I remember an old saying from my youth: engage brain before opening mouth.
Iraq War vet says he was brutally beaten by a group of teens after they asked him if he believed 'that black lives matter'
Well, we’ll see won’t we?
Here’s a direct quote from the “decorated war vet”:
“Too many of these types of attacks have been happening against white people by members of the black community and the majority of the main stream media refuses to report on it.”
Kind of a strange thing to say after you have been mugged.
But, as I said, we’ll find out the truth of the matter in due time.
Oh Please, you mean CNN didn’t report it? The Obama channel didn’t cover it? :rotfl:
It’s sad that this guy was mugged, but I’m pretty sure so many news outlets are only picking up on it because it can be used to slander Black Lives Matter. Some of the lines he’s quoted saying in articles are incredibly fishy, too. I have my doubts about this.
Next time try comparing white people in the US to Holocaust victims. It will only be slightly more irreverent.
The Red Scare never died in the US, did it? What does white privilege have to do with communism? Marx barely mentioned race, I think the only time it seems to be alluded to is in a letter he wrote thanking Lincoln for freeing the slaves. What are you trying to say with this comment?
Another absurd statement. :rolleyes:
Being doubtful about the guy’s claims is absurd?
I’m pretty sure so many news outlets are only picking up on it because it can be used to slander Black Lives Matter.
:rolleyes: Thats “absurd”, in fact whats fishy is the Obama CNN station, which has zip for credibility didn’t pick it up. Doesn’t cater to their “black life matters” nonsensical movement I guess. :shrug:
Marquez said he is angry at being attacked at home after making it through Iraq.
“We’re there to protect our country so that people … don’t have to be scared of getting killed or being attacked.
“We’re all Americans, especially in the military," he said. "We serve with people from all backgrounds. It seems like there is so much tension right now. … It’s very sad.”
And we should allow the “police” to DO THEIR JOB. Like Trump said right above and with this case.
Marquez is right, and this is playing out to be a very disturbing movement that “makes no sense”. But then again you’ll never hear that from CNN.Bernie or Hillary, because simply put, they have to kiss up to their constitutes. Sad is right
And Bernie??? He’s gonna protect US like he couldn’t even defend himself with a young girl in Seattle with; “black lives matter” :rolleyes: BUT, Bernie Sanders applied for conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War draft, but was too old to be drafted when his number came up. What a wonderful coward for a candidate of President of the USA.
Conscientious objectors are cowards? Or those too old to be drafted?
Absolutely and a coward for a President. :rolleyes:
The Des Moines Register entitled “How can Sanders be commander in chief?” (Aug. 27). Being a Vietnam veteran I wondered how Sen. Bernie Sanders, who claimed conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War, could become the commander in chief of the most powerful military in the world and order his fellow Americans to go to war when he refused to go to war himself. The Des Moines Register also asked Sanders about this during an editorial board meeting on Sept. 3.
Within a lengthy explanation Sanders specifically said, “I applied for conscientious objector status because I very strongly disagreed with the war in Vietnam and I would not have fought in that war.” Sanders’ answer about refusing to fight in the Vietnam War shows a disrespect toward the U.S. laws that were established during that time period.
As a commander in chief, Sanders could be called upon to support the authorization of a draft and order people to serve in the military during peace or wartime. This happened to six other presidents during the 33 years the draft was active in our country from 1940 to 1973. Presidents during the Civil War and World War II also faced these challenges.
KATHIE OBRADOVICH: Sanders drops foreign policy crumbs
The members of Congress and the six presidents from 1940-1973 did not make the decision to maintain a draft or going to war lightly. It was done to ensure our national or world security. U.S laws require Congress to reauthorize a draft every two years. A majority vote by Americans elects the public officials who make these decisions. The bottom line is that during the Vietnam War, Congress and the president asked Sanders, along with millions of other Americans, to serve their country and fulfill their duty. To this day he openly admits, “…I would not have fought in that war.”
If a president leads by example, Sanders’ own draft dodging behavior could encourage young men and women today to turn their backs on the U.S. government and their president if they were asked to serve. It could set a dangerous precedence. There is a fragile line between acts of civil disobedience and the principles of freedom. Our democratically structured system of government draws and defines that line.
It is often difficult for people who did not grow up between the years of 1940-1973 to understand the feelings of 18-year-old males who faced the draft and the possibility of going to war. Although citizens have the freedom to peacefully protest the draft or a war, they do not have the option to pick and choose which war to participate in when America asks them to serve. Those who refused to serve their country were breaking the law. I knew no one who liked the draft or wanted to go to war, but the people I served with were extremely proud of having fulfilled their duty and obligation to their country.
Our laws cannot be ignored by calling it our right to freedom of expression. Veterans will tell you freedom is not a right, it is a privilege. The many people who have served their country in the military sacrificed their freedom, health and even their lives to protect that privilege. President John F. Kennedy put it well, "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” This is an idea America currently needs to embrace again. While I certainly do not want a “hawk” to become our next president, I don’t think a person who to this day still says, “I would not have fought in that war.” is qualified to be our commander in chief. His statement diminishes the many sacrifices veterans made who did serve in the Vietnam War.
Inconvenient facts, I guess? Why do you dismiss Snopes but accept any other source unquestionably?
I guess it’s impossible to ever disagree with a war your country enters into. You’ve got to unquestionably obey the Fatherland. That’s honestly a scary thing to believe.
I mean I’m not a fan of Sanders at all, but what you’re saying is ridiculous. Someone can object to fighting for reasons other than being a coward.
EDIT: I did a couple of minutes of googling, and Sanders was a proper socialist (possibly a Marxist) and was involved in a lot of peace activism, so it makes sense that he would be a conscientious objector.
I see no need to comment on any of that nonsensical bs of yours. You should reflect on your own position and double standards.
I guess it’s impossible to ever disagree with a war your country enters into. You’ve got to unquestionably obey the Fatherland.
Law is what it is. Thats ridiculous?
That’s honestly a scary thing to believe.
Scary was those 18 yo finding themselves in a jungle where “macho” went out the window the first night. But they were called and went a fact of all wars in the USA. Bernie is a coward and thats all there is to it.
but what you’re saying is ridiculous.
No, what your saying is absolute nonsense. You have no point. You have an opinion but don’t think anyone else is entitled to theirs? Where do you get off with that double standard or your too ignorant to see it?
Why do you dismiss Snopes but accept any other source unquestionably?
Ah but thats another double standard of yours and others injected on this thread??? :rolleyes:
I don’t see where Senator Sanders broke, or didn’t follow, the law. There was a perfectly legal process by which one could seek conscientious objector status, and he followed it. There’s nothing illegal about that. In any event, he aged out of the draft by the time his number came up.
This hardly adds up to him being a coward.
You don’t like the guy, or his political beliefs. And that’s fine, nothing wrong with that. But why do you have to personally insult him?
You don’t even have a point. :shrug: