New York Times gets the facts wrong, says Pentagon advisor

[Baptist in Richmond]

All is indeed well. The Vols beat Miss St tonight (although did their dead level best to give the game back after a huge lead).

I just LOVE my alma mater. Locally, I cheer for William & Mary, and they are doing good this year too. Tonight they beat UNC Wilmington, and I couldn't go down to Williamsburg to watch the game. Ugh...

I am hoping to see some snow in the GSMNP, but we'll see. The last time I went to the webcam there wasn't any snow at either Look Rock or Purchase Knob.

Great to hear that all is well,
BiR

 

[redbelt]

I pray none of my grandkids are ever desperate or stupid enough to join the armed forces. The people who join have good intentions but I don't want them killed to make money for the oil companies.

I will try this again. The original article that started this thread was discussing a dishonest use of statistics painting a large group of Soldiers as killers. Suggesting someone would be stupid or desperate to join the military seemed hateful to me. I guess when you have been to Iraq and know men and women who have been killed in action, my feelings might be stronger then others in this thread. I don't equate the words 'desperate' and 'stupid' with love for the military. He has his rights for his feelings as I do mine. Saying that the people who join 'have good intentions' seems to suggest to me that we are just gullible or not very smart and the reason I inserted the POTUS is the 'making money for oil companies' is continually an attack against President Bush, so I don't think I was stretching my statement at all. Some of you may want to trash me some more and that's okay. But when I see what I feel to be an attack on or toward the men and women in our military, I will respond.
To suggest that the men and women fighting in Iraq died for oil, to me, is insulting and dishonors their brave and voluntary service.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

I will try this again. The original article that started this thread was discussing a dishonest use of statistics painting a large group of Soldiers as killers. Suggesting someone would be stupid or desperate to join the military seemed hateful to me. I guess when you have been to Iraq and know men and women who have been killed in action, my feelings might be stronger then others in this thread. I don't equate the words 'desperate' and 'stupid' with love for the military. He has his rights for his feelings as I do mine. Saying that the people who join 'have good intentions' seems to suggest to me that we are just gullible or not very smart and the reason I inserted the POTUS is the 'making money for oil companies' is continually an attack against President Bush, so I don't think I was stretching my statement at all. Some of you may want to trash me some more and that's okay. But when I see what I feel to be an attack on or toward the men and women in our military, I will respond.
To suggest that the men and women fighting in Iraq died for oil, to me, is insulting and dishonors their brave and voluntary service.

A good job of articulating your rationale; however, by your own admission, you made the jump to interpret billwald's comments "as an attack against President Bush." That may or may not be the case, but billwald never said anything about the POTUS, nor did billwald utilize the word hatred. If you are going to take someone to task, at least confront that person with his/her words, not what you interpret them to mean about something or someone else.

You have also noted that when you see what you "feel to be an attack no or toward the men and women in our military," you will respond. And that is okay (arguably a good thing). Just don't make the jump to accuse someone of writing or believing something else that is not related to the poster's comments.

Again, a good job of amplification on your part.

Hope all is well,
BiR

 

[redbelt]

A good job of articulating your rationale; however, by your own admission, you made the jump to interpret billwald's comments "as an attack against President Bush." That may or may not be the case, but billwald never said anything about the POTUS, nor did billwald utilize the word hatred. If you are going to take someone to task, at least confront that person with his/her words, not what you interpret them to mean about something or someone else.

You have also noted that when you see what you "feel to be an attack no or toward the men and women in our military," you will respond. And that is okay (arguably a good thing). Just don't make the jump to accuse someone of writing or believing something else that is not related to the poster's comments.

Again, a good job of amplification on your part.

Hope all is well,
BiR

Thank you for your kind comments, but I would say that it wasn't a jump to go from 'make money for the oil companies' to being a reference to President Bush and his middle east policies. I have read other of Billwald's comments related to the military and he has a distain for those serving in the military now. For instance, in a thread titled "Our Military is Voting in support of the war" he made the following statement... "The war is an outlet for those who like to break things and kill people. Pays better than a street gang." I guess I'm not allowed to interpret that, so I will let others suggest what his feelings are toward the military and those who have served or are serving in Iraq.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Thank you for your kind comments,

No problem at all.

but I would say that it wasn't a jump to go from 'make money for the oil companies' to being a reference to President Bush and his middle east policies.

