(AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)
Sgt. 1st Class Jeff Due is a U.S. Army recruiter.
Today, during the time of the inauguration, he was engulfed by a swarm of redolent, reeking moonbats at Seattle Central Communist Community College.
For 12-minutes these punks, twerps, and losers tore up Army brochures. These people did not vote for Dino Rossi.
The clowns succeeded in creating such a violent and dangerous environment that security and police asked Sergeant Due and another recruiter to leave their table, for safety's sake, which they did. The cretins cheered.
Hundreds of other mental midgets boycotted classes at other Seattle colleges and universities to "protest" the inauguration of President Bush, and visit their pushers, presumably.
Hey, Joel Connelly: these people are on YOUR side. I'll take our talk-show hosts and bloggers any day, thank you.
Posted by Brian Crouch at January 20, 2005 07:17 PM | Email ThisNot even once.
Posted by: Dogbert on January 20, 2005 07:20 PMso why are they picking on him? Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on January 20, 2005 07:27 PM
can we call this a 'mob'? Looks like one to me. Weak people caught up in the moment. No thinking required. "Let's FORNICATE the bastard!" Where are the drums? This really is sickening, sorry... Posted by: aes on January 20, 2005 07:28 PM
I blame their lack of parenting. Wards of the state, all of 'em.
Posted by: Shaun on January 20, 2005 07:31 PMPosted by: aes on January 20, 2005 07:37 PM
Really, this is sad that these students think that this is valid protest. I bet if asked they couldn't put together three sentences explaining what exactly it is they are against. This is just an excuse to ditch class and be one of the conformist crowd. They should all get flunked out of their classes.
Posted by: Janet S on January 20, 2005 07:39 PMtraitors. If they hate AMERICA so bad why don't they leave? Oh, I forgot, their free lunch check
is in the mail. God liberals are stupid. Posted by: markk on January 20, 2005 07:40 PM
Any chance that they were reciting clever mantras like 'this is what democracy looks like?'
I sit awaiting JAH's offering on this subject.
Just remember, taxpayer, you are paying for the facilities, subsidizing this 'education,' and providing the resources to enable this behavior. Relevant, since I am sure our legislature wishes to add such 'real world' opportunities for even more people like this. At your expense.
Enjoy,
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on January 20, 2005 07:51 PMPosted by: Kathy on January 20, 2005 08:04 PM
Posted by: Kirk Parker on January 20, 2005 08:09 PM
How can we move to close down the school? Academically, SCCC is a joke anyway. Just a home for illegals, high school kids doing "running start" (just a way to get them out of high school without graduating), and assorted nonsense classes. The CC system takes valuable funds away from real educational institutions like the UW.
Would an initiative to shut that school down be the right way to close SCCC down? What other way to punish the school? Any way to defund it?
Posted by: iconoclast on January 20, 2005 08:18 PMThe politicians from the RIGHT in Washington State showed no such class to Gregoire.
You may pick on individuals (they exist on both sides), but when it comes to politicians, the RIGHT has much less class, demonstrated.
Posted by: Frank on January 20, 2005 08:34 PMPosted by: N Seattle Mike on January 20, 2005 08:37 PM
As Ed Abbey once said; "We should restore the practice of dueling. It might improve manners around here."
Posted by: Dan on January 20, 2005 08:43 PMFrom anarchists to your spitting, frothing protesters in the Liberal Loonie Left, to the mob in the above photos, they are all YOUR offspring and the result of YOUR lack of decency and respect.
Frank, when will you look in the mirror and admit "I am a Liberal, I love Communism and Tyranny, and I HATE AMERICA!"
Go ahead and try and defend the indefensible, Frankee, and witness the continued shift in national politics to conservatism.
Posted by: Shaun on January 20, 2005 08:47 PMConservatism must be the reason Bush is starting his 2nd term with an all time 2nd-term low 49% approval rating (hint: that means more than half the people don't approve of him or his job!) I think you mistake the shift...at least 51% of Americans disagree with you...hardly a shift....
Posted by: Frank on January 20, 2005 08:50 PMPosted by: Rita on January 20, 2005 08:53 PM
Why weren't the rabble rousers ejected?
Posted by: jaybo on January 20, 2005 08:54 PMI cannot understand how any thinking person can look at pictures like this and even equate it with the right. I have never in all my years seen a picture like this of the right ... and I'm sure you'll try to bring up the KKK or some wacko-group like that...problem is that the right does not endorse nor do we condone such morons.
On the other hand, the left not only tolerate student behavior like this, they TEACH and ENCOURAGE it!!! It may have taken a tragedy like 9/11 to wake me up out of the liberal stupor...and now pictures like this infuriate me as they should!!!
Posted by: megs on January 20, 2005 08:56 PMThe left is rude as a matter of course, and never gets called on it. The assumption is that the right is stupid, so treating them as such is fine.
Posted by: Janet S on January 20, 2005 08:59 PMBush increased his % of the vote in nearly every blue state...or didn't you read that? Also among blacks, Hispanics and women. Oops, forgot that Frank?
Such hypocricy from the left these days. They make racist comments about the future Sec. of State, then say it's the Right that is dividing the nation. Please.
No Frank, I think your comments belie your divisiveness. Go back to your sore-loser healing seminar.
Posted by: Shaun on January 20, 2005 08:59 PMI seem to remember a time--or maybe I've just read about it in books--when the police took the side of law-abiding citizens against the thugs and criminals.
Posted by: ScottM on January 20, 2005 09:02 PMI have no idea why you are so angry....or mean. It doesn't reflect well on your positions.
And your name calling is pretty rude too.
Posted by: Frank on January 20, 2005 09:18 PMI don't agree with a number of Bush policies such as the long term Iraq strategy, his spending like a drunken liberal and his immigration policy (which for all its faults is still better than the open door for anyone so they can vote Democrat policy of the left). Your heart no doubt goes out to those narcissitic, snarky and wacked out students in the photo. Go propagandize with your own ilk like Al Gore (the original Sore Loserman), Michael Moore and chief financier -
George Soros.
These miltary should stop preying on the poor and disenfranchised.
Shame on America! Shame!
Posted by: dolly on January 20, 2005 09:23 PMThey must've been so proud to vandalize taxpayer-paid brochures and waste my self-employed husband's hard-earned, overtaxed dollars (that I write the check for and personally mail in.)
May they grow up someday and have real jobs and actually move out of mommy and daddy's house and pay real taxes, too!
I think that SOME of them may actually grow up and vote for Dino when they come out of their medical marijuana-induced stupor and realize that they've been temporarily insane.
Posted by: Michele S on January 20, 2005 09:29 PMThe right in Washington needs te remember that KC making Gregoire our (all of us) Governor is a sift in power that leaves the rest ofthe state without a say.
It will be very good for our state.
Posted by: dolly on January 20, 2005 09:29 PMThey should have all been arrested! Maybe it was a federal crime since they tore up military brochures!
When is this city, county, state..going to realize the violent criminal character that these people represent...... and begin dealing with them??
We hold our police back while these thugs destroy property, block roadways, harass bystanders, assault those who do not share in their fringe liberalism! And then..when we finally have the guts to arrest them - we allow them to sue us and actually settle them with huge monetary awards!
I'm sorry...but Western Washington is just so damn wrong.....Can it be fixed??
Posted by: Deborah on January 20, 2005 09:44 PMNothin' the right loves more then a man who can kill.
and you all are allowed to have kids? I have had three with different fathers...
Posted by: dolly on January 20, 2005 09:44 PMDo you still attempt to defend the mob in the photo? Your daughter dolly is another fine example of the left's takeover of our educational system. How many conservative professors so you think exist in SCCC?
