Hear! Hear!

x2 Well said!

Thank you for your service to this country and for speaking so eloquently on the subject nomoremagicalthinking. And you are so right about this election.

In all my 40 years of voting I have never seen an election of which has an outcome that could be either so dire and so possibly catastrophic on the one hand ( Republicans and Draconians winning ) and so hopeful and so much about leaning forward (President Obama is reelected ) and leaving behind us the darkness of racism, homophobia, women hating, war mongering, fraudulent use of American tax dollars and vulture capitalism.

President Barack Obama's legacy will be helping America and the world to shift from managing corruption and death to cultivating sustainable commerce and life.

Just read the link you provided...and the comments.

I can't help noticing that the supposedly sane and patriotic side is wasting their entire comment page harassing two individuals for their individual opinion (as well as descending into crass any-and-everything-phobic slurs) and this blog is focusing on the actual meaning of Memorial Day.

Funny how the "liberal bias machine" is being all civil and respectful, while the "true patriots" are telling anyone they disagree with to shut up while screaming bigotry. Is that how honoring soldiers is supposed to work? (Must be my caterpillar girl-brain acting up again...)

So then, the other side is insane and unpatriotic? That's your call. You chose to focus on two of the posters rather than on the content of Hayes' comment, so how does that make you any different?

Say what you will, I have removed MSNBC from my bookmarks and from my cable favorites list.

I'm sure MSNBC are just devastated that you've left them, truly.

And your removal is your right. Consider this: if we apply the term hero arbitrarily to everyone in uniform, does that mean that the guys who took photographs of themselves urinating on dead insurgents heroes? Or the soldiers involved in Abu Graib?

The soldier who takes a bullet saving someone's life is absolutely a hero. But to apply the term without regard for individual sacrifice is a disservice to the people who actually earned the title.

How much meaning can the term have when apply it to spoiled sports stars Hollywood personalities?

I simply choose to skip the knee-jerk assumptions.

(And before you go thinking I'm some anti-military whiner, I have dear friends both recently returned from service in Afghanistan, and serving as we speak. I learned from correspondence with them that American snack food is equivalent in value and rarity to plutonium over there, camel spiders taste like bad seafood, and its 120 degrees in the shade. I learned upon their return that shaking awake an soldier who looks like they're having a nightmare is a good way to end up tossed across the room.

I also refuse to apply a term as precious as hero so heavy-handedly, that their service is equal to a bunch of drunks who peed on a corpse.)

I am well aware of my rights and do not need your condescending tutorial.

IT referred to FALLEN heros not just any soldier. That is not arbitrary. Maybe you have never seen combat in person, but to engage with someone trying to kill you and your fellow soldiers is fairly heroic, and to be killed in the process...well, why waste time explaining that to you?

Abu was inexcusable, but given two million of us fought in the ME, the number who disgraced their uniforms is quite small. That you drug that out in defense of not calling the FALLEN as "heroes" is pitiful.

The urinating thing is of course wrong. What is even more wrong is a President who sends our soldiers back for multiple combat tours. Given that, our troops have shown incredible restraint under that kind of pressure. Again to use that as a defense for not calling our FALLEN as heroes is nauseating.

I think I understand where Chis Hayes is coming from. Not everyone that has put on a military uniform has put it on from family tradition or a sense of patriotic duty. Some were drafted and some signed up because of lack of other opportunities. Some of these latter ones may have died without firing a shot but it's the safe thing to call everyone a hero. I hope we make no more heroes.

Actually Chris' point here is that he doesn't believe we should romanticize the military in the way that we do. We gloss over what it means to be in the US military and hold people in the military up to unrealistic standards while simultaneously glorifying warfare as something of dignity. War is hell. To pretend like it is otherwise is to encourage war and devalue what people who have been through war have experienced. We've created a fantasy about what military service is like, what sacrifice is like, and war is like. And we've done so in such a way that makes warfare seem like it's an easy thing to do that requires no thought, no consideration, and no sacrifice on behalf of everyone else. We've done so to the point that people can bitch about wanting to have war while simultaneously bitching about not wanting to pay taxes. And when that exists as part of a mainstream discussion and part of a mainstream political platform (as opposed to just some random jackass espousing his own personal beliefs) that creates a terrible situation in which we're recruiting people to live out said fantasy in order to justify profiteering ventures by companies. Fighting a war to save lives is honorable; fighting a war solely to stuff someone's pockets is not. We've created a dynamic in this country where we are proud of the idea of the latter and where the former is considered weak. Hence why we won't rush to war in Syria and have completely ignored Darfur and completely ignored Rwanda, but had no qualms about invading Iraq (two times in fact).

