Open thread: Army-Navy, a game of honor

posted at 11:31 am on December 8, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

I generally have to count myself out of all of the weekend football talk that goes on around here — I’m ashamed to confess, I’m pretty clueless when it comes to stats, teams, rules, etc; it’s just not my thing — but if there’s one sports-related thing I do know how to do well, it’s football games. Tailgating, team spirit, excessive displays of patriotism? Now we’re speaking my language!

I’ll be in Philadelphia this afternoon for the 113th edition of one of America’s oldest, most storied rivalries, dating back to 1890. The Army-Navy game is my absolute favorite football event of the year: The uniforms, the flyovers, the anthems, the traditions, the shenanigans, the military community at large; it’s all in celebration and respect of the fact that, while the midshipmen and the cadets have a lot of fun in keeping the competition intense with pranking and smack-talking one another, all of these young men and women are going straight to military service upon graduation. They may be all-in-good fun rivals, but they are also brothers-at-arms in the defense and protection of the United States of America.

Navy has now beaten Army for ten consecutive years running (and Navy has had the better football campaign this season with seven wins, while Army is two-and-nine), but it’ll certainly be a fun game to watch — airing starts on CBS at 3 o’clock.

Now, I love and respect all of the branches of the United States equally, but, due to a long family history, I may-or-may-not be a bit biased… and, I just have to say…

GO NAVY! BEAT ARMY!

(This is from last year, but awesome:)

 

(And one of the best things about the Army-Navy rivalry? Spirit spots!)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Dante on December 8, 2012 at 9:45 PM

If I had my way, you’d be banned from any thread having to do with your betters in the US military.

hawkdriver on December 8, 2012 at 9:51 PM

If I had my way, you’d be banned from any thread having to do with your betters in the US military.

hawkdriver on December 8, 2012 at 9:51 PM

I’m sure. It would save you any embarassment of failing to present a rational, reasoned counterargument. That would certainly be a cowardly way out.

Dante on December 8, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Ironically, I just participated in a discussion thread about whether college football players should be paid. Some think it is unfair; there is that word again, for colleges to profit from their labors.

Having just finished watching Army-Navy, I mentioned that those young men, like their scholarship counterparts at other schools, earned a free education by their participation. The difference is that after they finish, they will serve at least another four or five years, frequently putting their lives on the line in the process.

I will always cheer for Navy to win. For the past few years I have had a bit of sympathy for the Cadets, although it is tempered. I felt for QB Steelman for the first few minutes. After that I was a little embarrassed for him. On the other hand CBS could have shown a little class and let him suffer without the camera intruding. Oh, I guess not.

As for that idiot who had to jump into this thread with his anti-military rant. A typical little person who revels in the opportunity to speak loudly when able to do so anonymously. Having served from 1955 until 1980 I saw the public opinion pendulum swing from extreme to extreme. Fortunately, the brotherhood held strong. If we were not defending the United States, then someone in the political leadership lied to us. We certainly thought that we were.

Oldflyer on December 8, 2012 at 10:24 PM

If we were not defending the United States, then someone in the political leadership lied to us. We certainly thought that we were.

Oldflyer on December 8, 2012 at 10:24 PM

You were lied to.

Dante on December 8, 2012 at 10:27 PM

And by the way, it’s not an anti-military position; it’s an anti-government position. The criticism isn’t against the military; it’s against how the military is used, ie as a foreign policy tool for imperial expansion rather than defense of our borders.

Dante on December 8, 2012 at 10:34 PM

hawkdriver on December 8, 2012 at 9:51 PM

I’m sure. It would save you any embarassment of failing to present a rational, reasoned counterargument. That would certainly be a cowardly way out.

Dante on December 8, 2012 at 10:07 PM

No, it has more to do with the fact you don’t rate discussing the military. Something you know nothing about and can’t begin to appreciate insofar as what they do for you. As for the coward charge? Ironic, sugar britches. You couldn’t even come up with a reply about my Pearl Harbor comment to you. I can’t remember a single time you ever provided a satifactory answer to anyone here. You just go on saying the other person is wrong regardless of what’s presented and then insinuate they’re stupid.