I am sorry that you feel my words are angry; I can assure you they are not. Perhaps you are convicted by the truth...if so, there is hope for you yet.
Posted by: Shaun on January 20, 2005 09:50 PMFrank and you may be working in tandem with your "trolling" ad hominem attacks.
And Frank, I wouldn't put much into polls. If polls were right than John Kerry would be our president. Fortunatly for all of us, Presidents are decided by elections and not polls. Now run along wee one. Aren't you late for a pie throwing engagement with Ann Coulter?
Posted by: Daryl on January 20, 2005 10:02 PMDolly is a troll, Frank is not. Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on January 20, 2005 10:03 PM
websites who push forward the sick and violent ideology of warfare, capitalism, and
profit over people.""
Hmmm....WE are sick and violent??
But YOU wrote this:
""We will destroy you f*ckers.""
dolly? (as in the dead cloned sheep?)
Does your mom know you are still up?
Posted by: Deborah on January 20, 2005 10:07 PMI should follow my own advice!
Posted by: Deborah on January 20, 2005 10:11 PMWho were the police in charge of this incident - Seattle or campus? If I recall my college days, campus police aren't allowed to carry guns. That would mean they wouldn't confront an angry mob. PC strikes again. Anyway, I'd be curious if they were given direction to back off. Who gave the order? That is who the anger needs to be directed at.
Posted by: Janet S on January 20, 2005 10:14 PMEither way, he/she/it has to realize we can ban her IP anytime we want.
Or change the messages. I had a little fun with a few of them.
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on January 20, 2005 10:18 PMMr Father-in-law Capt. Clarence Olson (now deceased) ran the Navy ROTC or recruiting right around that time at Wisconsin.
Do you remember him? Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 20, 2005 10:18 PM
I sincerely regret using such foul and divisive language.
Posted by: Shaun on January 20, 2005 10:22 PMHE'S A DOOFUS!!!
SnoCoVoter--I told you we would have plenty of opportunities to use the D--word!!!
In fact, I don't think I've seen so many DOOFUS's in one picture in a long time. Why, it's a virtual rainbow of DOOFUS's.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 20, 2005 10:24 PMThey don't even know this soldier, they are simply programmed to hate him and to perform for the cameras.
It would be beneath the Seattle Police to even consider these beasts, rounding them up is a job for the dog catcher.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 20, 2005 10:26 PMNow that's according to my neighbor, Bob Webster!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 20, 2005 10:31 PMOh!.. That was perfect!
The fun to be had with our new little friend.......snicker....We can make her a Bush loving, Rossi supporter!
(they may have to up her meds though....)
Posted by: Deborah on January 20, 2005 10:32 PMI think we all would have to agree...you are a DOOFUS!
I understand there is a DOOFUS support group so you won't feel so all alone. By golly, the pictures of the members are on this thread. I'm sure you would fit right in. Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 20, 2005 10:39 PM
Then you haven't read the newspaper in the last couple of weeks about the orange protesters in Olympia.
Also, protesters are protesters in general. Some switch sides but they like to protest. There are some notable "conversions" from the very active left who are now right wingers. (Stefan?)
Likewise, very active conservatives become hard core liberals.
Both groups will tell you how they have mended their ways and now see the light of the liberals or conservatives. Some even publish books about it.
Posted by: Erik on January 20, 2005 10:44 PMAre you serious? You are going to compare the orange rally to harassment of a military recruiter at a Seattle community college??? The difference is how you chose to protest and as soon as you become violent or destructive the line has been crossed. Plus picking on a military recruiter is a whole lot different then appealing to people who make policy decisions like legistlators!!! Posted by: Joe on January 20, 2005 10:53 PM
Now, their mantra has been "support the troops, oppose the war." Whenever I would mention that they couldn't have it both ways, of course I was told how wrong I was. Whenever I would say they would end up mistreating (to put it mildly) our troops today, again I was told how "full of it" I was.
Reading this not only angers me but reinforces what I knew would happen with the leftists running around out of control.
I can only remind those "protestors" that;
It is the soldier, not the reporter
who gives us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet
who gives us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer
who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag.
Father Denis Edward O'Brian, USMC
> They don't realize that it is the military of the U.S. that is protecting their freedom to protest.
Idiot, the US military isn't protecting our freedom in Iraq. Even Shrub now admits, by bringing home the last of the WMD teams, that his justification for this war was a lie. Saddam did not have WMDs, least of all not on missiles that could reach LA. The only thing the US military is protecting is Halliburton's bottom line, and the troops doing that aren't even being provided with the proper equipment.
Posted by: Critical Thinker on January 20, 2005 11:15 PMThe mainstream press has just about totally proven its irrelevancy in a world of internet and radio. More and more are tuning out the networks and turning away daily newspapers.
I think the animosity and ugliness coming from the blindly dedicated and fringe left serves only to prove to those 'mushy-in-the-middle' undeclared/undecided folks that they do NOT belong to that fringe party. The hatred for all things conservative and the vile ways in which that hatred is exhibited only make those of us in the conservative population stronger, bolder, and much, much more willing to stand up and say 'This I not the way I want to live, this is not the way I want my children raised and this does not reflect the America that I love.'
Personally, I hope they continue to act like fools. I hope Boxer and Kerry continue to be small, angry and obstructionists. I hope Kennedy and Clinton continue their divisive and shrill ways. I hope they do it often, loudly and very publicly. I hope Harry Reid continues to spew his racist hatred, I hope Paul Berendt weeps, whines and wails in front of a few more cameras, and God PLEASE, I hope they choose Howard Dean as DNC Chair. And I hope the loopy-lefty trolls and those angry bloggers over on that OTHER site continue with their smarmy attitudes and nasty mouths to try to deflect us from our goals with their nonsense because they give us such wonderful definitive proof and perfect opportunity to witness their petty, foolish behavior, which then makes OUR goals, OUR attitude and OUR behavior that much more exemplary.
Posted by: Cheryl on January 20, 2005 11:16 PMEven the novelist and Vietnam vet Larry Heinemann, who I would definitely consider a liberal, made this statement: "I had just come from a place where I didn’t take any (expletive) from anybody. You spit on me and you get your ass kicked within an inch of your (expletive deleted) life.” Well said.
Posted by: JG on January 20, 2005 11:18 PMWhich is about the same as a used car salesman. Wait, you only lose money when a used car salesman lies to you. When Sergeant Due lies to you ("You won't get sent to Iraq! Honest!"), you'll probably lose a limb at best and life at worst. If only the former, you'll probably end up in a homeless shelter while you fight the VA for the next 20 or so years. More likely, you'll die waiting for the care you need.
Meanwhile, Bush and his criminal gang get all the care and flu shots they want and to hell with everybody else. Oh, you can invest your Social Security in Enron stock if you want . . .
Posted by: Critical Thinker on January 20, 2005 11:22 PMYeah, especially unarmed Vietnamese women and children. My Lai, anyone?
Posted by: Critical Thinker on January 20, 2005 11:25 PMAmen! No more dissent, or you get shipped to GTMO.
Posted by: Critical Thinker on January 20, 2005 11:29 PMI wonder if the this would be a good place to apply the term useful idiot?
Posted by: Cheryl on January 20, 2005 11:30 PMCritical Thinker is a DOOFUS! Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 20, 2005 11:36 PM
What you and the general public, especially the left, don't know about Viet Nam would fill several volumes of books. If you truly are a "critical thinker," why not try becoming a knowledgeable thinker? When you're not too busy trashing our military or spitting at returning soldiers, research the Hue Massacre just prior to Tet of '68 and see what went unpunished and mostly unreported back then, from those wonderful peaceful North Vietnamese Communists and Viet Cong.
