Drop the Pom Poms and Enlist
Bryan DeWinter, self photographerBryan DeWinter and Michael Antonopoulos are College Republicans in the San Francisco Bay area, no doubt a difficult place for conservatives to blend in. Between semesters Mr. DeWinter enjoys less hostile environments:
No doubt the country of Israel and the Dept of Homeland Security were fortunate to have careful deliberation from a 21 year old coed. On the other hand, Mr. Antonopoulos, the Bay Area vice chair of California College Republicans, chooses not to cut and run from his state when school is out:Bryan DeWinter spent his summer vacation in Israel, speaking with convicted terrorists at a maximum-security prison and venturing to the Syrian and Lebanese borders, where signs of the 2006 war with Hezbollah still remained. In Washington, D.C., he spent winter break meeting with Department of Homeland Security officials, analyzing government tactics to quell terrorist activities."I am now happy to support Sen. John McCain, as he is our nominee, and I believe that he is the best candidate out there to continue to combat international terrorism." - Bryan DeWinter, chair of the San Jose State University College Republicans
Taking a break from a game of touch football, Antonopoulos contrasted McCain's Iraq war position with that of his Democratic rivals.
"No matter what statistics you look at, we're making progress both militarily and politically in Iraq," said the San Jose native. "McCain wants victory and the Democrats, with their commitment to pulling out, are promising defeat."
OYE Comment: At this time we are unsure if Mr. DeWinter and Mr. Antonopoulos have decided to Be A Man! Enlist! Both have been contacted by OYE and apparently have elected not respond at this time. Perhaps if they were given a little encouragement they can find it within themselves to be like their chosen Presidential candidate, Senator McCain, and lead by example.
posted by Wek @ 4/09/2008 10:35:00 PM
56 comments
56 Comments:
"OYE Comment: At this time we are unsure if Mr. DeWinter and Mr. Antonopoulos have decided to Be A Man! Enlist!"
OYE has a cowardly position. FDR supported World War I, yet he failed to enlist. That did not prevent him from leading the nation during World War II. Woodrow Wilson did not serve in the military, yet he led the nation during World War I.
Cpl. Kevin Groenhagen, USMC
www.sinsofthehusband.com
BTW, if you visit www.sinsofthehusband.com, you can download a free copy of my book "Sins of the Husband." The chapter entitled "The Chickenhawk Smear" demolishes the argument OYE is attempting to make. Their argument is essentially the same as Max Blumenthal's (who, BTW, failed to serve in the military during the Clinton administration, even though that administration deployed the troops more than 40 times and his father, Sidney, was a member of that administration). Therefore, I feel compelled to call OYE "Blumen Cowards."
Cpl. Kevin Groenhagen, USMC, 1982-86
Cpl. Groenhagen,
Due to the 'genetic lottery' I wasn't born until well after the presidencies you referenced, so I wasn't able to criticize the YE's of the early 1900's. Regardless, it is pointless to bring up FDR and Wilson since they are currently unable to serve and OYE focuses on those that are eligible. Although I will mention that all of FDR's sons served in WWII which kinda says that he must have set some type of positive example for his children (Admittedly I don't know that much about Wilson besides the very obvious, and right now I'm over-tired and too lazy to look him up).
OYE does not believe one must have combat experience to be Our President. We just ask that if one is a pro-war President that they encourage those who are eligible in their circle of influence to step up.
Lastly, if you wish to ensure I will not read something just spam our site as you did @ 9:18. You're welcome to "demolish the argument OYE is attempting to make" in the comments, but please no blog or book pimping. Believe me, if someone makes a strong argument from either side of OYE's mission I will always be intrigued and click on their website to see what they have going on.
Thanks for dropping by.
Cpl Grpenhagen,
As a fellow NCO I feel it is my duty to clarify several things to you.
Woodrow Wilson spent 3 years keeping america out of the Great War, until british propaganda efforts pushed america into the fray.
BTW, I've been to the Belleau Wood and to the Germans the battle wasn't that big of a deal...
Anyway, the reason the Chicken Hawk allegation isn't a baseless smear is it cuts to the heart of the warrior.
Would you as an NCO demand your LCpls and PFCs do a job you weren't willing to do yourself? Answer that honestly and you have your answer about those who would champion war without daring to risk their own butts.
Or put their lives, dreams, aspirations, families on hold while they fight the "Greatest threat to Mankind since Hitler".
So Devil Dog... I have no qualms to about calling a warmongering chicken hawk a warmongering chicken hawk...
If you support the War, Enlist.
Groenhagen why do you misrepresent yourself as if you were still on active duty?
You were in the Marine Corps which is certainly commendable, but that was some time ago.
I used to be in the Eighty-Second airborne a fact of which I am quite proud. I certainly wouldn't mislead someone into thinking I was still in the Eighty Second Airborne.
IMHO One of the worst things about the Bushies is their tenancy to blur the lines between military and civilian worlds. And that really cuts to the heart of the Yellow Elephant issue.
If your Book Starts out with such an obvious misrepresentation It certainly doesn't bode well for the rest of the text.
Cpl. Kevin Groenhagen, USMC, 1982-86,
Based on your dates of service, may we assume that A) you were never in combat, and B) you were not stop-lossed past your enlistment date?
