Thursday, August 23, 2007

He has $. He has looks. Does he have courage?

Shawn Fago, the president of the Orange County [CA] Young Republicans, describes his interests on his myspace page as "politics, girls, golf, coffee, real-estate". Mr. Fago's political profile reveals that if he can clean up his 'liberal' ethics score he'd be an across-the-board conservative:

Overall: 95% Conservative, 5% Liberal
Social Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal
Personal Responsibility: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal
Fiscal Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal
Ethics: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal
Defense and Crime: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

Shawn is also a supporter of Rudy Giuliani in the 2008 Presidential Election and since the former mayor's stance on the Iraq War is not to set a time table to withdraw Our Troops we'll assume that Mr. Fago's belief in the conflict match his idol's. Reading over the details on Shawn's myspace page reveals he made no mention of having served Our Country in uniform, nor were we able to confirm with him that he has intentions on doing so. Although he did describe himself as being a heterosexual, athletic, and had some background in taking college courses. To OYE, this would make him a perfect candidate as an Infantryman in The Army.

Support for a candidate this early before the primaries binds one to the ideology of the office-seeker (currently, there are enough candidates to match nearly every one's prescribed doctrine). If Mr. Fago were to truly 'support' the Bush/Giuliani Iraq strategy he'd consider going from the back nine to the frontline. Like many 20-somethings, Shawn just may need a little encouragement to leave the sandy beaches of SoCal for the sandy river banks of the Tigris and the Euphrates. After all, chicks dig a guy in uniform.

55 Comments:

At 23 August, 2007 12:18, Anonymous Alyse said...

This blog is sadly misguided. You do not have to enlist in the Armed Services in order to realize that the war we are fighting is necessary and to support the troops and our Commander in Chief... that's like saying you have to be homosexual to support gay marriage. Military service isn't for everybody. And statements like "We'll assume..." make me question your credibility-- especially since Shawn offered to give you an interview and you obviously declined, opting to write bad things about him based on just his MySpace page. Pathetic.

 
At 23 August, 2007 12:39, Blogger Aaron Kinney said...

Alyse,

This blog is sadly misguided.

Dont project. It is the war that is misguided, not this blog.

You do not have to enlist in the Armed Services in order to realize that the war we are fighting is necessary and to support the troops and our Commander in Chief...

Um, yes you do, if you dont want to be a hypocrite.

that's like saying you have to be homosexual to support gay marriage.

This analogy would only work if homosexuality were ALSO vital for freedom and safety, as the war on terror is.

But the security or freedom of this nation does not depend on homosexuality, so your analogy totally fails.

Why dont you quit bitching and enlist already?

 
At 23 August, 2007 12:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aaron - a good analogy for you: You don't have to be a member of the NRA to support the 2nd Amendment!

As for Wek: I don't understand why you're attacking the President of OCYR. I understand you want more people to enlist. But you can get more flies with honey... instead of attacking these people and groups, why don't you ask them if you can address their group during a meeting? If you are a true Republican/Conservative, then you must know Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." It's sad that you're attacking people who support your cause instead of going after the people who fight to take funding away from the military.

Stop hiding behind a blog (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GcVnhNjWV0) and get out there and speak loud & proud about your cause!

 
At 23 August, 2007 14:18, Blogger blogenfreude said...

Ah, the Yellow Elephants. Too busy fighting the War of Ideas (TM) to bother fighting in their Dear Leader's war. C'mon - sign up and fight - show the Bill Kristols of the world that you're better than their generation!

 
At 23 August, 2007 16:10, Blogger Shawn Fago said...

By your definition, is having courage only defined as signing up for military service in order to serve in a war zone? Or can you have courage in other ways?

Just curious.


-Shawn Fago

 
At 23 August, 2007 16:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You do not have to enlist in the Armed Services in order to realize that the war we are fighting is necessary and to support the troops and our Commander in Chief..."

Translation: Someone else can enlist to fight the war on terror. I'm not.

 
At 23 August, 2007 16:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love it when college republicans say that they are fighting the war here by speaking out against liberals and supporting the troops. The idea that a college republican is even important enough to make an impact is laughable in itself.

I've spent time in Washington DC and the most important lesson I learned is that we all need to step back and recognize this: we're not as important as we think we are. None of us are.

If college republicans really want to support the war, and actually make a difference, they'd be over there fighting or serving the war effort in a non-combat but still essential position.

Many of these CRs that get targeted by OYE are young immature students who have had little exposure to politics and life.

I suggest they grow up and take the blinders off. To ardently support a war effort while having no inclination to join it yourself makes one look like a hypocrite.

While I'm certainly not a liberal, I congratulate OYE on holding these people accountable.

 
At 23 August, 2007 16:29, Blogger Shawn Fago said...

Who is the College Republican here?

-Shawn Fago

 
At 23 August, 2007 17:14, Blogger Karl said...

Mr. Fago-

Not everyone is eligible to serve in our military.

In our opinion, those eligible to serve who support what our country is doing, or trying to do, with the war have an obligation at least to consider volunteering for military service.

You are the head of the Young Republicans in the most Republican county in our nation and, therefore, a future leader of Our President's party. We look to you to set a good example for the rest of us.

If you only Support Our President if "other people" actually do the fighting overseas, then you don't really support him, or our troops, at all.

You should have the courage to Answer the Question: Have you considered volunteering for military service? If not, why not? If so, what resulted from your deliberations?

Thank you

 
At 23 August, 2007 17:17, Blogger OYE said...

alyse-

Everyone in America can have any opinion or no opinion on any subject. Respect for one's opinions is not a right; it must be earned.

One eligible to serve who supports the war only if "other people" actually fight it, really doesn't support the war after all. The American people will rightly not respect that person's opinions on it.

 
At 23 August, 2007 19:36, Anonymous Alyse said...

You and I believe fundamentally different things. I believe it is quite possible to support the troops and the US effort in Iraq without enlisting in the military; you believe doing so constitutes hypocrisy. We could go back and forth all night long and never change the other's mind, so I'm not even going to bother.

