Pompous Ass Of The Week

Barbara-Boxer--the-chair--001

Or maybe the month?

While voting in lock-step with her party that shows no respect for our military and their sacrifices, California Senator Barbara Boxer (D – obviously) demands plenty of respect from the men in uniform.

In case you forgot, Barbara Boxer is a senator. 

The feisty California lawmaker felt the need to remind an Army brigadier general of that fact Tuesday during a hearing before her Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, where the military officer testifying had the apparent gall to call Boxer “ma’am.” 

Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, was testifying on the Louisiana coastal restoration process in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. He began to answer one of Boxer’s questions with “ma’am” when Boxer immediately cut him off. 

“You know, do me a favor,” an irritated Boxer said. “Could say ‘senator’ instead of ‘ma’am?'”

“Yes, ma’am,” Walsh interjected.

“It’s just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I’d appreciate it, yes, thank you,” she said. 

“Yes, senator,” he responded. 

The article calls her “feisty.”  I have a few other adjectives in mind.  We salute you, Senator Boxer, for your arrogance and condescension.  The fact that it was a member of our military made it even more noteworthy and endearing.  What an ass!

I might keep this as a running feature.  That reminds me – I’m overdue for another edition of “Oh Really?’  There’s plenty of material out there.

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “Pompous Ass Of The Week

  1. “While voting in lock-step with her party that shows no respect for our military and their sacrifices”

    Funny you mention that, because wasn’t it your party that just voted overwhelmingly to deny funding to troops yesterday? Yeah, I think it was. Wasn’t this the same party that trashed anyone who voted against war funding just two years ago, questioning people’s patriotism? Yeah, I think it was. Who’s got no respect for the military now?

  2. “The article calls her “feisty.” I have a few other adjectives in mind.”

    So do I and none of them are fit to print. Be glad you do not live in CA and have to live the shame of having her represent you.

    Me thinks our current Gov. will run against her and send her packing. In spite of tough circumstnaces, the Governator has done a good job running a state that is next to impossible to run.

  3. “Me thinks our current Gov. will run against her and send her packing. In spite of tough circumstnaces, the Governator has done a good job running a state that is next to impossible to run.”

    Are you high? He took the reigns from a perfectly competent man who had the misfortune of running the state the same time Bush and Cheney were allowing Enron to screw it over. He promised to fix California and restore it to its former glory, and that has yet to happen. I knew this would happen, as soon as that dolt threw his hat in the ring in the recall election. I knew Davis was through, so I urged everyone I knew to vote for Bustamante, but nooo, everyone had to vote for the jackass in the Terminator movies. Idiots. You get what you pay for though…

  4. “I knew Davis was through, so I urged everyone I knew to vote for Bustamante, but nooo, everyone had to vote for the jackass in the Terminator movies. Idiots. You get what you pay for though…”

    You might have a stroke over this one. But here goes.

    I voted to retain Gray Davis as much as I despised him. He won the office fair and sqaure. Cruz Bustamante is a disloyal traitor. I am glad he is history. He is on the ash heap where he belongs.

    Gray Davis did a great job of making the Enron situation worse. All we had to do was cut back our power usage by 20% and that would have ended the manufactured power crisis.

    But no, Gray Davis had to interfere with free market forces and buy up power contracts. He did a great job of buying high and selling low. But, that wasn’t reason to get rid of him.

    As for Arnold, he has the courage to admit right now we can’t afford it anymore in CA and the political will to carry that belief the distance.

    He’s stood up to the Gestapo teacher’s unions and nurse’s unions by calling them the special interest groups they are. He told his own party to back down on the Measure 8 fight too.

    It’s too bad he can’t be U.S. President because I know he’d be a damn good one. Finally, both the Democrats and Republicans don’t like him much. That to me shows he has the political will to get his own party to compromise and show the majority party they can’t get 100 percent of what they want simply because they want it.

  5. “Gray Davis did a great job of making the Enron situation worse. All we had to do was cut back our power usage by 20% and that would have ended the manufactured power crisis”

    Why the fuck should the state have been forced to bend over for what you admit was a manufactured energy crisis?