"Regardless, it is pointless to bring up FDR and Wilson since they are currently unable to serve and OYE focuses on those that are eligible."
wek, your name should be weak. It's convenient for you to exclude Wilson and FDR since bringing them up demolishes the weak arugment that you OYE cowards are making. At no point in our history has there ever been a requirement that all who supported a military action should enlist to take part in that military action. It was not the case with FDR during World War I, it was not the case with Sen. Robert Byrd during World War II, and it is not the case today.
Do you and your fellow cowards with OYE support our efforts in Afghanistan? If so, I assume you are all on active duty today. If not, why not?
"Lastly, if you wish to ensure I will not read something just spam our site as you did @ 9:18. You're welcome to "demolish the argument OYE is attempting to make" in the comments, but please no blog or book pimping."
The book is for free, coward. You might consider reading it so you don't come off as being so ignorant.
robash:
"Groenhagen why do you misrepresent yourself as if you were still on active duty?"
Apparently, you OYE cowards have a problem with reading comprehension. You see, when I include the dates 1982-86 behind my name, that should tell you that I am no longer on active duty. It's a simple thing to comprehend.
"You were in the Marine Corps which is certainly commendable, but that was some time ago."
And your point is?
"I used to be in the Eighty-Second airborne a fact of which I am quite proud. I certainly wouldn't mislead someone into thinking I was still in the Eighty Second Airborne."
Why aren't you on active duty today? I assume you support our efforts in Afghanistan. Be a man--reenlist!
"If your Book Starts out with such an obvious misrepresentation It certainly doesn't bode well for the rest of the text."
Share with us the "misrepresentation," coward. It would be fun to see someone with such limited intellect explain it to all of us.
grung:
"Woodrow Wilson spent 3 years keeping america out of the Great War, until british propaganda efforts pushed america into the fray."
That's immaterial. He still did not serve in the military even though there were numerous battles in our own country when he was a young man. So, was Wilson a Yellow Donkey?
"BTW, I've been to the Belleau Wood and to the Germans the battle wasn't that big of a deal..."
Only a moral coward would make such a comment.
"Would you as an NCO demand your LCpls and PFCs do a job you weren't willing to do yourself? Answer that honestly and you have your answer about those who would champion war without daring to risk their own butts."
LCpls and PFCs are not civilians, coward. There's a big difference. I don't recall any of you OYE cowards demanding that Chelsea Clinton enlist when her father was dropping bombs on Iraq and Kosovo. If you cowards were honest, you would admit that your beef is not with those who do not enlist but with what is going on in Iraq today.
"If you support the War, Enlist."
Personally, I cannot reenlist. However, I have much more respect for those who support the war and are not serving in the military than I do for the objectively pro-terrorist moral cowards associated with this blog.
jim k:
"Based on your dates of service, may we assume that A) you were never in combat, and B) you were not stop-lossed past your enlistment date?"
A. is immaterial. When I enlisted in 1981 no one guaranteed to me that there would be no combat during the next four years. In any case, we did have Beirut and Grenada.
B. is also immaterial since the Marine Corps does not have stop-loss today. That policy ended in 2003. BTW, that movie really flopped, didn't it?
Cpl. Kevin Groenhagen, USMC, 1982-86,
One of the reasons I oppose the war in Iraq is because it is taking resources and personnel away from the war in Afghanistan, which I do support. Just how much do I support operations in Afghanistan, you ask? Well, let me tell you: At the time we invaded Afghanistan I was 35, my youngest was still in diapers, I was employed full time, I was finishing up my undergrad degree, and I had been out of the military for over a decade. Guess what? I tried to enlist in the PA National Guard. They didn’t take me because of a bad knee and partial hearing loss in my left ear, neither of which were waiverable., but I did make a sincere effort. It seems to me that if I was willing to put my life on hold to go fight in a war I supported, those 18-22 year old, single, childless College Republicans can as well.
The chickenhawk argument is 100% valid, friend.
jim k:
You know what they say about excuses, don't you? I don't buy yours. I get the feeling that most of your buddies here at OYE will have similar excuses. Again, I think I'm spot on when I say the issue here is not who is and is not serving--the issue is opposition to our military efforts in Iraq. Bill Clinton deployed the troops more than 40 times during his eight years, but we didn't hear these moral cowards making an issue out of serving then, did we? And if you don't believe the military was overstretched during the Clinton years, I suggest you read "While America Sleeps" by the Kagans.
Why do you Bush worshippers always bring up Clinton? For the record, I didn’t vote for him, nor will I vote for Hillary. I also don’t appreciate you implying that I am lying about having tried to enlist in 2002.
Since you did call me a liar I am not going to waste any more time on you, but I do want to state that in my mind those who support this war but who have not enlisted and are not going to are the real cowards because they are supporting the “right” to stay home safe and sound while other folks are being forced to serve their fifth and sixth combat tour of duty with inadequate equipment. A real Marine wouldn’t support that.
Oh, and one other thing: I left the military after four years as an E-5. How about you, "corporal."
What's it like to realize you've dedicated your like to playing gotcha politics with college students?
your life*
jim k:
"Why do you Bush worshippers always bring up Clinton? For the record, I didn’t vote for him, nor will I vote for Hillary."
I can guarantee you that you and your fellow moonbats will still be talking about Bush after January 21, 2009.
"I also don’t appreciate you implying that I am lying about having tried to enlist in 2002."
Deal with it.
"Oh, and one other thing: I left the military after four years as an E-5. How about you, "corporal.""