I do, however, stand by my statement that this blog is totally NOT credible. If you think you'll change people's minds by posting hit pieces full of assumptions, you must be kidding yourself... and like I said, when you turn down the opportunity to meet with and interview the man you are speaking badly about in favor of writing a post based solely on his MySpace page, you lose all credibility in my book. I have no problem with dissenting points of view, but when you fail to properly research what you say about somebody, then I take issue.

 
At 23 August, 2007 19:39, Blogger Wek said...

Alyse- everyone that is a subject of one of our posts is sent questions regarding their military service or lack there of. They have the right to answer or not to. Even if I were to interview the person over dinner I'd have no more questions than the 5 or so I E-mailed to Mr. Fago and others. At OYE we have a rather narrow focus and rarely stray from our "mission statement" (please read our "about OYE" on the sidebar). I agree with you that not everyone is cut out for Military Service- the most honest YR we ever had on this site said something along the lines of "I support the war, but you reeeaaaally don't want me holding a gun next to you." We appreciated the honesty. Yet, even if you're not cut out for wearing The Uniform you can still be an asset by encouraging eligible family and friends to Be A Man! Enlist!

 
At 23 August, 2007 21:51, Blogger Karl said...

Alyse-

It takes courage to explain why one chooses not to volunteer for military service in a war one supports.

If you review this blog carefully [see OYE 101+], you'll see that that's all we ask.

As Wek said, we do contact our subjects multiple times asking that they respond for publication [on this blog] to specific questions. Your statements re "assumptions" are not accurate.

It's not too late. If Mr. Fago chooses to respond to our questions, you can be assured that we will share his answers with our readers.

Perhaps this discussion is even helping him to consider whether he can find the courage within himself to do his part for our nation.

 
At 24 August, 2007 00:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alyse,

The fundamental point is simple, Shawn Fago is a coward, that's it.

 
At 24 August, 2007 04:32, Blogger Aaron said...

OYE Friend,

**Please excuse the redundancies in this comment. And do not let its length keep you from reading this in its entirety.**

My friend, Shawn Fago, sent me an e-mail expressing dismay at your targeted literary attack. Has he wronged you in any way? If so, how? Also, what is the point of such an attack, especially if unprovoked?
Such polarizing rhetoric only serves to further factionalize people. It is foolish to judge an individual by a collective group he belongs to, be it Shawn, Rudy Giuliani, George W. Bush, or a member of your own party (I'm going to assume Democrat or Green, though I could be mistaken.). And we shall not judge you as part of the liberal collective; rather as a polarizing menace to civil unity and constructive politics.
What is your goal in writing these bellicose blogs? I cannot see any constructive outcome. You are obviously not going to convince any of your targets to join the armed services. Their decision whether or not to enlist will have nothing to do with you. And that shouldn’t come as a surprise.
Seriously, what constructive purpose do you aim to achieve? The way I see it you are doing more harm than good.
Although you have every right to write what you choose in your personal blog, there is no point to what you are doing other than antagonism. It is disturbing and uncalled for.

In reference to your blog’s overall mission, there are multiple ways to serve your country. The armed services are a few options, but political activism, within administrations, organizations and campaigns, are also equally effective methods of showing support for policy and one’s country. Shawn, I and the other individuals who commented have chosen that route. We choose to fight you (so to speak)—individuals who try to push our country into unwise, shortsighted policies by polarizing our population, picking fights with those who do not desire a confrontation, and calling your opponents cowards, hypcrites or other heinous names rather than discussing policy like an intelligent human being would.
Those who oppose you strive for unity; they strive for security; they strive for a wise national policy.

Given your actions, I feel is appropriate to call you a “Yellow Ass”. If you truly feel that confronting individuals you have never met to accuse them of cowardliness or hypocrisy is the way to go, get up from behind your computer and knock on their doors. Go on television. Get your face out. Pronounce to the world that, as a person devoid of cowardice or hypocrisy you are no Yellow Ass; and you are scouring the countryside for transgressors of policy suggestions endorsed by the likes of Dennis Kucinich!
But on a less sarcastic note, if you are so compelled, please take personal responsibility for your actions. As of now, the feeling of personal security you feel in writing these blogs is a direct result of your physical anonymity and lack of personal responsibility for your actions. You cloak yourself behind the mask of “OYE” and hide behind the protective wall of the internet. Now that you have our attention, come out of hiding. Let us meet you and discuss your actions face to face—that is, if you’re not "yellow" (or an ass).

Sincerely,
Aaron

 
At 24 August, 2007 08:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

thanks for his contact link. My email said simply:

Loved your profile and think it is awesome you support the war in Iraq! When do you leave for duty? I really hope you stay safe there and can come home not just alive but with your limbs, brain and/or sanity in tact. The girls will be waiting to hear all your cool war stories! :)

 
At 24 August, 2007 10:55, Blogger Media Lizzy said...

Interesting blog. One question: why do you believe your readers should place any faith in your reporting when you write under a pseudonym? You attack Shawn Fago for not serving begs the question, have you served? With honor? For how long? What TOAs?

You need more than an empty profile @ milblogging.com to be a military expert or thinker. Military service in any generation has more to do with a desire to serve our country than political leanings. A soldier, sailor, airman or Marine does not choose their Commander in Chief, nor his objectives.

Now, to be more personal... I know both Shawn Fago & Henry Hager - who you attacked previously for not serving.

Mr. Fago is a remarkable man. He is a right thinking, self-made and dedicated professional. As long as he contributes to a free exchange of ideas, and continues to serve our nation as an honorable citizen - there should be little criticism.

Mr. Henry Hager is a wonderful example of all Virginia represents. He deserves happiness, just as we all do. He will continue to serve Virginia and our nation, as a member of a fine, honorable family.

In choosing to attack these two young men, I wonder what drives you? Attacking total strangers for their personal choices - in our nation where they are free to do just that - especially hiding behind a pen name, is unseemly. They are public figures, and as such, up for public scrutiny. But you are hiding behind an easily identifiable IP address - why not just be a man and write with Real Name attribution? Or do you lack the courage?

