On Substance ... Or Lack Thereof ...

[RLENT]

Probably good to revisit this issue, given all the recent interest ... what follows below originally posted in another thread (two of them actually), and is reposted here for the furtherance of the discussion ... and to allow someone the opportunity to clarify their position:

And the EO Follies du jour continue apace ...

After being directly challenged - repeatedly - for a period of some 15 months, the party being challenged now claims a failure of memory and requests to be confronted again with the evidence:

I missed this little quip in the first read, and confess that I have no idea what you're talking about - but then again, I remember very few of the details in older posts I've made over the past 10 years.

Might be a good case for mebbe taking a little trip down memory lane ... might be quite surprising at what could found there ...

However, I'm sure you can refresh my memory, even though the subject matter has nothing to do with life in Appalachia.

Given the certainty expressed below, one wonders about the validity of what is asserted immediately above:

Good - I'd like to see the post I made claiming the invasion of Iraq was "done to protect the US constitution". However, I'm not going to be holding my breath since I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist.

It was a logical consequence of, and implied by, a broad generalized claim you made.

You were challenged - not only by myself, but by others as well - on the logical consequence of that broad claim - and you failed to respond, repudiate, or disavow it - instead choosing to stand mute - quite possibly because you agree with the premise (that those going to war in Iraq were "defending the Constitution"), but are unwilling to fully embrace publicly it - for what should be rather obvious reasons (functional equivalent of reattaching the target on your back)

Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit (He who is silent is taken to agree; he ought to have spoken when he was able to)
—Latin proverb

Wikipedia:Silence_and_consensus

In any event, lest it said that you haven't been given ample opportunity to assert that going to war in Iraq - which was based on lies, subterfuge, and the manipulation and gaming of intelligence - is not "defending the Constitution", I will pose the following simple question to you:

Were those going to war in Iraq "defending the Constitution" ?

If you choose to answer in the affirmative, then please provide an explanation of how that is so.

The context from which the charge stems can be reviewed in its entirely in the following thread, about Chris Kyle - a thoroughly deranged psychopathic "Christian" murderer ... apparently for Jeebus and The Empire:

http://www.expeditersonline.com/forum/soapbox/57563-tragic-death-american-military-hero.html

The initially (seemingly) relevant portions follow, although I would encourage anyone interested to read the entire thread at the above link:

.

The fact that Ron Paul served in the military (in a safe, non-combat position 50 yrs ago when the draft was in effect) makes his callous comment even more contemptible.

Well contempt isn't anything you seem to have a shortage of ...

Of course, in this case it's contempt for a peaceful man ... one who doesn't grovel at the cult of militarism and death in appropriate, respectful worshipfulness ... all while you pay homage to a man who was self-admitted liar and criminal ... and a murderer ...

But in spite of the out-of-touch attitudes of his squirrelly 'ol dad, Rand Paul obviously appreciates the sacrifices made by today's volunteers who risk life and limb to protect the Constitution that Ron Paul holds so dear.

Protect the Constitution ?

Is that what they're doing ?

Man ... you've really sucked down the koolaid haven't you ?

What ... are you getting it by the tanker truck load ?

Swearing to do something - and actually doing it - are two entirely different things.

Please tell us all how invading Iraq - and engaging in a war of aggression (a violation of international law and a war crime), the justification for which was based on lies, against a country that had not attacked us - "protects" the Constitution ...

Maybe you just haven't noticed ... or had a real look around lately ... but the Constitution and our rights as sovereign citizens, some of which are enshrined in it, has been under pretty vigorous assault of late - certainly since about 2001 (actually well before that) ... most recently starting with the POS you (likely) and I voted into office as President in 2000, and continuing to the POS that currently occupies that office presently ...

Tell us all how - by acting as the personal handmaidens and lackeys of these two individuals - the Constitution was "protected" ?

'Splain for me how exactly that works ... just like I wuz a child ... cause it certainly doesn't appear that "protection" was all that effective to me ...

