Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by mont974x4, Oct 24, 2012.
I really hate to say it, but this sentiment is way to idealistic.
Heaven knows I love my country & I have a particular fondness for our military & I know that they know what they do in the field mission critical....from outright killing bad guys to deploying Special Missions units (with psychological ops specialists infiltrate local villages--to widen the intelligence net & base of support), to setting up hospitals & schools in places void of them.
As the military, our duty is to go anywhere in the world they tell you to go, anytime they tell you to & to fight anybody they want you to fight. The participation of the military in politics undermines military professionalism, curtails our professional competence, dividing the profession against itself, and substitutes extemporaneous values for professional values. I have a serious doubt as to whether we need to be making any political commentary.
Now that does not mean the Nations Military does not have opinions (most being conservative & right wing). Most have lost all faith in America's politicians---including me but I do not want that attitude permeating into young men & women serving our country.... they have enough to do---- Stay loose. Stay focused. Keep it simple & stay out of harms way ladies & gentleman!:thumbs:
I understand what you are saying. I would say that if anybody has a right to make a political point is our troops.
It is rather idealistic. It captures the warrior spirit that drives many of us veterans and current troops to do what we do, and did. Being idealistic is not really a bad thing.
Ive been contemplating this so I will throw out the question "Was Christ an idealist" .... your thoughts?
Idealist is defined as:
a person who cherishes or pursues high or noble principles, purposes, goals, etc. Synonyms: optimist, perfectionist, reformer, visionary, utopianist. Antonyms: pragmatist, skeptic, cynic.
a visionary or impractical person. Synonyms: romantic, romanticist, dreamer, stargazer. Antonyms: realist, materialist.
a person who represents things as they might or should be rather than as they are: My friend is an idealist, who somehow thinks that we always agree.
a writer or artist who treats subjects imaginatively.
a person who accepts the doctrines of philosophical idealism, as by representing things in an ideal form, or as they might or should be rather than as they are.
It depends on which definition we are talking about. I would say that definitions 1 and 3 fit Him well. I do not think 2 and 5 fit Him at all. He had a firm understanding of reality and He was not unrealistic. A case could be made in favor of definition 4. His use of parables and word pictures shows Him to be imaginative. I wouldn't die on that hill.
Who are they?
So Poncho, what branch were you in and where did you serve?
What branch was Romney in and where did he serve?
I asked a very simple question. Who are "they"? Why are you trying to avoid the question?
Venture a guess. :smilewinkgrin:
By the picture....Minute Man perhaps (or is that just what his W......nope, not going there & dont care) :laugh:
Evidently you know who they are so why don't you tell us?
You are the one who made the statement so why shouldn't you be the one to tell us who "they" are?
Do you really need am 8th grade social studies lecture? I don't think so.
That brings up another question.
How many ways can you all avoid a simple question?
EW&F made the statement now he refuses to answer a simple question. Who are "they"?
You however are taking a different approach to avoiding the question (Who are "they"?) by using a third grade argument.
That brings up yet another question.
Why are you all avoiding the question?
It seems rather simple to me. Who are "they"?
LOL OK, Poncho, how do you expect me to answer the "they" question based on the conspiracy theory you are currently embracing?
LOL, I never expected you to answer the question in the first place.
I expected just what I got. Third grade arguments and a refusal to answer a simple question. Happens everytime I ask one of you to clarify one of your statements.
All I asked was who are "they"? But in place of an answer I got subterfuge.
Evidently the strength of your convictions isn't enough to give a straight forward answer to a simple question. :smilewinkgrin:
So who are "they"?
LOL, again I say...venture a guess. So what say you? I am waiting...show the people on this forum your brilliance.
Nope, you made the statement so the burden of proof lies with you. Not me.
Answer the question. Who are "they"? Or go on showing everyone the lengths you'll go to in order to avoid backing up your own statements.
It is quite obvious which branch you were in. To the average soldier, sailor, or airman, "they" is their immediate officer over them, in a chain of command. They do what they are told, and when they are told. Soldiers do not stand around for thirty minutes debating the merits of a consiracy theory before carrying out their orders. The end of the Chain of Command is the President of the United States. However, in your world, it goes beyond that and in different directions to other governments, bank alliances, international corporations, and green men from Mars.
That's rather sarcastic for a guy who said he'd try to "cut down on" sarcasm. Shall I make a link to your empty promise now? Yes, I think I should.
Do you have this problem of keeping promises to everyone or am I just the lucky one?
No, I lie to my wife daily about my concubines.