 
At 24 August, 2007 11:24, Blogger blogenfreude said...

As long as he contributes to a free exchange of ideas, and continues to serve our nation as an honorable citizen - there should be little criticism.

Aren't war cheerleaders great? You know, he's got like, other priorities, totally .... Please - face facts. Those who rah-rah'd us into this war, still support it, and are able to but won't fight it, deserve scorn at best.

 
At 24 August, 2007 13:11, Blogger Media Lizzy said...

Oh gimme a break. Excusing lack of service for those on the anti-War Left - by pointing fingers to a few on the Right not serving is almost laughable.

And before you attack me for not serving, let me be clear. My grandfather served. My father served. I served. And my late husband served until the US Air Force handed me a Gold Star and directions to his plot in Arlington National Cemetery.

The battle if ideas here at home is important, though not as dangerous - by any stretch of the imagination - as the real battles in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. However, more than anti-War voices should be heard here at home. What are you afraid of?

 
At 24 August, 2007 13:18, Blogger Doppelganger said...

The battle if ideas here at home is important, though not as dangerous - by any stretch of the imagination - as the real battles in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. However, more than anti-War voices should be heard here at home. What are you afraid of?


What is your point? That this blog should allow pro-war anti-personal service contributing writers as well? How many pro-war anti-sefvice blogs do you think allow dissenting voices?

 
At 24 August, 2007 13:23, Blogger Media Lizzy said...

That's the thing about living in a Free Country - we are all entitled to our own opinions. Just not our own set of facts.

If you feel restricted, do it yourself. No one owes another person access as a contributing writer - that is the purpose of the comments section. I appreciate your point of view and am thankful we are all free to debate. No censorship, no drama. Thanks be to all the men & women who wear, and have worn, our nation's uniform.

 
At 24 August, 2007 13:24, Blogger Doppelganger said...

Mr. Fago is a remarkable man. He is a right thinking, self-made and dedicated professional.

"Right-thinking"? What does that mean - that those not in lock-step with Fago's thinking are 'wrong-thinking'?

You people spew lots of rhetoric about dissenting opinions and respect and the like then write about how your pal is "right-thinking." Please do not pretend to be objective. And all this business about 'being a man' and posting full names and such - why? So you people can harrass them at their homes or their places of work?

I find it astounding that one who has actually served would actually stick up for and attempt to justify the antics of these "this war is great and just, but I am not going to fight it!"-types.

 
At 24 August, 2007 13:28, Blogger Doppelganger said...

That's the thing about living in a Free Country - we are all entitled to our own opinions. Just not our own set of facts.

What set of facts were you thinking about, exactly? The only facts pertinent here are whether or not the people in question support and/or are advocates of the war and whether ornot they are willing to stand up for their beliefs instead fo allowing someone else to fight and die for their cause.

 
At 24 August, 2007 13:36, Blogger Media Lizzy said...

"Right-thinking" as in politically right-of-center.

And for the record, real name attribution encourages accountability. And DIScourages harassment and other completely unacceptable behaviors.

In case you have forgotten, we do live in a free country. And service in our nation's uniform is the most apolitical line of work anyone can pursue. Are you suggesting that you want pro-war partisans to join so they will die? and be silenced to any point of view but your own?

 
At 24 August, 2007 13:41, Blogger Media Lizzy said...

As for facts, you are making assumptions about who should or should not be serving in the US military - you clearly are not familiar enough with military regs to make such arguments.

The average soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine should not be a partisan. While, unfortunately, flag officers must be political to some degree (otherwise they do not get Senate confirmation) - it is best to not be hyper-political.

They must remain focused on the mission. Endless debate is for folks at home. On the frontlines, there is not time for debate. There is only the mission.

For the record, while I am pro-War - I believe Joe Biden has a very cogent argument on withdrawing troops. And there is a civil war in Iraq, whether anyone wants to admit it or not.

 
At 24 August, 2007 14:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The military of this country has a system to weed out enlistees whom they beleive unsuitable for combat. In addition to infantry, there are a panoply of other support positions available to those who enlist but are unsuitable for combat.

My question to the yellow elephants, particularly those like Mr. Fago and Mr. Hager is: "As you have such faith in the military system, why do you not let them decide whether or not you are suitable to serve?"

I read with great interest the comments of war advocates on this blog. Most of the comments attempt to rationalize their own reluctance to practice what they tell others they must do. Many suggest that blogs such as OYE accomplish nothing, or have no legitimate purpose other than to harrass others. This is total crap, out of the mouths of cowards.
Persons such as Fago, Hager, et. al. who place themselves into the public arena to "combat" liberal opinion have abdicated their right to privacy. Listening to the myriad reasons that yellow elephants list as why they are not or cannot serve only illuminates the shallowness of their character and personal values. Reading the comments of bloggers such as Aaron, and Mr. Fago himself, who attempt to underpin their cowardice with intellectual arguments, exemplifies how deep-seated their inability to accept their own weaknesses are. This is typical of the republican mindset: salacious, greedy, amoral, and corrupt. They are a disgrace to this nation.
-Darren

 
At 24 August, 2007 14:30, Blogger Shawn Fago said...

Doppelganger, Blogenfreude, Anonymous, Karl, & Wek,

The fundamental flaw with this post about me is you do not know me. You do not know my stance on the war, you do not know my history or anything else about me other than what you have read on myspace. That’s pretty irresponsible. Doppelganger said he won’t use his real name out of fear of being harassed. What do you think you are doing to me? Personally I don’t give a damn, you are free to harass me as much as you like. Just know that you sound like the coward to end all cowards when you make such statements. You are literally saying that you are afraid to stand up for your beliefs. If you want to know what courage is, sign your name and stand up for what you believe in knowing full well that you will be attacked for your beliefs. That is what I have done, let’s see if you can.

-Shawn Fago

 
At 24 August, 2007 14:33, Blogger Doppelganger said...