Not uncommon for a Marine to leave the Corps during the 1980s as an E-4. E-2 and E-4 were earned through meritorious promotions. I don't believe there was an E-5 amongst the group at SEPS at Pendleton when I was discharged. I'm certinly not ashame to have left the Marines as an E-4, esp. when you consider most people could not make it through Marine Corps boot camp. (Moonbat hero Dan Rather is an example.)
leigh:
Great work on O'Reilly last fall. Don't allow these moral cowards with OYE to bully you and other college students who support the war against terrorism. I have a free book with a chapter entitled "The Chickenhawk Smear" available for download at www.sinsofthehusband.com. Please feel free to share it.
What are you kidding me? I love OYE. You're not a CR until you've been smeared by them. I'm hoping i can get a plug before i graduate. I was quoted in that article too damn it! Taking notes OYE?
Not to mention it's free publicity.
Oops My bad. Groenhagen's first post was such utter drivel that I didn't bother to read the second one all the way before I replied.It doesn't really make you any less full of shit anyway.
Back in the day we used to call fellows like you "Cheese eaters" and "buddy fuckers" or "Blanket party bitch"
The fact that Groenhagen is so willing to denigrate the service of people who have served our country honorably, a line that in my opinion should never be crossed
Shows that Groenhagen's just a thoroughly unprincipled partisan hack who is willing to say anything in order to push his agenda.
So I thoughly doubt there's a true word in his ridiculous book
Jim I think the obsessive Clinton hatred is because Clinton got laid a lot more than any of these obnoxious right wing goobers put together.
Okay.
“Only a moral coward would make such a comment.”
No, only someone who has been there and spoke with german military historians and the curator during a tour of the hallowed ground would make this comment.
I can not help but notice you didn’t say you as a Cpl would be willing to do the same work as other Marines. Some jobs below you Devil Dog?
I call out all the Warmongers, despite of party lines. I see your ire is directed against democrats. I’m not a democrat.
That you have more respect for those who support war while never risking their pampered asses and call those who have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan moral cowards says a lot about your mental state.
BTW, would you support George Clooney and his call for a Darfur Intervention Since he would be supporting a war without participating, or do you only support republican wars?
I’ve seen the elephant... It sucks. The occupation sucks.
I can even send in some incriminating photos of me doing things you wouldn;t expect a college republican to do. You know, like drink beer and kiss girls. This way you can really claim a zinger when your mom asks you what you did all day.
robash:
"Back in the day we used to call fellows like you "Cheese eaters" and "buddy fuckers" or "Blanket party bitch'"
Ah, yes, the OYE really adhere to OYE Basics 103:
"We urge our members and supporters to engage in civil discussion of our topic, including in their direct communications with our subjects."
And then he offers this strawman:
"The fact that Groenhagen is so willing to denigrate the service of people who have served our country honorably, a line that in my opinion should never be crossed."
Of course, if you read my posts (these moral cowards with OYE appear to have problems with reading comprehension), I have not denigrated anyone's military service. I have criticized the cowardly tactics used by OYE, but that's a diferent matter entirely, isn't it?
"So I thoughly doubt there's a true word in his ridiculous book."
I get the impression that you're not much of a reader. In any case, I challenge you and your fellow moral cowards with OYE to find just one thing that is not true.
"Jim I think the obsessive Clinton hatred is because Clinton got laid a lot more than any of these obnoxious right wing goobers put together."
There's more of that civil discussion. We'll, I guess if I have an argument that is so easily demolished (as is OYE's), I might be tempted to employ invective in lieu of finding a better argument.
BTW, not that it is always the leftists who broach the topic of Clinton's sex life first. So who is REALLY obsessed with Clinton, the man who gave us 9/11?
grung:
"I can not help but notice you didn’t say you as a Cpl would be willing to do the same work as other Marines. Some jobs below you Devil Dog?"
There's that reading comprehension problem again. As I noted above, college students are civilians. Therefore, I would not have been in a position to ask them to do the same work I had done. And, as enlisted Marines, there were few jobs beneath us. Imagine picking up body parts of fellow Marines and ROK Marines after a CH-53 collided with a South Korean mountain.
"That you have more respect for those who support war while never risking their pampered asses and call those who have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan moral cowards says a lot about your mental state."
Yes, it does. It says that I am much more rational than the moral cowards with OYE. I think we're starting to see another reason for the irrational hatred behind this blog. Some of you OYE appear to be envious of those who are in college. And, as of yet, none of you moral cowards with OYE has said he has served in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. I have asked several times, yet just one claims that he tried to enlist after 9/11. Given that 90%+ supported our invasion of Afghanistan, I'm a bit surprised that more of you OYE folks did not enlist to serve then. A little hypocritical, isn't it?
"BTW, would you support George Clooney and his call for a Darfur Intervention Since he would be supporting a war without participating, or do you only support republican wars?"
I'm not sure what a "republican war" is? Operation Iraqi Freedom was approved by both Republican and Democrats. In fact, Democrats controlled the Senate when the resolution was approved. I guess you could say Clinton's wars were Democrat wars since he never sought approval from Congress (or the U.N., for that matter), when he went to war.
robash:
As I noted above, I get the impression that you're not much of a reader. I have put together a three-minute video that is essentially a condensed version of my book. If this is still too complicated, I'll consider a cartoon version for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM9lvNongXA
I shall not goaded into personal insults, even as you continue to call me a coward and claim I have a reading comprehension problem.
By pointing out patriotic pro-war americans are willing to continually demand a certain segment of society shoulder all the burden of the war while unwilling to shoulder the same burden is "analogous" with a NCO asking his grunts or POGs do a job he is unwilling to do himself.