Posted by: Lew Waters on January 20, 2005 11:36 PMThe fact that you condone the way the recruiter was treated at the Community College tells all. You don't approve of the war in Iraq because like the military recruiter you have no respect for other humans and their right to be free.
The war is waged to spur the growth of freedom in the middle east. A region where no one lives in a democracy. If you did some critical thinking you would have already come to the conclusion that spreading freedom in that region is key to eliminating global terrorism. On a larger scale the end to terrorism provides safety and stability for the rest of the world and just as importantly our country too. Throughout history sacrifice has always been a part of achieving a greater good.
Posted by: Joe on January 20, 2005 11:39 PMBull cookies. My Lai and the others are what we know about. The practice at the time was to get promoted on body count. Since we didn't know who the enemy was, everybody was fair game.
Be that as it may, no, I do not feel that returning troops should be spit on or mistreated in any way. I was just pointing out that this guy might not be, and probably isn't, all the man he thinks he is.
Posted by: Critical Thinker on January 20, 2005 11:40 PMI don't approve of the war in Iraq because I don't approve of the use of our military to enrich Halliburton. This war is not and never was about tyranny. Were that the case, why don't we attack any of several dozen other nations which have tyrannical government? Simple: (1) Bush Jr. avenging anyone who crosses Daddy, and (2) Iraq has OIL! But I'm sure it's all a coincidence, right?
Posted by: Critical Thinker on January 20, 2005 11:45 PMThat's it, keep parroting Rush Limbaugh's OxyContin-induced rants. Certainly don't be confused by the facts, namely, that all the rebuilding contracts were awarded on a no-bid basis to . . . HALLIBURTON!
Posted by: Critical Thinker on January 20, 2005 11:47 PMAs for the rest of your drivel, if you think so many atrocities were covered up and made part of SOP in Viet Nam, as does sKerry, do some more critical thinking, or better yet, another round of knowledgeable thinking by researching and finding out why Long Bihn Jail was filled to over capacity. Atrocities happen in every war but it seems mainly, if not only, the U.S. prosecutes them.
As for not knowing who our enemy was, I never had a problem knowing who he (or she) was. It's kind of hard to not notice someone shooting at you. When you want to really know about Viet Nam, get your nose out of the leftists books on it and seek out veterans. We'll discuss it with you, provided you can be civil.
Posted by: Lew Waters on January 20, 2005 11:49 PMThe Dems couldn't get the contest or revote dismissed!
Bush had a great inauguration!
The few protestors that were there - were bussed in from Canada and were so few in force that the media barely covered them!
All of that globalist kumbaya crap they were promised by their handlers is going *poof*!....And dammit! Mom wouldn't let them borrow the Lexus for the protest! And it was raining!
So they come here to try to enlighten us with their newly discovered (communist approved!) revisionist history!
I hope there is a 12 step program for them when they have to face the REAL world.....
Posted by: Deborah on January 20, 2005 11:53 PMWhose chest? SGT Due's? I see two bolo badges and his highest award is the National Defense Service Ribbon. I have one of those. Granted, the picture is a bit fuzzy, but I certainly don't see, say, a CIB or even an EIB. Almost certainly he doesn't have any medals related to valor or the like. While it's possible he served in combat, it's just as likely that he was a REMF.
Posted by: Critical Thinker on January 20, 2005 11:56 PMIf you don't believe that one of the reasons we went to Iraq was to end tyranny and restore civil rights to the oppressed you are deep in partisan denial.
I know Michael Moore didn't mention it in your favorite movie but removing brutal dictators in that region was part of the deal when we went to destroy terrorist camps in Afganistan. We take it one country at a time, and each one is dealt with differently because each has it's own set of unique circumstances.
Posted by: Joe on January 21, 2005 12:01 AM
You mean outside of frat houses and the Rainier Club or the WAC? Wearing non-designer clothes driving something other than a Hummer? You mean actually working for a living, doing the job three people used to do, and praying your job doesn't get outsourced to some guy in India who will do it for 1/4 of your pay? In other words, if you mean a 12-step program for people like Dumb-Ya and the rest of their ilk who have never worked a hard day in their lives, then yes, I hope there is one.
Posted by: Critical Thinker on January 21, 2005 12:03 AMNo, that isn't why we went there. We went there to (1) get the oil which Bush's oil company buddies will charge us $3 - $4/gallon this summer for, (2) to make Halliburton rich, and (3) so that Bush can avenge anyone who made Daddy look bad.
Yes, it's that bad.
Posted by: Critical Thinker on January 21, 2005 12:07 AM
Well, when the Administration rewards the outsourcing of jobs, it makes it kinda hard to get ahead. "My job of tomorrow got outsourced to China yesterday . . . " Say again please, all after "economic recovery"?
Posted by: Critical Thinker on January 21, 2005 12:10 AMHiring for what? $8/hour, no benefits? Salaries that allow me to pick two of rent, heat, and eat?
Out with it! Prove me wrong.
Posted by: Critical Thinker on January 21, 2005 12:19 AMTo the extent that 9/11 happened through his negligence, that could be argued. Is he the direct cause, a la Reichstag fire, as has been alleged? No, there's no evidence of that.
Nice try at the straw man/tu quoque fallacy.
Posted by: Critical Thinker on January 21, 2005 12:22 AMNot only that but if you are so angry at big business why don't you start your own company?
Posted by: Joe on January 21, 2005 12:27 AMShould we even try with you? President Bush did not take us into Iraq as you say because of WMD's, Halibuton or oil. Ever heard of the UN Security Council? UNSC Resolution 1441? Recall 12 years of stalling? (plenty of time to move those WMD's) 17 different UN resolutions? Missle attacks on our aircraft? The UN auhtorized the use of force against Saddam. The US Congress (including your beloved Democratics) also authorized the use of force.
Saddam was in material breach of the cease fire from the 1st Gulf War, remember that one? Sure you do...tho I imagine you think that GW acted only to finish the job that his father should have right? Revenge for daddy? Wrong again. The goal of that action was removing Saddam from Kuwait which was accomplished. Study up before you try to play with adults CT. Your approval of the young skulls full of mush shown harassing Sgt. Due is very telling. Posted by: BlueKnight on January 21, 2005 12:30 AM
Wrong again, CT...President Bush was in office less than 8 months by the time of the attack on the Towers. The failure and negligence came from the 8 years of the Clinton Administration. Shall we list the attacks on our country and our people during those years? If Billy wasn't so busy staining a certain blue dress maybe things would have been different
Posted by: BlueKnight on January 21, 2005 12:44 AMPosted by: Larry on January 21, 2005 12:47 AM
As for Sgt. Due, if the NDSM is his highest award and he shows two rows, care to explain the foreign medals he wears? Did you forget the NDSM is our lowest? And, as for a CIB, I didn't earn one either, inspite of 18 months in the Central Highlands of the country. Then again, I wasn't infantry so wasn't eligible. A friend at work was infantry and also didn't receive a CIB, having taken a round in the leg his third week in country and being medevaced back to CONUS. Would you tell him he didn't walk the walk and was probably a REMF? All he was awarded in his two year hitch was the NDSM and a Purple Heart.
You keep throwing around Halliburton as if they are the devil incarnate. Do you also believe Bill Clinton engaged the same company, also in a no bid contract, to make them rich in the Balkans? Where was the outcry against Halliburton then?
You also cry about Bush and "outsourcing." Did you forget it was the Clinton Administration that gave us NAFTA long before Bush was elected?