Just thought of something - is Al Gore a hypocrite because he is an environmentalist but owns a big house that has air conditioning?

 
At 24 August, 2007 14:36, Blogger Shawn Fago said...

Darren,
Stop putting words in my mouth. Show me one time where I publicly supported the war, encouraged others to serve, or anything else you accuse me of. I challenge you to show me one quote. Otherwise, shut the hell up. You do not know me, you do not know my stances.

-Shawn Fago

P.S. siging with your first name alone makes you just as much a coward.

 
At 24 August, 2007 14:45, Blogger Doppelganger said...

Doppelganger said he won’t use his real name out of fear of being harassed. What do you think you are doing to me? Personally I don’t give a damn, you are free to harass me as much as you like. Just know that you sound like the coward to end all cowards when you make such statements. You are literally saying that you are afraid to stand up for your beliefs.

Let's straighten a couple things out here - I was not talking about me - my name is available through my blogger profile, I was talking about the owner of this blog. I HAVE had people that disagree with me threaten to contact my colleagues and my boss, so I know it is a real possibility.

I should mention, however, that when I was 17, unlike Gingrich, Hannity, Limbaugh, Cheney, you, or Giuliani, I enlisted in the Army. Unlike Graham or Quayle, I chose a combat arms MOS. Unlike Dornan or W, I was in a unit - an airborne battalion combat team - that would have actually fought had the order come. The second time I was ever on an airplane, I jumped out of it at 1500 feet.

I HAVE stood up for what I believe in. I HAVE literally put my life on the line for this country. I HAVE served my country. And that service did not consist entirely of being a political activist, or of vilifying those that I disagree with politcally by calling them traitors or worse.

So please understand, no lessons on bravery from you to me are in order. And I am in no way 'harrassing' you. Being a 'rugged individual' as I'm sure you think yourslef to be, I'm surprised that you are so quickly adopting a victim mentality.

Wait - actually, I am not.

 
At 24 August, 2007 14:48, Blogger Doppelganger said...

And service in our nation's uniform is the most apolitical line of work anyone can pursue.

So THAT is why the DoD under Rummy was banning access to non-pro-war internet sites...

Are you suggesting that you want pro-war partisans to join so they will die? and be silenced to any point of view but your own?


No, I am suggesting that they grow a pair and do for themselves what they expect other people to do for them, all in the name of 'foreign policy.'

 
At 24 August, 2007 15:02, Blogger Doppelganger said...

Aaron wrote:

Such polarizing rhetoric only serves to further factionalize people.

What is your opinion on, say, Ann Coulter’s writings and statements, Aaron?
Just curious.

It is foolish to judge an individual by a collective group he belongs to, be it Shawn, Rudy Giuliani, George W. Bush, or a member of your own party (I'm going to assume Democrat or Green, though I could be mistaken.). And we shall not judge you as part of the liberal collective; rather as a polarizing menace to civil unity and constructive politics.


Considering that this is not what occurred, this appears to be a mere red herring. Fago’s associations were merely pointed out, his own self-assessment was indicated, and it was openly questioned when he would be enlisting to serve as he appears to support the militaristic goals of the administration. And as far as polarizing menaces go, again I ask what you think about the things Ann Coulter or O’Reilly say. Let me guess – they are just being funny, right?

What is your goal in writing these bellicose blogs? I cannot see any constructive outcome. You are obviously not going to convince any of your targets to join the armed services. Their decision whether or not to enlist will have nothing to do with you. And that shouldn’t come as a surprise.


Indeed. The propensity to serve in the armed forces these days seems to be related to the following: one’s family or personal wealth, regardless of one’s position on the war – relationship: inversely proportional; one’s degree of advocacy for not just invading Iraq, but Iran and Syria and anywhere else: inversely proportional. There are other factors, of course, but those seem to be big ones these days.


Seriously, what constructive purpose do you aim to achieve? The way I see it you are doing more harm than good.


Pointing out hypocrisy in Republicans is exceptionally easy. Hypocrisy is not a very admirable quality. Those lacking admirable qualities have a harder time convincing people to vote their way. At least among the rational.


Although you have every right to write what you choose in your personal blog, there is no point to what you are doing other than antagonism. It is disturbing and uncalled for.


Again I ask you your opinion of Ann Coulter, but I add Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Ingraham, etc. Unless you find the opinions of these people repulsive and you are willing to condemn them for the inflammatory nature of the lies and misrepresentations they spew, again, your implicit claims to the ‘high ground’ are without merit.

In reference to your blog’s overall mission, there are multiple ways to serve your country. The armed services are a few options, but political activism, within administrations, organizations and campaigns, are also equally effective methods of showing support for policy and one’s country.


All true, but then again, the focus of this blog is the War and its supporters that will not serve. Support for one’s country though political activism is not the same thing as volunteering to fight in a war that one advocates. I should think such a distinction would be obvious.


Shawn, I and the other individuals who commented have chosen that route. We choose to fight you (so to speak)—individuals who try to push our country into unwise, shortsighted policies by polarizing our population, picking fights with those who do not desire a confrontation, and calling your opponents cowards, hypcrites or other heinous names rather than discussing policy like an intelligent human being would.
Do you watch Fox News? I’m sure you do. You do know, do you not, that the clever little tag-lines that scroll across the bottom of the screen during broadcasts – in addition to numerous typos – have shown messages like “Are Democrats terrorists?” and “Barrack Osama” and such. Is that an attempt to harmonize the nation? When Ann Coulter says when you talk to a liberal you should use a baseball bat, what is that? Is it harmonizing and visionary to shut the other major political party completely out of policy discussions and briefings? Is it harmonizing and visionary to hire incompetent bootlicks to serve as administrators? Is it harmonizing and visionary to force protesters to stay behind chain-link fences a mile away from political events? You might want to engage the services of a mirror.


Those who oppose you strive for unity; they strive for security; they strive for a wise national policy.


