Was He or Not

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Is that where U get most of your information?...LOL

it would explain much.....but you'd better not post a You Tube video from a politically motivated website/organization with pieced together out of context clips assembled to attack and smear those that disagree philosophically or have a different view point because he will simply dismiss it as such and question your intelligence and motivations

[spence]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Is that where U get most of your information?...LOL

Found it while searching, it's pretty funny.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How so? I don't see any bolstering of such a position by his actions or words. Please clarify.

It could be interpreted as a sign of his mental state.

What was the "limited information" which caused those peers to "feel" betrayed? So, on the one hand you don't fault his peers for "outright venom", but if someone else responds as they do, then the "outright venom" is not justified. And, what was the "limited information" which informed Susan Rice to say that Bergdahl served with "distinction"? How have you "reconciled the justification" for all that?

I never said his peers were showing outright venom, that was a broader remark.

As for Rice's words. I think she was just trying to state that signing up to serve your country is certainly an honorable thing that deserves merit. She could have followed with...and then something went wrong, but we're not really sure what happened. Perhaps this was implied.

Can the truth be considered "outright venom"? And if the truth is relative to "context" and "perception," then who are you to pronounce someone else's perception "outright venom"?

And is "outright" an absolute?

Truth can certainly be venomous depending on how it's used. A bit of truth is often used to mask a bigger lie.

-spence

[spence]

Great remark from Gen. McChrystal.

“I think the key thing in a case like Sgt. Bergdahl’s is you first understand there’s a responsibility to our service members, and that’s very clear-cut and nobody should argue about that,” McChrystal said. “We know we have a responsibility to get them or their remains, and we go to great efforts to do that.

“And then, there’s a responsibility on individuals, service members, back toward their nation and their comrades, and we should demand that and we should check into that. But we as a nation, instead of politicizing something like this, we as a nation, should look at it and say: Okay, [it’s a] complex problem, how do we handle this in a way that brings us together? Because it actually makes us look weaker to our allies, it makes us look confused to our foes, and if we were very united on something like this and we just said: ‘America doesn’t leave its people but we do have a high standard,’ then I think we’d come out better.”

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

As for Rice's words. I think she was just trying to state that signing up to serve your country is certainly an honorable thing that deserves merit.
-spence

If she was trying to state that, she would have stated that, correct? I mean, I presume she's not a moron, right?

No limits to how far you'll bend over backwards when these people say stupid things, God forbid you just admit the truth. She said he "served" with honor and distinction. Simple words, with only one possible meaning. You "serve" after you enlist.

This is yet another fiasco resulting with egg on his clueless face. Raise the concept of "inept" to an art form...the whole administration, it's actually staggering.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

. A bit of truth is often used to mask a bigger lie.

-spence

no kidding...we read your posts

[detbuch]

Spence: "Great remark from Gen. McChrystal."


Quote:
McChrystal: “I think the key thing in a case like Sgt. Bergdahl’s is you first understand there’s a responsibility to our service members, and that’s very clear-cut and nobody should argue about that,” McChrystal said.

Who's arguing that there's not a responsibility to our service members? Actually, we have a responsibility to every U.S. citizen. That is the reason we have service members--to help enforce that responsibility. And we should enforce that responsibility with equal force and ferocity when any service member or citizen is denied legal due process or is illegally held captive by any foreign power. And we should not bargain with those who illegally or unjustly hold our citizens, whether they hold them for ransom or for ideology. We should demand their return or they should be prepared to fight to the death to keep them.

Quote McChrystal: “We know we have a responsibility to get them or their remains, and we go to great efforts to do that."

Yes, "great efforts", not capitulation.

Quote McChrystal: “And then, there’s a responsibility on individuals, service members, back toward their nation and their comrades, and we should demand that and we should check into that. "

Yes, as there is a responsibility on all of us, not only on service members, to back our nation and our fellow citizens against tyranny, foreign AND DOMESTIC. And we should check into that. When we allow our own government to hold us captive to a central bureaucratic state which constantly erodes the freedoms and form of government on which our nation was founded, and we argue over some token exchange which pleases and emboldens as well as fortifies our enemies instead of demanding the restoration of our greater collective and individual freedom, we are swapping that freedom to embolden and fortify the whims of the ruling class which continues to diminish individual private spaces and choices.