    “But no, Gray Davis had to interfere with free market forces and buy up power contracts”

    See, this is exactly where “free” markets fail, because they’re unregulated and the door gets kicked in to greed, and people start joking about how they’re having the time of their life by ripping off poor old Grandma Millie. You should really watch “The Smartest Guys in the Room”; it will really open your eyes to the level of involvement that occurred, even on Schwarzenegger’s part…

  6. “You should really watch “The Smartest Guys in the Room”; it will really open your eyes to the level of involvement that occurred, even on Schwarzenegger’s part…”

    I have seen it. Liberal hogwash it is.

    What sank Enron was the weather. The year it collapsed California had a very mild summer as far as the weather goes. I suppose you think Gray Davis had something to do with that too.

    You amaze me. The price of electric power skyrockects and that is a problem. I paid my monthly power bill and never batted an eye.

    As for that Gradma you cite, if she turned the A/C off then she wouldn’t have the problem she had. A sensible person turns off the TV, the A/C, the computer. An idiot leaves them on and bitches about how much it costs.

  7. “I have seen it. Liberal hogwash it is.”

    Hogwash? Only a con can call facts hogwash. You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

    “What sank Enron was the weather. The year it collapsed California had a very mild summer as far as the weather goes. I suppose you think Gray Davis had something to do with that too.”

    First of all, who blamed Davis for anything? Also, weather? Are you freakin kidding me? Oh, I’m sure it had nothing to do with inflated profits and lying to share holders. Nah, you’re right John, weather…

    “You amaze me. The price of electric power skyrockects [sic] and that is a problem. I paid my monthly power bill and never batted an eye.”

    I love how I’m the amazing one. The people of California were being outright ripped off, and I’m the amazing one for pointing it out. That’s rich…

    “A sensible person turns off the TV, the A/C, the computer. An idiot leaves them on and bitches about how much it costs.”

    Hm, and what does that make the person who sticks up for Ken Lay while thousands lose everything? You are beyond insane. It’s kind of bordering on sadistic…

  8. “It’s kind of bordering on sadistic…”

    No Robert. Sadism is taking simple situations and turning them into complex ones.

    If something costs too much, then don’t buy it. Find something cheaper to replace the thing you can’t afford (e.g. drink water instead of buying Pepsi Cola that you can’t afford.). Move into a cheaper apartment vs. demanding rent control. Take the bus instead of paying $3.50 for a gallon of gas. Read a book instead of going to the overpriced movie theater. Keep it all simple.

    I learned this from a former boss of mine. His cardinal rule of life was never ever turn something simple into something complex. This man escaped Nazi Germany as a teenager and death squads in Argentina as a young father of three. He for certain knew what he was talking about.

  9. “If something costs too much, then don’t buy it”

    So, just never mind the fact that price gouging was occurring? This is what I mean by sadism. You’re completely ignoring the wrong doing and blaming the victims. If they don’t like being ripped off, then they don’t have to use the energy? What kind of twisted logic is that? It almost sounds like “if you don’t want to get raped, don’t dress provocatively”. Absolutely incredible…

  10. “So, just never mind the fact that price gouging was occurring? This is what I mean by sadism. You’re completely ignoring the wrong doing and blaming the victims.”

    No I am not. I am pointing out there are choices that are simple and choices that are complex. Make the simple choice. It is far less aggravating.

    I don’t blame the victims Robert. I point it out when idiots, morons and mush heads do stupid things. It is for their own good. I am just like Judge Judy but I don’t have a TV show and 10 million viewers.

  11. “I don’t blame the victims Robert. I point it out when idiots, morons and mush heads do stupid things”

    Again, these people, according to you, were idiots for being taken advantage of? This is sick. How do you not see that? That’s like saying “yeah, Ford mass produced a car that it knew was unsafe, killing many people as a result. But, you’re the idiot for buying the Pinto”. Your logic is completely inane.

    “I am just like Judge Judy but I don’t have a TV show and 10 million viewers.”

    So, in other words, you’re a huge bitch?

  12. Funny you mention that, because wasn’t it your party that just voted overwhelmingly to deny funding to troops yesterday? Yeah, I think it was. Wasn’t this the same party that trashed anyone who voted against war funding just two years ago, questioning people’s patriotism? Yeah, I think it was. Who’s got no respect for the military now?

