Going to war leaves US soldiers' kids at risk

[Michael Tee]

A short history of just one little right-wing lie, and the bullshit artists who try to cover up.  All in this one thread.

First, the lie itself (courtesy sirs) :  <<No, that would be Tee, and like minds, who references how all soldiers are some form of low hanging fruit. >>

Naturally, sirs is called on his lie.  Told that I never said that.  Considering how many of my own uncles and cousins served, it is an absurd statement to attribute to me.

So the Professor (and let me make this clear, I am definitely NOT including the Professor as one of the bullshit artists) points out a remark that I did make (according to him) that the Marines are the Neanderthals of the U.S. military.  I respectfully disagreed with the Professor, the two remarks were nothing like one another; at the same time, although I didn't remember making the "Neanderthal" remark, I endorsed it.

Here's the right-wing fruitbats on my answer to the Professor:

sirs:  <<Ahhh, back to the "well even if I did...." tactic.  So what is your %?  87?, 90?, 98??  I'm not sure you're going to manage to shuffle out of aiming all of your asanine accusations of how terrible & evil our military is, then hide behind "Well, I never said "all".  Since that is the point I was making earlier.  I think Prince & Bt just had a similiar arguement regarding the FBI.  and *hint*, I don't think Prince at any time was damning "every single agent" of the FBI>>

So - - on a remark which I endorsed, even though I didn't recall actually making it - -  the issue shifts from sirs' original lie (that I had condemned ALL SOLDIERS as some kind of low-hanging fruit) to whether I can "shuffle out of" responsibility for a remark which (a) I had already endorsed and which (b) bore little if any resemblance to what sirs, in his original lie, had claimed I had said.

Ami:  <<Because you said it in one of the previous incarnations of this forum. About the time BT's son was enlisting.>>

Put up or shut up, Ami.  Never said it.  Find the quote if I did. Shouldn't be all that hard.  Search parameters: Sender,Tee; Text: fruit, soldiers, all.  You won't find it because I never said it.  Obviously. 

This is one of the reasons I gotta cut back on this forum.  Bullshit artists like  you two guys are wasting my time in proving the obvious (that you lied, that Bush lied) - - but you're like shape-shifters, nail you on one of your lies, you switch the focus to something else, the issue changes and you never take responsibility for your own stupid and childish lies.  We go from the obvious lie ("Tee says that all soldiers are . . . ") to whether or not I actually said something I already endorsed, which was nothing at all like sirs' original lie anyway, to bullshit accusations about something I said a hundred years ago in another incarnation of this forum (unproven of course) and you know what guys?  I just don't have the time.  Get back to me in another hundred years when you feel like discussing the issues.

[Amianthus]

Ami:  <<Because you said it in one of the previous incarnations of this forum. About the time BT's son was enlisting.>>

Put up or shut up, Ami.  Never said it.  Find the quote if I did. Shouldn't be all that hard.  Search parameters: Sender,Tee; Text: fruit, soldiers, all.  You won't find it because I never said it.  Obviously. 

The database for the previous software is no longer available. You cannot search past the time this forum was created.

If you hadn't noticed, the software was changed here a few times, and each time we lost access to the previous posts. If BT would give me access to the previous databases, I'd be happy to come up with the quote.

[The_Professor]

MT: This is one of the reasons I gotta cut back on this forum.

MT, I think this periodically when trying to get across to you Leftwingers something. lol

So, we're even.

Seriously, unless some others, I enjoy our reparte and I encourage you to continue posting.

[Michael Tee]

I hope I  made it clear, Professor, that my remarks about bullshit artists didn't apply to you.  I too enjoy our discussions.  We obviously don't see eye-to-eye on too many things, but you don't fabricate remarks for false attribution and you take responsibility for your own words.  At least with you, we get to concentrate on the issues.

[sirs]

Oh good gravy Tee, get a grip.  When has anyone ever claimed it was 100% ALL of "X"??   So, ever going to actually answer the question, or are you going to simply keep hiding behind your "poor me" facade??  I DO, as most everyone else here, recall how you've tarred our military on a 24/7 bases, I DO recall how you've made it clear how our military is 1 BIG BUNCH of raping murdering mercinaries.  Yet neither of those positions equate to every breathing single soldier in uniform, just as Prince's blanket criticisms of the FBI weren't aimed at every single frellin FBI agent.