One would think that after a significant number of years living, that an individual would have at least some minimal insight into the nature of men - all men ... but particularly those men who are often attracted, or aspire, to the political arena ...

Yet someone can wave the flag, sing The Star Spangled Banner or The Battle Hymn Of The Republic ... and a certain percentage of the population becomes hypnotized to the point of nearly being catatonic ... and can be led around as though they were wearing nose-rings, with string attached ...

Maybe old Pappy should have just paraphrased Ted Cruz's condolences instead of shooting off his mouth.

Nah ... it was a "teaching moment" ... better to take advantage of the opportunity ... before one more single life is frivolously thrown away in vain ...

And:

.

That statement doesn't make much sense, since the only thing unsupported and "sheer speculation" I offered was related to why Routh would be on the range with Kyle and Littlefield in the first place.

Well, no ... it wasn't the only thing you offered (in this thread) that was unsupported (a habit seem you seem rather inclined to ...)

You asserted that those actively participating in an illegal war of aggression in Iraq (which was based on lies) were somehow "defending the Constitution" ...

It is a statement, which aside from being unsupported, is simply ludicrous on its face, given the facts of the matter ...

I guess we can all conclude that since you offer no argument or facts to support your assertion, that you either have no argument to make, or are simply incapable of doing so ...

In any event, thanks for the chuckle ...

In the future you might wish to post such specious drivel in a more appropriate thread ... perhaps the one I started:

http://www.expeditersonline.com/forum/soapbox/57508-gop-lunacy-parade-continues.html

 

[davekc]

I like many thought initially, that the idea of taking Sadam out was a good idea. They say there was no weapons there yet I had a brother over there that actually saw some of the chemical weapons.
This was on the border with Bahrain.
Fast forward to today, and much of the information was distorted. Distorted enough that most members of Congress, republican & democrat, thought it was a good idea based on the information available at the time. Of course now, we know the provided information was faulty.
Can't say it was the right decision now, but one I wouldn't run from either. Bad decisions happen all the time.
Hopefully we think the next one through with more reliable information. Because sadly, we know at some point it will likely happen.
As to whether we did it for the Constitution, I would say that wasn't the provided reason I understood and not the one I thought about at the time.

 

[scottm4211]

I'm curious if the shoe was on the other foot, would anyone be ok with their president/prime minister/premier being taken out by another county who thought it might be a good idea?

 

[davekc]

Hard to say? Most of the people say in Syria would love to see Assad disappear. I don't think they would care who did it.

 

[layoutshooter]

That would of course depend on who was president at the time, and who it was who took he/she/it out. If it was a Hitler or a Stalin type, more power to them. Those "types" are possible in ANY country on earth, at ANY time in history. If it happened to be a GOOD president, like that will ever happen, taken out by a Hitler or Stalin type, it would suck.

In THIS country, it is FAR more likely that those who own the government and presidents, would be the ones to take a president out. They hold their worms on a tight leash.

 

[scottm4211]

Duplicate....

 

[scottm4211]

That would of course depend on who was president at the time, and who it was who took he/she/it out. If it was a Hitler or a Stalin type, more power to them. Those "types" are possible in ANY country on earth, at ANY time in history. If it happened to be a GOOD president, like that will ever happen, taken out by a Hitler or Stalin type, it would suck.

So you'd be ok with another country taking out your president, if by some arbitrary definition they were bad?

 

[layoutshooter]

So you'd be ok with another country taking out your president, if by some arbitrary definition they were bad?

You read what I said. There is NO doubt that a "Hitler" or a "Stalin" would be bad, not just for the United States, but the world in general.

Stalin and Hitler were evil and evil must be confronted.

I am not concerned, a George Soros type would be more likely to pay for a hit on a US president than an outside country.

 

[scottm4211]

It's hard to read what you say when you keep adding words after you post.

 

[layoutshooter]

Sorry, I think of stuff after the original post.

Trying to do 5 or 6 things right now. I have a rifle sight that I need to put a new mount on and a screw is stuck. I have tried heat and light tapping on the screw. I don't want to get TOO rough, it's glass. May have to go buy another tool tomorrow.