Then they should strive to be a little more proactive and visionary, rather than looking to see what they think will win them the next election at any expense – especially if that expense is the blood of real patriotic Americans. And why, I wonder, do war-advocates always seem to think that those that are not pro-war for some reason want weak security?


Given your actions, I feel is appropriate to call you a “Yellow Ass”. ...You cloak yourself behind the mask of “OYE” and hide behind the protective wall of the internet. Now that you have our attention, come out of hiding. Let us meet you and discuss your actions face to face—that is, if you’re not "yellow" (or an ass).

Ah, the College Republican ‘tough guy’ act. Yes, I am sure that works with the frat boys and freshman, but this former-paratrooper finds it pathetic and it is just as hypocritical as the refusal of pro-war right-wingers to serve. As for myself, as I already wrote, I did serve in the military. I enlisted in 1984 – Reagan was president. I served in a unit that actually would have fought if the order had been given.
So, perhaps you can imagine the feeling I get when I read some snot-nosed rich kid explaining that ‘political activism’ is just as Patriotic as fighting in a war that they support but will not enlist for. What’s next – you can like the Yankees but not be a baseball player? You can be for tougher laws but not be a policeman?

 
At 24 August, 2007 15:53, Blogger Shawn Fago said...

Doppelganger (AKA, Angry Professor),
It appears that you do not know why you are attacking me. Please site for your readers one quote (just one) where I have publicly supported the war, encouraged that others enlist or anything else you accuse me of.

Blindly attacking people without knowing why is incredibly dangerous.

Did you know who I was before yesterday? Do you know any of my political stances?

Just curious to see if you even know what you are talking about.

-Shawn Fago

 
At 24 August, 2007 17:05, Blogger blogenfreude said...

Remember Shawn - teh internets are forever:

http://www.ocblog.net/ocblog/2007/05/can_gop_war_can.html#comment-68278428

 
At 24 August, 2007 18:06, Blogger Shawn Fago said...

Blogenfreude,
Nice try. I was agreeing with the commentor on flip flopping and band wagon jumpers. My comment had nothing to do with the war. Try again.

Go ahead and print a quote on this thread.

-Shawn Fago

 
At 24 August, 2007 18:38, Blogger blogenfreude said...

And by the way, if you, like Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, and so many others, "supported" the war when we were "winning" and oppose it now when we appear to be "losing", then you are a bandwagon-jumping loser not fit for any public office, let alone the Presidency. Jumping on and off a bandwagon is fine when your favorite sports team has a bad year, doing it with the military is a joke.

That's not enough for you? Well, we'll find something, I ga-ron-tee.

Of course, you could simply tell us whether you supported the war at the outset, and whether you support it now. Suppose that's too difficult for you ...

 
At 24 August, 2007 21:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only question that needs to be answered is "Do you believe this war is necessary for the security of our nation? Should our servicemen be asked to continually sacrifice everything for it to continue?"

If the answer is "yes", then why are you and the members of your precious little club not doing your part?

 
At 24 August, 2007 22:10, Blogger Shawn Fago said...

Why wouldnt you research that before writing about me?

-Shawn Fago

 
At 24 August, 2007 22:14, Blogger Comandante Agí said...

He looks familiar. I think I saw this dude on MTV's Laguna Beach - or was it the Real Housewives of Orange County? Hmm, I can't remember...

 
At 25 August, 2007 01:10, Blogger Wek said...

Wow, much has been discussed since I left for work and dinner afterward (and a few drinks after dinner). Forgive me for missing out.

For now, I'm going to skip most of Mr. Fago's supporters comments and direct my statement to him since he is the subject here. Yes Shawn, I have called your courage into question as well as you not being a man of principle. Anything you have said here in comments or others have said in your defense have not persuaded me to depart from my initial impression. I'm also beginning to wonder if politics is the route you should take in your career path. You seem very thin skinned, and as we all know if one is to survive in the political landscape you need to have a hide made of kevlar. From what I've read about you (yes, I did indeed find more than your myspace page) this is the first time you've been asked tough questions, and by my judgement you haven't handled it well. Hell, don't you know us bloggers are just a bunch of 40 year old virgins living in our mothers' basements on a diet of Fritos and bean dip?

Having crediblity is what everyone should strive for in their chosen profession and/or strongly held beliefs. If a person is going to hear the thoughts from a pro-war supporter I feel they should ignore the Yellow Elephants profiled on this site and listen to the gentlemen from vetsforfreedom.org or a similar organization. At least those Men have walked to work with a rifle in their hands and actually know the definition of sacrifice.

Another thing I find pathetic is that each time we do a post on a 'credible conservative' there is very little (usually nothing) in the comments from the Young Republicans. Yet, this post already has 40+ comments. Watching self preservation makes me want to see the last 2 bourbon and cokes I put down exit the same hole I poured them in. I guess this is the way it will always be: Yellow Elephants don't wish to defend our country, but they sure are good at defending one another's cowardice.

 
At 25 August, 2007 03:04, Blogger robash141 said...

Shawn any statement that you make on the internet is a public statement, this includes myspace pages,,


The survey you took that said you were a 100% conservative

that means your public statements
Rclosely identify you with politicians and officeholders who strongly favor aggressive militaristic foriegn policy solutions to the worlds problems.


Furthermore, your position as President of the Orange County, shows your interests in politics is certainly a nice resume' builder for an aspiring politician.Shawn if you do in fact aspire to political leadership , is an important question that you and all of your erstwhile defenders MUST answer.


Have you ever publicly come out against the war in Iraq ?

Have you as a principled 100% conservative Made a statement saying that our current Iraq policy is not serving the best interests of the United States or the so-called "conservative movement"
This is evidenced by the fact that the Republicans lost both houses of Congress in the last election and President Bush , the most prominent conservative politician in America approval rating is hovering the 20-30 percent range. It's because of the unpopularity of the Iraq war . The Iraq war seems to to be
a disaster for conservatism.
Perhaps you'd like to take this opportunity reassess your position and renounce the Iraq war.