As for WMD's, what with virtually the entire world believing they were there and Saddam refusing to comply with 17 UN resolutions, Bush would have been remiss to not take some action. However, there is some evidence, although not proof yet, that WMDs were smuggled out before the war resumed. Had Bush not acted and those WMDs had gotten ito the hands of terrorists and unleashed here, like 9-11 was, how fast would you all have been to hang Bush out for not protecting the country?
Might I suggest you turn off your computer, abandon leftist sources and seek some good old fashioned honest research? Critical thinking without appropriate knowledge is nothing more than being grossly mis-informed.
Posted by: Lew Waters on January 21, 2005 12:50 AM"We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."
"Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty - though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt."
"A few Americans have accepted the hardest duties in this cause - in the quiet work of intelligence and diplomacy ... the idealistic work of helping raise up free governments ... the dangerous and necessary work of fighting our enemies."
I know which side Sgt. 1st Class Jeff Due is on.
Posted by: Larry on January 21, 2005 01:08 AMConservatism must be the reason Bush is starting his 2nd term with an all time 2nd-term low 49% approval rating (hint: that means more than half the people don't approve of him or his job!) I think you mistake the shift...at least 51% of Americans disagree with you.
Wrong, Frank. The 51% you're thinking of is Bush's share of the popular vote, the first majority since his dad in 1988.
Also, this 49% approval rating came from a poll conducted by CBS (aka "See? B.S.!"). You know, the forged document, axe-to-grind, "I still believe these forgeries are real" network?
Latest polls:
CBS/NY Times, 1/14 - 1/18: 49%
Los Angeles Times, 1/15 - 1/17: 50%
ARG, 1/14 - 1/17: 51%
WSJ/NBC, 1/13 - 1/17: 50%
ABC News/Wash Post, 1/12 - 1/16: 52%
Time, 1/13 - 1/14: 53%
So you're believing a discredited CBS over all of the others...kinda the "preacher-choir" thing, huh?
Posted by: Jonathan in FL on January 21, 2005 02:50 AMThey've tried communism already, dude. Several times. In several places. It's never worked.
Stop complaining about your lot in life and take steps to make yourself more employable and indispensible. Heck, start your own business...wait a minute, what am I saying? A Marxist, running his own business? Geez, I need my coffee this morning!
Posted by: Jonathan in FL on January 21, 2005 02:56 AMCan y'all see that? It's not black/white. But the messages here suggest it is. That's scary to a lot of people. It's the I'm right, you're wrong mentality that leads societies to falter Is there any middle ground?
Posted by: jim on January 21, 2005 06:25 AMAs you were calling my posting drivel -- you provided evidence that makes my point. Half the country does not approve of the way Bush is doing his job as president (+/- 3% using your numbers).
Thanks!
Posted by: Frank on January 21, 2005 06:27 AMAnd thanks Joe for slapping Erik back into reality (I don't know if it helped). Comparing this picture to the orange rally is hilarious! I'm sorry I missed the pics of orange clad thugs ripping up the leftist signs...oh, wait...that DIDN'T happen??? /sarcasm off
:-) Morning everyone!
Posted by: megs on January 21, 2005 06:31 AM
v/r
Concerned soldier with the 81st BDE, Washington Army National Guard.
First, the people in the background are obviously not in danger of having to serve, voluntarily or otherwise, and always have the option to respect others and do their own thing. It would be, after all, the civil thing to do. As opposed to the intimidation, harrassment, lawbreaking, and seeking to deny other people perhaps an opportunity.
Secondly, I sense from that picture that there were a couple of 'true believers' there, and most of the rest were opportunistic hanger's on out to play, act up, or impress their friends. There seems to be some bizarre dynamic of seeking to 'fit in' amongst such people, despite knowing what the respectful thing to do is. Sad, really, when people subject themselves to shame, civil and criminal penalties, and condemnation for their shameful and reprehensible acts, merely to try to resolve their 'misfit' esteem problems. Even more sad is living in a society that allows, condones, and encourages illegality such as this, and a government that actively promotes such behavior.
Keep in mind that I consider each of them, and what my reaction would be if they were offering pamphlets, and subjected to an unruly and abusive crowd that would do to them what they did to that soldier. I would, I am comfortable, have the same reaction and sympathy, no matter what cause the person was advocating. It is, after all, consistent and keeping with civility.
I am a product of a military background, something that comes as no shock to people who meet me. Though I served in far places, played with cool toys, and had to do some distasteful things in my life, I am well served having had the opportunity to return a bit to this country.
You see, I am one of those 'disadvantaged' people of which others speak. Or was. A person of moderate accomplishment, higher than average intelligence, but of a poor economic background. I was limited to whatever I could put together for a life, on my own, and with no advocacy group to toss scholarships, goverment mandates, or such my way. I knew from a young age that I had a shot at life through the military, and prepared myself for service.
Even in the military, life wasn't easy, and I found my limited worldview, experience, and mindset a limiting influence, yet I perservered and bettered myself. I learned discipline, exposed myself to others with the spectrum of experiences, and learned each and every day something that I could use in the future. And, when it was time to get out, I was well suited with a great work ethic, ability to lead, ability to withstand the most extreme of pressures, and a flexibility that allows me to work through all situations.
And now, I am taking the civilian world by storm! Outpacing nearly all of my school chums in terms of accomplishments, compensation, and opportunity.
It's sad when those who claim moral superiority and attempt to "protect" others, whom they infer to be too stupid to think for themselves, by limiting opportunities for diversity, growth, and a general betterment of society. Honestly, I find myself continually amazed at how patronizing and smarmy 'lefty do-gooders' are in telling others how to live their lives.
Be well, and enjoy the weekend,
Steve
Posted by: Paches Pal on January 21, 2005 07:24 AMIf you don't like the data, you don't need to believe it. But don't expect people to believe Bush anymore either -- after all the lies.
You know, if he had been truthful and said we're invading Iraq because Saddam's evil and we're getting him out -- and our economy has too much at risk with that evil guy controlling so much oil, that would have been fine.
But to say WMDs were the primary reason (I watched Colin Powell on TV...it was the WMDs all right!)...just gives people as much doubt about everything tha guy says as you have about polls (from the exit polls).
But, that could explain why half the country doesn't like the job he's doing.
Posted by: Frank on January 21, 2005 07:55 AMA question was raised in my mind as I was waiting. Arguably, the behavior of these 'protesters' was to an extent illegal. It was also repressive, regressive, intolerant, lacking peace, and lacking support for diversity. The behavior came up short in following the laws, the tenets of which they speak, and was uncivilized.
Where does it end? What line wouldn't they cross? Is there a level of civility to which they aspire?
I ask, as the main message of this protest and that of last night seems to be 'the ends justify the means.' After all, at the school, they 'won' when the recruiter left. The end result was worth more to them than their behavior, ethics, and respect for others and the law, right?
Would these same people be willing to rationalize their behavior if they were Gregoire supporters and involved in 'helping' an election? Would they craft insidious laws, illegal on their face, to force their agenda down the throats of others? Would they use their rationalization to justify vandalism? Arson? Stuffing ballot boxes? Keying cars? Disrupting traffic? Committing fraud?
I'd like to think not, but am concerned, for there seems to be no clearly defined end to such antics. Admittedly, I look at the picture and see only a couple of people that I would think committed enough to actually do something, or were clever enough to have an original thought, and who wouldn't be too lazy. Most of the rest are of a concern for their clear propensity to subject themselves to peer pressure, and who are easily manipulated into giving up their values to 'fit in.'
Still, an interesting question to me.
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on January 21, 2005 08:02 AMUmmmm, lighten up, man.
Arguably, even without WMDs, Iraq, Afghanistan, military deployments, death, destruction, and such, you and a fair number in this country would give Bush low ratings.
