billvon 3,132 #1 January 17, 2007 From the Chairman of the GW College Republicans: -------------------------------------------------- But the political cynicism prevalent on GW’s campus and across our nation tells a different and more disturbing story. Like our parents in Vietnam, we have lost the will to fight, to make the sacrifices that are necessary to protect our country. We have substituted healthy patriotism and deep reverence for American traditions with petty protests and condemnations of our nation’s highest leaders. . . . . Our generation has been courageous in combat, but the home front has yet to wholeheartedly endorse America’s historic mission to transform the Middle East. Generation Y, which includes the GW student community, has denied the troops the steadfast support required for victory. Unless we vigorously defend the mission in Iraq, our country will again suffer a devastating defeat and its reputation will be irreparably damaged. We can’t let this happen. With President Bush’s recent proposal to commit more than 20,000 new American troops to Baghdad, our generation has an opportunity to renew its devotion to winning the war on terror and earn its billing as the new greatest generation. The GW College Republicans will do its part to answer this critical calling. We invite all students, regardless of party affiliation, to join us in visiting wounded American soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital this Friday night. While war is an understandable source of disagreement, we must transcend partisan divisions and facilitate broad-based support for the men and women of the armed forces. ---------------------------------------------------------- (How can we serve our country in time of war? How can we show our 100% support for this critical war, and help the United States get enough additional troops to win? I know! We can visit some real soldiers and show our support!) http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/2007/01/16/Opinions/Gary-Livacari.Peter.Glessing.The.Children.Of.The.60s-2633289.shtml?sourcedomain=www.gwhatchet.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #2 January 17, 2007 I would prefer to send him and his buddies links to the local recruiting offices. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #3 January 17, 2007 >I would prefer to send him and his buddies links to the local recruiting offices. Now that's just ridiculous. They might get hurt! Sure, they support their country, but that's not - like - something to get killed over. Patriotism has limits, you know. But they do strongly support the rights of _other_ people to die for their beliefs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #4 January 17, 2007 QuoteI would prefer to send him and his buddies links to the local recruiting offices.Beat me to itI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #5 January 17, 2007 Quote>I would prefer to send him and his buddies links to the local recruiting offices. Now that's just ridiculous. They might get hurt! Sure, they support their country, but that's not - like - something to get killed over. Patriotism has limits, you know. But they do strongly support the rights of _other_ people to die for their beliefs. As opposed to Liberals who "say" they support the troops but have never visited wounded soldiers? I find it pretty sad that you would bash a group who is inviting all students, regardless of their views on the war, to join them in supporting the troops by actually visiting injured soldiers. Very sad indeed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #6 January 17, 2007 Your idea of support and mine obviously differ.. I guess it comes from serving and not serving. The administration needs people... in the military for a force that is having trouble finding people. If they are so in support of war.. then get their asses into uniform. If they want to support veterans.. then they need make sure that programs that truely do help those who DO SERVE are not cut by the people they are voting for.. and that the very best is provided for them..... not some silly homiies that are good window dressing. REAL support goes a lot further in my book that this fake crap that is masquerading as support out there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #7 January 17, 2007 has unformed struck? No? Ok maybe the intern should give him a blowjob ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #8 January 17, 2007 Ahh great returns from the party of morality.... oops you guys have not been doing so good in that area for a while now... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #9 January 17, 2007 Quoteyou guys... you don't actually read anything I write do you? I think the libertarians are the most amoral of the parties out their - especially compared to the reps or the dems (that was just a drive by in tribute to the randomness of similar actions yesterday) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #10 January 17, 2007 QuoteYour idea of support and mine obviously differ.. I guess it comes from serving and not serving. The administration needs people... in the military for a force that is having trouble finding people. If they are so in support of war.. then get their asses into uniform. If they want to support veterans.. then they need make sure that programs that truely do help those who DO SERVE are not cut by the people they are voting for.. and that the very best is provided for them..... not some silly homiies that are good window dressing. REAL support goes a lot further in my book that this fake crap that is masquerading as support out there. They are trying to show their support for the "troops" by getting students, regardless of their views on the war, to visit injured soldiers. Too bad you can't see that as a positive thing to do and think the only way to show support for the troops is to "get their asses in uniform". Wasn't it you who has argued people can support the troops without supporting the war because they are 2 different things? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #11 January 17, 2007 QuoteThey are trying to show their support for the "troops" by getting students, regardless of their views on the war, to visit injured soldiers. Too bad you can't see that as a positive thing to do and think the only way to show support for the troops is to "get their asses in uniform". They are in the prime age group needed... but just like their leaders.. they are finding ways to avoid service to their country... all the while... if you read the article.. of supporting WAR.... Sounds like a whole new generation of chickenhawks to me. Our generation has been courageous in combat, but the home front has yet to wholeheartedly endorse America's historic mission to transform the Middle East. Generation Y, which includes the GW student community, has denied the troops the steadfast support required for victory. Unless we vigorously defend the mission in Iraq, our country will again suffer a devastating defeat and its reputation will be irreparably damaged. We can't let this happen. With President Bush's recent proposal to commit more than 20,000 new American troops to Baghdad, our generation has an opportunity to renew its devotion to winning the war on terror and earn its billing as the new greatest generation. The GW College Republicans will do its part to answer this critical calling. CLUCK CLUCK CLUCK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #12 January 17, 2007 Quote I find it pretty sad that you would bash a group who is inviting all students, regardless of their views on the war, to join them in supporting the troops by actually visiting injured soldiers. Very sad indeed. Interesting. That's for pointing this out because I might have missed it. 238 words in the article, 189 of which are calling for people to back Bush's plan for Iraq. There's the reason for the letter. Then you have the 49 words calling on people to visit the soldiers. So it looks to me that the group is using the wounded soldiers to help rally for their agenda. Very sad indeed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #13 January 17, 2007 >Too bad you can't see that as a positive thing to do and think the > only way to show support for the troops is to "get their asses in > uniform". Personally I think it's great that they're doing that. I also think it's funny that it's the only thing they can think of doing to support the war effort. I don't think they are saying "I don't want to go to war" - I don't think they have even considered the possibility. Wars are fought by other people. See below. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #14 January 17, 2007 Quote>Too bad you can't see that as a positive thing to do and think the > only way to show support for the troops is to "get their asses in > uniform". Personally I think it's great that they're doing that. I also think it's funny that it's the only thing they can think of doing to support the war effort. I don't think they are saying "I don't want to go to war" - I don't think they have even considered the possibility. Wars are fought by other people. See below. You are aware GWU has an ROTC Program aren't you? Sounds like a lot of ASS-U-MING with no facts. http://www.gwu.edu/~navyrotc/ http://www12.georgetown.edu/students/organizations/rotc/ Please continue with your bash. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #15 January 17, 2007 Quote>Too bad you can't see that as a positive thing to do and think the > only way to show support for the troops is to "get their asses in > uniform". Personally I think it's great that they're doing that. I also think it's funny that it's the only thing they can think of doing to support the war effort. I don't think they are saying "I don't want to go to war" - I don't think they have even considered the possibility. Wars are fought by other people. See below. There have always been and will always be people who are for a war but will not join the military and people who are against a war but will not join the protests. PS: Are you actively participating in events against the war?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #16 January 17, 2007 QuoteQuote>I would prefer to send him and his buddies links to the local recruiting offices. Now that's just ridiculous. They might get hurt! Sure, they support their country, but that's not - like - something to get killed over. Patriotism has limits, you know. But they do strongly support the rights of _other_ people to die for their beliefs. As opposed to Liberals who "say" they support the troops but have never visited wounded soldiers? I find it pretty sad that you would bash a group who is inviting all students, regardless of their views on the war, to join them in supporting the troops by actually visiting injured soldiers. Very sad indeed. Visiting injured troops is for old liberal guys like me - I volunteer at a local Veterans' Hospital. These students are just chickenhawks in training - they can actually put their bodies where their mouths are, and like my (liberal) son did.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #17 January 17, 2007 QuoteQuote I find it pretty sad that you would bash a group who is inviting all students, regardless of their views on the war, to join them in supporting the troops by actually visiting injured soldiers. Very sad indeed. Interesting. That's for pointing this out because I might have missed it. 238 words in the article, 189 of which are calling for people to back Bush's plan for Iraq. There's the reason for the letter. Then you have the 49 words calling on people to visit the soldiers. So it looks to me that the group is using the wounded soldiers to help rally for their agenda. Very sad indeed. So now we are counting words to determine validity? Gotcha, just keep that in mind when you bash the next speech Bush gives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #18 January 17, 2007 QuoteQuote>Too bad you can't see that as a positive thing to do and think the > only way to show support for the troops is to "get their asses in > uniform". Personally I think it's great that they're doing that. I also think it's funny that it's the only thing they can think of doing to support the war effort. I don't think they are saying "I don't want to go to war" - I don't think they have even considered the possibility. Wars are fought by other people. See below. You are aware GWU has an ROTC Program aren't you? Sounds like a lot of ASS-U-MING with no facts. http://www.gwu.edu/~navyrotc/ http://www12.georgetown.edu/students/organizations/rotc/ Please continue with your bash. And you will, of course, tell us how many GW Republicans are in ROTC.