Why do Freepers think (or claim) we do NOT support the 'troops'???

[karlrschneider]

After all, we raised 97 kinds of hell before the Iraq invasion trying to STOP them from being sent into harm's way, right? We note every death with sorrow and grief (when we can find out about them). And they bitch at us for EXPRESSING the very "rights" they blather so loudly about that are supposedly being protected by the military. What the hell is up with THAT? I confess, I just cannot get my head around all their disconnected notions.
:eyes:

[ck4829]

1. Because they were told that we don't support them.

And they follow like Zombies.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

4. Because they are the Sound Bite Sheeple and that is what they

have been told. Thinking not allowed.

[slor]

2. It makes them feel better...

for not going themselves.

[kiraboo]

3. It's a diversion. If we are accused of not supporting the troops

the hope is that nobody will notice that we've been right about the war. Look, these people aren't too clever. I wouldn't waste much time trying to understand 'em.

[jonnyblitz]

5. exacty, once we stop worrying about what stupid people think of

us. the better off we all are. :thumbsup:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

10. convenient target, distracting and well-framed.

they wave their fingers catching the Media camera, while, they steal the issue and frame it for their benefit - totally ignoring the truth, of course.

[Fire Walk With Me]

23. Misdirection, smoke and mirrors. Exactly.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

6. I don't think

most of 'em can remember that far back. In a way, they remind me of very little children. They want the world to be simple and things defined as black and white. To dissent or question brings into being shades of grey they cannot comprehend.............

[tuvor]

7. They believe the old adage...

If you can't dazzle 'em with brains, baffle 'em with bullshit.

[ourbluenation]

8. "think" is the operative word...they don't think but keep repeating

the mantra over an over without thinking about what they're saying, following the lemmings - hopefully over a cliff soon.

[Mend]

9. they also call us baby killers....

and a million other lies. The republicans would never win shit under normal circumstances because they are against everything that ordinary people need and want. They need a coalition of groups with single issues and so it goes.

[JimmyJazz]

11. I have no idea. It's really weird to see half a million people come

out against an illegal war and one hundred people standing on the side lines saying "We (meaning they) support the troops" - Don't they understand that if we didn't support the troops, we wouldn't be spending our time and our resources to come to DC? That we'd stay home and watch SpongeBob or college football on television. They do not understand that it is our passion for the military and the PEOPLE in the uniform and the people of other countries that drives us to attend these types of protests.

[karlrschneider]

13. Sigh...I suppose so. It just boggles my mind trying to imagine what sort

of faulty circuitry lies between their weirdly filtered ears...
:grr:

[FlaGranny]

12. I can't really say unless

they think that supporting the troops means buying a yellow ribbon and sending them to kill and to die.

It's a very strange notion.

[halobeam]

14. I touched on this with my freeper brother just last night.

I asked him to please tell me what I am "not" understanding about.. fight them there so we don't fight them here, and about why it is viewed as "not supporting troops" when we fight the war itself.

As best I understood his explanation, he said this:

We have thinned out Al Quida. We are on the front lines in Iraq, fighting them there and not only them obviously, but they are there and they can't let us take Iraq because it is a middle state leading to access to Syria and Iran, which they want at the same time, do NOT want us to control. He said Al Quida had training camps in Iraq and we have pictures of them, way back when Hussein was leader. I had told him, I understood they weren't there, Hussein and Al Quida didn't actually have anything in common and Saddam wouldn't have put up with them there, he wanted to control his country. I said the borders were porous after we went in and that's when they came in. He didn't agree. He went back to that they were there before we were in. He asked me why I thought Al Quida is there if Iraq wasn't important to them. These are how he understands it to be why they are there. This also is his explanation that we are on the offense there and they are busy with us in Iraq, so therefore they are too weakened to fight us here.


In the mind of a Republican, very interesting. Granted I have to say, he doesn't believe we should've gone in the way we did, and he also believes it's a freakin' mess there. States we can't just pull out and abandon the people after we ripped up their country, and claims to have absolutely no idea what the best answers are to get out without breaking promises to the Iraqi citizens that we will help them rebuild.

He actually hates politics at this time, (used to think the parties knew what they were doing)... hates pubs and dems alike. He's disgusted and doesn't talk much about it. Thinks they are all crooks and liars. It is an improvement from two years ago, for damn sure.

[karlrschneider]

16. I think we have "spread" out Al Qaida rather than "thinning" them.

It is inconceivable to me to imagine there are FEWER of them than there were 3 years ago, that makes no logical sense. And as far as Afghanistan's concerned, nobody is in charge there outside Kabul...the warlords are operating with even more localized authority than ever and the opium crops have been at record levels the last couple years.

But I must admit I don't have a solution to the Iraq mess...to my mind it is a perfect analogue to Humpty Dumpty. Nobody has figured out a way to unscramble an egg.
:eyes:

[liberalhistorian]

15. Because it's their

way of attempting to paint us all with the kind of brush they know most Americans would respond to, since most of us actually DO support the troops, in order to discredit us with the public.

I get pretty damned sick of it, too; just because we don't toe their line, that must mean we're "against the troops." My uncle is a Vietnam vet who's very anti-war, and he deeply resents the insinuation that he's "against the troops" just because he's against the war.

[karlrschneider]

17. Yeah, well, one could logically infer that Cheney, Bush, Limbaugh and

a basket full of other "patriots" were against the Viet Nam war since they went to so much trouble to avoid it.
:grr:

[Liberal In Texas]

18. Because like so many things they say, it's a way of demonizing us.

It doesn't matter if it's not true. If they say it enough times it will become the accepted frame for the argument.

