What's the worst manifestation of PC?

[Michael Tee]

<<How so?  Supporting the troops means supporting what they do.  Supporting the troops mean providing them with what they need to do what they do, like.......funding

<<Supporting the troops doesn't mean one hopes they get slaughtered in battle.  Supporting the troops doesn't mean calling them all a bunch of thug rapists.  So, perhaps you can explain how "support the troops" is the worst manifestation of political correctness run amuck>>

"Supporting the troops" becomes the right wing's catch-all phrase in their attempt to keep the war going.  Anyone who wants to pull the troops out is not "supporting the troops."   Anyone who even wants to set a deadline for pulling them out is "not supporting the troops."  And when the Commander-in-Chief has made it abundantly clear that he will not abort the mission and pull the troops out, anyone who wants to take the only remaining way towards getting them out, i.e., pulling the plug on funding, is also accused of not "supporting the troops."

Looks to me like "support the troops" has become emotional blackmail aimed at supporting the mission, falsely miscasting anyone who doesn't support the mission as someone who doesn't support the troops.  Similarly, anyone who calls the troops on their thuggish and criminal misconduct is branded as "not supporting the troops."  In that case, "support the troops" has become emotional blackmail aimed at covering up for war crimes and atrocities, rather than actually supporting the troops.  After all, why should anyone have to support thugs and war criminals in uniform?

[sirs]

Well, if we remove the rank hyperbole (emotional blackmail), and Lanya-like pathetic broad brushing (calling the troops thugs for those few who have been caught perpetrating "thug" activity), Tee does have point about the "support the troop" mantra, and the corner the Dems have placed themselves in, both by their allegience to following the polls, and in allowing of the hard core left to manipulate a great deal of their Bush bashing rhetoric. 

It's hard to see how the Dems can pull this one off (supposedly supporting the troops while not supporting their current job).  Problem is they go together.  Pretty childish, if you ask me to claim "emotional blackmail" as the reason the Dems won't function in the manner that they were designed to do.  It's closer to what Tee referenced in another post, they want to keep their power, and they've likely concluded they'd lose electoral support if they don't keep supporting the troops by way of continuing to fund a war that....ironically.....they've claimed that same electorate has given them a mandate to end.  Boy, what's a congress critter to do?  Be principled and adhere to what your consituents supposedly gave you a mandate to do, or maintain the status quo of Bush bashing, extending the war, extending the amount of lives that are lost, then blame Bush for something you could have stopped, but chose not to

 

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Michael Tee]

<<It's hard to see how the Dems can pull this one off (supposedly supporting the troops while not supporting their current job).  Problem is they go together. >>

That is exactly the kind of slopppy  thinking that enables the warmongers to exercise emotional blackmail and accuse those who don't support the mission of not supporting the troops.

The one has nothing to do with the other.  The mission is originated by the civil authority and can be terminated by that same authority at will.  The troops are the instruments of that authority.   They go where they're told to go, kill who they're told to kill, and whenever the day comes when the civil authority tells them "Hey.  Stop killing those guys over there and start killing these guys over here," the troops can't tell the civil authority, "Hey fuck you we wanna finish this job first" or anything like that. 

Their mission is to do what they're told to do.  Period.  So since they had nothing to do with originating the mission, there is no issue of supporting them or not supporting them merely by opposing the mission.  It's not "their" mission - -they don't own it, they're just the guys appointed to carry it out.

[domer]

There is no doubt about it, the Dems are in a very uncomfortable position regarding the war funding issue. Yet, it was Bush's massive misfeasance accompanied by mindless Republican cheerleading that created the very situation that we are all now gnashing our teeth over. To say that the Dems are disserving the troops under the facts the administration has let develop and which now obtain as the hallmark of the conflict is both blind and obsequious. It is beyond rational, at this stage, to the point of being compelling to apply relentless pressure on the administration to, colloquially speaking, shape up or ship out. Only zealots would trust Bush on the record he's actually accumulated and simply utter a prayer that things will change. The Dems are doing the best they can with a set of lousy options, the only tools they have for a course of disengagement dictated not only by virtually every honest expert intellect that addresses the matter but also by the clear will of the American people.

[BT]

there is no doubt that the dems do not have the cajones to enact a plan if in fact they have one, within the parameters of their powers delegated by the constitution.

Do not blame cheerleading republicans who happen to agree with Bush's policies for the lack of fortitude displayed up to this point by your side.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It seems to me that that the Democrats are doing precisely the right thing. They were elected to end this stupid war, and so they voted to cut off funds, and Juniorbush vetoes the bill.