But by your own admission, it was only your interpretation, not anything that was specifically mentioned - billwald never mentioned President Bush.

I have read other of Billwald's comments related to the military and he has a distain for those serving in the military now. For instance, in a thread titled "Our Military is Voting in support of the war" he made the following statement... "The war is an outlet for those who like to break things and kill people. Pays better than a street gang." I guess I'm not allowed to interpret that, so I will let others suggest what his feelings are toward the military and those who have served or are serving in Iraq.

This would be another example where billwald said nothing about President Bush. Remember: you probably don't know billwald, and it is impossible for you to speculate about what he believes about President Bush when both quotes you have cited do not even mention the POTUS.

Again, thanks for taking the time to expound upon your initial post.

Hope all is well,
BiR

 

[carpro]

I have read other of Billwald's comments related to the military and he has a distain for those serving in the military now. For instance, in a thread titled "Our Military is Voting in support of the war" he made the following statement... "The war is an outlet for those who like to break things and kill people. Pays better than a street gang." I guess I'm not allowed to interpret that,...

You certainly are.

I believe you can safely "interpret" Billwald's remarks to indicate he has an intense dislike of our military. You can say hate if you like. There's no real difference. If Billwald wants to defend his remarks, he can do so himself.

Some believe you can't communicate hate with the written word unless you actually use the word "hate". Nothing could be further from the truth.

Believe me, if I hated you, I could let you know it without saying the word "hate" and so can you and so can Billwald and most everyone else I can think of on this forum. Same with love, like, approval, disapproval, frustration, happiness and any other emotion you want to name.

You're a chaplain. I'm sure you have dozens of ways to illustrate the love of Christ without actually saying the words, "Christ loves you".

Welcome to BB. You are entitled to interpret anyone's remarks any way you please. If they object, they can state their own objections. BiR fancies himself as the literality police.

:wavey:

 

[redbelt]

I have read other of Billwald's comments related to the military and he has a distain for those serving in the military now. For instance, in a thread titled "Our Military is Voting in support of the war" he made the following statement... "The war is an outlet for those who like to break things and kill people. Pays better than a street gang." I guess I'm not allowed to interpret that,...

You certainly are.

I believe you can safely "interpret" Billwald's remarks to indicate he has an intense dislike of our military. You can say hate if you like. There's no real difference. If Billwald wants to defend his remarks, he can do so himself.

Some believe you can't communicate hate with the written word unless you actually use the word "hate". Nothing could be further from the truth.

Believe me, if I hated you, I could let you know it without saying the word "hate" and so can you and so can Billwald and most everyone else I can think of on this forum. Same with love, like, approval, disapproval, frustration, happiness and any other emotion you want to name.

You're a chaplain. I'm sure you have dozens of ways to illustrate the love of Christ without actually saying the words, "Christ loves you".

Welcome to BB. You are entitled to interpret anyone's remarks any way you please. If they object, they can state their own objections. BiR fancies himself as the literality police.

:wavey:

Use to be a deputy sheriff and police officer too, so I don't mind the 'literality police' too much. I guess I just get tired of our military taking it on the chin so much.... didn't expect that on here, but I'm learning! Good to be here on the BB.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

I believe you can safely "interpret" Billwald's remarks to indicate he has an intense dislike of our military. You can say hate if you like. There's no real difference.

Only on Planet Carpro, not in the real world.

BiR fancies himself as the literality police.

HUH? Where have I ever claimed this? More of the same from carpro: unfounded assertions devoid of acccuracy.

 

[carpro]

Quote:
BiR fancies himself as the literality police.

HUH? Where have I ever claimed this?

:laugh:
By your actions in this very thread and too many others to count in the past.

You might as well tattoo it on you forehead.:laugh:

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

:laugh:
By your actions in this very thread and too many others to count in the past.

You might as well tattoo it on you forehead.:laugh:

Oh, don't worry: nobody would expect you to understand the concept of sticking to what is actually stated, carpro.

Case in point: I asked you a question. You produced it and neglected to answer it.....

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

A month later, and still no response from carpro......
:laugh:

 

[bobbyd]

Do you realize that you used "NY Times" and "facts" in the same sentence...pretty funny!