Look at how the RW media rewrites history all the time; some lie comes out of Rush's or Hannity's mouth and the next day you hear it from the guy at the water cooler or in the bar.

It's one of the problems we have. When we're in the middle of debunking one lie they come up with 10 more. The Rove propaganda machine is in high gear, and has been for a long time.

[madeline_con]

19. Don't try to get your head around it.

They're talking out of the other end, anyway.

[karlrschneider]

20. LOL! I must say, that is a truly cogent evaluation of their...uh, anatomy

:D

[bowens43]

21. To a freeper,

support the troops means support the war. The troops are not human beings to them. They are expendable hardware like bullets and bombs.

[Lexingtonian]

22. They're not talking about reality.

It seems far too easy to say this, but if you really take what they're saying seriously it amounts to: 'We believe in the magical efficacy of what we're doing, and you people are screwing up the spellcasting and orthopraxis.'

When they're at their most fervent and desperate, their delusiveness grows to the point of imagining that our (the dissenters') minds exert an effect on the outcome.

It's never their magic that fails. It's that Evil Fiends prevent it from working.

I wish I were making this up. But somewhere inside each and every one of their arguments is a leap of logic. Generally it's one they can rationalize from what they "know" from church or their very provincial experience. Mostly it's based on imagining other people more perverted versions of themselves. Generally the leap of logic is justified or explained by analogy to something they claim to understand fully. (Sadly, it seems they never actually ever have the second part in grasp.)

It's ridiculously medieval. Don't even get me started on how televangelists and Dubya have made this variety of occultism and magical thinking appear respectable in public. The fraud is as old the first guy who ever declared himself a sorcerer.

[karlrschneider]

28. I guess so. I have some close first-hand experience w/televangelists.

Oral Roberts lived across the street from me in the 1950s and his youngest son Ronnie was a good friend of mine through high school. We went to different colleges and dropped out of touch and I was appalled to find out he killed himself a couple years after we graduated. From conversations we had had, I could understand the why of it. Wish I'd been nearby to talk with him before he did it.

[July]

34. Astute analysis, Lexingtonian.

I'd like to hear more about your last point (televangelists and Dubya making this kind of thinking respectable). I've been reflecting on Bush's rhetoric about what he "knows" and "believes" "in his heart," and I think this is one part of what you're talking about. For people averse to (or just bad at) logical argument, the use of "belief" (with all its religious overtones) as an ultimate standard is very appealing.

For Bush, it means he can say anything, always backing it up with "I believe in my heart." Damn the facts, science, witnesses, whistleblowers, the bottom line in the bank account. Once in a while he'll also take our names in vain and tell us that "Americans believe . . ." -- conveniently, it's always something he needs us to believe.

I would love to hear your further thoughts on magical thinking.

[cpa]

24. Freepers

Because they are irrational people who cannot think or write.

[Roy]

25. They KNOW you support the troops!

they only hope to convince you that you don't.

[mmonk]

26. Because they don't support the troops,

they support bush.

[leftofthedial]

27. they are irrational and delusional and lied to by their fascist prophets

the truth has an anti-repuke bias, so they have to lie.

[karlrschneider]

30. But understanding facts isn't rocket science...I can't figure out WHY they

refuse to accept the truth. I've met some way-right-wingers who're obviously not totally ignorant morons yet they have this weird disconnect from reality. And I know about denial but their psychopathy seems to go -way- beyond that. Somebody long ago said the hardest thing in the world is to know how to do something right and watch someone do it wrong, and say nothing. It seems to me that thinking (or the lack of it) falls in that same rubric.
Argggh.

[leftofthedial]

31. mental damage. they are defectives, religiously insane

or thoroughly brainwashed

when confronted with facts that contradict their faith-based world view, they are left with grasping a convenient lie as the preferred alternative.

IF they were rational, yes. You might convince them logically. But they are NOT rational.

[B Calm]

29. As a veteran myself, I fully support the troops! I don't support

this filthy administration that put in them in harms way on a pack of lies. The war mongers can go to hell! They're the ones who put partisan politics over our soldiers!

[karlrschneider]

32. I'm a vet too. So it's doubly frustrating. Another irony is that many of

the same people who loudly proclaim "We are freeing the Iraqis and giving them Democracy" will say the next breath "We should just nuke the sand niggers."

(Don't believe it?...browse the Yahoo forums a while.)

[halobeam]

36. Are you ever so right.

I've heard the exact same thing many times over. Excellent point of their contradiction.

[OhioChick]

33. The problem is they DON'T think

Someone else TELLS them what to think, as several other members suggested.

[CornField]

35. Because the GOP needs the military

Even in their worst years, the GOP still had the military families because "they support the troops."

Now, most people who read know this is a falsehood. Reduction of our military following the cold war was begun under Bush Sr. Base closings are a pet project of the GOP as are defense cuts (that affect the lowly GIs). Veterans benefits have been cut and are being cut -- even as our nation is producing more veterans who will bear the physical and emotional scars of war.

Still, the GOP has long been known as the "military" party and it is very important to their livelihood that they remain as such. After all -- God and Country... God and Country... God and Country... God and Country

Think about what would happen if the people who didn't read suddenly realized that it wasn't Eisenhower or Roosevelt reaching out from the grave to zap veteran's benefits? The realization would not only threaten the GOP but the entire foundation of "God and Country"

[halobeam]

37. good time to kick....