The topics in the absence of the above would by Kyoto, his 'dad,' abortion, gays, civil rights, WTO, and military spending.
You don't like Bush. We get it. You never will. We get it. There's nothing that he has, will, or could do to change your mind. We get it.
Stop sniping. It's tedious.
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on January 21, 2005 08:09 AMAs a friend of one formerly in the 2/146, I salute you and the other members of 81 BDE. We are looking with great anticipation to their safe and timely return. It will be absolutedly wonderful to have our friends, neighbors, associates, and citizens back home.
You and your fellow soldiers did us proud, and while the unit suffered in so many ways, I am sure in my heart that you took the values, pride, and general good will from this area to help others who might not have had the opportunities that we enjoy. Please know that we understand our countrymen have had to run the gamut of emotions and experiences through the deployment, and offer our continuing support to the members and their families as time goes on.
Those who wear the Raven patch should always know the pride that we in Washington have for and of them.
And, this means that Brian Suits should be back on the air again soon. An added bonus!
Regards,
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on January 21, 2005 08:18 AMBush won in Florida in 2000 and beat Kerry in Ohio in 2004
Get over it and move on !
Everyone should be sending this into our "newspapers" to get some coverage of these vermin. Surely they'd be proud to identify themselves as harrassers of a military man.
Posted by: Susie on January 21, 2005 08:33 AMIf anyone can get his address please pass it on to me.
Needless to say I'd enjoy about five minutes with those "students of higher education".
Posted by: Bob on January 21, 2005 08:37 AMOf course we were justified - Saddam was violating a dozen security council resolutions and brutally oppressing his own people (5,000 children a year alone were dying under Saddam). The real question that deserves some serious debate and not just knee-jerk conservative or liberal reactions is, was it worth the costs going in there at the time we did and in the way we did?
We are the world's only Superpower, but that does not mean our resources are umlimited, and if we are going to fail in the hunt for bin Laden and let Afghanistan return to a world of outlaw warlords where anything goes (even terrorism) and opium fields and if we are going to not have the firepower or the allies to back up our talk against other brutal outlaw regimes like Iran and North Korea because our resources are fully engaged in the mess in Iraq, then no, the world is not safer for the Iraq War and the neocons who rushed us into the war because they saw their window of opportunity should all be held accountable (not one of which, I might mention, ever served during wartime).
Posted by: LoneWolf on January 21, 2005 08:56 AMI think a growing number of Americans are very put off by the fact that the Democrats are now pretending that they didn't make any of those statements in 1990s. Yeah, somebody's lying, all right.
I voted for Democrats for twenty straight years, but could not stomach their 180-degree turn on issues of national security.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 21, 2005 09:11 AMHowever, it is also important to be vigilant about the direction of the current conflict in Iraq. Newsmax.com presents an op-ed piece by Chris Ruddy (a regular contributor) that argues effectively for a change of direction during the next 4 years in the aftermath of the upcoming elections there.
Posted by: KS on January 21, 2005 09:28 AMRather that debate the Bush Administration's intentions with these malcontents, I'll hold their "truths" to be self-evident.
1. I don't CARE if we went to war with ulterior motives. As a veteran, I knew what I was getting into when I signed up, and took an oath to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief. If that involved invading North Korea or Mexico, so be it.
2. I like cheap oil. I like a bullish economy. I like the idea that America has found its balls, and will run roughshod over any third-world country whose interests run contrary to our own. I like that American unilateralism has marginalized the corrupt and wholly inept United Nations.
3. I mourn every soldier and innocent Iraqi killed in the course of this war. I also reckon that the rate of loss on both sides will in the be insignificant versus the gains in quality of life for the survivors, cheap oil to fuel the American economy, an elevated international awareness that America is nobody's footstool, a base for furthering American interests in the Middle East, and as a tertiary benefit, hopefully a new base for democracy to take root.
America first. I may not be the cookie-cutter neo-con, or a holy-roller. I might not listen to Rush or send money to Focus on the Family.
But I do recognize the difference between the soldiers and patriots who contribute to our nation's greatness, and the sniveling, pseudo-intellectual America-hating underbelly of society that is the modern "progressive."
Progressives are the kids in school who ran to the counselor instead of standing up to the bully when their milk money was about to be stolen. The progressive feeds the therapist and counselor occupations with endless patients. The progressive is why a state with a population of 6 million spent 8 BILLION dollars funding DSHS last year.
Maybe if those of us who were actually employed weren't paying so much to give everyone who doesn't contribute to society a free ride, we could afford $10 a gallon gasoline.
What we witnessed in that photograph was the equivalent of a worthless unemployed teenager deriding and disrespecting a hard-working parent whose sacrifice supports the brat's lifestyle.
Posted by: Heavyrunner on January 21, 2005 09:28 AMDon't let this radical anti war crowd gain a foothold and start a "Vietnam" type movement. As a private citizen, myself, I promise a good asz-kicking for these freaks if I ever see them do that to a uniformed member of the armed forces. Posted by: KC on January 21, 2005 09:36 AM
your post is full of childish name-calling. you are not much better than the people you deride.
Posted by: dinesh on January 21, 2005 09:40 AMBut any puerile fallacy that'll puff you up, eh dinesh?
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on January 21, 2005 09:44 AMOk, so if the students really believe in non-violence, non-war, etc, is it necessary to use such violent protests? According to their belief system, wouldn’t a bunch of flowers do the trick?
Oh, and if they hate Bush so much, bash Bush, bash the Administration, etc, but not the poor soldier willing to die to save the protesters. Oh, I forgot, any soldier willing to defend his country is a blood thirsty killer. The soldier doesn’t sign up to kill, he signs up to defend piece. If (though I disagree) Bush sent them into the wrong war at the wrong time, is it their fault?
I’m 25, recently out of graduate school. My first degree was a community college degree. I understand these protesters. It’s because they are ignorant. They don’t have a consistent world view because public education is so PC scared to “interfere with their self-discovery.”
As with all campus turbulence where lefties are threatening or commiting violence, the local 'security' agencies invariably take the side of the lefties and banish whoever they're threatening.
That's a pretty dumbed-down concept of 'public safety'. The 'security' twerps might as well march in under a big red banner proclaiming SUPPORT INTIMIDATION NOW!!!
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on January 21, 2005 10:01 AM206-587-3800
Posted by: jaybo on January 21, 2005 10:13 AMWHY DID THEY LEAVE THE TABLE? COWARDS.
Most on the right are cats and momma's boys.
Fight? What's that?
Makes me sick. Cromwell had the same problem..."we need men with fire in their bellys, who fear the Lord but not the enemy!"
The left can fight, conservatives run yellow.
Xiaoding
Posted by: Xiaoding on January 21, 2005 10:17 AMWhenever I hear that "Halliburton" line I have to laugh.
I hope that this person is not a by-product of our higher education system. If they are, I want my tax money back because I was robbed!
Posted by: jaybo on January 21, 2005 10:19 AMWhich he undoubtedly could have!
But he chose the high road, as Conservatives always do.
Posted by: Larry on January 21, 2005 10:58 AMThank you for the kind words. I see you can spot 13 series cannon cocker and ground pounder pretty easy.
Funny you should mention Suits. I have some photos from Brian's section as a matter of fact. Also have one of him underneath the cross swords. It looks like he's seen a lot. Will make for good airtime when he gets home. He's a great guy and it's been great working with him.
We'll be home some, and thanks again.
v/r
NWarty,
Northwest Artillery
206-587-4144
"For 12-minutes these punks, twerps, and losers tore up Army brochures. These people did not vote for Dino Rossi."
What the hell does that have to do with anything?
Besides, the event at SCCC was a pre-planned protest and the good SGT was trying to insert himself into it. What the hell did you expect?