    Everyone in Congress has probably voted against war funding at one time or another. When a Dem war funding bill comes to the floor, you can almost bet that it short-changes the military or includes extraneous BS. Why would the GOP vote for an inadequate bill? That reasoning is hollow electioneering.

    You can say whatever you want, but the GOP has been the strongest defenders of the military in recent decades. The GOP doesn’t embrace Code Pink and war-protesting nuts who insult the miltary and picket recruiting stations.

    The GOP doesn’t undermine ongoing operations by publicly claiming that the war is lost (Harry Reid). The GOP doesn’t compare American troops to terrorists (John Kerry) or call them cold-blooded killers (John Murtha). The GOP doesn’t compare American military personnel to Nazi and Soviet guards or the Pol Pot (Dick Durbin).

    The GOP doesn’t dress down testifying members of the armed forces for calling them “ma’am” or “sir” (Barbara Boxer). The GOP doesn’t insinuate that the military is made up of the uneducated, lower-class dregs of society (Charlie Rangel).

    I really think it is a very precarious and untenable position for anyone to hold up Democrats as defenders of the US military. It was Carter and Clinton who stripped funding from the military and left them with insufficient resources to prosecute any significant military action or even maintain a prepared peace-time force.

    It was the GOP that rebuilt the military each time. And it is the GOP who has shown the most support for the military – both vocally and in terms of their votes for more resources.

    Insofar as trashing people’s patriotism – yeah. You have a point there. I have and will continue to trash anyone who make remarks like the ones made by the esteemed Democrat members of Congress listed above. Wrap those comments in aluminum foil, spray them with cologne and burn some incense. You still won’t disguise the vile, putrid stench of those hateful remarks aimed at members of the US military.

    If you don’t agree with a particular military action, you use political means to attempt to end it. And when those means are unsuccessful, you don’t retaliate by voting to cut off funding for the military in the midst of the operation (thus exposing our troops to harm). And you sure as hell don’t denigrate our troops by trashing them or their honor.

  13. “Again, these people, according to you, were idiots for being taken advantage of? This is sick. How do you not see that? That’s like saying “yeah, Ford mass produced a car that it knew was unsafe, killing many people as a result. But, you’re the idiot for buying the Pinto”. Your logic is completely inane.”

    No it isn’t. The Ford example you pointed out is a perfect example of this.

    If you bought a Pinto “firebomb” and did not know about this aspect of it, then you are not an idiot for buying that car. But, you are an idiot if you keep on driving it after you learn of the danger.

    Now getting back to the power crisis, I focus on this being taken advantage of aspect. Nobody can take advantage of you without your permission. If you know you are being taken advantage of then you are not being taken advantage of. You are either generous or stupid.

  14. “I really think it is a very precarious and untenable position for anyone to hold up Democrats as defenders of the US military.”

    I agree. The Democrats are good at using the military by starting wars. They are very good at it too. The Republicans will never eclipse their heights of World War II, World I, Korea and Vietnam. The Republicans will never have their taste for blood.

    I think what really annoys the Democrats about Iraq is it wasn’t their idea. The Republicans haven’t brought the horrors of war to their historic heights.

    I guess those Smart Bombs and Predator aircraft can’t satisfy the Democrats unquenchable thirst for blood and killing. God forbid if women ever stop having abortions. As I have said before the Demos love to kill. They love to trade in death.

  15. I think what really annoys the Democrats about Iraq is it wasn’t their idea. The Republicans haven’t brought the horrors of war to their historic heights.

    I guess those Smart Bombs and Predator aircraft can’t satisfy the Democrats unquenchable thirst for blood and killing.

    I won’t go that far. It is true that most of the major wars in US history have occurred under the guidance of Democrat administrations, but most of that was just a matter of their place in history at the moment.

    The Dems have changed since then. I’m not a fan of FDR by any stretch, but he (eventually) had the courage to confront Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito. Wilson had the courage to confront the Kaiser. Truman had to deal with a necessary mess in Korea. And Vietnam was just a big mess that actually had its roots with Eisenhower but was poorly handled eventually.

    I honestly doubt that many Dems today would have the courage required to confront challenges that were posed in those eras of history. Things have really changed.