Shawn If you aspire to political leadership , It's only fair that those of us who are out here being led should have the opportunity to see what you are made of?

remember Shawn
silence = assent

 
At 25 August, 2007 05:49, Blogger Aaron said...

Oh, Doppelganger, I’m going to have a field day with this response. Ant it'll be loooong, so set some time away from your otherwise pressing World of Warcraft tournament to read this, because I am interested to read your response:

“What is your opinion on, say, Ann Coulter’s writings and statements, Aaron?
Just curious”…” again I ask what you think about the things Ann Coulter or O’Reilly say. Let me guess – they are just being funny, right?”…” Again I ask you your opinion of Ann Coulter, but I add Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Ingraham, etc. Unless you find the opinions of these people repulsive and you are willing to condemn them for the inflammatory nature of the lies and misrepresentations they spew, again, your implicit claims to the ‘high ground’ are without merit.”


First, my friend, you guess wrong about me. My opinion of Ann Coulter, “Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Ingraham, etc.” is this: I think they are polarizing, deconstructive, pompous and sometimes downright wrong. Ann Coulter especially, but sometimes other members of that brigade, disgust me with some of the things they say. They serve no other purpose than to be extremist personalities not to be taken so seriously as to influence policy. Hence, they are ever present on the radio, television, newspaper and internet, but lack a resume within a real, bona fide government administration. And that’s a good thing. But I would not hesitate to also add in the likes of Michael Moore, Norman Finkelstein, Lou Dobbs, etc. into that fold. Angry, loud people are present on all political sides. But it does not give you or “The General” a speck of permission to spread the fight to all Republicans and moderate Democrats. You are only fanning the flames of ignorance and factionalism. And for that you should be ashamed.
The long and short of it: do not use the actions of one, two or ten idiots to justify your own idiotic actions. You, and you alone, are responsible for your motives and doings, not Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly or anyone else with whom you disagree.

“Fago’s associations were merely pointed out, his own self-assessment was indicated, and it was openly questioned when he would be enlisting to serve as he appears to support the militaristic goals of the administration.”

Why? What is “The General’s” point/goal/motive? Why Shawn? Why Hager? And what gives our high-ranking friend the credibility to do such random call-outs? All you two seem to be are liberal computer nerds who want to bully those with whom you disagree, regardless of their desire (or obvious lack thereof) to confront you.

“The propensity to serve in the armed forces these days seems to be related to the following: one’s family or personal wealth, regardless of one’s position on the war – relationship: inversely proportional; one’s degree of advocacy for not just invading Iraq, but Iran and Syria and anywhere else: inversely proportional. There are other factors, of course, but those seem to be big ones these days.”

Where do you get that information? Is there statistical proof to back up your statements, especially with your reference to “these days”? Unless you can provide some compelling proof using statistically sound and politically unbiased research I can only reason to add Bullshitter to the list of negative terms you represent.

“Pointing out hypocrisy in Republicans is exceptionally easy. Hypocrisy is not a very admirable quality. Those lacking admirable qualities have a harder time convincing people to vote their way. At least among the rational.”

That’s just insulting. You do not know any of the people you attack personally. You do not know Shawn. You do not know Mr. Hager. You do not know me. It is appalling that you would so immaturely define a person simply by the political party with which they register, and further stereotype them based on a dumb, statistically anecdotal online survey they took about their political leanings. You just exemplified the epitome of ignorance with that series of statements. Rational my ass.

“All true, but then again, the focus of this blog is the War and its supporters that will not serve. Support for one’s country though political activism is not the same thing as volunteering to fight in a war that one advocates. I should think such a distinction would be obvious.”

Your “All true” statement is all I need. Thank you. But in order to dignify the time you must have poured into devising some way to save yourself the embarrassment of actually conceding an argument to me, I will respond further. As a person who, I’m assuming, advocates the power of diplomacy over violence (let me know if I’m wrong), you should look highly upon those who use the power of words to encourage political policy. Isn’t that the path your ideal administration should take? And I will concede that you are right that activism and fighting in a war are not the same things. They are completely different. Just like multivitamins are completely different from oranges, but they both still give you your daily dose of Vitamin C. Hence, they are just as effective. I think you get where this analogy is going.
Additionally, you assume incorrectly that all of your targets and respondents “will not” serve in the military, as if it is not an option in their wildest dreams. Personally, I simply have not served. I may never, but it is not an option to be ruled out. And I feel confident in saying that others you so vehemently oppose feel similarly.

“Do you watch Fox News? I’m sure you do. You do know, do you not, that the clever little tag-lines that scroll across the bottom of the screen during broadcasts – in addition to numerous typos – have shown messages like “Are Democrats terrorists?” and “Barrack Osama” and such. Is that an attempt to harmonize the nation? When Ann Coulter says when you talk to a liberal you should use a baseball bat, what is that? Is it harmonizing and visionary to shut the other major political party completely out of policy discussions and briefings? Is it harmonizing and visionary to hire incompetent bootlicks to serve as administrators? Is it harmonizing and visionary to force protesters to stay behind chain-link fences a mile away from political events? You might want to engage the services of a mirror.”

Hmmm…looks like we’re getting personal now. I love it when a political opponent stops debating policy and starts attacking the person. It really shows the true you. And that I mean in a bad way.
Anyway, I’ll humor you.
I watch Fox News at about the same interval as I watch CNN, CNN Headline News and MSNBC. I’ll switch between them depending on the story that is on. If it is on some human-interest filler I’ll change it. If it covers a major political issue or international political event then I’ll watch.
And again, I’ll reiterate what I said in my first paragraph: the actions of others, especially if they are not done directly towards you, are not legitimate justifications for what you are doing now. You are responsible for the inflammatory crap you write. If you are so threatened by them, start directing your blogs at Ann Coulter et al., not unsuspecting individuals like Shawn Fago.
In reference to your “Is it harmonizing and visionary” rant, you seem to be directing the focus of your frustration on those who do not deserve it, nor want it. Shawn did not shut the other major political party completely out of policy discussions and briefings. Shawn did not hire the administrators. Shawn did not force protestors to stay behind chain-link fences a mile away from political events. Nor did I; nor did Mr. Hager. There is no need for mirrors or introspection because we are not responsible for the actions of others, nor did you stay on topic in the least bit from “The General’s” unprovoked attack on Shawn Fago.