OIF ended on 1 May 2003. So, the occupation has been conducted by the executive branch against the will of the american people. Please don't tell me you think verbal gymnastics of labeling every subsequent year as OIF II or III or IV or V really should count as a continuation of the 2002 authorization.
I should have been more precise, in that you seem to be defending "republician" wars while attack "democrats" wars, via your anti-clinton stance. But, please are you really claiming the 2 party's in our system actually hold different views? America is a one party system, the party of money and property.
As for clinton's killing of iraqi children during his putrid presidency, who is defending him? I understand you may have a set of preconceived notions, but at least be willing to empty your cup when entering into a debate...
At least you admit you have more respect for for chicken hawk warmongers than antiwar veterans, such as myself.
grung:
"By pointing out patriotic pro-war americans are willing to continually demand a certain segment of society shoulder all the burden of the war while unwilling to shoulder the same burden is "analogous" with a NCO asking his grunts or POGs do a job he is unwilling to do himself."
It's a poor analogy. You ought to read John Locke's "Letter Concerning Human Understanding" to learn what he said about analogies.
"OIF ended on 1 May 2003. So, the occupation has been conducted by the executive branch against the will of the american people."
The Congress represents the American people. The Democrats have controlled Congress since January 2007. They have the power to end our military presence in Iraq.
"I should have been more precise, in that you seem to be defending "republician" wars while attack "democrats" wars, via your anti-clinton stance. But, please are you really claiming the 2 party's in our system actually hold different views? America is a one party system, the party of money and property."
Then why label OIF a "republican war" when both parties made it possible and, as you mistakenly claim, both parties hold the same views?
"At least you admit you have more respect for for chicken hawk warmongers than antiwar veterans, such as myself."
I can be respectful of anti-war veterans. Don't conflate my lack of respect for this cowardly "yellow elephant" argument with a lack of respect for so-called anti-war veterans. That is yet another cowardly tactic.
"I can be respectful of anti-war veterans. Don't conflate my lack of respect for this cowardly "yellow elephant" argument with a lack of respect for so-called anti-war veterans. That is yet another cowardly tactic."
When you called me a liar when I stated that I tried to join the National Guard in 2002,I sure didn't feel any love or respect emanating from you.
jim k:
From your earlier post:
"Since you did call me a liar I am not going to waste any more time on you..."
Didn't you just prove that you are a liar?
If theres one thing consistent about right wing ideolougues like Groenhagen is that they have one set of moral standards for themselves and another ,much harsher, moral standard for When you everyone else.
This Guy comes trolling in here calling people who have served our country honorably cowards traitors "liars and "objectively pro-terrorist"
I would say that you most certainly did slur our honorable service to this county.
His weak little verbal flim-flammery about how he only meant "moral coward" instead of coward" is utter crap. except it smells worse
And besides who the fuck do you think you are making blanket generalizations about my inferior morality
In slurring other Americans honorable service Groenhagen you crossed a line that should never be crossed. I'll never take that from anyone I don't care if you are some middle aged ex- S-2 office dude or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
And then Groenhagen has the nerve to claim that he wants "a civil discussion"
Groenhagen, its pretty obviuous that you did not come here to pick a civil "discussion". You came here to pick a fight.
This whining about civil discussion is completely disingenous In typical cheese dick/cheese eating fashion Groenhagen is mearly trying to weasel and unfair advantage for himself.
He wants everyone else on this blog to hold themselves to some elaborate Sir Walter Raleigh set of decorums. While he gets to slime away with impunity.
I, for one, have no intention of entering into some implied agreement with someone who has no intention of honoring their end of the deal.
Yellow Elephants, if you are under mistaken impression that holding truck with this crackpot gives you some credibility I'd like to correct them.
Someone who denigrates another Americans honorable military service by calling them a trator or a coward is worse than a yellow elephant. the lowest of the low
So YE' you actually look bad by associating with Groenhagen.
robash:
"If theres one thing consistent about right wing ideolougues like Groenhagen..."
And OYE is not made up of "ideolougues" (sic)? It appears to be a favor partisan group, given that it calls OIF a "Republican" war. Of course, the resolution authorizing OIF was passed when Democrats controlled the Senate and many Democrats voted for the resolution.
"This Guy comes trolling in here calling people who have served our country honorably cowards traitors "liars and "objectively pro-terrorist""
I have not questioned anyone's military service here. Yours is a dishonest argument. Duke Cunningham is a Vietnam War hero. I woud never denigrate his military service to our country. However, this service does not preclude me from calling him a crook for the laws he broke as a civilian. By the same token, members of OYE may have served honorably in the military, but that does not mean I cannot criticized their cowardly attacks on those who have not served.
"I would say that you most certainly did slur our honorable service to this county."
Cite an example. And, BTW, I'm still waiting for you to cite an example of something that is not true in my book.
"And besides who the fuck do you think you are making blanket generalizations about my inferior morality."
Wow, isn't that the raison d'etre for OYE? That's the whole basis of OYE's dishonest and cowardly argument.
"In slurring other Americans honorable service Groenhagen you crossed a line that should never be crossed."
Again, cite an example of where I have slurred another's service.
"I'll never take that from anyone I don't care if you are some middle aged ex- S-2 office dude...."
Didn't you just "slur" my military service by suggesting I was merely an "office dude"? BTW, the trip from your early 20s to middle age is an extremely quick one. You'll be there before you know it.