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #19 January 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote>I would prefer to send him and his buddies links to the local recruiting offices. Now that's just ridiculous. They might get hurt! Sure, they support their country, but that's not - like - something to get killed over. Patriotism has limits, you know. But they do strongly support the rights of _other_ people to die for their beliefs. As opposed to Liberals who "say" they support the troops but have never visited wounded soldiers? I find it pretty sad that you would bash a group who is inviting all students, regardless of their views on the war, to join them in supporting the troops by actually visiting injured soldiers. Very sad indeed. Visiting injured troops is for old liberal guys like me - I volunteer at a local Veterans' Hospital. These students are just chickenhawks in training - they can actually put their bodies where their mouths are, and like my (liberal) son did. And you know this for a fact, how? Please provide us with the number of them that are in the ROTC Program and the number who are not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #20 January 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>I would prefer to send him and his buddies links to the local recruiting offices. Now that's just ridiculous. They might get hurt! Sure, they support their country, but that's not - like - something to get killed over. Patriotism has limits, you know. But they do strongly support the rights of _other_ people to die for their beliefs. As opposed to Liberals who "say" they support the troops but have never visited wounded soldiers? I find it pretty sad that you would bash a group who is inviting all students, regardless of their views on the war, to join them in supporting the troops by actually visiting injured soldiers. Very sad indeed. Visiting injured troops is for old liberal guys like me - I volunteer at a local Veterans' Hospital. These students are just chickenhawks in training - they can actually put their bodies where their mouths are, and like my (liberal) son did. And you know this for a fact, how? Please provide us with the number of them that are in the ROTC Program and the number who are not. I asked first... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #21 January 17, 2007 QuoteAnd you will, of course, tell us how many GW Republicans are in ROTC. You will, of course, tell us how many are not? Fact is you, nor I, nor he know. But we all make assumptions. About the letter, YES, it supports the President. But many of you are using that to ignore that it ALSO is asking for people of all parties to support the troops. Bipartisanship requires BOTH sides, and it seems this group is trying. Why pick out a seperate issue to slam them and try to invalidate the other reason? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #22 January 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>I would prefer to send him and his buddies links to the local recruiting offices. Now that's just ridiculous. They might get hurt! Sure, they support their country, but that's not - like - something to get killed over. Patriotism has limits, you know. But they do strongly support the rights of _other_ people to die for their beliefs. As opposed to Liberals who "say" they support the troops but have never visited wounded soldiers? I find it pretty sad that you would bash a group who is inviting all students, regardless of their views on the war, to join them in supporting the troops by actually visiting injured soldiers. Very sad indeed. Visiting injured troops is for old liberal guys like me - I volunteer at a local Veterans' Hospital. These students are just chickenhawks in training - they can actually put their bodies where their mouths are, and like my (liberal) son did. And you know this for a fact, how? Please provide us with the number of them that are in the ROTC Program and the number who are not. I asked first Read the thread. I'm not the one claiming they are chickenhawks. assuming they have no intention of serving in the military, calling their support of the troops "crap", saying this is the only thing they can do to support the war, and that they haven't even considered the possibility of going to war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #23 January 17, 2007 QuoteWhy pick out a seperate issue to slam them and try to invalidate the other reason? Lack of maturity? Idealogical zealotry? I wish I knew. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #24 January 17, 2007 Quote So now we are counting words to determine validity? Gotcha, just keep that in mind when you bash the next speech Bush gives. Nope, just pointing out the subject of the article and the fact that the troops are being used, again. Your original post illustrated it perfectly. Bitch about the chickenhawks plea for war support and somehow that translates a pitiful lack of support for the wounded soldiers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #25 January 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>I would prefer to send him and his buddies links to the local recruiting offices. Now that's just ridiculous. They might get hurt! Sure, they support their country, but that's not - like - something to get killed over. Patriotism has limits, you know. But they do strongly support the rights of _other_ people to die for their beliefs. As opposed to Liberals who "say" they support the troops but have never visited wounded soldiers? I find it pretty sad that you would bash a group who is inviting all students, regardless of their views on the war, to join them in supporting the troops by actually visiting injured soldiers. Very sad indeed. Visiting injured troops is for old liberal guys like me - I volunteer at a local Veterans' Hospital. These students are just chickenhawks in training - they can actually put their bodies where their mouths are, and like my (liberal) son did. And you know this for a fact, how? Please provide us with the number of them that are in the ROTC Program and the number who are not. I asked first Read the thread. I'm not the one claiming they are chickenhawks. assuming they have no intention of serving in the military, calling their support of the troops "crap", saying this is the only thing they can do to support the war, and that they haven't even considered the possibility of going to war. I'm not the one insinuating that the GW Republicans are enrolled in ROTC. Why bring up ROTC if you have no FACTS relevant to this thread?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)