The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on August 9th, 2017 at 01:13 pm
Ned Lamont’s latest TV ad concentrates on the vital issue of skinheads in the military, presumably because wild-eyed white supremacists are more voter-friendly than the Kos kids.
- Given the political beliefs of most GIs I know, Lamont probably considers the vast majority of military members to be “right wing extremists”. How I hope that he and Ko$ become Democratic party poster boys.Posted by 68W40 on 2006 07 28 at 11:50 AM • permalink
- Hilarious—but not Lamont’s. It’s made by an independent group of lunatics.Posted by Paul Zrimsek on 2006 07 28 at 11:53 AM • permalink
- Love the photo of Ned standing by the window of the government-type office, with the (no doubt, blank) papers in his hand: the frozen attitude, the wide-eyed surprise – it’s as if a clueless staffer had just ushered in a constituent, who unfortunately turned out to be Medusa.
The problem is not the number of skin-heads in the army; it’s the prevalence of bone-heads in politics. And, of course, their fantasy-ridden, nutbucket supporters among the imbecilariat.
- From the ad:
But when the Pentagon recently found 320 extremists, George Bush expelled only 2.
[snip]
On August 8, you can change Congress by replacing Joe Lieberman with Ned Lamont, a progressive Democrat who will keep neo-Nazis out of our military.
OK, I don’t like gangs or extremists in the military. We had a serious problem with them while I was in the Illinois Army National Guard. It’s very difficult to screen them out, but when they are discovered and can be tossed out, do so.
But I have to ask……these clowns are making an issue of 320 extremists? The current authorized active strength for DoD is 1,415,600. That’s 0.0023% of the military. If you include the Guard and Reserves (2,923,966), that drops to 0.0011%. (Data source is here; it’s fairly reliable.)
Admittedly, there are likely more than 320 extremists in the military. But, really! Aren’t there other bigger problems Lamont can
deal withpontificate about? Or at least couldn’t they, I dunno, plus up the numbers somehow? It’s not like political commercials don’t have lies in them.Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 07 28 at 01:24 PM • permalink
- Jeff-Honestly, that surprises me. I’ve been in a variety of units in both the North Carolina and Tennessee guard over the past 11 years and never once met anyone who I would consider a skinhead (though I have known one or two who were probably racists, which I could never figure out given how closely you have to work with people from other races).
I think Lamont is just making a subtle appeal to his moonbat base (“hey the Army really is filled with extermist freaks”). I wonder if he wants to start appointing political officers to ensure “proper” indoctrination.
- 91B30, I’ve dealt mostly with gang issues, but I’ve read of a couple extremists in the military (one was photograhed in his Class A uniform, sporting a swaztika brassard). So it is a rare issue, aside from the out-and-out racists you mention.
If Lamont (or his proxies) is targeting the moonbat segment of his voter base, he’s wasting his money. They’re already for Lamont because of Lieberman’s support for Iraq.
Sort of like how a lot of people voted for Kerry, now that I think about it. Some people certainly don’t learn.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 07 28 at 02:51 PM • permalink
They get weeded out early, or they don’t hack it and leave.
That’s probably why there are so few, Stevo. They are the exception, not the rule.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 07 28 at 02:53 PM • permalink
- Has it occurred to anyone that some of the same groups that are howling about extremists in the American military are the same jerks that hate the military for excluding gays, and for sending innocent tots seeking only an education off to war? Since when has there been a legal ban on recruits belonging to certain groups? If the groups to which they belong are not banned, and if they do not engage in behavior that is contrary to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), then why would we have any legal standing to ‘root them out’?
Do I like the idea of skinheads in the American military? No. Do I think that the shrill idiots calling for this action give a damn about the military, or for the democratic process? No.
Furthermore, who gets to choose what groups are on this hit parade? Please tell me that CAIR and the ACLU are on there.
- I agree with Blue Hen. It may not be desireable to have racists and skinheads in the military, but it is not illegal as long as they behave themselves. Why doesn’t Mr. Lamont ask how many Muslims there are in the military, and of that number, how many are jihadists at heart? It amounts to the same kind of question.
Why doesn’t Mr. Lamont ask how many Muslims there are in the military, and of that number, how many are jihadists at heart? It amounts to the same kind of question.
Especially considering one of them killed some fellow soldiers with a grenade.
Any Jews been killed by skinheads in the military? Hell, according to the Sheehanites, they’re fighting for the Jews.
…and can be tossed out, do so.
Re #11, 12: that’s pretty much the case, AFAIK….I should have been clear on that. The gang problem in the ILARNG existed because they couldn’t be discharged for gang membership. That’s because there’s no regulation (or even a law) specifically against it, unless a commander can make “conduct unbecoming” stick, or establish a pattern of behavior.
Those two extremists that ImpeachPACo refers to? I’ll betcha they were discharged because they broke the UCMJ in a major way, not because they were extremists.
Which, now that I reflect on it, makes this ad even more dishonest. Lamont would have to make it illegal to be an extremist while in the military. The definition of “extremist” would have to be very exact, less the law be used to excluded unintended sterotypes—exactly as Blue Hen points out in #11.
Misleading hypocrisy……truly, the left can’t be parodied any more.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 07 28 at 04:56 PM • permalink
- The military reflects the culture – all of the culture. For those who are looking for a way out of the gang, the military has a long tradition of offering a path. It isn’t a bad tradition.
Military service has turned around a lot of lives. For some it is the first time they learn that life offers alternatives and that the whole world isn’t represented by the neighborhood. The military teaches one how to focus, think, organize, accomplish. The military offers this to people and, if someone is looking for a way out, he will take it. If he chooses otherwise, he won’t have the staying power to make it through the required period of dronehood while learning the ropes. As in any human endeavor, there will be those who slip through the most diligent efforts to recognize potential evil. (This obviously holds for women as well. I just can’t stand writing “s/he” more than once.)
It isn’t perfect. It’s still a government bureaucracy, after all. But it is a bureaucracy that offers something positive to society in the way it helps the people we are talking about. It isn’t a charity. It isn’t a welfare program. It doesn’t offer something for nothing. It offers a contract and a trade, and it shows its respect by expecting you to live up to it. I’ll bet you my pension that it has done more good than any program the social engineers ever came up with.
- Very true, saltydog, I know a fair number of troops who did that. Our problem in the ILARNG was that the gangs joined just to get combat training, and to steal equipment. All too often, they succeeded in their thefts.
And, to be honest, the same was true for the militias.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 07 28 at 05:44 PM • permalink
Admittedly, there are likely more than 320 extremists in the military.
Agreed. After all, only 77% of the military voted for President Bush. We gotta do something about that scary 23%.
I only ran into one genuine bigot in the service, but he didn’t last. His own stress at working with people he despised and couldn’t get away with harassing burned him out.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 07 29 at 02:22 AM • permalink
- richard, I’ve ran into more than one bigot in the military, active and reserve, myself. They are very much a small small small segment of the military for exactly the same reason your example burned out—they couldn’t behave the way they wanted to.
I had a couple squad leaders, way back when, who were bigots. Once was a black NCO who hated white NCOs, and the other was a white NCO who hated black NCOs. My platoon sergeant loved putting them on missions together, just to teach them a lesson.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 07 29 at 11:21 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