"And then Groenhagen has the nerve to claim that he wants 'civil discussion'"
I never made such a claim. The "civil discussion" is OYE's criterion. See OYE 103: Tactics, Techniques and Procedures. Obviously, you're not a strict adherent to those tactics, techniques and procedures. Of course, given OYE's mission to question the courage of manliness of those who have not served, none of you moral cowards with OYE do.
"Groenhagen, its pretty obviuous that you did not come here to pick a civil "discussion". You came here to pick a fight."
Actually, OYE started this fight. You're just upset that someone decided to fight pick and that that someone is kicking your ass.
"This whining about civil discussion is completely disingenous In typical cheese dick/cheese eating fashion Groenhagen is mearly trying to weasel and unfair advantage for himself."
Again, the "civil discussion" criterion is found in OYE 103. And, again, you have demonstrated that you're not interested in such a discussion.
"He wants everyone else on this blog to hold themselves to some elaborate Sir Walter Raleigh set of decorums. While he gets to slime away with impunity."
I have never said or implied anything about such a set of "decorums." And I think any objective reader of this thread would note that you have tossed about much more slime than anyone else here.
"I, for one, have no intention of entering into some implied agreement with someone who has no intention of honoring their end of the deal."
Again, and I realize you OYE types are not big on reading comprehension, I have offered no such deal.
"Yellow Elephants, if you are under mistaken impression that holding truck with this crackpot gives you some credibility I'd like to correct them."
I think by this point your so-called "Yellow Elephants" are laughing at your idiocy and couldn' care less about your opinion of them.
"Someone who denigrates another Americans honorable military service by calling them a trator or a coward is worse than a yellow elephant."
Again, your honorable service in the past does not excuse your cowardly behavior today any more than Duke Cunningham's honorable service during Vietnam excused his crimes 30 years later. Your past military service and current cowardly behavior are two separate things.
Perhaps the "argument" between Groenhagen and others should get back to original statements.
Groenhagen postulated it is a cowardly position to ask those who support the war to enlist to fight it.
Is this true?
I guess we are left with the question: does everyone's opinion weigh the same when discussing whether the nation should be at war, 1 man=1 vote?
Does anyone's opinion count for more or less?
I will write I think you are disingenuous with your reasons for being here since you clearly aren't here for an argument but for a fight, as evidenced by your "that someone is kicking your ass" comment.
My belief (and just so you know I am not a member of OYE but an independent blogger) is the pampered corpulent asses in DC would not be so willing to send men off if more of the families shared the burden.
And many cheerleaders for the GREAT GLOBAL STRUGGLE AGAINST ISLAMOFASCISM might seek diplomacy every now and again if they had to share in the dangers and hardships associated with serving overseas...
grung:
"I will write I think you are disingenuous with your reasons for being here since you clearly aren't here for an argument but for a fight, as evidenced by your "that someone is kicking your ass" comment."
There's that reading comprehension probem again. As I noted above, you OYE cowards started the fight when you decided to question the courage and manliness of those who have not served in the military. I merely decided fight back against your cowardly and dishonest position.
"And many cheerleaders for the GREAT GLOBAL STRUGGLE AGAINST ISLAMOFASCISM might seek diplomacy every now and again if they had to share in the dangers and hardships associated with serving overseas..."
You may recall that the U.S. attempted diplomacy with both the Taliban and Saddam prior to invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Those diplomatic efforts were rebuffed. You and your fellow moonbats never offered a credible alternative for dealing with either.
Groenhagen me saying that you worked in an office while you were in the Military is not the same as you coming here branding people who served our country honorably as cowards traitors and "objectively pro terrorist." The fact that you were doing thid to prop up some real cowards like your little butt boy from SF Leigh make you even worse.
Your just trying to weasel out of trouble with a bunch of double talk .
As far as I'm concerned I owe no deference whatsoever.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robash:
"Groenhagen me saying that you worked in an office while you were in the Military is not the same as you coming here branding people who served our country honorably as cowards traitors and "objectively pro terrorist.""
You're not too sharp, are you? (And it seems that you have morphed into Tarzan with your latest post.)
Again, where have I called any of the moral cowards with OYE a "traitor." And, again, your past military service does not excuse your current cowardly rhetoric any more than Duke Cunningham's heroism during Vietnam excuses the crimes he committed as a congressman. Past honorable service and current bad behavior are two very different issues. It's very dishonest of you to conflate the two. But, then again, if you OYE types were honest, this blog would not exist.
"The fact that you were doing thid to prop up some real cowards like your little butt boy from SF Leigh make you even worse."
Ah, yes, there's that civil discussion called for in OYE 103. BTW, Leigh and I use our actual names here. You do not. Who's the coward?
http://profiles.yahoo.com/robash141
robash:
Interestingly, you made the same point months ago that I made above when you wrote, "Your right, Just because I served in the Military doesn’t make me less immoral than the next guy."
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/2006/10/dialogue-with-happydayz.html
You acknowledged then that your past service in the military does not necessarily reflect on your current immorality. That is why I believe I am justified in labelling you and others associated with OYE moral cowards.
I don’t know why OYE’s position is so hard to figure out. Let us recap, shall we:
We have a documented shortage of troops.
This shortage is having a negative affect on our efforts in Iraq.
Enlistments and retention rates for both officers and enlister personnel are too low.
Hence, we need to turn more military-age civilians into combat-ready troops ASAP.