He wasn't hurt, but he certainly didn't need to be there either.
Posted by: Political Pulpit on January 21, 2005 11:15 AMI think the Good SGT was trying to recruit, not insert himself into a cretinous mob.
It was a pre-planned protest of the inauguration, which has absolutely nothing to do with Army recruiting, correct?
But you're right - I expect nothing better from a bunch of worthless, whiny little communists.
Posted by: Larry on January 21, 2005 11:27 AMI too am one who can't understand why the good guys were asked to leave and the insane got to run the asylum. Posted by: PC on January 21, 2005 12:16 PM
"I see two bolo badges and his highest award is the National Defense Service Ribbon. I have one of those."
That must have been the only one you ever wore, since it was given upon passing Boot Camp during the affected dates.
A casual look at the ribbon rack Sgt. Due sports shows he has three higher awards, including the Good Conduct Ribbon (you ever receive one of those?).
Aside from such an ignorant statement, your other threads were merely the expected drivel of one who cannot find fault with morons who desire to be slaves of the failed communist societies of the past. If it were within my power to do it, I would grant them and you safe passage to the '60s where they belong.
Posted by: smegma on January 21, 2005 01:30 PMAs you were calling my posting drivel -- you provided evidence that makes my point. Half the country does not approve of the way Bush is doing his job as president (+/- 3% using your numbers).
Uh...since when is less than 50% considered HALF? Do you consider Bush's 51% popular vote total +/- 3%, thus "less than half"?
Your weak-#ss point has been proven by no one. My point, that you spew mindless drivel, has been proven by you.
You liberals crack me up. Your myopia is hilarious. Tell me: if you guys are so smart, how do you continue to lose more elections than you win...the WA gubernatorial heist notwithstanding.
Posted by: Jonathan in FL on January 21, 2005 01:56 PMAny rational person can see that this type of protest brings nothing but anger. It is okay to be upset or disagree; however, we are all Americans and this scene is what gives comfort to our enemies.
Also, do these people not understand that we DO NOT have a draft and that our service members serve by choice?
It is sad that we should have to defend our country against our own countrymen.
I may be left-handed, but I know that right is RIGHT! Posted by: Kathie on January 21, 2005 02:10 PM
Red Leg, Red Leg this is airborne, fire mission over. Hippies rioting in the open, out. On my Command, shot over, shot out, splash over, splash out... Red Leg Red Leg fire for effect 20 rounds on my command...Target neutralized fire mission over. Airborne out.
Posted by: ranger06 on January 21, 2005 02:23 PMI really believe the lies the MSM are spreading. Yup, I sure do. Posted by: Stacy on January 21, 2005 02:30 PM
you know what they say? a picture IS worth a thousand words.
but, really, did ANYONE have any doubts about their real beliefs ???? Posted by: christmasghost on January 21, 2005 02:43 PM
Wrong!!!!! That is the revisionist drivel the left has pushed upon the nation for three decades now. If you researched you would discover, according the General Vo Ngyuen Giap, Commanding General of the North Vietnamese Army and Colonel Bui Tin, the North Vietnamese Officer that accepted the surrender of Saigon, that they were ready to negotiate a surrender after the North was defeated in Tet of '68. They saw the leftist protests back in the state (even the North Vietnamese had TV) and saw America's weak link and played to it.
America's involvement in Viet Nam ended in 1973, 5 years after they considered a negotiated surrender and with some 40,000 more American dead (after the tet of '68 offensive). All the cowards that were out protesting did was to lengthen the war and cost more lives.
Yes, the cowards did bring about change, but it obviously wasn't for the better. America became known as the "Paper Tiger" and we set ourselves up for every two bit terrorist group that wanted to blow us up, culminating in the 9-11 attack on our own soil. Look back to the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979 and all the terrorist attacks against American interests after. They declared war on us and we rolled over and went to sleep, until we were woke up on 9-11. Unfortunately, the left went back to sleep and wishes the rest of us to also.
The leftist protestor cowards weren't heroic then or now. Their main goal is not to save the troops but to save their own cowardly butts, while maintaining their freedoms. Your boy sKerry is a good example. He came home from a brief "tour" in Viet Nam and joined ranks with the leftist cowards, hoping that would propel him into political office. When his election bid failed, he laid low and came back in the early 80's running as a "Hero" now. Apparently, even he sees the leftist protestors for what they are.
Posted by: DakotaRed on January 21, 2005 06:29 PM....Just curious what has been the response of SCCC's president or administration to the phone calls & emails protesting these outrageous actions by left-wing punks? Are they going to do anything about it? (Not that I'm expecting much action to be taken by left-wing fascists masquerading as intellectuals or heads of universities)
Kindly contribute whatever you can to your local College Republican chapter. We will make sure these sickos don't get away with their antics!
Bring on the Red-Conservative-Revolution! Contact your local chapter today, and ask how you can contribute- it doesn't have to be financially, although that usually has the fastest impact!
Here's a chapter link:
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 21, 2005 08:27 PMI bet the boys would find protection enough to hold and conclude the meeting.
Just to bad the Seattle PD leadership could not make a stand here.Letting this mob chase this soldier out is just another example of how this has gotten so far away from us.
Posted by: Brad on January 21, 2005 09:04 PM
I work with a Bulgarian immigrant - now a US Citizen, who fled a Communist country for the American dream.....
My janitor fled Cambodia in the 1970s, the only member of his family to survive the Khmer Rouge killing fields....now a US Citizen...for the better life in America.
I served in the USMC in Viet Nam 10 1970 and 71...
They ask me how this can be, in America
The election for the [not my] governor-
The recruiter at SCCC-
The corruption of the system.
I have no answers anymore.
Keep the faith.
Semper Fi.
Mike
ps Lonewolf...can I send you an offlist email sometime? I like your way of thinking.
M
Yhis photo proves that doofi are not extinct, but are alive and well in large numbers at SCCC.
Posted by: ERNurse on January 22, 2005 05:05 AMI read this blog post in today's Rip & Read Blogger Podcast. Tomorrow I'll play the Medved mix. Great stuff!
Charlie Quidnunc, reporting from Mercer Island, in the middle of Lake Washington.
Posted by: Charlie Quidnunc on January 22, 2005 11:25 AMBut when will we get to the point where we say enough is enough and start hitting back? These losers have had it their way long enough, haven't they?
When are we going to stop letting them get away with this?
Will it ever be time to declare war on these vermin and start pushing them into the sea and taking our country back?
Posted by: ERNurse on January 22, 2005 11:44 AM....Just curious what has been the response of SCCC's president or administration to the phone calls & emails protesting these outrageous actions by left-wing punks? Are they going to do anything about it? (Not that I'm expecting much action to be taken by left-wing fascists masquerading as intellectuals or heads of universities)
I am gladdened and heartened to read that there is a proper sense of measured outrage in the Evergreen State over the immeasurably outrageous treatment of SFC Jeff Due and his fellow Army recruiter at SCCC.
I live in Portland Oregon, and I am the leader of the Western Oregon chapter of "ProtestWarrior.com". Yesterday, I sent an e mail to all 203 members in my chapter, as well as to leaders of 3 main chapters in Wa., and to people on my personal e mail lists.
I sent a letter of support to SFC Jeff Due. Below is a full copy of my "mass mailing" in full with e mail and telephone contacts for SFC Due and SCCC. I encourage you all to share this information with every person you know who respects our country, and our military.
Lift UP SFC Due and his fellow recruiter with words of kindness, support, thanks, and encouragement.
Snow UNDER Mildred Ollee (College President) and SCCC in a blizzard of complaints, criticisms, derision, disgust, disapproval, and strongly worded outrage over the misbehavior of the SCCC students, and the morally vacant and spineless response of SCCC administration and campus security to that mob behavior.