 

[Pilgrim]

This is precisely why this individual has been and will continue to be the sole occupant of my Ignore List (except for this temporary and final exception). The only reason I'm responding now is because Turtle gave it credence in a different thread. For those who are willing to go back and review this year-old thread - and there probably aren't many - it's easily understood that this excessively verbose load of horsedung has no purpose other than take my comment out of context, misrepresent it and use it to launch a typically nonsensical ad hominem attack and defend another goofy Ron Paul quote.

My post was a response to one by Turtle (as seen in its full context)...

Originally Posted by Turtle
Yeah, 'cause Ron Paul has no idea what it's like to serve in the military.

Oh, wait....


Pilgrim:
The fact that Ron Paul served in the military (in a safe, non-combat position 50 yrs ago when the draft was in effect) makes his callous comment even more contemptible. But in spite of the out-of-touch attitudes of his squirrelly 'ol dad, Rand Paul obviously appreciates the sacrifices made by today's volunteers who risk life and limb to protect the Constitution that Ron Paul holds so dear. Maybe old Pappy should have just paraphrased Ted Cruz's condolences instead of shooting off his mouth.

...had NOTHING to do with the justification of the Iraq war, and this was obvious to anyone who followed the flow of the conversation. Those of us who served - including those in the modern all-volunteer military - are required to take the following Oath of Enlistment (bold emphasis mine):

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Given 20-20 hindsight I suppose I should have used the exact wording "support and defend" instead of "protect" to insulate myself from the nitpickers. But I'll bet most of us who have served in the military understood my drift. But what's pathetic is the extent to which trolls will go in advertising their ignorance to take cheap shots with inflammatory rhetoric - even when it has no substance or basis in fact.

In the future I intend to continue ignoring said comments and posts, the same way I ignore the tantrums of my 5 year-old grandson.

 

[Pilgrim]

Sorry, I think of stuff after the original post.

Trying to do 5 or 6 things right now. I have a rifle sight that I need to put a new mount on and a screw is stuck. I have tried heat and light tapping on the screw. I don't want to get TOO rough, it's glass. May have to go buy another tool tomorrow.

Try holding a cold screwdriver on the screw for a minute before tapping. Sometimes it will cause the screw to contract just enough to loosen it.

 

[Turtle]

... it's easily understood that this excessively verbose load of horsedung has no purpose other than take my comment out of context, misrepresent it and use it to launch a typically nonsensical ad hominem attack and defend another goofy Ron Paul quote.

In all fairness, the entire thread was in the context of the Iraq War, and you made the comment above within that context, then you were asked if protecting the Constitution was what they were doing in invading Iraq, a yes/no question. As a second-parter question, you were asked how in invading Iraq was protecting the Constitution. It's all plainly laid out in the thread starter or anyone can go and read the entire thread. Your comments were not taken out of context nor used as an ad hominem. It was, and still is, a fair question.

No one accused you of making such a statement, per se, but rather wanted clarification as to whether or not that's what you were implying by your comments. When you failed to answer that question, on several occasions, it became a matter of quasi-importance, because it appeared you were avoiding the question.

You've now answered it by saying that you made those comments not within the context of the thread, but within the context of all military personnel in general. That seems to imply that no, the Iraq invasion wasn't necessarily done to "protect, or to "support and defend" the Constitution.

I'm satisfied with that. Thank you. All I was looking for is a clarification, which you've now given.

 

[cheri1122]

So you'd be ok with another country taking out your president, if by some arbitrary definition they were bad?

You know you're not going to get an answer to that, right? If you push, you'll get excuses. Keep pushing, eventually you'll get ignored.
And you know what the honest answer would be: "As long as the President is Obama, I'd be celebrating!"

 

[Turtle]

You know you're not going to get an answer to that, right? If you push, you'll get excuses. Keep pushing, eventually you'll get ignored.
And you know what the honest answer would be: "As long as the President is Obama, I'd be celebrating!"