My only regret in all my association with the military is understanding what better men and women than you did was wasted on thankless parasites like you.

hawkdriver on December 8, 2012 at 10:38 PM

When is the last time the United States military defended or protected America?

Dante on December 8, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Dante, just for ole times sake. See if you can’t come up with a two word answer. Think, you can figure this out. Try. Whats your take?

Bmore on December 8, 2012 at 10:52 PM

No, it has more to do with the fact you don’t rate discussing the military. Something you know nothing about and can’t begin to appreciate insofar as what they do for you. As for the coward charge? Ironic, sugar britches. You couldn’t even come up with a reply about my Pearl Harbor comment to you. I can’t remember a single time you ever provided a satifactory answer to anyone here. You just go on saying the other person is wrong regardless of what’s presented and then insinuate they’re stupid.

My only regret in all my association with the military is understanding what better men and women than you did was wasted on thankless parasites like you.

hawkdriver on December 8, 2012 at 10:38 PM

What do they do for me?

And you need to recheck that thread if you think I didn’t respond regarding PH.

Dante on December 8, 2012 at 11:03 PM

PH?

hawkdriver on December 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM

What do they do for me?

And you need to recheck that thread if you think I didn’t respond regarding PH.

Dante on December 8, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Oh, okay. I see you finally, “didn’t” answer. You took the time to add to your paranoid conspiracy links list and ignored what I asked you. Which was an aswer to a question you asked.

Your MO.

Absolutely necessary for an American and American military hater such as yourself.

Not one comment about the 30s Empirial nature of the Japanese?

Pathetic dodge. But we expect that from you.

A favor. If you want to exchange again and not answer more of my questions, can we go back to the other thread so you don’t keep leaving assinine coments here on a thread intended to celebrate the Army/Navy rivalry?

Good night, liberal Moby stooge.

hawkdriver on December 8, 2012 at 11:18 PM

I didn’t ask a question; I had posted a link to an article. You then responded with a question that was directly answered in the article, leaving me to believe (rightly, I’m sure) that you didn’t read it. You can keep defending the progressive president FDR’s actions and his progressivist policies all you wish, just realize that you are siding with FDR and the New York Times.

Dante on December 8, 2012 at 11:33 PM

Oh, and you didn’t answer my question, What do they do for me?

Dante on December 8, 2012 at 11:33 PM

Dante on December 8, 2012 at 11:33 PM

You’re an idiot.

And an azzhole.

And a coward.

And stupid.

Did I mention that you’re an idiot? You are.

Solaratov on December 9, 2012 at 12:23 AM

Oh, and you didn’t answer my question, What do they do for me?

Dante on December 8, 2012 at 11:33 PM

Funny thing about not answering questions. Lol! You can’t put together an original thought? Whats your take Dante. Lew doesn’t have the answer for you. Its yours alone to respond to. ; )

Bmore on December 9, 2012 at 1:01 AM

If we were not defending the United States, then someone in the political leadership lied to us. We certainly thought that we were.

Oldflyer on December 8, 2012 at 10:24 PM

You were lied to.

Dante on December 8, 2012 at 10:27 PM

One more time for the moron:
1)Your freedoms are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
2) The people in the military take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. (Therefore they defend and uphold your freedoms)
3) The ability to declare war is one of the enumerated powers of the Constitution. A military, which is controlled by the civilian, elected leadership is also established in the constitution.
4) When the legitimately elected political leadership sends the military to war the military re-affirms it’s commitment to the Constitution by following that order. If they chose not to, they usurp the legitimate use of force from the state, and renders the Constitution (which guarantees your rights) meaningless as it it places the military under civilian leadership.
By advocating, as you have on this website, that our military not comply with orders that you disagree with you are advocating that we live in a military dictatorship rather then a republic.

All that is 5th grade civics class stuff. Your problem isn’t with the military, it’s with Americans. (and our form of government)

Actually, your problem is that you are a morally preening half-wit who read the world “imperialism” in a half baked screed that one of your fellow morally preening parasites cut and pasted from a Chalmers Johnson tract onto a Ron Paul 2000 2004 2008 2012 website.

V7_Sport on December 9, 2012 at 1:24 AM

V7_Sport on December 9, 2012 at 1:24 AM

I tried to leave a comment at your site. I like the photos very much. I will browse it more as time affords. I could not leave a comment there. I do not participate in any of the available means you have. Nice stuff. ; )

Bmore on December 9, 2012 at 1:45 AM

I was sponsoring training in Romania during The Game. I got a group of Dutch, Romanian, Czech, French, Brazilian and Americans to hold up a sign that said “Go Navy! Beat Army!”. It made for several great pictures that we sent to the Army-Navy Game site.

Just for one day, I switch my ring to my left hand and wear my wedding band on the right.

Now that Navy won (AGAIN!), let’s remember that we saw professionals at war. All are games are “playing” by amateurs.

Hooyah! Hooyah! Hooyah!

Bigurn on December 9, 2012 at 3:41 AM

“When is the last time the United States military defended or protected America?

Dante on December 8, 2012 at 2:59 PM”

That would be Benghazi, dip $hit. Two Navy men died defending a post that properly is identified as American soil.

The U.S. military protects America, and her interests, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The wolves are always at the door, you just never hear about it because you are sitting in the bosom of Freedom that others provide.

Bigurn on December 9, 2012 at 3:47 AM

Dante, you got your a s s handed to you. Lol! Again.

Bmore on December 9, 2012 at 8:20 AM

That would be Benghazi, dip $hit. Two Navy men died defending a post that properly is identified as American soil.

The U.S. military protects America, and her interests, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The wolves are always at the door, you just never hear about it because you are sitting in the bosom of Freedom that others provide.

Bigurn on December 9, 2012 at 3:47 AM

Diplomatic missions – consulates, embassies, etc., – are not American soil; Benghazi and Libya are not part of the Union. The military protects the U.S.’ interest, alright, but it’s not protecting America.

Dante on December 9, 2012 at 9:57 AM

And the military doesn’t provide freedom. You seem unaware of natural rights, but you’re a statist, so that’s understandable.

Dante on December 9, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Go Navy, Beat Army (Again).

As for Dante, defending American interests is the same as defending the physical soil of America. Some of the founders used to think like you, Jefferson and Madison both come to mind. They were both sured of their stupidy right-quick-rickety-tick when the realities of running the country hit them.

TinCanNav on December 9, 2012 at 10:40 AM

As for Dante, defending American interests is the same as defending the physical soil of America. Some of the founders used to think like you, Jefferson and Madison both come to mind. They were both sured of their stupidy right-quick-rickety-tick when the realities of running the country hit them.

TinCanNav on December 9, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Defending American interests is in no way whatsoever the same as defending the physical soil of America. Not at all.

1)Your freedoms are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Supposedly.

2) The people in the military take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. (Therefore they defend and uphold your freedoms)

They may take an oath to do so, but they aren’t defending nor upholding our freedoms. Our government is a threat to our freedoms every day and infringes upon our freedoms every day. Being in SKorea or Afghanistan or the Persian Gulf is neither defending nor upholding our freedoms.

3) The ability to declare war is one of the enumerated powers of the Constitution. A military, which is controlled by the civilian, elected leadership is also established in the constitution.

No one has said otherwise.

4) When the legitimately elected political leadership sends the military to war the military re-affirms it’s commitment to the Constitution by following that order. If they chose not to, they usurp the legitimate use of force from the state, and renders the Constitution (which guarantees your rights) meaningless as it it places the military under civilian leadership.
By advocating, as you have on this website, that our military not comply with orders that you disagree with you are advocating that we live in a military dictatorship rather then a republic.