Quote McChrystal: "But we as a nation, instead of politicizing something like this, we as a nation, should look at it and say: Okay, [it’s a] complex problem, how do we handle this in a way that brings us together? Because it actually makes us look weaker to our allies, it makes us look confused to our foes,"

When we have divided the nation against itself by abandoning the Constitution which bound us together, we have already become weaker--to our allies, to our enemies, and to ourselves. There can be nothing but confusion if we have no common societal or governmental basis. The idea that "bringing us together" can be accomplished by all having the same opinion on a prisoner swap is childish, at best.

We have been looking weaker and confused to the rest of the world for some time. We have voluntarily capitulated to "world" views, and more and more are being led to believe that we are guilty of much, if not most, of the world's problems. We are told that we must apologize for our hubris, mass murders, and rape of the rest of the world. That we must sacrifice our comforts and well being in order to redistribute those things to others who have been blocked by us from getting them. That we are destroying the planet. That we are retrogrades stuck in some ancient faith in individual rights which sap the collective rights of the earth's people to share equally in the planet's bounty. That we cling to guns and quaint religion, instead of allowing the State to have the total power it needs to protect us, and instead of bowing to the religion of an all-powerful State. We kill so many babies in the womb that there are not enough new generations to grow the economy necessary to support the aging population with it's medical and retirement fiscal needs. So we replenish demographic growth with illegal immigrants who are invited by the crony relationship of government and business low wage desires and necessities. And our government constantly spends more than it gets, so has to get more, and has to inflate the money supply in order to devalue the currency to barely keep up with its debt. Which has the negative effect on the savings and wages of the people as well as raising the prices of the goods they need, as well as allowing the top .1% to accumulate even greater money wealth which expands the "income inequality" the government rails against.

We are at such odds with ourselves that these little government manipulations, deals, swaps, policies, in terms of making us look unified to the rest of the world, are a pathetic and destructive joke.

Quote McChrystal: "and if we were very united on something like this and we just said: ‘America doesn’t leave its people but we do have a high standard,’ then I think we’d come out better.”

No wonder Spence thinks McChrystal's remark is "great." That last sentence is the same kind of incoherence that fills much of Spence's posts.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It could be interpreted as a sign of his mental state.

His words clearly express his mental state. If they were incoherent, that might be "a sign" which might be interpreted as a confused mental state. But that would have to be "bolstered," as you put it, by a pattern of incoherence. As well as a pattern of strange behaviors. His statements were coherent, and his actions coincided with his words. Where is the "sign" of an irrational or mentally disturbed state?

I never said his peers were showing outright venom, that was a broader remark.

Yes, the "broader context" of "outright venom" supposedly spewed by others, were mostly reiterations of remarks by his peers. So the "broader context" of "outright venom" was quite homogenous amongst his peers and non-peers. I would assume, then, that his peers were showing "outright venom."

As for Rice's words. I think she was just trying to state that signing up to serve your country is certainly an honorable thing that deserves merit. She could have followed with...and then something went wrong, but we're not really sure what happened. Perhaps this was implied.

Refer to what Jim in CT said.

Truth can certainly be venomous depending on how it's used.

Venomous, in the context of human discourse, means "malicious, malignant, spiteful, etc. Are you saying that those who believe they are telling the truth about Bergdahl, including his peers, are being malicious, malignant, spiteful? Could you please explain how that works?


A bit of truth is often used to mask a bigger lie.

-spence

Refer to what scottw said.

BTW, is "outright" an absolute?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No wonder Spence thinks McChrystal's remark is "great." That last sentence is the same kind of incoherence that fills much of Spence's posts.

It's not incoherent when read in context of his full remark. To parse things line by line is the same news by sound bite syndrome we've become far too accustomed to.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

His words clearly express his mental state. If they were incoherent, that might be "a sign" which might be interpreted as a confused mental state. But that would have to be "bolstered," as you put it, by a pattern of incoherence. As well as a pattern of strange behaviors. His statements were coherent, and his actions coincided with his words. Where is the "sign" of an irrational or mentally disturbed state?

So being in a bad metal position means you can't articulate your feelings? He signed up for the service which is a rational and honorable thing, then walks unarmed into a dangerous situation which is a very irrational thing.

Yes, the "broader context" of "outright venom" supposedly spewed by others, were mostly reiterations of remarks by his peers. So the "broader context" of "outright venom" was quite homogenous amongst his peers and non-peers. I would assume, then, that his peers were showing "outright venom."

You're just making that up. His peers certainly were critical of him as a deserter and had suspicions about his later actions that don't appear to have merit according to the military. This doesn't go nearly as far as some in the media who were quick to take this to an extreme and personal place.

Venomous, in the context of human discourse, means "malicious, malignant, spiteful, etc. Are you saying that those who believe they are telling the truth about Bergdahl, including his peers, are being malicious, malignant, spiteful? Could you please explain how that works?

Little is known about the "truth" so how could those think they're speaking to it?

The event became politicized overnight in an attempt not to understand but to attack. Malicious, malignant and spiteful all seem to fit.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Detbuch -

"Venomous, in the context of human discourse, means "malicious, malignant, spiteful, etc. Are you saying that those who believe they are telling the truth about Bergdahl, including his peers, are being malicious, malignant, spiteful? Could you please explain how that works?"

I'll explain it for him.

In Spenceworld, when the truth paints Obama in a favorable light, that is truthful, honest, forthright, and courageous. When the truth paints Obama in a negative light, that is malicious, malignant, and spiteful. And you forgot 'racist'...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It's not incoherent when read in context of his full remark. To parse things line by line is the same news by sound bite syndrome we've become far too accustomed to.

-spence

This is yet another example of the incoherent posts I was talking about.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

So being in a bad metal position means you can't articulate your feelings?

Clearly articulating your ideas is not a "sign" of a bad mental position. I asked you where is the "sign" of an irrational or mentally disturbed state.

He signed up for the service which is a rational and honorable thing, then walks unarmed into a dangerous situation which is a very irrational thing.

According to "reports," as you like to say, he said or wrote things which were fulfilled by his walking into a dangerous situation--a calculated and desired action. Again, without a pattern of mixed and contradictory behavior, not a sign of an irrational mental state.

You're just making that up. His peers certainly were critical of him as a deserter and had suspicions about his later actions that don't appear to have merit according to the military. This doesn't go nearly as far as some in the media who were quick to take this to an extreme and personal place.

The truth can be (actually is) extreme. And your perception of a "personal place" is your business. But it is not your business to decide for others what a "personal place" is. And to do so would certainly not cohere with the relativistic view you seem to espouse. "Personal place" would, to a relativist, depend on point of view. And even more, for you, on "context." Others may be speaking from a different context than yours and from a different point of view. Who are you to cast extreme aspersions to what other's have to say? Similarly, re my previous question, "Can the truth be considered "outright venom"? And if the truth is relative to "context" and "perception," then who are you to pronounce someone else's perception "outright venom"?"



Little is known about the "truth" so how could those think they're speaking to it?

How could you think you're speaking to it? Aren't you and they speaking what they perceive as truth concerning what "little is known"?

The event became politicized overnight in an attempt not to understand but to attack. Malicious, malignant and spiteful all seem to fit.

-spence

Their you go again--the all-knowing Spence. You know what is in their minds and what their motives are in spite of knowing little or nothing about their true beliefs and convictions. I think they could accuse your attacking them as being "malicious, malignant and spiteful."

As for politicizing, "reports" (those sources to which you often like to refer) opine that the swap itself was a political, or politicized, calculation. I guess you and those "reports" speak from different contexts and perceptions.

Oh, BTW, is "outright" an absolute?