Because we don’t have a draft(yet… this could change if McCain wins in November) we need more volunteers.
Therefore, those folks who A) support this war and B) are military service eligible should consider enlisting.
Well perhaps you were the baddest,bravest most Ramboesque motherfucker in the Typing pool.
Cnningams service in Viet nam had nothing to do with his corruption
as a congressman.
It's a bad analogy because we are not doing anything illegal like taking bribes. We are simply excercising the right of free speech guarateed in our contution. a right that we personally
endagered our own lives to protect.
So just because Duke cunningham is a crook
That doesnt give you liscence to
Smear
other veterans
honorable service by calling them "cowards"and "Objectively pro terrorist" and then weasel out of taking responsibility for your own words
All the double talk in the world doesnt change that fact that you've chosen
to take the lowest of the low roads.
Your hypocritical protestations about civil discussion notwithstanding
The fact that you will choose to stab your brothers in the back just to curry a little favor from some politicios entitles you to every bit of scorn that comes your way.
anon:
"Enlistments and retention rates for both officers and enlister personnel are too low."
Actually, all four branches of the military have been meeting or exceeding their retention and recruitment goals. The Marines have really been exceeding their goals for several months now.
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=11826
"Therefore, those folks who A) support this war and B) are military service eligible should consider enlisting."
There is nothing wrong with that argument. However, it is a cowardly tactic to question the courage and manliness or those who do not enlist.
robash:
"Well perhaps you were the baddest,bravest most Ramboesque motherfucker in the Typing pool."
That's an example of somone denigrating the military service of another. I'm still waiting for you to cite an example of me doing that.
"Cnningams service in Viet nam had nothing to do with his corruption
as a congressman."
Well, duh, Einstein. That's exactly what I said at least twice above.
"It's a bad analogy because we are not doing anything illegal like taking bribes."
I didn't say you were doing anything illegal. I said, like Cunnigham, your past military service does not excuse your current poor behavior. Poor behavior is not necessarily illegal.
"We are simply excercising the right of free speech guarateed in our contution. a right that we personally
endagered our own lives to protect."
And I'm exercise the same right when I say you OYE types are moral cowards.
"So just because Duke cunningham is a crook
That doesnt give you liscence to
Smear
other veterans
honorable service by calling them "cowards"and "Objectively pro terrorist" and then weasel out of taking responsibility for your own words"
You're not too sharp, are you? I take full responsibility for my own words. (You, on the other hand, who is basically posting here anonymously, have not.) My words have not smeared the service of any veterans. As far as "objectively pro-terrorist," I believe OYE is objectively pro-terrorist in the same sense that George Orwell characterized some Britons during World War II objectively pro-fascist. I'd explain the distinction to you, but I'm afraid it would go way over your head.
"All the double talk in the world doesnt change that fact that you've chosen
to take the lowest of the low roads.
Your hypocritical protestations about civil discussion notwithstanding
The fact that you will choose to stab your brothers in the back just to curry a little favor from some politicios entitles you to every bit of scorn that comes your way."
Are you a complete ignoramus? Once again, and please try to read this with some level of basic reading comprehension, it is OYE, and not I, who has hypocritically called for "civil discussion" here. I refer you once again to OYE 103. I say hypocritical since once OYE questions the manliness and courage of others, they have thrown civil discussion out the window. In the process, you have ended up making asses of yourselves.
"Actually, all four branches of the military have been meeting or exceeding their retention and recruitment goals. The Marines have really been exceeding their goals for several months now.
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=11826"
This is technically true, but only because they have lowered their standards to the point where you can be a 40 year old high school dropout with a felony record and still be able to enlist. When I went in in 1986 I had to get a waiver for getting two speeding tickets within a years time.
anonymous:
"This is technically true, but only because they have lowered their standards to the point where you can be a 40 year old high school dropout with a felony record and still be able to enlist. When I went in in 1986 I had to get a waiver for getting two speeding tickets within a years time."
And note the contradiction in OYE's argument. You argue that those who support OIF and are of military age should consider enlisting. Then, when this hypothetical high school dropout enlists, you imply that he is not a good soldier. Either way, OYE attacks him. He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.
Actually, comparing a veteran who has risked thier life on behalf of America and is simply excercising thier constitutional right to free speech to a convicted felon . That would be an example of Groenhagen slurring someone's military service. Not to mention all the "coward" and "objectively pro-terrorist"
It seems like the only freedom he believes is worth fighting for, is the Freedom to be a George W Bush bootlicker.
Maybe thats just his "objectively pro-facist" side coming out.
Actually slurring other American's honorable service for partisan reasons seems to be something of a fetish for Groenhagen. I saw on the Amazon .com book reviews He gave The excrible anti-Kerry swift boater book five stars out of five.
robash:
"Actually, comparing a veteran who has risked thier life on behalf of America and is simply excercising thier constitutional right to free speech to a convicted felon."
Care to try that sentence again in English, Tarzan?
"Actually slurring other American's honorable service for partisan reasons seems to be something of a fetish for Groenhagen."
Again, Tarzan, I'll still waiting for you to cite an example of where I have done this.
"Actually slurring other American's honorable service for partisan reasons seems to be something of a fetish for Groenhagen. I saw on the Amazon .com book reviews He gave The excrible anti-Kerry swift boater book five stars out of five."