As you will read in my text below, what they did was, in fact, ILLEGAL under FEDERAL LAW, and I informed SFC Due of the statute and encouraged him to seek redress following the chain of command of his superiors. I told him "we" would have his back. SO now the question is: will we?
my letter:
This incident happened in Seattle at a community college: Sgt. 1st
Class Jeff Due, (right in photo), a U.S. Army recruiter, is surrounded by
protesters at Seattle Central Community College, Thursday, Jan. 20,
2005, in Seattle. After about a 10-minute standoff during which protesters
tore up U.S Army literature, the protesters were successful in getting
Due and another recruiter to leave their table under escort by campus
security officers. Several hundred students walked out of classes at
several Seattle colleges and universities to protest the inauguration of
President Bush.
According to this, they illegally impeded his work:
U.S. Code
TITLE 18
PART I
CHAPTER 115
§ 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war
(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or
conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the
operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United
States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts
to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in
the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs
the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the
injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so-
Seems to me they willfully obstructed the recruiting, or attempted to
do so...
I encourage you to e mail him a brief note of encouragement and support
at:
6lbn-apa@usarec.army.mil
If you have the time and are interested in letting the college know
your opinion of their students' actions, here is contact info:
The President is Mildred Ollee. Her e-mail addy is:
MOllee@sccd.ctc.edu
the college website:
http://www.seattlecentral.org/
President's Office (206) 587-4144
Receptionist (Administration Center) (206) 587-5417
Computing Helpdesk (CENTRAL CAMPUS ONLY) (206) 587-6333
Foundation/Fund Development (206) 587-5491
Information Center (206) 587-3800
Mailroom (206) 587-6966
Planning and Research (206) 587-6942
Public Information Office (206) 587-4133
Registrar's Office (206) 587-6918
Veteran's Affairs Office V/TTY 587-4147
Go ahead and do what you can. Do what you must! Swamp their telephone lines. Bury Mildred Ollee's address in e mailed objections and demands for justice, redress, and a written, signed apology to SFC Due, his fellow recruiter, and the US Army.
Have his back!
Posted by: AmericanArchConservative on January 22, 2005 01:56 PM
I just get so angry that these stooges attack our best and brightest with impunity, and we just seem to continue standing on the sidelines- which sends the message to those a--holes that they can continue to behave like criminals without fear of retribution.
It is so hard sometimes to suppress the urge to dope-slap the ever-lovin' crap out of just one of those punks. It may not solve the bigger problem, but it would feel so GOOD.
Posted by: ERNurse on January 22, 2005 02:30 PMWe can take our country back the same way we lost it: one campus at a time.
Why not start here?
Posted by: ERNurse on January 22, 2005 02:46 PMAccording to my textbook on Critical Thinking (and yes, I have a book that covers just that), critical thinking is given the follwing definitions:
1) Knowing how to learn, reason, think creatively, generate and evaluate ideas, see things in the mind's eye, make decisions, and solve problems;
2) Reasonable, reflective thinking that focuses on what to believe or do;
3) Purposeful and goal-directed thinking;
4) The ability to solve problems by making sense of information using creative, intuitive, logical, and analytical mental processes... and the process is CONTINUAL (emphasis mine);
5) [The act of] thinking about your thinking, while you are thinking, in order to make it better, more clear, accurate, and defensible;
6) The process of purposeful self-regulatory judgement...
{Reference: Page 4: Alfaro-LeFevre, R.(2004). Critical thinking and clinical judgment: A practical approach. St. Louis, MO.: Saunders.}
I say all of that to say this: CriticalThinker's critical thinking fails the test in that the writer is not presenting new or even personal ideas, but is simply parroting the ideas of other uncited sources, and fails to draw from or cite more than one informative source presenting differing views on the issue in order to make a more informed decision.
Does that make sense?
The moral of the story is this, Critical(ahem)Thinker:
If you are going to make an allegation, be prepared to back up your statement with PROOF from more than one source (other than overtly one-sided sources), and try to avoid the pitfall of taking yourself so seriously that you close yourself up to other ideas.
Off the soapboax now.
Sounds like an MLM scam to me. Hate to burst your bubble, but only the guys at the top get rich in Amway.
Posted by: Critical Thinker on January 23, 2005 12:06 AMYou mean other than, say, Fox News? The Drudge Report? Newsmax? WorldNetDaily?
Posted by: Critical Thinker on January 23, 2005 12:07 AM"I see two bolo badges and his highest award is the National Defense Service Ribbon. I have one of those."
That must have been the only one you ever wore, since it was given upon passing Boot Camp during the affected dates.
A casual look at the ribbon rack Sgt. Due sports shows he has three higher awards, including the Good Conduct Ribbon (you ever receive one of those?)
First off, as I said, the picture is blurry. Good Conduct ribbon?!? That's awarded, if I'm not mistaken, for the valorious act of . . . avoiding an Article 15 for three years. Your claim was, "he walks the walk" but I see no direct evidence of that here.
Not that it's any of your business, but yes, I did receive one of those. I got out, though, because I wanted to do something with my life other than be cannon fodder.
Posted by: Critical Thinker on January 23, 2005 12:09 AMWhat about the national security bulletin: "Al-Qaeda to attack America" that CondoSLEAZEa Rice got hmm?
Posted by: Critical Thinker on January 23, 2005 12:15 AMQuite frankly, nothing in their collective histories suggests that they would have done so in any other fashion than kicking and screaming. Not to imply that some RINO's do not also engage in inordinate posturing, but as a party they have been rather consistent by comparison. Dems have been know more for their inflated rhetoric, empty promises, grand symbolic gestures that mean very little of substance.
Hell, we cannot even get the same story twice from Billy C. about whether or not he was "offered" OBL by the Sudan, whether or not he ever had decent intel on OBL's location, and there is certainly no "smoking gun memo" to indicate that his administration took special note of OBL's threat potential, nor evaluated it at a high levels - let alone passed along any cogent assessment list to his successor.
Bear in mind also that the total number of regular Army divisions at the end of his 2 terms was down by 40%, and the active Naval groups were similarly affected by budget cuts and morale related attrition.
They just did not really like his use of them as a social experimentation model. Nor did they appreciate his cut-and-run handling of Mogadishu - which occurred after the scope of their mission crept upward, while the equipment they were given did not support the demands of their ops.
Regardless of the memo, the 9/11 attacks were planned for more than - what - 5 or 6 years? Don't forget that it was (9/11 commissioner) Jamie Gorelick who was responsible for creating the 'wall of separation' between agencies which legally prohibited their sharing of the intel which MIGHT have unraveled or at least exposed the hijacking plot.
Having the info is one thing; having the correctly structured chain of command to process it adequately and expediently is quite another.
Don't try to get away with setting up either Dr. Rice, or President Bush as a convenient straw man to lay the guilt upon. That is intellectually dishonest, and representative of incomplete thinking.
Strange thing, for all the criticism of the Patriot Act, (recall, it was almost unanimously approved) it has brought much needed reforms and scrutiny to our national security bureaucracy, and seems to have been remarkably effective.
That said, there are aspects of the act that I am not entirely comfortable with, but I expect there to be future reforms; for now, it is about results.
There has not been a successful attack of that scope on US soil since then. That is not coincidence, accident, or a sudden gush of charity by OBL and Al Qaeda. Numerous sleeper cells have been rounded up - some publicly, others not. Many plots have been uncovered, and security experts are aggressively thinking creatively about how to protect us as citizens.
Of course the terrorists only have to succeed once, where we have to get it right 10,000 times over.
