funding for the VA
*Double the pensions for wounded and disabled vets
*Double the benefits to families of soldiers killed in service
*Double the funding for those programs that help vets find good jobs
*Double the funding for a NEW "GI Bill"
Now THAT is HOW to HONOR our soldiers!
....NOT to use them a props for applause lines at the SOTU.
Maybe at the next SOTU, the President can read the names of ALL our soldiers who have been disabled in ALL of our Occupied Countries in that year?
I don't always agree with Will Pitt,
but on this one I do.
Strongly.
I objected when Bush-the-Lesser used our soldiers as props.
I still object when ANY politician does it.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)alarimer
(16,245 posts)No matter who does it.
That guy should never have been ALLOWED to deploy 10 times. His commanders (up and including the President) should have forbidden it, as they should for anyone else, even if he volunteered to do it.
And Obama should have pointed this out at the speech. That we made a mistake in even starting these wars and that he wa doing his best to wrap them so this wouldn't happen to anyone else.
Instead, we got more "freedom isn't free" bullshit.
tritsofme
(17,325 posts)Didn't see that thread either, but it seems like something he would say. Not exactly surprising.
Warpy
(110,913 posts)when diplomacy isn't/wasn't considered. However, to each his own interpretation. Yes, the poor guy was a prop. Sometimes you need to use props, especially when half the people you're talking to are Republicans. Those folks are slow.
That thread was such a shitstorm by the time I woke up that I didn't bother weighing in. I support Will Pitt's absolute right to be wrong about something. He does it so seldom as to be statistically negligible.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it or yours. But good for you that you agree with WillPitt.
mike_c
(36,214 posts)eom
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)I believe it's the first time I have disagreed with him, now I think about it.
Still a great writer IMNSHO.
glinda
(14,807 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)elleng
(130,156 posts)I don't always agree with him.
TBF
(31,922 posts)this OP. Will Pitt is one of the few people in this country who is calling what he sees and publishing it. I'm actually a little further to the left than him, but very much appreciate that he at least gives a damn and is willing to speak out.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)There are times when I agree with him, there are times when I disagree with him. Just as I do with Obama.
On this particular issue, I have to disagree with Will. I saw the SOTU speech.
I saw the soldier in question. I saw him try to get up in anticipation. I saw the smile on his face. I saw his "thumbs up".
This was HIS night. It's the least any of us can do for him. Including the President.
He didn't look like a "prop" to me. He looked like a HERO.
Yes, 10 deployments sounds ridiculous. But as POTUS said, his first and foremost motivation was to get through his rehab to "help his teammates", which to me sounded like he was asking for an 11th deployment.
Yes, I think that 10 deployments are ridiculous. But HE obviously didn't.
Personally, I think all of this discussion over whether or not he was used as a prop is just ridiculous. I want to know what HE thought.
And, looking at his face and his attitude - I think he saw this as HIS night. I don't think he thought he was being used, at all.
So, everyone that decries his being used as a "prop" - try asking HIM.
This is what ticks me off about political blogging - ask the people involved. Isn't that what Democratic bloggers are supposed to do? Ask the people who are actually involved?
lumpy
(13,704 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)But then that doesn't matter to those who's only purpose is to push an agenda without compassion. I find it disgusting that a Democrat is pushing the idea that we should support endless war because one of its victims MIGHT be a supporter of it.
Maybe your posts should try to inform instead of manipulate. This wasn't that soldier's night, it was Obama's. The soldier was nothing more than a side show for what has become a carnival presentation because of cynical ploys like bringing in shattered human beings as props.
840high
(17,196 posts)markpkessinger
(8,381 posts)The fact of the matter is that these special guests presidents invite to State of the Union addresses are, in reality, always props for the president who invites them, regardless of whether that president has a 'D' or an 'R' after his name. And this is why I would say to those who suggest that to agree with Will's point is to align oneself with Freepers, may I point out that Freepers should be called out on their hypocrisy concerning this very point (i.e., that all recent presidents have invited guests to their SOTU speeches who served as "props."
Will is not wrong on this point, but Freepers are rank hypocrites about it.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)For me, the rank hypocrisy is too blatant to be ignored. How does one send a man into a completely unnecessary battle then use him as an example of the pointlessness of that same war when he comes back broken?
The freepers are in an uproar because the Kenyan isn't sending troops to every country inhabited by brown people at once. Their opinions mean nothing in this conversation.
markpkessinger
(8,381 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)In fact, I may have fucked in them once or twice.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)I will not play the US vs. THEM game with you. Only a few people here are that sad and lonely enough to enjoy that game.