Now, where does that % fall of just how vast and evil our military is supposed to ne?  87%?, 93%?, 98%?, Everyone excluding those you know personally??

[Michael Tee]

<<I DO, as most everyone else here, recall how you've tarred our military on a 24/7 bases, I DO recall how you've made it clear how our military is 1 BIG BUNCH of raping murdering mercinaries.  Yet neither of those positions equate to every breathing single soldier in uniform, just as Prince's blanket criticisms of the FBI weren't aimed at every single frellin FBI agent.>>

Well for Christ fucking sake, sirs, when you say something you should realize you are going to be held responsible for what you say.  I wasn't the one who picked the words for your post, YOU were.  You claim I said something that affected ALL soldiers, and now you are back-tracking, claiming that "ALL" doesn't really mean "ALL."  Is it really so hard to choose your words carefully in the first place?   Would it have been so difficult to take the word "all" out of your post and write something like, "Tee says that our Army is a bunch of murdering raping thugs?" 

Bottom line, sirs, is this:  I am not a fucking mind-reader.  I know your thoughts by what you WRITE, not by what you later claim you MEANT when you wrote it.

<<Now, where does that % fall of just how vast and evil our military is supposed to ne?  87%?, 93%?, 98%?, Everyone excluding those you know personally??>>

That's the same kind of question you could ask of Hitler's S.S. - - how bad were they?  99% bad?  80%?  Who knows and what's the point?  If I were you, I'd re-focus my concern - - not on the guy who CALLS them murdering raping thugs, but on the actual murdering raping thugs themselves.  And on the people who protect them.  The people who refuse to make them pay the price.  The people who have not - - despite dozens, probably hundreds of murders, tortures and rapes - - inflicted a single death sentence on anybody, but continue to allow these animals, when punished at all, to laugh at the ridiculous lightness of the slap-on-the-wrist they get.

[Plane]

<<Now, where does that % fall of just how vast and evil our military is supposed to ne?  87%?, 93%?, 98%?, Everyone excluding those you know personally??>>

Do you have an organisation in mind for coparison that is 0% "bad"?

[sirs]

<<Now, where does that % fall of just how vast and evil our military is supposed to ne?  87%?, 93%?, 98%?, Everyone excluding those you know personally??>>

Bottom line, sirs, is this:  I am not a fucking mind-reader.  I know your thoughts by what you WRITE, not by what you later claim you MEANT when you wrote it....That's the same kind of question you could ask of Hitler's S.S. - - how bad were they?  99% bad?  80%?  Who knows and what's the point? 

The "point" and bottom line is having you put your money where your mouth is.  You keep claiming how terrible our military is, then run wild with this obtuse 'poor me" victim tact of "I never said 'all'", in the effort to apparently divert the attention away from you.  The point from the beginning, that can be traced in the post you immediately responded with this diversion garbage, when you were called on how you reference those who defend this country as low hanging fruit, how you despise them 24/7.  You knew, everyone else knew that, yet you needed to claim this was some form of 100% blanket coverage of every breathing uniformed soldier.  When have we EVER had a claim of someone claiming ALL of X, as evil incarnate??  Outside of Lanya's Republicans want women to die of Cancer, I can't think of any.  Can you??

So, I take it you're STILL going to avoid answering the question. 

[Michael Tee]

<<So, I take it you're STILL going to avoid answering the question. >>

Well, no.  I tried to tell you diplomatically of course that the question was too stupid for an answer, but if you insist on an answer, an answer is possible.   You asked me "what is my percentage?" and I assume - - because this was the subject of the post immediately preceding your question - - that the percentage in your question refers to "low-hanging fruit," which is relatively easy to answer.  I don't have the data, which would relate to number of years of finished education, IQ, family income, U.S. citizenship or similar measures of intellectual and/or socio-economic status, so my answer would only be a guess, but my best guess - - and keeping in mind, we haven't exactly defined "low-hanging fruit" with any great precision either - - I would guess that 85 to 95% of today's U.S. military would fall within commonly accepted conceptions of "low-hanging fruit."  And I would think that some of them stand a reasonably good chance of pulling themselves up out of that status by virtue of their military service, but that even more would be pulled by their military service into a cess-pool of violent psychotic behaviour, fascism, racism and militarism from which they will never be able to pull out.  These are the returned vets you read about, either from Viet Nam or Iraq, who fit into a life-style of wife and child abuse, violent alcoholism, domestic assaults and killings, gay-bashings, etc.

If your question referred to war crimes and crimes against humanity, I'd say 100% since they're all implicated in one way or another, even the cooks and drivers who feed and transport the actual torturers and murderers; the guards who protect them, etc.  They are all guilty, like the Nazis.  You can't participate in a criminal effort like that and NOT be guilty.  Either you are a part of the solution or you are a part of the problem.

[sirs]

<<So, I take it you're STILL going to avoid answering the question. (% of our military that are these evil raping low hanging fruit Tee claims they are)>>

Well, no. 

Gotcha.  Trying to keep that avenue of victim tactic alive, the next time you're called to the carpet on your overt proclaimations of just how evil they are.  ok

[Michael Tee]

<<Trying to keep that avenue of victim tactic alive>>

Actually, that would be "trying to avoid being misquoted by you and correcting the record by forcing you to admit your mistake in your usual "I said this but of course everyone knows that I meant that" weaseling.

<<the next time you're called to the carpet on your overt proclaimations of just how evil they are.>>

Translation:  "the next time sirs mindlessly objects to your calling these evil criminal bastards exactly what they are."

[sirs]

<<Trying to keep that avenue of victim tactic alive>>

Actually, that would be "trying to avoid being misquoted by you and correcting the record by forcing you to admit your mistake in your usual "I said this but of course everyone knows that I meant that" weaseling.

Naaa, it's more accurately the victim tactic.  Divert all attention away from the question by claiming something that was never the case, by big meanie sirs....poor Tee, has to stay away from the forum more, because sirs (& Ami) dares to call him on just how much he despises our military with a quantitative query

[Michael Tee]

<<Naaa, it's more accurately the victim tactic. >>

No, it's the "quote me accurately" and the "don't make up shit I never said" tactic, but if you want to call it the victim tactic, that's OK with me too.  In your mouth, words take on all kinds of meanings that no one ever suspected they had. 

"All" apparently does not mean "all," but some quantity unknown even to sirs, between zero and 100%.  "Victim" doesn't mean "victim" any more, it means "someone resentful at being slanderously misquoted."  The problem, you will find, sirs, is that when you consistently misuse words and then give them any meaning you choose, nobody can take anything you say seriously.  I certainly don't, except as a textbook example of right-wing lies, fabrications and back-tracking.

<< Divert all attention away from the question by claiming something that was never the case, by big meanie sirs....>>

The question was whether I said what you claimed I said, or whether what you claimed I said was just another one of your big fucking lies.  I did not want to divert attention from it, I wanted to highlight it.

<<poor Tee, has to stay away from the forum more, because sirs (& Ami) dares to call him on just how much he despises our military with a quantitative query>>

Your military is a truly despicable bunch of individuals, and I certainly have no problem with you objecting to my despising them.  In fact, I don't even see how that could be an issue, my attitude towards them is not exactly a state secret.  What I can't waste time on is not being "called" on despising your troops, if you wish to make your objections known in a logical, factual manner - - they're the scum of the earth, and I could debate that with anyone anytime.  What I can't waste time on - - and won't waste my time on - -  is defending myself against your and Ami's fucking lies about what I actually said.

[sirs]

<<Naaa, it's more accurately the victim tactic. >>

No, it's the "quote me accurately" and the "don't make up shit I never said" tactic,

Ahh, so you're going on record as never having referred to our military as a mass group of raping, piliaging, murdering thugs.  Never referenced them as low hanging fruit.  Which of course was the whole original point, way back on page 1 of this thread

Right.................................................and watch that credibility nearly reaching China at this point

but if you want to call it the victim tactic, that's OK with me too. 

Good.  About time you conceded to a little truth.  Of course, I don't expect will see any trend, given your track record

<< Divert all attention away from the question by claiming something that was never the case, by big meanie sirs....>>

The question was whether I said what you claimed I said, or whether what you claimed I said was just another one of your big fucking lies.  I did not want to divert attention from it, I wanted to highlight it.

LOL, which is of course why you NEVER ANSWERED IT

[Plane]

I don't think it helps to tell someone what they like or what they are thinking.