But OBL is on the run, more than 2/3 of his organisation is dead or in custody, Saddam's weapons pantry is closed to him and his associates, and we continue to prosecute a successful war upon them - on our terms - thus also denying them the boon of having access to/control of the world's second largest proven oil reserves. It staggers one to imagine what terror AQ would have been able to undertake with such vast wealth available. Now their funds are largely frozen, pursued, and shrinking. They are still dangerous, but are rapidly becoming impotent.
I will much sooner entrust the conflict to this administration, and those they charge with planning, vetting, and so on. I trust and respect the military working with them in our behalf (and so do those in the military - by a 4 or 5 to 1 margin) more than I trust the alternative.
I don't like knowing that our soldiers are dying in battle, or being targets every day in Iraq, and I doubt they do either. But it is far better to take out terrorists "over there" daily with high success ratios, than to sit back and wait for the inevitable, all the while just praying that they will leave us alone if we are real nice and do just what they tell us to do in all our foreign policy decisions.
Yeah - that would be a real path to peace and security. Oh wait, we already tried that, and it got us bombed embassies and discos, dead topurists abroad, and a hole the size of a trawler in the side of the USS Cole - with no worse consequences than massive "saturation verbal rebukes" and tough sounding rhetoric from Slickster & Co.
No thanks, don't feel like turning that clock back.
Posted by: AmericanArchConservative on January 23, 2005 03:10 AMIn the grand scheme of things, their experience and knowledge in their late teens or early twenties is worth just above squat, and entitles them to be boxed repeatedly about the ears.
Excusing their selfishness simply sets a bad precedent.
Posted by: AmericanArchConservative on January 23, 2005 10:39 PMCritical Thinker - "When you consider how much recruiters (and probably this guy included, though I have no direct proof) lie, it makes the students' reaction more understandable."
First off, how the heck do you know recruiters lie, except for mythology handed down by generation after generation. Recruiters do their damndest in a really tough job to honestly present the Army in a way that appeals to young men and women. Key word, honestly.
Second, the students behavior is not understandable even if he did lie. Typical muddy thinking to argue that bad behavior justifies bad behavior.
Posted by: Eric on January 24, 2005 01:18 PMSorry, but the notion that recruiters "lie" is baseless. That's just a myth passed down to us from the old Vietnam Era, when everyone and everything connected with the military was purported to be a "lie".
In any case, the fact is that the military makes no claims to being understanding, tolerant, or sensitive. These creeps mugging this recruiter DO make those claims. It's part of the alleged "peace" movement's mantra.
This picture proves THAT a lie!
Obviously a recruiter will portray the military in a good light, he or she is proud of the military, believes in it and thinks it is an excellent choice for a young man or woman. I think you're real issue is that you believe those things to be a lie. That's fine, but that doesn't make the recruiter a liar.
Posted by: Eric on January 25, 2005 09:13 AMFunny that you're defending these leftist pukes for their violence. I thought libs were supposed to be the compassionate ones, hmm?? Don't they preach tolerance to us...respecting the rights of al Qaeda terrorists to kill us (but evidently, not the right of a military member to avoid being spit on, cursed at, etc.)?
He had it coming to him, huh? Kinda like "She wanted it, because she was dressed sleazily", eh, CT?
Posted by: Jonathan in FL on January 25, 2005 11:30 AMhttp://cigarsinthesand.blogspot.com/2005/01/i-mean-seriously-what-is-world-coming.html
Posted by: A.Prey on January 25, 2005 03:42 PMCritical Thinker - "When you consider how much recruiters (and probably this guy included, though I have no direct proof) lie, it makes the students' reaction more understandable."
I remember chanting in boot camp:
"My recruiter came to me, my recruiter lied to me . . . my recruiter came to me . . . and my recruiter lied to me."
Yes, it's that ubiquitious. (It's a word. Look it up. I know this may be a challenge since you only have to be semiliterate to be in the Army.)
First off, how the heck do you know recruiters lie, except for mythology handed down by generation after generation.
Oh please. With all the pressure to "make mission," the pressure to cut corners is extremely high. Recuriters routinely falsify, erm, "pencil whip" paperwork to hide barriers to enlistment. They promise the moon and deliver Iraq. Or Sierra Army Depot. The promise high-tech training, but in the Army, about the most high-tech equipment you're probably going to work with is a floor buffer.
Recruiters do their damndest in a really tough job to honestly present the Army in a way that appeals to young men and women. Key word, honestly.
Cry me a freaking river. Recruiting is plum duty. No field problems, no TDY, none of it. You live the life of a civilian sales exec, in essence, with a company car and all, albeit paid a hell of a lot less.
And portraying the Army honestly would go something like this:
"You get up at 4:30 and get screamed at because the boots you spent three hours polishing last night aren't shiny enough. You eat barely edible food. The medical care, if any, is substandard at best and malpractice at worst. All the while, you're treated like the lowest form of life on Earth for less than you'd make as a fry cook. Don't believe me? Well, consider that E-5 and below with kids (E-3 and below without?) qualifies for food stamps."
Any portrayal of the Army without those facts is a lie, so by your definition, it is impossible to recruit without lying.
Posted by: Critical Thinker on January 25, 2005 11:25 PMViolence? There's no such thing as a verbal assault, first off. Second, if this supposedly oh-so-brave American "hero" can't stand getting screamed at by a few college kids, how could he stand any kind of combat?
Besides, were it the other way around, i.e., a liberal protesting some rich conservative, the latter would just have the former escorted away by his personal armed goon squad.
Posted by: Critical Thinker on January 25, 2005 11:28 PMLast time I checked, they don't teach 300 level courses at SCCC, or any community college for that matter. That's why it's called "junior" college.
Nice try though. Maybe you can keep the "story" straighter next time.
Posted by: Critical Thinker on January 25, 2005 11:31 PMLast time I checked, they don't teach 300 level courses at SCCC, or any community college for that matter. That's why it's called "junior" college.
Nice try though. Maybe you can keep the "story" straighter next time.
Posted by: Critical Thinker on January 25, 2005 11:32 PMI didn't choose to be a recruiter, I was detailed to recruiting duty. I would much rather have been in a tank company than a recruiting company, thanks very much. If I wanted to ride herd on a desk I wouldn't have joined the Army as a tank crewman. I worked much longer hours, day in and day out, in Recruiting Command than in a line unit. You haven't got the faintest concept of what you are talking about.
Nice stereotyping:
It's a word. Look it up. I know this may be a challenge since you only have to be semiliterate to be in the Army.
If you want to thump chests and d*cks, fine. My AFQT score was 87 and my GT score 128. The last time I took an IQ test, my IQ was measured at 148. I have an engineering degree and currently work as an information security manager. Of course it stands to reason that I don't know that 'ubiquitious' is a word 'cause I'm obviously semi-literate since I was a soldier. For those who don't know, an AFQT score of 50 is considered average, it's percentile based. A GT score of 100 is roughly equivalent to an IQ of 100. To attend Officer's Candidate School in the Army (or West Point or ROTC) you have to have a GT (general technical) score of 110. Less than 3% of the military today does not have a high school diploma, much lower than the average in the American population, less than 10% of Army recruits have an AFQT lower than 50th percentile.
I would have expected a "Critical Thinker" to know these things. And to realize that just because your drill sergeant repeats an old, old Army myth about your recruiter lying to you doesn't make it true anymore than a difference of opininion about the quality of the food in the messhal is a lie (I personally found the messhall's food to be better than most school cafeterias).
Eric
Posted by: Eric on January 26, 2005 10:24 AMWhy belittle them for excersizing their rights? Posted by: katrina on February 27, 2005 10:27 AM