“Then they should strive to be a little more proactive and visionary, rather than looking to see what they think will win them the next election at any expense – especially if that expense is the blood of real patriotic Americans. And why, I wonder, do war-advocates always seem to think that those that are not pro-war for some reason want weak security?”

Proactive and visionary? What better way to be proactive and visionary than to actively pursue a cause that would guarantee a representative who advocates they same policy as they? Your definition of “patriot” also seems to be a little warped. Patriotism is an ideology—a belief system. It is not an earned badge. “Patriot” and “Nationalist” are synonymous, and do not require military service as a condition to be considered one.
And why do you clump us into the overall “war-advocate” mold? Are you assuming that we just love to send our troops to any old place and kill darker skinned folks? Honestly, my friend, have we become so demonized in your twisted little mind that you cannot fathom a more dynamic though process is going on in our minds? Although I cannot answer directly for Shawn, I am pretty sure he shares a similar opinion to my own with the following remainder of this paragraph: I do not advocate war in its general sense. I advocate the use of alternatives as a first resort. When there are none left—that is, when the government in power chooses to remain non-transparent, saber-rattles to the point of suspicion, lends financial support to known terrorist organizations (families of suicide bombers from the Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations in Israel), and has a history of prior megalomania—it is appropriate to consider military action as a viable option.
The Iraq war was obviously mismanaged during it beginning phases. Our military leaders did not take into account the power vacuum that emerged from the fall of the only political powerhouse there (He killed off any possible opponents). There are very few rational Americans who believe that the tactics used immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein were the most efficient. However, that does not mean we leave. There is still a power vacuum present in one of the most resource rich, regionally central and religiously active states in the Middle East. Republicans do not want to stay indefinitely; they want to stay until Iraq is stabilized. Only then do we withdraw troops and bring them home for good.
So when I say mention weak security or shortsightedness, I do not mean that you want it. Obviously that’s not something people strive for. It’s a matter of political theory. Although my general political ideals fall under the category of constructivist, my views on the Iraq War fit very nicely into the realism mold. We are in a power struggle with entities that wish to become more powerful than we. It is in our best interests to subvert these opponents in order to preserve our international dominance, and, hence, guarantee our security. You have every right to disagree or even call me heartless, uncaring or the other plethora of words I have already heard. It’s old news. And I don’t think we’re going to convince each other to bend on our ideals, especially in this forum.

“Ah, the College Republican ‘tough guy’ act. Yes, I am sure that works with the frat boys and freshman, but this former-paratrooper finds it pathetic and it is just as hypocritical as the refusal of pro-war right-wingers to serve. As for myself, as I already wrote, I did serve in the military. I enlisted in 1984 – Reagan was president. I served in a unit that actually would have fought if the order had been given.
So, perhaps you can imagine the feeling I get when I read some snot-nosed rich kid explaining that ‘political activism’ is just as Patriotic as fighting in a war that they support but will not enlist for. What’s next – you can like the Yankees but not be a baseball player? You can be for tougher laws but not be a policeman?”


Wow, another personal attack. And, yet again, you’ve judged me incorrectly. First, as mentioned before, I am not “pro-war”. Second, I am hardly a “right-winger”. I am very much a political centrist. And, I’m not rich. My W-2’s would justify that statement. My family isn’t doing badly. But they are all self made. My father came from a lower middle class family and made himself what he is today by working seven days a week as an attorney to support his family. My maternal grandfather did the same, only his parents were Russian immigrants escaping the Cosaks’ pogroms against the Jews there. Stop basing your entire arguments on half-assed assumptions. So far you’re doing a great job of providing further proof for the “ass out of you and me” saying. Try asking questions and getting to know your opposition before you make sweeping, ignorant generalizations about them.
And, yes, I understand very well now after the 10-20 times you wrote it that you served bravely in our military—and jumped out of planes to do so no less. Thank you. Thank you many times over. I would write thank you after thank you, but then we would start crossing into spam territory. But, for one last time, thank you for your service. And now that you have made that point perfectly, 100%, undeniably clear, let’s move on.
Lastly, yes to both of your last questions. You do not have to be a baseball player to like the Yankees, and you do not have to be a police officer to want tougher laws. End of story.

Sincerely,
Aaron

 
At 25 August, 2007 12:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shawn,

The real men joined the Armed Forces.

You are dressed up in a cheerleader suit.

It's that simple.


LibVet

 
At 25 August, 2007 13:18, Blogger robash141 said...

Judging by the depth of his defensive spluttering, we've obviously touched a nerve with aaron

Shawn is not being attacked for his "beliefs" If he had "beliefs" he would be willing to risk his life for them.
Shawn has pro-Republican opinions which do not rise to the level of belief.

In America everyone, even ignorant ,ill informed people are entitled to their opinion, but not all opinons are entitled to equal respect.

Doppleganger believed in America, thats why he volunteered for the paratroopers His word on this subject is vastly more credible than Shawn's

The only "belief" that Shawn and the other young republicans and war apologists on this site have shown is in the power of their own double talk to extricate themselves from this moral quandary.

 
At 25 August, 2007 13:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm writing from Canada, from a small town in Quebec that so far has seen over 40 community members gone into Iraq or Afghanistan via all branches of the US military. None have died, some have returned with PTSD and are dealing with it. Today my 49 year old brother (Reserve Air Guard)is in Iraq having volunteered for dispatch to Baghdad. His units role is to bridge /stretch out rotation time between two deployed/redeployed combat groups reflecting the regular military's state of fatigue and need for US members having the motivation, health and belief in cause. Who better than these state-side cheerleaders like Mr. Fago? There's no organization yet named 'Foreign Veterans of American Foreign Wars' as far as I know. Maybe the 1st chapter starts up here in Canada.

