Say it ain't so, Busyman. I am only hypnotized by the smell of good coffee. LOL
Poster
Say it ain't so, Busyman. I am only hypnotized by the smell of good coffee. LOL
Wanna bet?
Ancient Bush family proverb; Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day... drown him in the lake and he'll never be hungry again.
Any Which Way.... because there's more to it than Fox tells you.
Um, I'd think it's pretty obvious.Would have been nice for you to admit your bias up front
What's the big deal about bias? Yea, I'm biased when it comes to Bush and his followers, so what? I think they're screwing up my country.
Last edited by scroff; 10-21-2004 at 04:53 PM.
Ancient Bush family proverb; Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day... drown him in the lake and he'll never be hungry again.
Poster
you win!Originally Posted by scroff
Lagomorph
The Army DOES treat its people differently from Civilian Companies...
I would have thought that self evident
No right to withdraw labour, lower wages by far for the same job, Extra Regulations and Laws to be considered, a lot more "Bosses" per employee, Discipline, usually worse equipment, and the Employer has less responsibility for the safety of servicemen... I mean, where are they actually similar?
Congratulations Scrogg and Ruthie... I didnt know you'd tied the knot..
l:
I would imagine that an Army officer would be just as concerned for the life of one of his soldiers as a civilian life.
True that one must send soldiers on dangerous missions, but in regards to delivering supplies, what motivation would there be to needlessly risk a life and have no expectation for the supplies to arrive? That is what we were told...it was a suicide mission.
And to use the testimony of family members to justify their refusal, that is about as biased a source as one can get.
The implication is that this is the norm, otherwise why bother posting it, but really how many have died delivering supplies, out of the total killed? How many supply missions have been run? Why are we letting an exceptional case represent the norm. Unless, of course, it fits our agenda.
Scrogg,
I know you and Ruthie have a relationship, but many here don't. That would be relevant information to the average Joe in understanding the context in which to view your post. Is he some objective onlooker, or is there something between he and Ruthie that might explain why he was objecting to Hobbes' post.?
Whether you are actually married or not is not relevant to the CONCEPT. You 2 share a passion for politics and host a site together. Ruthie has been known to post under your name and refer to you as "sweetie".
The important concept is that you have strong feelings for her, whether you are actually legally united is not relevant to how you might have an inclination towards defending her. No need to quibble details.
Some people will laud your posts because they concur with your outlook. They will agree with you and slap you back when you twist a scenario to make Bush look bad. They will turn their heads away from the truth and say, "Well, it is justified for the cause".
I'll tell you it is biased crap, even if I agree with you that Bush needs to go. I think that anything that we stand for can justify itself, without unbalanced stories to deceive.
Bias: 3 a : BENT, TENDENCY b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment.
Bias leads to intellectual dishonesty and undermines the credibility of the poster.
Anything that is posted should attempt to look at both sides of the coin. My 2 sided cent.
Aren't we in the trust tree, thingey?
Broken
Individual Officers ARE concerned about their soldiers safety, very concerned.
Army regulations are much tighter regarding the safety of civilians, over the safety of Soldiers though.
Certainly in UK and Europe in general, and im almost certain in the US Services
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
Looking for loopholes
I am not going to say anything about the cut and paste debate. I prefer to say my own piece rather than go looking for links - but rather assumed this was because I couldn't be arsed. I also suspect that, like me, many can't be arsed to read half the links placed here, although I do of occasion dip in if a tasty morsal pasted in attracts my attention.
With regards the convoys, I believe these have taken a bit of a beating and a lot of them have been attacked. These attacks may not have resulted in a lot of deaths amongst the truck drivers but this may be because the attackers can't see past blowing up the Humvees escorting them. An awful lot of US military deaths are as a result of convoy escort duties or regular patrols of the roads used by the convoys. If an unescorted convoy was attacked it would stand little chance. I have some sympathy if the soldiers were asked to perform an unreasonable task due to over-stretch of resources. However, the whole thing may be due to a combination of factors including personality clashes with middle ranking officers and the men in the unit. Bad management happens in the army too.
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum
Lagomorph
That is my point, they are concerned about a soldiers safety. They would not send them on a suicide mission simply to deliver tainted gas.
Doesn't that sound bizarre? Why would they send reservists (not real soldiers, but those 1 weekend a month people) on a suicide mission to deliver tainted fuel? Don't you see how this is supposed to make you think "conspiracy". What sane leadership would order this and arrest them if they did not participate. Certainly someone who didn't care, who was cruel and manipulative.
You have to be sensitive to the subtle nuances. And if you are wrong or over-reading, it is because the submitting author has undermined her credibility with prior posts of dubious merit.
Last edited by hobbes; 10-21-2004 at 09:19 PM.
Aren't we in the trust tree, thingey?
Lagomorph
However, the whole thing may be due to a combination of factors including personality clashes with middle ranking officers and the men in the unit. Bad management happens in the army too.
Yes, I was wondering if this might have arisen from a "pissing contest". Some little man in charge with a Napolean complex. Really hard to say, but I have certainly been in situations in which "professional" people have became completely petty when their judgemnet was questioned.
Aren't we in the trust tree, thingey?
there is no god
ask any military leader, soldiers are not toys to throw away for no reason but there has to be risk assesment and sometimes the objective puts pressure on safety. What has to looked at was "acceptable risk". Perhaps in the mind of these soldiers the risk was viewed greater than the view of the person giving the orders not going on the mission thought.
Of course this goes against military dicipline and could lead to a serious problem if it becomes common.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks