[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
…you’re an awful partisan hack.
[/QUOTE]
And you’re not?
Oh, the hypocrisy…it burns, I tells ya.
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
No, the fucking point is WHY DIDN’T YOU say “contractors”? The reason is that you wanted it to look as bad as you could make it.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Personally, I think a more apt comparison might be Markos Moulitsas, who made an inflammatory comment on his blog after some American contractors were killed in Iraq in 2004:
[/QUOTE]
You’re a fucking idiot.
Why didn’t you post the quote that I was responding to? The one that goes like this:
Deceitful prick.
Because right from the beginning I said they were contractors, and I don’t really feel I ought to post that in every sentence when I made it explicitly clear at the beginning.
That’s what had me so confused about your rants. I thought it was pretty well understood that they were contractors.
This thread is very odd.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Because right from the beginning I said they were contractors, and I don’t really feel I ought to post that in every sentence when I made it explicitly clear at the beginning.
That’s what had me so confused about your rants. I thought it was pretty well understood that they were contractors.
[/QUOTE]
Until I called you on your attempt to develop a false equivalency between Coulter’s comments and Kos’s, and more to the point your faux desires to rise above partisanship. Then it became “Kos said ‘Screw them’ when Americans were killed in a combat zone.” There should be no need to shade and sculpt the truth if you’re not simply aiming for partisanship.
(And, again, if one is calling Kos to task for what he said prior to having retracted and apologized for it, the distinction between them being members of the military (which he was) versus contractors or mercenaries is key).
Time for you to be straight, Hentor - you really thought I was being dishonest, but in reality you missed an important thing I had to say because you’re just skimming my posts, I suspect. It’s happened twice so far this thread.
And, if you don’t mind, I’ll take advice on how partisan or nonpartisan I am from someone who is, well, not you. No offense.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
This thread is very odd.
[/QUOTE]
Ya think? 
Maybe because Mr. Moto turned this into “I hate Kos” the same way he did to the Edwards thread in GD.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Time for you to be straight, Hentor - you really thought I was being dishonest, but in reality you missed an important thing I had to say because you’re just skimming my posts, I suspect. It’s happened twice so far this thread.
[/quote]
No, I missed the first one, because your “outrage” at Coulter consisted of a three word clause in the middle of a sentence about other conservatives. However, I admitted that I missed that post hoc. What I responded to here was your specific use of a vague description in order to make your tu quoque seem more outrageous than it was.
I’m happy to acknowledge my partisan bias.
My problem is hypocritical fucks who want to pretend to something else, calling for maturity in political debates (or an avoidance of “hardened partisan positions”) in the same fucking post that they offer a hugely irrelevant tu quoque (or do nothing but advance partisan positions in general).
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
that word is usually spat out only by people who have nothing but contempt for those people (like, say, yourself), which is why those of us in the military contracting business don’t tend to use it much
[/QUOTE]
Ahh, you’re an asshole. Pardon me for attempting to engage; I erroneously thought better of you. Rant and slobber as you will.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Except that that word is usually spat out only by people who have nothing but contempt for those people (like, say, yourself), which is why those of us in the military contracting business don’t tend to use it much.
[/quote]
Do you carry a gun and shoot at people in a battle zone?
I thought not.
Because while ‘contractors’ is correct, it’s vague. ‘Mercenaries’ are a particular kind of defense contractor. By using the general word instead of the particular one, the WaPo continues its policy of supporting the war, and the warmongers, wherever there’s the thinnest sliver of ground to stand on.
I personally have no beef with the mercenary soldiers themselves. From what stories of theirs have been published, they’re mostly part of the ‘poverty draft’ - young men, most of whom have already served in the military, who have few good options in life.
What upsets me is the executives and stockholders of the corporations who are profiting from the blood they shed, and the government that has enabled this sort of business to be so profitable.
I’m sorry about that, Squink. I shouldn’t have let things get that far.
Mercenary is such a loaded term that I hardly ever see anyone trying to use in in a descriptive way. I only tend to see it thrown around in an inflammatory way.