 
At 26 August, 2007 13:50, Blogger Doppelganger said...

Shawn,

If you will actually read what I wrote, you will see that I did not accuse you of anything, except for making your views public. Are you saying that you do not support the war? If so, I will gladly retract any implicit 'accusations' you think I made.
By the way - the only thing that makes me angry is hypocrisy.

 
At 26 August, 2007 16:48, Blogger Karl said...

Mr. Fago-

. . . Karl . . .,

The fundamental flaw with this post about me is you do not know me. You do not know my stance on the war, you do not know my history or anything else about me other than what you have read on myspace. That’s pretty irresponsible. Doppelganger said he won’t use his real name out of fear of being harassed. What do you think you are doing to me? Personally I don’t give a damn, you are free to harass me as much as you like. Just know that you sound like the coward to end all cowards when you make such statements. You are literally saying that you are afraid to stand up for your beliefs. If you want to know what courage is, sign your name and stand up for what you believe in knowing full well that you will be attacked for your beliefs. That is what I have done, let’s see if you can.

-Shawn Fago


This is Karl. My full name is listed on the right side of the blog as a contributor.

Please look at OYE 103. We focus on public actions; MySpace is not private, though our initial focus was the Orange County [CA] Young Republicans website. We're sending you e-mails at your official OCYR e-mail address. We respect your personal privacy. While this comments thread represents the best of "robust, uninhibited debate," everything is within reasonable bounds.

You are the President of the Young Republicans club of the most Republican county in our nation. You are both a public figure and a future national leader. Your President's Message says that the OCYRs want to elect Republicans. We're just trying to help you to enhance your credibility with the American people in order to accomplish your mission.

I know that Wek sent you our basic questions. It's your choice whether to respond, but you can't say that we haven't reached out to you. We have.

As you continue in your career as a Republican activist, you will definitely be receiving similar questions. Wouldn't it be great for you to say that you DID contact military recruiters in 2007, and tell your future constituents, whom you will seek to lead, what it led to?

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Karl Olson

 
At 26 August, 2007 17:05, Blogger Karl said...

Aaron-

If you are eligible to serve and support what President Bush is trying to accomplish in foreign countries, this blog would like to suggest, in the most respectable and polite way, that you consider volunteering for military service.

It should be clear to just about everyone that our military, especially the Army, faces serious recruiting challenges at this time in our history. Frankly, it's not enough that our Army may be making, barely, its monthly quotas.

Don't we want military recruiters to be able to select those best suited to succeed in the military, rather than taking people that they would, in the past, have thanked for their interest but not accepted?

This is a sincere request, not a debating point. If President Bush cannot convince even the strongest supporters of his military ambitions to volunteer, how can he possibly lead our nation to a successful outcome of the Global War on Terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere?

 
At 26 August, 2007 22:37, Blogger Aaron said...

Karl,

I'll make this short and sweet: maybe I will; maybe I won't. I haven't decided yet. It will be a decision that will involve personal inner searching and my family. Not you or anyone else from this idiotic blog.

As warning, though, any attempt to "encourage" enlistment directly toward me will be taken as harassment, and will be dealt with as such. My involvement with this blog is simply to defend my friend, Shawn, not the War in Iraq or the War on Terror.

And since your only rebuttal to my responses is an invitation to enlist, it looks like this conversation is over. I hope for all of our sakes that we (I use this term to encompass all of the contributors to this blog) never correspond again.

Sincerely,
Aaron

 
At 27 August, 2007 09:41, Blogger robash141 said...

"I'll make this short and sweet: maybe I will; maybe I won't. I haven't decided yet."

Aaron hasn't decided yet wheather America is worth fighting for,, maybe it is or maybe it isn't

 
At 29 August, 2007 23:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I admire people's courage to admit that while they are perfectly happy, even enthusiastic, to fight a war if other people will fight it, but even though they are able, they refuse to personally and directly fight in the war themselves.

That takes a special kind of courage. Strong Republican courage to never admit any fault. I salute you! Now go back to class and your kegger!

 
At 30 August, 2007 11:29, Blogger Doppelganger said...

I did not want to take up too much space responding to Aaron here, so I wrote up a reply here .

Of note, however, is this:


As warning, though, any attempt to "encourage" enlistment directly toward me will be taken as harassment, and will be dealt with as such

WHo would have thunk it - a neocon-supporter 'threatening' legal action to avoid being called out. What is next - blaming a newspaper for getting caught soliciting sex in a bathroom?

 
At 31 August, 2007 02:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shawn is quite possibly the worst thing to happen in the CRP. Which, speaks volumes if you understand its current position.

 
At 20 September, 2007 18:05, Blogger Falling Panda said...

You anti-war types disgust me. It's all personal attacks, bogus civilian death tolls, talking points and character assasination.

We're lucky that we have people like Shawn here to support what we're doing in Iraq, otherwise more people might buy into the insane cut-and-run, defeaist type of rhetoric that's coming out of the far-left. right now.

Bush didn't lie, were not leaving Iraq anytime soon, Move.on, code pink and anti-war celebrites are not helping your cause and Iran is going to have their nuclear facilites bombed soon. Get over it!

 
At 25 September, 2009 07:39, Anonymous David K. M. Klaus said...

Media Lizzy wrote:

> And before you attack me for not
> serving, let me be clear. My
> grandfather served. My father
> served. I served. And my late
> husband served until the US Air
> Force handed me a Gold Star and
> directions to his plot in
> Arlington National Cemetery.

I am flabbergasted that everyone was so busy arguing with young Mr. Fago that nobody noticed this paragraph of yours.

I honor the service of your grandfather, father, yourself, and your late husband, and especially offer my sympathies to you as a Gold Star Wife.

I hope the fact that your husband died for something greater than all of us provided you some comfort in your time of grief.

And as a supporter of Operation Yellow Elephant, please accept my apology that your statement was so badly unnoticed.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home