I don’t recall declarations of war against Iran, Libya, Yemen, etc. There is nothing legitimate about our interventionist, progressivist foreign policy. There is nothing legitimate about “defending” another nation or people. Further, you are making a straw man. I didn’t advocate that the military not follow orders that I disagree with. I advocate that the sociopaths in charge cease the endless warfare and interventionism. Your sorely lacking in logic if you think my arguments lead to a military dictatorship.

And there is nothing legitimate about using force against someone who hasn’t used force against you.

Your problem isn’t with the military, it’s with [some] Americans. (and our form of government)

V7_Sport on December 9, 2012 at 1:24 AM

No kidding. Maybe you’re catching on after all. Maybe.

Dante on December 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM

No kidding. Maybe you’re catching on after all. Maybe.

Dante on December 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Why do you ignore exchanges where you’re having your ass handed to you?

hawkdriver on December 9, 2012 at 11:35 AM

I tried to leave a comment at your site. I like the photos very much. I will browse it more as time affords. I could not leave a comment there. I do not participate in any of the available means you have. Nice stuff. ; )

Bmore on December 9, 2012 at 1:45 AM

Thanks, I can’t take credit for the site though, It’s someone else’s work.

V7_Sport on December 9, 2012 at 12:49 PM

re.Dante

And the military doesn’t provide freedom.
Dante on December 9, 2012 at 9:59 AM

The US entity has restored/secured the freedom to more people than any other entity in human history, despite the crap from Howard Zinn that you eagerly regurgitate so you can think yourself sophisticated.

They may take an oath to do so, but they aren’t defending nor upholding our freedoms.

Ummm, yes, when the legitimately elected government gives them a legal order then yes, they are defending your freedoms as outlined in the Constitution. To do otherwise would be taking authority away from the republic and making you un-free.
Amazing how you don’t get this after 3 times now.

Our government is a threat to our freedoms every day and infringes upon our freedoms every day.

Whining like a big b!tch on the Army/Navy football thread is SUCH a courageous way of addressing your issues with our governance.

Being in SKorea or Afghanistan or the Persian Gulf is neither defending nor upholding our freedoms.

The elected representatives of the Republic have determined otherwise. You can argue the various reasons behind the deployments or better yet, you can vote them out but whining that the military exists and is endeavoring to do the missions that it has been given is 1) off the mark and 2) stupid.

“I don’t recall declarations of war against Iran, Libya, Yemen, etc.”

We are not in an official state of war against any of those countries.

“There is nothing legitimate about our interventionist, progressivist foreign policy.”

You should have gotten Ron Paul elected. Spamming internet forums with blame the USA first vitriol wasn’t enough evidently. You might have learned that the first 3 or 4 times around.

“I didn’t advocate that the military not follow orders that I disagree with. I advocate that the sociopaths in charge cease the endless warfare and interventionism.”

Pretty much the same thing in this case. Seeing that you have a screw loose and are ignorant to the core what you advocate isn’t going to be the center of any high level foreign policy debates any time soon.

“Your sorely lacking in logic if you think my arguments lead to a military dictatorship.”

So the military should just pick and choose what orders it follows from the civilian government…. orders like Posse Comitatus…or the Third Amendment…or any Amendment for that matter. It’s up to them what rules they follow and they can be trusted with that power evidently.
Did I mention that you are an idiot?

“And there is nothing legitimate about using force against someone who hasn’t used force against you.”

Better to sit, take it and lose lives so we can satisfy an ignorant blowhards notion of “legitimacy”. On 9/12/01 I walked through a debris field in lower Manhattan full of shoes with feet still in them and birds carrying off scraps of flesh. Even that somehow didn’t satisfy your notions of legitimacy.

“No kidding. Maybe you’re catching on after all. Maybe.”

Leave. It’s not as if you will be missed for all your contributions and important works. We are already stocked up on spoiled brats who get off on wagging their fingers in completely self indulgent displays that would have perfectly ironic consequences in the real world.

