"Support Our Troops" Doesn't Mean Anything

[Revolution]

 

Turborama (17,100 posts)

The point of public relations slogans like "Support our troops" is that they don't mean anything...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022101222

Because Noam is the person anyone wants to listen to about slogans, and affairs of combat...

OffWithTheirHeads (8,676 posts)

2. Should be "support our cannonfodder for our corporate masters"

Cause they are fighting for our "freedom" to let multinational corporations exploit the resources of far off lands. And that's it in a nutshell!

You know why you're able to type the vile bile you just typed, DUmbass? Because of heroes like Charles Durning, cock sucker!! I almost wish I could send you, and your ilk to a socialist natioon like France, or places in Iran that have internet access for the people. Type shit against their powers that be. See what happens to you.

And then, there's our Top DUmmie of 2012 himself speaking about the apparent "shit" that is Amerikka11!11! Take it away, Maurice...

BanTheGOP (986 posts)

9. The Military is 100% VOLUNTARY.

The reason I post this is because there is NO NEED for ANYONE to join the military. If they are smart enough to join the military in the first place, then they are smart enough to actually get real jobs elsewhere. Even though the Reagan/Bush economy is in the crapper, there is no reason to join the military. IF more people would turn it down, then the military would HAVE to adjust to the fact that, hey, we DON'T need all these billion and trillion dollar programs to destroy the planet through bombing, shooting, and land-mining. We DON'T need to create Ronald Ray-Gun military hardware, and instead use the peace dividend to create wind generators and solar power.
 
The bottom line: If we REFUSE to join the military, then it will force the government to force us to join, which will be impossible with a progressive presidency and congress, or to actually adjust our diplomatic efforts to actually work with other countries through peaceful, progressive manners.
 
The only ones losing out are the rethugs and their military industrial complex Halliburton heathers. And THAT'S one huge victory!

The Reagan/Bush economy? Christ....if I didn't know better, I'd say they were still in office instead of some piece of shit, socialist **** of a president tearing down our nation piece by piece.

No need for anyone to join? Oh OK. I suppose we should just take attacks like 9/11, and just turn the other cheek. I suppose if it were up to you, there would be no military. You like being a prisoner of your government? You like being in shackles, and chains? Commit one of your fever dreams, then. G oassault Rush Limbaugh, or something, and you'll get your wish to end up in shackles, and chains.

Next up, what the hell are you talking about "Peace dividend?" Take your "peace dividend" and shove it where the sun don't shine. It doesn't exist, and how can you use something that's not tangible to creat wind/solar generators; which....don't really work that well in the first place. I'll take one coal plant over 1,000 wind farms, and solar factories.

Finally, progressivism is ANYTHING but peaceful. Refer to code pink, ELF, Occupy, and various other leftist groups for ample evidence to the rightness of my statement. You're whacked out, Maurice.

The government under Oblahma is alredy forcing decent & civilized people to do all kinds of things. I don't think they'd have a problem FORCING any of us to join the military or anything else if it comes to that kind of control, for that matter. You sir, are so ****ing dumb, you're beyond saving. You're so nuts, you don't even know you're nuts. Do the world a favor, borrow a gun, and a single bullet from a friend, and find out for yourself that there is an afterlife. You are one of the ugliest human beings I have ever had the displeasure of meeting.

Our soldiers are selfless heroes, and should be though of nothing but.

[txradioguy]

These idiots actually believe that if we had no army...no one would attack us and there'd be no wars.

[98ZJUSMC]

Even though the Reagan/Bush economy is in the crapper,

Whup,....skipped somebody didn't you?

So does this mean that the next time we discuss "the longest era of economic growth", we can get you to answer correctly that Slick the Rapist had nothing to do with it, a Republican Congress kept Slick the Rapist from sticking his.......fingers in it and just rode a tech boom, an internet boom and the cold war draw down, to propagandized sainthood among the finger painting iNteLLek-chuls of the Democraptastic Brotherhood of Marxists?

Revise that history, you f*ksticks.