I don’t agree with your description, but I can see you weren’t being inflammatory, so I have to apologize.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Do you carry a gun and shoot at people in a battle zone?
I thought not.
[/QUOTE]
Doesn’t stop some lunatics from calling me a mercenary for the work that I do perform.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Because while ‘contractors’ is correct, it’s vague. ‘Mercenaries’ are a particular kind of defense contractor.
[/QUOTE]
It also is a particular kind of perjorative, which is the problem.
The better move would be to call them contractors and then describe the nature of the work. Readers could then evaluate its worth in a tactical, fiscal, and moral sense.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
What upsets me is the executives and stockholders of the corporations who are profiting from the blood they shed, and the government that has enabled this sort of business to be so profitable.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I was laid off in November and had to go to work for another contractor because the one I was working for wasn’t doing so hot, so my perspective on this is a good bit different from yours, I’ll bet. Still, I’d rather have a company making money if it is doing work our military needs.
You’ve made comments bemoaning the lack of body armor and Humvee armor. You do realize, don’t you, that these things are made by for-profit enterprises under contract to the DoD?
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I can see you weren’t being inflammatory, so I have to apologize.
[/QUOTE]
Okey doke. I know the word is used by some in a nasty fashion, but geeze, there is a difference between the Halliburton guys that work the chow lines and the folks running around the country with guns and choppers. Maybe we need to devise a less loaded, more correct term: ‘contractors in arms’ perhaps. But absent some official military input, whatever alternative is used will sound stupid; even if it were to come from the lips of kos.
Oh dear, sucking Uncle Sam’s armour-plated cock wasn’t paying so well anymore, what’s a [del]mercenary[/del]“military contractor” to do? Find a new ponce, evidently.
Squink, I disagree on whether there’s a significant (moral, I mean) difference between a Halliburton caterer and a Blackwater gun-for-hire. The one’s just enabling the other and is complicit in his actions to some degree. To me, they’re both mercenaries, just like an old-style army cook was still a soldier (I understand they contract this out now)
[QUOTE=Liberal]
How 'bout Lynne Stewart and Ward Churchill? I await your rationalizations of how these are either not “true” Democrats or else don’t compare.
[/QUOTE]
You’re a smart guy, but this is an incredibly dumb comparison. Ward Churchill is some random professor at some random college somewhere. Not only is he not an official spokesman for the democratic party, he’s not a popular pundit or author. He hasn’t written bestselling books. He’s not someone anyone would have ever heard of, except that he made some ridiculously idiotic hateful comments, was rightfully lambasted for them by just about everyone, and has returned to well-deserved obscurity. Ann Coulter, on the other hand, IS someone who certainly appears (based on prominence, book sales, etc.) to represent a fair percentage of conservatives/Republicans. Now, one can debate the extent of that representation, but she is a prominent public figure. Ward Churchill is basically just a guy.
It would make no more sense for prominent national democrats to be expected to apologize for Ward Churchill than for prominent national republicans to be expected to apologize for, I dunno, Wildest Bill.
I mean, seriously, dude, get real.
(Lynne Stewart is a bit more relevant that Ward Churchill, but again, the comparison to Ann Coulter is ridiculous, as she has neither (a) written best-selling books, nor (b) been an invited speaker at prominent events with at least an apparent imprimateur of democratic officialness.)
[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
I mean, seriously, dude, get real.
[/QUOTE]
I must admit that your argument is quite sensible. I retract the comparisons.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I must admit that your argument is quite sensible. I retract the comparisons.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks. And sorry I got a bit hissy.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
How 'bout Lynne Stewart and Ward Churchill? I await your rationalizations of how these are either not “true” Democrats or else don’t compare.
[/QUOTE]
Some googling provides no sign of the party affiliation of either. Let’s assume both are indeed Democrats, though there is no evidence of that. What conferences of high-level Democratic politicians and pundits are they invited to address?
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I must admit that your argument is quite sensible. I retract the comparisons.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I did not see this before I posted. Thank you.