Excrible? Is that an ex "crible"? The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was made up of 250+ Vietnam War veterans, and they were supported by a Medal of Honor recipient. I support their criticism of Kerry's actions after he returned from Vietnam. In fact, Jim Webb offered the same criticism of Kerry before he ran as a Democratic senatorial candidate. See http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-02-18-veterans-edit_x.htm
Webb's column had essentially the same message as SBVT's "Sellout" television ad.
Question for OYE: Is Robash the "brains" of your operation? If he is, it doesn't say much for your group. This guy is as dumb as a bag of rocks.
"There's that reading comprehension probem again. As I noted above, you OYE cowards started the fight when you decided to question the courage and manliness of those who have not served in the military. I merely decided fight back against your cowardly and dishonest position."
Reading comprehension? I am not a member of OYE. Therefore, I can not be an "OYE coward".
Why exactly is my calling those who champion the war but have not intention of serving Chickenhawks, cowardly? Please cite real reasons and not your false analogy of FDR and WWII.
groenhagen [14 April, 2008 15:39)
And note the contradiction in OYE's argument. You argue that those who support OIF and are of military age should consider enlisting. Then, when this hypothetical high school dropout enlists, you imply that he is not a good soldier. Either way, OYE attacks him. He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.
Sorry, but you're wrong here.
This blog does not criticize any patriotic American who contacts a military recruiter to volunteer to serve.
We recognize that military service can certainly help many young people turn their lives around. Furthermore, some waivers are required even in the case of what appear to be rather trivial offenses. [That is, indeed, why waiver authority exists in the first place.]
We do express concern that the difficult recruiting environment means that there are undoubtedly some patriotic Americans joining our military who would not have been accepted as late as 2004, when recruiters could select, from larger numbers of qualified applicants, those best suited to succeed in the military.
After all, not all offenses are trivial, and the enlistment criteria must have been established for a reason.
This concern is expressed exclusively at our government, and does NOT concern the individual patriots themselves.
Whether they are accepted into our military or not, we salute them for their patriotism and their commitment to our nation, and we wish them all the best in whatever they do.
And, that is precisely why we encourage those eligible to serve, who support what our country is trying to do, at least to consider volunteering for military service, even if they have other options.
You know that if someone is reduced to bitchily complaining about typos they must not have much to stand upon.
Groenhagen, my flaws can be corrected by more judicious
use of the spell checker.
Your flaws ,however, come from the depths of your rancid
soul and cannot be so easily remedied.
Go ahead and call me stupid if you wish, Its just your
subjective opinion and you seem to be wrong about
almost everything.
Its just a case of you heaping
more bullshit upon your already mountainous pile of
bullshit.
As i've stated repeatedly you have come here and reffered to people who have served our country honorably as "cowards" and "objectively pro terrorist"
You've compared the excecise of our free speech rights that we risked our lives to preserve as being just the same as the crimes of a convicted felon.
Clearly thats a slur against someones service.
Appearantly Groenhagens strategy is to demean the idea of service to such an extent that Yellow Elephants like his craven little buddy Leigh don't look so bad.
These right wing nuts debase everything they touch.
In the article you cited Sen. Webb took issue with Kerry's involvement with the anti war vets and some of his testimony before Congress. Webb did not refer to Kerry as a coward or a traitor,He certainly did not endorse any of the more scurrilous allegations made by the swift boaters that Kerry had faked his injuries and other events in order to inflate his war record.
I'm not aware of any CMOH winner that was in the the Swift boaters I think your making that up.
All the other vets involved should get medals of dishonor. When they demean the service of one vet they demean the service all vets
Groenhagen seems to endorse all the most reprhensible allegations whole heartedly. after all he gave the book five stars out of five.
Perhaps he should a medal of dishonor too.
I didn't vote for Kerry BTW
I was just angry that someone would stoop so low as to trash someones military service during a campaign
That Groenhagen is one busy boy..
Here's a couple of interesting quotes I'd like to share with everyone here
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/30/savage/print.html
Groenhagen writing to Glenn Greewald on sept 30 2007
Groenhagen:
"Pretty weak column on Col. Hunt from a sissy who never served."
and
"No, I mean a sissy like you. We're getting tired of sissies like you and Sidney Blumenthal discussing the military when neither of you spent a day in uniform. Stick to gay and lesbian issues.
Groenhagen"
He also misrepresents himself as being on active duty at the time.
Certainly makes Groenhagens attitude about Yellow elephants rather curious.
I guess Groenhagen is like a lot of right wing fanatics it all depends on whose ox is being gored.
Guys like Groenhagen wrap themselves in the stars and stripes but the banner they really worship is the double standard
grung:
"Why exactly is my calling those who champion the war but have not intention of serving Chickenhawks, cowardly? Please cite real reasons and not your false analogy of FDR and WWII"
The ignorance on this blog never ceases to amaze me. Your argument (and OYE's) is cowardly and dishonest because this country has never asked everyone who supports a war to serve in that war. The FDR example (which you mistakenly label an "analogy") is spot on. FDR was a strong supporter of our involvement in World War I, yet he failed to enlist to fight in that war. That failure did not preclude him from leading the nation during World War II.
robash:
"You know that if someone is reduced to bitchily complaining about typos they must not have much to stand upon."
As I have shown above, typos are the least of your problems.
"Go ahead and call me stupid if you wish, Its just your
subjective opinion and you seem to be wrong about
almost everything."
As opposed to an objective opinion? As far as being wrong about everything, you're the one who, after being challenged twice to do so, has failed to cite an example of one thing in my book that is not factual. Perhaps you should retract your accusation concerning my book.