[formerlurker]

"Support our troops" is for the country (and most importantly employers of those in reserve/guard) to remember we are at war, they are answering the call to duty and we owe them for that.

Selfish, self-centered morons.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

These idiots actually believe that if we had no army...no one would attack us and there'd be no wars.

They know there would still be wars...and the know the US would lose.

Which is what they want.

PROOF:

DIALOGUE 1

CON: We need a strong military to meet our threats abroad.

LIB: No, we don't. With so many Americans so heavily armed any invader would be run out of town on a rail.


DIALOGUE 2

CON: We must not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

LIB: You don't need military-grade personal weapons because the strength of the US armed forces obviates that need.


You aren't supposed to remember both arguments at the same time. They will switch topics and change their position so fast and so frequently you aren't meant to keep up. But the common denominator to both of their positions is that you be rendered helpless.

[txradioguy]

They know there would still be wars...and the know the US would lose.

Which is what they want.

PROOF:

DIALOGUE 1

CON: We need a strong military to meet our threats abroad.

LIB: No, we don't. With so many Americans so heavily armed any invader would be run out of town on a rail.


DIALOGUE 2

CON: We must not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

LIB: You don't need military-grade personal weapons because the strength of the US armed forces obviates that need.


You aren't supposed to remember both arguments at the same time. They will switch topics and change their position so fast and so frequently you aren't meant to keep up. But the common denominator to both of their positions is that you be rendered helpless.

Agreed. They want to make it as difficult as possible for us to ever become engaged outside our borders.

Clinton started the ball rolling with the reduction to 10 AD divisions and moving all combat arms units in the USAR (except one IRRC) to the National Guard.

The DUmmies would love to see us become capable of doing nothing more than defending our borders. And 44 seems determined to make their dream come true...with the added bennie of confiscating personal firearms too.

[docstew]

Whoever created that photo that was posted (I know it's not anyone here, cuz it's retarded), first, **** off, I know several of the people pictured. Second, they violated one of two federal laws in doing so: copyright law or national security act of 1950.

[Carl]

Chomsky (who along with whale Moore) is one of the biggest hypocrites there is.
However in his little quote he must have been envisioning "Hope and Change" because if ever there was a slogan that fits his description of vapid and meaningless that was it.

[wasp69]

Turborama (17,100 posts)

The point of public relations slogans like "Support our troops" is that they don't mean anything...

Sorry, DUmmie retard, you ****s had this tactic sewn up a long time ago with "for the children".  Just like "support the troops", when it comes out of your wet mouths, it is meaningless.

For the record, collectivist scum, I doubt Mr. Chomsky would ever have the nerve to repeat that same bullshit where a combat trooper could reach out and give him some wall-to-wall counseling on how wrong he is; just like the rest of you...

[NHSparky]

Sorry, DUmmie retard, you ****s had this tactic sewn up a long time ago with "for the children".  Just like "support the troops", when it comes out of your wet mouths, it is meaningless.

For the record, collectivist scum, I doubt Mr. Chomsky would ever have the nerve to repeat that same bullshit where a combat trooper could reach out and give him some wall-to-wall counseling on how wrong he is; just like the rest of you...

And yet what DUmmies conveniently forget is that Chomsky makes a pretty penny working for military interests and the government...oh, the hypocrisy runs deep, doesn't it?

If they are smart enough to join the military in the first place, then they are smart enough to actually get real jobs elsewhere.

You're quite right, Ban--quite right indeed.  One of the things about the all-volunteer force is that there's a strong bond among us, and a concept of "service over self" involved.  Oh, don't get me wrong--I love the experience and the doors which were opened for me as a result of my training and experience, to the point I do quite well providing for my family, thank you very much.

It's a simple concept, Ban--we're the makers, you're the takers.  Come on back here and try to tell us otherwise, and pick up your trophy while you're at it.  It's starting to draw flies.

[Revolution]

You still have an acount here, Maurice. In decent enough standing that you are not banned. There is no reason for you to be. I ask you to c ome over here, and defend your disgusting comments even though I know you're too chicken  to actually do it.