V7_Sport on December 9, 2012 at 1:28 PM

“Defending American interests is in no way whatsoever the same as defending the physical soil of America. Not at all.”

Good job of dismissing my on-point historical examples. I presume you are a Ronulan, by your general immaturity and use of buzzwords. It is hard being in a personality cult when the personality checks out. But that is life sometimes. Just remember, there is a middle way, you dont have to be a neocon if you grow up and eschew isolationsism or *ahem* “non-interventionism”. Reagan was not a Neocon, neither was the First Bush (I know that hurts your anti-NWO sensibilities, but facts are facts).

TinCanNav on December 9, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Good job of dismissing my on-point historical examples. I presume you are a Ronulan, by your general immaturity and use of buzzwords. It is hard being in a personality cult when the personality checks out. But that is life sometimes. Just remember, there is a middle way, you dont have to be a neocon if you grow up and eschew isolationsism or *ahem* “non-interventionism”. Reagan was not a Neocon, neither was the First Bush (I know that hurts your anti-NWO sensibilities, but facts are facts).

TinCanNav on December 9, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Examples of what? You didn’t provide any examples of anything.

And Reagan and Bush, Sr., were most certainly neocons, especially Bush. Check out Russel Kirk’s reaction to Bush’s intervention in Iraq over Saddam and Kuwait.

Dante on December 9, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Dante on December 9, 2012 at 2:56 PM

This boy is stumped on how to explain away his retarded assertion that we deserved to be attacked at Pearl by the Japanese.

Now, nothing done to the US warrants us lifting a finger. But everyone else in the entire world that we so much as look at crosseyed has earned Danters go ahead to put the smackdown on us.

Pathetic anti-American coward.

hawkdriver on December 9, 2012 at 5:49 PM

And Reagan and Bush, Sr., were most certainly neocons

You keep on using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. But Ronulans use that word instinctively to describe anything that is not “non-interventionist”

Examples of what? You didn’t provide any examples of anything.

In fact I did, I provided two examples of presidents who held views simeilar to yours, then had to promptly abandon them when faced with…reality.

TinCanNav on December 9, 2012 at 7:38 PM

The US entity has restored/secured the freedom to more people than any other entity in human history, despite the crap from Howard Zinn that you eagerly regurgitate so you can think yourself sophisticated.

Your Pentagon propaganda is a complete dodge of the point, and a complete failure to understand the point at large.

Ummm, yes, when the legitimately elected government gives them a legal order then yes, they are defending your freedoms as outlined in the Constitution. To do otherwise would be taking authority away from the republic and making you un-free.
Amazing how you don’t get this after 3 times now.

We are not in an official state of war against any of those countries.

Another dodge. They aren’t following legal orders. But look at the intellectual dishonesty of the progressive and his Orwellian statement: we aren’t at war unless it’s official. Forget about the military operations, these acts of war are not acts of war because the president seized the power dictatorally while a complicit Congress just nodded in agreement.

On 9/12/01 I walked through a debris field in lower Manhattan full of shoes with feet still in them and birds carrying off scraps of flesh. Even that somehow didn’t satisfy your notions of legitimacy.

And you still didn’t question our interventionist, progressive foreign policy, the foreign policy of Hillary Cinton, Bill Clinton, the New York Times, Madeline Albright, FDR, Wilson, TDR … great company you’re keeping.

The elected representatives of the Republic have determined otherwise. You can argue the various reasons behind the deployments or better yet, you can vote them out but whining that the military exists and is endeavoring to do the missions that it has been given is 1) off the mark and 2) stupid.

What a loyal little sheep you are. You are certainly a model of independent thought.

But keep those typical neocon/Trotskyite responses coming. Yes, how dare you, citizen, criticize the sociopaths directing our foreign policy! Don’t you know the government is infallible!

Dante on December 9, 2012 at 8:56 PM

This boy is stumped on how to explain away his retarded assertion that we deserved to be attacked at Pearl by the Japanese.

Now, nothing done to the US warrants us lifting a finger. But everyone else in the entire world that we so much as look at crosseyed has earned Danters go ahead to put the smackdown on us.