  16. “You can say whatever you want, but the GOP has been the strongest defenders of the military in recent decades”

    Right, which is why Bush slashed funding for veterans and threatened to veto a 3.5% pay raise for the troops. It’s also why John McCain was one of the only members of congress to oppose the new GI bill. And why, if the GOP is, in fact, such supporters of the troops, did chickenhawk Saxby Chambliss raise questions about triple amputee and Vietnam vet Max Cleland’s patriotism, morphing his face into that of Osama Bin Laden in a senatorial campaign commercial? Why did John Boner vote against a mandatory troop rest period between deployments?

    I always found it odd that anyone could make the claim that the party that lied this nation into a war that has so far claimed 4,316 lives is somehow more supportive of the military. This is the same party that insists on keeping the military a homophobic institution, the same party that instituted a stop loss policy to keep the number of families affected by the war at a minimum, the party that sent the troops they so love into battle without proper body armor, and in some cases, no ammunition. The same party that, when confronted with the Pentagon’s lack of preparedness (and an exit strategy), bad mouth and blamed the soldier who had the unmitigated gall to ask why he and his fellow troops had to dig through landfills to find scrap metal to uparmor Humvees, accusing the media of putting him up to it. Meanwhile, those of us who advocated for the safe return of the troops from the mess they didn’t belong in in the first place were labeled as traitors and un American, much of the time by chickenhawks who never served a day in their lives. (It’s kind a tough pill to swallow from someone with five deferments) It’s like I’ve been living in Bizzarro World since 2003.

    So pardon me if I don’t grovel at the feet of the party that has absolutely broken our military, and apologize for reducing discretionary spending in peace time. (ever heard of a peace dividend?)

  17. “Now getting back to the power crisis, I focus on this being taken advantage of aspect. Nobody can take advantage of you without your permission. If you know you are being taken advantage of then you are not being taken advantage of. You are either generous or stupid.”

    You truly are a madman. You are of course blaming the victim. You’re saying those people were idiots for continuing to use energy, as if they had a choice. You completely ignore the fact that energy prices were greatly and artificially inflated, and put the burden on the people to either use less energy, or none at all. Why should those people have had to sacrifice anything for a manufactured crisis? There was no power shortage, just greedy suits who saw an opportunity to rip people off. That was the free market at work, and I suppose that’s why you’re defending Enron…

  18. “I agree. The Democrats are good at using the military by starting wars. They are very good at it too. The Republicans will never eclipse their heights of World War II, World I, Korea and Vietnam. The Republicans will never have their taste for blood.”

    Really? Are you serious right now? Wow. So, it’s your assertion that America, and Democrats in particular, that started WWI, and WWII? Are you on something? I’m actually flabbergasted by the complete lunacy and stupidity of that entire statement. My fucking head hurts now. Thanks.

  19. Right, which is why Bush slashed funding for veterans and threatened to veto a 3.5% pay raise for the troops.

    Bush signed the pay raise in July 2008. He rejected an earlier version because the bill contained an extraneous provision which would have opened up the new Iraqi government to massive lawsuits filed in US courts over Saddam-era abuse and torture. Exposing the nascent Iraqi government to that level of financial risk due to litigation was absurd and counterproductive considering that US and foreign tax dollars were helping to reestablish and rebuild the nation.

    It’s also why John McCain was one of the only members of congress to oppose the new GI bill.

    While McCain is not my favorite Republican, no one can question his loyalty and devotion (as a veteran) to our military. His opposition to the bill was a matter of issues linked to the distribution of financial aid. Webb’s bill offered members of the military the same financial aide for college after 3 years of service regardless of how long you had served.

    McCain supported a sliding scale of aide that was based on length of service. At a time when the military was stretched thin and struggling to meet recruitment goals, Webb’s bill hurt retention and provided a disincentive for troops to continue on in their military career and become officers. McCain doesn’t hate the military, and this example is a stretch.

    And why, if the GOP is, in fact, such supporters of the troops, did chickenhawk Saxby Chambliss raise questions about triple amputee and Vietnam vet Max Cleland’s patriotism, morphing his face into that of Osama Bin Laden in a senatorial campaign commercial?

    Max Cleland was targeted in the Georgia Senate race because of his rhetoric on the Iraq war and his obstructionism on matters of homeland (national) security. Had he been a 40-year old, able-bodied athletic man who had never seen the inside of a recruiting station, the ads would have been the same given his LEGISLATIVE RECORD.

    Cleland allowed himself to be used by Democrats as a “safe” attack dog spewing liberal rhetoric on military and national security issues. He even allowed himself to be shamefully paraded around as a liberal attack dog on John Kerry’s behalf during the 2004 presidential election. Cleland was willingly exploited by the Democrats.

    During the Senate race, no one questioned Cleland’s patriotism, and his record of service to the military was acknowledged with appreciation much like McCain’s was during 2008. But that still didn’t change his voting record and rhetoric.

    Why did John Boner vote against a mandatory troop rest period between deployments?

    I hope you meant Boehner. Typos aside – I don’t recall Congressman Boehner’s statements on the issue. What I do recall is that this “rest period” was another Democrat ploy to undermine military operations – specifically in Iraq. After they were unable to pull funding for the war, Democrats turned to childish stunts like this to disrupt the military’s troop rotations at the height of The Surge. You remember the Surge don’t you? It stabilized Iraq finally and allowed us to initiate discussion of troop pull-backs and a gradual withdrawl.

    If Democrats had their way, they would have disrupted the operation with this veiled sham of a proposal. The Surge would never have been successful. And Iraq would still be a massive quagmire.

    I always found it odd that anyone could make the claim that the party that lied this nation into a war that has so far claimed 4,316 lives is somehow more supportive of the military.

    We can go back and relive all of the debates about whether the Iraq War was justified. I’ll say yes, and you’ll say no. Regardless – justification for the war doesn’t equate with an argument over Democrats’ disdain and disrespect for our military. Red herring.

    This is the same party that insists on keeping the military a homophobic institution

    Bill Clinton instituted the infamous and flawed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy after promising what he couldn’t deliver to gay groups during his campaign. Obama has failed to deliver on the issue (gay groups are pissed). And Georgia Senator Sam Nunn (D) was a major and vocal opponent of gays in the military.

    the same party that instituted a stop loss policy to keep the number of families affected by the war at a minimum,

    See above. We’re at war. FDR didn’t allow troops to select their terms of service or rotations during WWII. This measure was an effort to avoid a draft.

    the party that sent the troops they so love into battle without proper body armor, and in some cases, no ammunition.

    Considering the shape of the military under Clinton and Carter, our ability to mobilize and execute military operations in two simultaneous theaters was a modern marvel. Under Carter, we didn’t have parts for military planes or tanks. The military needs to be rebuilt continually to be effective. And Dems have never been willing to support enough funding to do that. If it weren’t for Reagan, the Bushes and relentless GOP members of Congress like John McCain – the troops would have had even less when they went to Iraq.

    The same party that, when confronted with the Pentagon’s lack of preparedness (and an exit strategy), bad mouth and blamed the soldier who had the unmitigated gall to ask why he and his fellow troops had to dig through landfills to find scrap metal to uparmor Humvees, accusing the media of putting him up to it.

    So what? Take a survey of US battlefield veterans from previous wars and conflicts. Ask them if they had every little thing they needed. The answer would be no, but they perservered and, with the exception of Vietnam, were victorious. The US military is the best military in the world. No one has it better. And with continued funding and innovation, things will get even better. You make a great case for increased military funding.

    And be assured that liberals in the media and Congress will piss themselves to showcase disgruntled members of the military with a bone to pick. In World Wars 1 & 2 under FDR and Wilson, such a soldier would be tried and thrown into the brig for insubordination or treason. That won’t happen today. A few unhappy soldiers will be vocal while hundreds of thousands will continue to serve honorably and execute their missions.

    Meanwhile, those of us who advocated for the safe return of the troops from the mess they didn’t belong in in the first place were labeled as traitors and un American, much of the time by chickenhawks who never served a day in their lives. (It’s kind a tough pill to swallow from someone with five deferments) It’s like I’ve been living in Bizzarro World since 2003.

    Thank you for your service, first. But that doesn’t detract from facts.

    In this nation, the secretaries who oversee the branches of the military have traditionally been civilians. That’s by design. And you will find tons of people in Congress who didn’t serve in the military. Or you will find Republicans who did serve and are ridiculed for their level of service.

    Some of the biggest blowhards denigrating our military are liberals, who not only didn’t serve, but have a loathing of our military. And many of them have been vocal in their disdain. Don’t pin this on the GOP.