Result? No funds. 

So they pass another bill.

If he vetoes this one too, he will look sillier and sillier, with every veto.

Juniorbush and the Big Dick were far too cowardly to actually fight a similarly useless and stupid war in Vietnam, although supposedly they believed in it.

They are now demonstrating their immense courage by insisting that the Armed forces and the National Guard fight until the last enlistee is gone.

[BT]

They were elected to end this stupid war, and so they voted to cut off funds, and Juniorbush vetoes the bill.

What funds did they cut?

[sirs]

<<It's hard to see how the Dems can pull this one off (supposedly supporting the troops while not supporting their current job).  Problem is they go together. >>

That is exactly the kind of slopppy  thinking that enables the warmongers to exercise emotional blackmail and accuse those who don't support the mission of not supporting the troops.

As I said, perfect example of rank hyperbole, combined with some of the most pathetic rationlization efforts to date.  "Civil authority"?  More blatant implications that soldiers can't think for themselves, will just go off and murder at will, because someone tells them to do so??  Pathetic, truely pathetic.  You'd have been much more credible had you not been so anti-U.S. military

[_JS]

The worst manifestation of political correctness is that stories of extreme political correctness, that likely represent a tiny percentage of the appropriate use of the term, are used by actual racists and bigots to wildly exaggerate the negative effects of tolerance in a multi-cultural society.

Political correctness, used appropriately has very positive effects that have made the office and other workplaces far more professional and has significantly limited tolerance of racist, mysoginist, and other comments that would otherwise create nearly impossible workplace environments for some people.

[Michael Tee]

<<As I said, perfect example of rank hyperbole, combined with some of the most pathetic rationlization efforts to date.  "Civil authority"?  More blatant implications that soldiers can't think for themselves, will just go off and murder at will, because someone tells them to do so??  Pathetic, truely pathetic.  You'd have been much more credible had you not been so anti-U.S. military>>

The point I was making had nothing to do with the troops "just going off and murdering at will" although that is in itself a valid concern and subject for legitimate commentary in another part of this thread.  (The part that deals with "supporting the troops" being used to silence whislteblowers andcritics of their atrocities.)

The point I was making - - which you seemed to have missed completely due to your knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of these murderous thugs - - was basically that the troops have no mission apart from what is assigned to them by the civil authorities (the executive and/or legislative branches.)  So it is the civil authority which "owns" the mission; the troops are only called upon to execute it.  It's not "their" mission in the sense that it has an independent existence separate and apart from the executive branch orders that created it.

Thus, you cannot support or undermine the troops depending on your support or lack of support for the mission.  These guys are professionals, albeit professional killers.  Calling them back means terminating a mission which they had no role in creating and no role in determining how long it should go on.  "Support the troops" is a means of levelling a false accusation against those who don't support the mission - - that by not supporting the mission, they are not supporting the troops.  Which is the "sloppy thinking" I referred to in my earlier post.

[Plane]

The worst manifestation of political correctness is that stories of extreme political correctness, that likely represent a tiny percentage of the appropriate use of the term, are used by actual racists and bigots to wildly exaggerate the negative effects of tolerance in a multi-cultural society.

Political correctness, used appropriately has very positive effects that have made the office and other workplaces far more professional and has significantly limited tolerance of racist, mysoginist, and other comments that would otherwise create nearly impossible workplace environments for some people.

What are you tolerant of?


Would you hire a redneck? Like to see your sister dateing one?

[_JS]

What are you tolerant of?

I don't understand the question, can you be more specific?

Would you hire a redneck? Like to see your sister dateing one?

I would hire anyone who is best qualified for a position and can act in a professional manner.

I don't have a sister.

[domer]

And my sister did marry into a family some of whom are rednecks!

[Xavier_Onassis]

What funds did they cut?


==========================
Perhaps you don't understand. For the troops to continue fighting, they must continue to get funds.

Supplying funds is Congress's job.

Congress voted for a bill to fund the war, but also suggested a withdrawal date. Juniorbush vetoed the bill, so the war won't be funded because the bill did not become law.

The answer is ALL the funds will be cut if a bill is not passed and signed, or passed, vetoed, and passed over the president's veto.

[BT]

Congress voted for a bill to fund the war, but also suggested a withdrawal date.

So congress didn't cut funding, Bush did via his veto. And the withdrawal date was non binding, so what exactly did the dem congress accomplish?