Pathetic anti-American coward.

hawkdriver on December 9, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Where did I say we deserved to be attacked? I didn’t. That’s your straw man fantasy, because you are unable to discuss the facts. I said we provoked the attack, and FDR knew of the attack beforehand.

Dante on December 9, 2012 at 8:58 PM

TinCanNav on December 9, 2012 at 7:38 PM

When you decide to make a substantive post and speak maturely, let me know, then perhaps we can have a discussion.

Dante on December 9, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Dante on December 9, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Lol, that is rich coming from you. But that is fine, Ill be your huckleberry. We will start slow. Please define a neocon.

TinCanNav on December 9, 2012 at 9:31 PM

and FDR knew of the attack beforehand

Speaking of fantasies

TinCanNav on December 9, 2012 at 9:39 PM

I just uncovered the troll’s last name – it’s French of course.

DERAILLEUR

Folks, if the troll ever had an original idea and a cold drink of water at the same time it would kill him dead. The only way they’d know he was dead was the stench rising thru the floorboard’s from the basement of his parents home.

So just ignore the troll and it will go away. All he wants to do is derail a great thread about the Army-Navy Game and get us to chase our tails.

GEAUX NAVY! BEAT ARMY!

CatchAll on December 9, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Back to the thread – does anyone here think that Greezy Joe Biden has recovered from his hangover yet? He was roaring drunk at the game yesterday. Three Sheets To The Wind

CatchAll on December 9, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Back to the thread – does anyone here think that Greezy Joe Biden has recovered from his hangover yet? He was roaring drunk at the game yesterday. Three Sheets To The Wind

Meh, good for him, Irish guy at a football game? I would not expect anything else. On top of that, if I were VP I think I would spend most of my time drinking too, just to stave off the soul crushing boredom

TinCanNav on December 9, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Re Dante.

Your Pentagon propaganda is a complete dodge of the point, and a complete failure to understand the point at large.

I have gone through your drivel line by line and answered it. (Unlike the points that I and others have made that you simply walk away from like the intellectual/moral coward that you are)

They aren’t following legal orders.

Take the pentagon to court. (Spoiler alert, the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists” and the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002″ have both been found to be lawful by the courts.)

“But look at the intellectual dishonesty of the progressive and his Orwellian statement: we aren’t at war unless it’s official.”

No dishonesty there, we are not in a state of war with those countries. We may be fighting against entities within their territories in the case of Yemen or Libya, but that’s a different thing then war between 2 nation-states.
You like to think of yourself as educated, huh. “Orwellian”…. Amazing how you idiots like to evoke Orwell. Actually, just the word “Orwellian” as if that were the equivalent of being versed in his works.)

Forget about the military operations, these acts of war are not acts of war because the president seized the power dictatorally while a complicit Congress just nodded in agreement.

So Congress and thee president and the courts… all 3 branches of government have seized power “dictatorally”[sic]. LOL. You disagree therefore it’s a dictatorship. You courageously toss your toys out of the crib here against that dictatorship by trashing the military. You are an infant, that’s all.

And you still didn’t question our interventionist, progressive foreign policy, the foreign policy of Hillary Cinton, Bill Clinton, the New York Times, Madeline Albright, FDR, Wilson, TDR … great company you’re keeping”

I can use a calendar, I can see that 1400 years of islamist aggression and terrorism, outlined as compulsory for muslims in the Quran and it’s Haddiths actually predate Hillary Clinton and even FDR. I’ve also actually seen some of the backward s3!t holes that produce these savages who want to saw off your empty head and can recognize that it’s not America’s fault that they are s#!t holes. They hate us because their prophet tells them to hate us and because our success underlines their failure. (the latter ought to sound familiar to you) Not because of Hillary Clinton.

“What a loyal little sheep you are. You are certainly a model of independent thought.”

Was that supposed to be a rebuttal? That it? “Independent thought” from a Ron Paul cultist….LOL You are just whining because I’m not on your bandwagon.