    Again – the record speaks for itself. The Dems have been historically antagonistic and uncooperative when it comes to military matters. Their focus is elsewhere. Ask yourself why the military and veterans are a solid voting base for the GOP.

    I don’t typically refute things point-by-point unless I am prepared to rebut EVERY point. Generally, it is dumb to take one or two sentences from a post and attack them in hopes of undermining a bigger argument. It detracts from the big picture and does little to address the overall issue. But I felt a need here. The idea that Democrats are more supportive or even mostly supportive of the military is beyond absurd.

  20. “Bush signed the pay raise in July 2008”

    True, but he still threatened to veto it. And of course there was this fiasco before he signed it:

    Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes” both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.”

    The White House says it also opposes:

    – a $40/month allowance for military survivors, saying the current benefits are “sufficient”

    – additional benefits for surviving family members of civilian employees

    – price controls for prescription drugs under TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for military personnel and their dependents

    “While McCain is not my favorite Republican, no one can question his loyalty and devotion (as a veteran) to our military”

    I completely agree. McCain served this country honorably as a soldier, and deserved undying praise for it.

    “Webb’s bill offered members of the military the same financial aide for college after 3 years of service regardless of how long you had served.”

    And McCain wanted, what, 12 years of service, I recall…? That seems a little excessive.

    “McCain doesn’t hate the military, and this example is a stretch.”

    I never said McCain hated the military, but I would think that being a member of it at one point would cause someone to want to show an enthusiastic appreciation, which I saw more of in Webb’s bill. And let’s not overlook the fact that Jim Webb also served this country in the military…

    “Had he been a 40-year old, able-bodied athletic man who had never seen the inside of a recruiting station, the ads would have been the same given his LEGISLATIVE RECORD.”

    That doesn’t give anyone the right to impugn his patriotism. The guy gave three of his four limbs in service to this country. In point of fact, I would think his stance on the Iraq war would have much more weight, considering that he himself had seen the horrors of war, while Chambliss skated by with four deferments.

    “He even allowed himself to be shamefully paraded around as a liberal attack dog on John Kerry’s behalf during the 2004 presidential election. Cleland was willingly exploited by the Democrats.”

    Funny how you don’t make the same argument for Zell Miller. So, there’s just no way that Cleland believed in what he was saying, is that it? Serving in the military does not mean your views are automatically in line with the Republican party’s. Several members of my family have served, and only one of them is a Republican. The military is like any other sector of society – divided. When their service to this country is completed, and they’re allowed to have a political opinion, they run the gamut, just like anywhere else.

    “I hope you meant Boehner”

    I kind of did. I pronounce it the same way…

    “I don’t recall Congressman Boehner’s statements on the issue”

    I don’t know that he did make any statements on the matter, I just know how he voted.

    “What I do recall is that this “rest period” was another Democrat ploy to undermine military operations”

    How does allowing troops to have breathing room undermine military operations? I would submit to you that running them ragged had that very effect on them. Soldiers are not machines, they are human beings, and as such, they deserve time to rest, to visit with family, to be human. I couldn’t possibly disagree more with your inference that rest is tantamount to a ploy.

    “And Iraq would still be a massive quagmire.”

    When did it stop being a quagmire? Just this morning, a truck bomb killed 67 people in Taza and there’s the possibility that UK hostages have been killed in Baghdad. Just because violence is not as prevalent as in previous years does not mean there is no quagmire. As long as we’re there, violence will continue. Those people do not want us there, they’ve made that clear. They think they can do a better job themselves, and I agree with that.

    “Regardless – justification for the war doesn’t equate with an argument over Democrats’ disdain and disrespect for our military”

    Oh, it certainly does. It nullifies your argument that Republicans have more respect for the military than do the Democrats. It doesn’t seem respectful to me to send troops to attack an unarmed nation, sending many to their deaths, for reasons that have been proven false.

    “Bill Clinton instituted the infamous and flawed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy after promising what he couldn’t deliver to gay groups during his campaign”

    And why exactly couldn’t he deliver? Because the republican controlled congress said no way to allowing gays in the military. Again, where’s the respect in that? DADT was an incredibly flawed compromise, but let’s not lose perspective here. If Republicans had their way, all homosexuals would be weeded out of the military and given dishonorable discharges.

    “FDR didn’t allow troops to select their terms of service or rotations during WWII. This measure was an effort to avoid a draft.”

    Yes, but there was a draft. This country wasn’t asked to sacrifice anything for this war. Bush asked us to keep shopping. It seems to me that if that war had an ounce of legitimacy to it, and if it was as epic a battle as they made it seem, we’d have seen a draft instituted, and we’d have seen this country mobilized, not polarized.

    “If it weren’t for Reagan, the Bushes and relentless GOP members of Congress like John McCain – the troops would have had even less when they went to Iraq.”

    So, you’re saying armor is too much to ask for? Does it really require billions upon billions of dollars for a truck that can protect its occupants? This argument makes no sense. What we’re talking here is a very basic necessity of security. No one asked for B-52s or two tanks for every man. And let’s not forget that there was no shortage of daisy cutters and bunker busters…

    “So what?”

    So what? That’s your response to an under equipped military, so what? Who are you, Dick Cheney?

    “You make a great case for increased military funding.”

    Well, there’s an accident if I ever heard of one. I was making a case for putting the money they already had to good use. It’s tough to make the case for more defense spending, when we already spend more than the entire world combined.

    “A few unhappy soldiers will be vocal while hundreds of thousands will continue to serve honorably and execute their missions.”

    That won’t happen either, and you know it. Active duty military don’t voice their political opinions, and if they do, they will no longer serve in the military. Just look at how many generals had to retire just so they could criticize the Bush White House and the Pentagon, and get the truth out to the people.

    “Or you will find Republicans who did serve and are ridiculed for their level of service.”

    Was John Kerry a Republican?

    “Don’t pin this on the GOP.”

    You’re the one who made the argument that Republicans loved the military more, like it’s some sort of contest. All I’m doing is pointing out flaws in that argument. And yes, some of those same arguments can be applied to the Democratic party, but the glaring difference is, no one is running around saying the Democrats love the military more than the Republicans. The GOP sticks its collective foot in their mouth in the same fashion when they claim imaginary moral high ground, pretending to espouse family values while having sex with men in bathroom stalls and screwing hookers instead of their wives. There’s a certain amount of hubris involved in doing something like that. There’s no need to broadcast your views like that, just let your record do the talking…

    “Again – the record speaks for itself. The Dems have been historically antagonistic and uncooperative when it comes to military matters”

    I’m sorry, but I disagree. I think you see things like reducing defense spending in peace time as acts of aggression. I do not.

    “Ask yourself why the military and veterans are a solid voting base for the GOP.”

    They’re not. Of course it may seem that way, and that’s merely because the republican party has attempted to hijack the military by paying it lip service while Walter Reed falls to shit, and the veterans see more and more reductions in health care. All I can say is actions speak louder than words. The so called “liberal” media didn’t so much as prick up an ear when word broke that enlisted soldiers were being asked to return their signing bonuses for not completing their tours of duty, even if they were blinded, crippled, or otherwise incapacitated. This from the GOP that so loves the military.

    “The idea that Democrats are more supportive or even mostly supportive of the military is beyond absurd.”

    You see, I never made that claim. Like I said above, it’s that hubris that the Democratic party is unwilling to engage in. It may because it’s an argument they’d lose, but as far as I can tell, it’s the same argument that the GOP loses. So I suppose it’s better to have never made the argument in the first place. I certainly can’t fault the Democrats for that…

  21. Robert – love ya dude. I’m very glad that you are an active participant on this site (so says I who had taken a leave for a while). And I really appreciate your perspective. Makes the world go round. Plus you use curse words well in selective situations – I approve.

    Having said that – you stripped my arguments and responses down to the bare bones and didn’t hit the essence of what was being said.

    I appreciate people who are meticulous enough to pick apart arguments to make their own. I was on the competitive debate circuit from junior high through college. Then, as a grad student, I coached our university’s debate team on the national collegiate circuit.

    I almost feel guilty now because I advocated and coached the type of piecemeal rebuttal techniques that I see so often on blog sites and in public discourse.

    The main argument here still stands. And besides – we have wandered so far away from the original point of this post – that Barbara Boxer is a……well anyway. She’s not very nice.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s