"As i've stated repeatedly you have come here and reffered to people who have served our country honorably as "cowards" and "objectively pro terrorist""
Moron, again your past military service doesn't not excuse your current cowardly behaviot anymore than Duke Cunningham's heroism in Vietnam excused his criminal behavior as a congressman. I think a 10-year-old could understand that distinction. Why can't you?
"You've compared the excecise of our free speech rights that we risked our lives to preserve as being just the same as the crimes of a convicted felon.
Clearly thats a slur against someones service."
There's that reading comprehension problem again.
"Appearantly Groenhagens strategy is to demean the idea of service to such an extent that Yellow Elephants like his craven little buddy Leigh don't look so bad."
Again, you have been challenged above to cite an example of where I have denigrated anyone's military service. You have failed yet again to do so.
"In the article you cited Sen. Webb took issue with Kerry's involvement with the anti war vets and some of his testimony before Congress. Webb did not refer to Kerry as a coward or a traitor,He certainly did not endorse any of the more scurrilous allegations made by the swift boaters that Kerry had faked his injuries and other events in order to inflate his war record."
Of course, I never said Webb's column said those things. Webb's criticism was directed at Kerry's activities AFTER he left Vietnam. Apparently, you have no problem with Webb's criticism of Kerry's bad behavior. So why do you have a hissy fit when someone questions the bad behavior of OYE?
"I'm not aware of any CMOH winner that was in the the Swift boaters I think your making that up."
There's that reading comprehension problem again. I did not say that the Medal of Honor recipient was a member of SBVT--I said he was a supporter of SBVT. His name is Bud Day. You're wrong yet again.
http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=Ads
"All the other vets involved should get medals of dishonor. When they demean the service of one vet they demean the service all vets"
You just demeaned 250+ Vietnam War veterans, all of whom, unlike Kerry, served their full tours in Vietnam.
"Groenhagen seems to endorse all the most reprhensible allegations whole heartedly. after all he gave the book five stars out of five.
Perhaps he should a medal of dishonor too."
Can you cite anything from the book that is not true? I noted that the author, John O'Neill, dedicated the book to his dying wife. I can't imagine a man dedicating a book of lies to his dying wife.
"I didn't vote for Kerry BTW
I was just angry that someone would stoop so low as to trash someones military service during a campaign"
You mean like Sidney Blumenthal (the father of OYE soulmate Max) did with George HW Bush?
On your other post, first Glenn Greenwald was attacking Col. Hunt. So you had no problem with Greenwald, who never served, attacking a decorated veteran such as Hunt. You have quite a double standard.
Second, I never misrepresented myself as being on active duty. That same allegation was offered here, yet I clearly added (1982-1986) after my rank and service.
Third, you left out the part where Greenwald wrote I ran for the Kansas House as a Republican. I ran as a Democrat, which gives you an idea of the quality of Greenwald's reporting. You should make him an honorary member of OYE.
OYE:
"This blog does not criticize any patriotic American who contacts a military recruiter to volunteer to serve."
This blog has questioned the courge and manliness of many. How have you verified that they have never contacted a recruiter?
And, again, how many associated with OYE enlisted immediately after 9/11? No one has answered this question. If you did not, did (do) you oppose the war against terrorism? If you support the war against terrorism and did not volunteer, do others have the right to question YOUR manliness and courage?
Thats some pretty furious spinning Groenhhagen.
It looks like you one of those "flip floppers" they talked about in the last Presidential election.
He'll trash Glenn Greenwald for not serving but turn around and give the Yellow Elephants a pass. Not just give them a pass but actively champion thier right to be shirkers.
The excuse that he gave about the Col. doesn't wash either. If some YE were to write a derogatory article about my service I really doubt If I could count on Groenhagen for support. (Not that i'd need it mind you)
Its pretty clear that Groenhagen applies a political litmus test to gauge how "honorable" a persons service has been to America.
robash:
"Its pretty clear that Groenhagen applies a political litmus test to gauge how "honorable" a persons service has been to America."
That's what you just displayed when you failed to criticize Greenwald's attack on Col. Hunt. Hunt is a conservative who supports our efforts in Iraq, so you have no problem with Greenwald attacking him. On the other hand, you threw a hissy fit over 250+ Vietnam Veterans criticizing John Kerry's attacks on the troops.
You apparently have no problem with Greenwald, who never served. However, you have smeared 250+ veterans who, unlike Kerry, did not leave Vietnam nine months before they should have. That's a blatant double standard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loKXKlmrBvE
My take on "chickenhawks".
MSG Jim Volstad
USAR (Ret.)
Gee, Jim, you really put a lot of thought into that video. Your video was posted in July 2007. You really never heard the term chickenhawk before then?
BTW, what you saw on CNN was a piece done on Max Blumenthal. Max's father, Sidney, was a member of the Clinton administration. I note that Max did not join the military when Clinton was bombing Iraq and Kosovo, as well as an aspirin factory in Sudan.
Howard Dean got out of serving in Vietnam because of a "bad back." Nevertheless, he spent the next winter skiing, drinking beer, and smoking marijuana.
FDR was of military age during World War I and a supporter of that war. He did not enlist to fight in that war.
Do you also believe Blumenthal, Dean, and FDR are chickenhawks? Or do you believe that term should only be used to describe Republicans? Just want to see if you are consistent or just another cowardly and dishonest liberal.
I am a fucking turd.
Post a Comment
<< Home