“Yes, how dare you, citizen, criticize the sociopaths directing our foreign policy! “

That’s not what you were criticizing. Regardless, idiot, had you any common sense or clarity of thought you would have been embarrassed by your performance here. An intellect like you getting spanked by a pack of dumb ‘ol sheeple rednecks… Inconceivable!

“Don’t you know the government is infallible!”

Again, infantile. The government is VERY FALLIBLE. Trashing the people who guard you while you sleep isn’t taking a courageous stand against the “government” (As if you aren’t doing it because you don’t like the notion that you ought to show a little gratitude or because their existence reminds you that you are a pu$sy by comparison) It’s just showing you to be a classless idiot.

V7_Sport on December 9, 2012 at 11:11 PM

V7_Sport on December 9, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Well constructed and articulate. He’ll never read it though.

hawkdriver on December 10, 2012 at 1:14 AM

hawkdriver on December 9, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Where did I say we deserved to be attacked? I didn’t. That’s your straw man fantasy, because you are unable to discuss the facts. I said we provoked the attack, and FDR knew of the attack beforehand.

Dante on December 9, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Talk about strawmen. We provoked the attack? Again, you can’t comment on a decade of Japanese conquest in China and the Pacific. You really are the most arrogant moron I’ve ever read a comment from here. I laugh at you saying “I” won’t discuss the facts. It is the specific observation of every commenter who makes the mistake of thinking they can have a reasonable exchange with you.

Go back to Stormfront.

hawkdriver on December 10, 2012 at 1:21 AM

V7_Sport on December 9, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Anyone who says we aren’t at war officially while the U.S. is engaged in warfare, and in the same breath says that the military is acting on legitimate orders, and who still clings to the laughable propaganda “they hate us because we’re free, and because their prophet tells them to,” simply cannot be taken seriously.

Dante on December 10, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Please define a neocon.

TinCanNav on December 9, 2012 at 9:31 PM

“Neoconservatism is a right-wing branch of American liberalism that includes endorsement of political individualism and a qualified endorsement of free markets. It has also been described as a variant of conservatism which advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including by military means. Yet from the 1930s to the early 1950s, conservatives were strong non-interventionists and the Old Right committed to the concept of anti-imperialism. Neoconservatism (or new conservatism) began with a group of former liberals, who during the late 1960s began to endorse nationalism and interventionism in opposition to the USSR. The term “neoconservative” (sometimes shortened to “neocon”) was used initially during the 1930s, to describe American communist intellectuals who criticized Soviet ideology. Neoconservatives have been especially influential in the formulation of foreign and military policy, particularly in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. In the George W. Bush administration, neoconservative officials of the Departments of Defense and State helped to plan and promote the Iraq War.”

Wiki entry

Irving Kirstol, godfather of neoconservatism

Even I, frequently referred to as the “godfather” of all those neocons, have had my moments of wonderment. A few years ago I said (and, alas, wrote) that neoconservatism had had its own distinctive qualities in its early years, but by now had been absorbed into the mainstream of American conservatism. I was wrong, and the reason I was wrong is that, ever since its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s, what we call neoconservatism has been one of those intellectual undercurrents that surface only intermittently. It is not a “movement,” as the conspiratorial critics would have it. Neoconservatism is what the late historian of Jacksonian America, Marvin Meyers, called a “persuasion,” one that manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one whose meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect.

Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy. That this new conservative politics is distinctly American is beyond doubt. There is nothing like neoconservatism in Europe, and most European conservatives are highly skeptical of its legitimacy. The fact that conservatism in the United States is so much healthier than in Europe, so much more politically effective, surely has something to do with the existence of neoconservatism. But Europeans, who think it absurd to look to the United States for lessons in political innovation, resolutely refuse to consider this possibility.

Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the “American grain.” It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked. Of course, those worthies are in no way overlooked by a large, probably the largest, segment of the Republican party, with the result that most Republican politicians know nothing and could not care less about neoconservatism.