There's just a whole snotload of stuff we do to and in other countries that we'd be just bat-crap crazy outraged over if the same thing were done to us. Can you imagine drones from other countries flying over America and taking people out?

 

[cheri1122]

There's just a whole snotload of stuff we do to and in other countries that we'd be just bat-crap crazy outraged over if the same thing were done to us. Can you imagine drones from other countries flying over America and taking people out?

Understood - it's just that many would be ok with making an exception for someone taking out our President, as long as it's Obama.

 

[muttly]

In all fairness, the entire thread was in the context of the Iraq War, and you made the comment above within that context, then you were asked if protecting the Constitution was what they were doing in invading Iraq, a yes/no question. As a second-parter question, you were asked how in invading Iraq was protecting the Constitution. It's all plainly laid out in the thread starter or anyone can go and read the entire thread. Your comments were not taken out of context nor used as an ad hominem. It was, and still is, a fair question.

No one accused you of making such a statement, per se, but rather wanted clarification as to whether or not that's what you were implying by your comments. When you failed to answer that question, on several occasions, it became a matter of quasi-importance, because it appeared you were avoiding the question.

You've now answered it by saying that you made those comments not within the context of the thread, but within the context of all military personnel in general. That seems to imply that no, the Iraq invasion wasn't necessarily done to "protect, or to "support and defend" the Constitution.

I'm satisfied with that. Thank you. All I was looking for is a clarification, which you've now given.

Disagree. It was taken out of context. By the way, it was obvious to anyone that that he had him on ignore. There was even a previous post that alluded that he was on ignore, a long time ago. Hard to believe the person that repeatedly asked the question in various threads didn't know this. Curious as to why someone would ask the question over and over again to someone he knows is on ignore. Could possibly be to make him look bad by appearing to not respond to a specific question. A way, as Cheri mentioned before, to diminish credibility. Scurrilous, IMO .

 

[Turtle]

Disagree. It was taken out of context.

How can it be taken out of context when the statement was made, and fully quoted, within the original context, within the same thread?

By the way, it was obvious to anyone that that he had him on ignore. There was even a previous post that alluded that he was on ignore, a long time ago. Hard to believe the person that repeatedly asked the question in various threads didn't know this. Curious as to why someone would ask the question over and over again to someone he knows is on ignore.

It wasn't obvious to me that he had anyone on ignore. I seem to recall some comments and exchanges that couldn't have happened otherwise, but I could certainly be wrong on that.

Could possibly be to make him look bad by appearing to not respond to a specific question. A way, as Cheri mentioned before, to diminish credibility. Scurrilous, IMO .

It's certainly a possibility, I suppose, but that's a risk one takes when they put people on ignore.

 

[cheri1122]

Disagree. It was taken out of context. By the way, it was obvious to anyone that that he had him on ignore. There was even a previous post that alluded that he was on ignore, a long time ago. Hard to believe the person that repeatedly asked the question in various threads didn't know this. Curious as to why someone would ask the question over and over again to someone he knows is on ignore. Could possibly be to make him look bad by appearing to not respond to a specific question. A way, as Cheri mentioned before, to diminish credibility. Scurrilous, IMO .

In post 13, it's explained very clearly why the question was absolutely not "out of context", [which is how I read it, too, originally].
And BTW: the 'ignore' was not in place [as the above quotes illustrate] until after the question had been ignored more than once.
Funny, that's just how it usually happens: keep asking for an answer, get ignored for real.
And this is just my opinion, but nothing diminishes credibility like putting people on 'ignore', because you can't/won't engage in dialogue with them.

 

[muttly]

In post 13, it's explained very clearly why the question was absolutely not "out of context", [which is how I read it, too, originally].
And BTW: the 'ignore' was not in place [as the above quotes illustrate] until after the question had been ignored more than once.
Funny, that's just how it usually happens: keep asking for an answer, get ignored for real.
And this is just my opinion, but nothing diminishes credibility like putting people on 'ignore', because you can't/won't engage in dialogue with them.

He didn't have Turtle on ignore. Turtle didn't ask the question. It was the one who was on ignore.