Dante on December 10, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Lol, gotta love wiki.

Neoconservatives have been especially influential in the formulation of foreign and military policy, particularly in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush.

In fact Neocons critisized both, particularly H.W. Bush in his conduct in Gulf War One. Of course the difference that most Ronulans refuse to accept is that Reagan and Bush one supported limited engagement doctrine using coalition strategy and overwhelming force to achieve a focused geopolitical objective. True modern neocons, the PNAC types, use the US military like a tool to reshape nations at the political level.

TinCanNav on December 10, 2012 at 10:02 AM

ARMY-NAVY GAME 2011: after the 2011 Army-Navy game the two academies’ Commandants got together for a few drinks. The outcome was that Hudson High challenged Canoe U to a four-day icefishing tournament.

The first day of the competition, Navy got on the board with three walleyes, a pike an a Muskie. Army didnt weigh in any fish. Second day – same thing. Back at the Army camp, the Commandant worked himself up into a lather, stating that Navy had to be cheating. He ordered his cadets to sneak over to the Navy camp to see how they were cheating.

Hours later, the Cadets came back, shivering, teeth chattering. “Ge-Gen-General! You were right, sir! Navy IS cheating! They’re drilling holes in the ice!”

CatchAll on December 10, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Well constructed and articulate. He’ll never read it though.

hawkdriver on December 10, 2012 at 1:14 AM

Thanks! This whole thing is obviously about him and not any coherent objection to, well, anything. He’s just a resentful little b!tch.

V7_Sport on December 10, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Re the resentful little b!tch.

Anyone who says we aren’t at war officially while the U.S. is engaged in warfare,

What I wrote is that we are not in a state of war with those countries and every rifle shot doesn’t require an official declaration of war. Read the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists” and you will see that it allows us to pursue islamist terrorists across borders.
Or should we just give them a ticket? Your bitter old crackpot cult leader’s solution was to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal… Obviously the strategy there is to get them to laugh themselves to death.

who still clings to the laughable propaganda “they hate us because we’re free, and because their prophet tells them to,”

Where did I write that “they hate us because we are free? They hate us because they believe in a fundamentally hateful theology that tells them to hate us and because our success underlines their failure. I can post literally hundreds of quotes from the Koran that instruct them to hate, subjugate, make war against, kill and lie to non muslims. It’s just the absolute fact, something that we in the west like to pretend is otherwise. (Gee, a ron paul cultist living in denial, who knew?)

So is this your big rebuttal? To mischaracterize what I have written? You are just showing that you can’t listen and can’t keep up.

How is it that you can only seem to flail around when you are pitted against such loathsome sheeple rednecks? We dumbasses who did something other than b!tching on the internet ought to be fodder for your superior intellect and your youtube trolling education. Gee, maybe there is some reasoning and experience that is backing what has been written to you? Maybe you are the dogmatic, band wagon hopping follower that you like to think others are…. There sure isn’t a lot of independent thinking backing what you write. It’s pretty much cooky cutter Ron Paul psycobabble a$shole speak. Guess that makes you a “sheeple”. “Simply cannot be taken seriously” you say… LOL.

V7_Sport on December 10, 2012 at 2:38 PM

In fact Neocons critisized both, particularly H.W. Bush in his conduct in Gulf War One. Of course the difference that most Ronulans refuse to accept is that Reagan and Bush one supported limited engagement doctrine using coalition strategy and overwhelming force to achieve a focused geopolitical objective. True modern neocons, the PNAC types, use the US military like a tool to reshape nations at the political level.

TinCanNav on December 10, 2012 at 10:02 AM

That simply isn’t true. Conservatives criticized Bush for the first Gulf War, not the neoconservatives. Irving Kristol, for example, wholeheartedly supported the policy. You really need to educate yourself.

Dante on December 10, 2012 at 4:40 PM

I saw where HA’s Mia Hamm was at the game too. Woo-Hoo!

CatchAll on December 11, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Comment pages: 1 2