I should also point out your entire point of posting was to bitch about Chris Hayes on a thread that was supposed to be about honoring veterans. Your claim is that Chris has devalued vets, yet by trying to politicize the issue and by trying to bash all of MSNBC on the basis of Chris Hayes you end up engaging in the very same behavior you are deriding. And since, in your mind, this is meant to be complimentary it's sort've like the bride asked you if this dress looks good on her and you responded "well you don't look that fat." Just sayin' I think you may have not thought through your outrage.

I assure you, very few soldiers consider themselves honored by anything Obama says. Soldiers, and I was one, know war is hell, which is part of what lends a certain dignity to what they do. NONE of our soldiers today were drafted; they all volunteered/enlisted for various reasons. They reenlist for other reasons you would not understand unless you had served in an active unit. I know of not one soldier who thinks war an easy thing in any respect. Not one. I know of NO soldier who advocates for war; from the Joint Chiefs to the lowest Private, they serve at the discretion of the POTUS and the American public. Thoreau said (roughly) it is not enough to feel strongly about an issue, do something! If you do not like our foreign policy, YOU fix it.

We can be against using young people in the military to fight wars for profit on the behalf of vulture capitalism everywhere but still thank the soldiers for their service to this country.

Even though the ugly truth is that wars are about money and not freedom, most of the soldiers are just there for a job. And even if their fighting for ' freedom ' was true, doesn't that mean that they fight for Chris Hayes' right to speak his mind ?

Makes you want to go ' hmmmmmm '

I assure you, very few soldiers consider themselves honored by anything Obama says

Wow so now you believe you have the right to speak on behalf of everyone who isn't you? How very arrogant. And they aren't honored by the CinC giving them thanks? I think you're confusing "degrading the service of US military personnel" w/ "my party lost an election." The two are NOT the same. But if this is the case then why the hell do you care enough to post on MSNBC's blog? If soldiers don't care about what people say then you're complaining about something that no one else cared about. So by your very own argument you are openly showing that you're either complaining about an issue no one else cared about OR you are openly contradicting yourself in attempting to argue both sides of this claim.

Soldiers, and I was one, know war is hell, which is part of what lends a certain dignity to what they do. NONE of our soldiers today were drafted; they all volunteered/enlisted for various reasons. They reenlist for other reasons you would not understand unless you had served in an active unit. I know of not one soldier who thinks war an easy thing in any respect. Not one. I know of NO soldier who advocates for war; from the Joint Chiefs to the lowest Private, they serve at the discretion of the POTUS and the American public.

Well first and foremost we have a contradiction here. If soldiers do not care what the POTUS says then soldiers DO NOT serve at the discretion of the POTUS. You didn't think this through at all now did you?

Secondly I never said that people who have gone through combat do not understand what's at stake in war. You deliberately misrepresented my statement- as you did w/ Hayes'- in order to push your political agenda. What I stated is that we have romanticized war to the point that we glorify death and chaos and destruction and we glorify war so that the MIC can profit. There is nothing honorable in this. Sacrificing for something good- like stopping genocide- is honorable; sacrificing so that a CEO at Haliburton can get rich is not honorable. To that extent Chris is saying that he doesn't believe we should be glorifying or romanticizing wars that were fought purely for the profit of private entities. You can certainly have qualms about what it is that he said in so far as wording, but that is the point he was getting at. A soldier who dies in a war that was fought to make a handful of people wealthy is a soldier whose life has been sacrificed for no reason. And as a country we should NOT be encouraging this.

If you do not like our foreign policy, YOU fix it.

Not to be rude here but what the @!$%# do you think Chris was doing, hm?! People should fix foreign policy! Yeah...except that you will then decry them as being against the military when they have the terrible audacity to speak up against our current foreign policy. Did you even think this through before you stated it? This is the third time in ONE post that you've contradicted yourself! Sheesh! You are all fired up about something that makes zero sense. You say that if people don't like what they're government is doing they should fix it. Yet in order to fix it people have to discuss how to move forward. Yet you then decry anyone and everyone who is having such a discussion. So in otherwords you do NOT want people to change what their government is doing.

And, again, you are bitching about ALL OF THIS on a thread that was supposed to honor vets. By derailing the conversation and committing this red herring attack on Chris Hayes you've degraded the intention of people who wanted to post respects to the service. In doing so YOU have disrespected the service. You are so outraged that you're not even realizing the consequences of your actions are having the exact same effect that you are deriding as being anti-troop and anti-patriotism.

Right on Mouzer ! Git 'er dun ! LOL

Both trite and wrong.

Yes, there is a military-industrial complex, some of which is a necessary evil and some of which is just evil. But to paint all wars as just about profit makes you sound uneducated. Ask Jews liberated in from camps in WWII about that. Ask those people now free of the Soviet boot about it. Ask the South Koreans.

Enlisted recruits are significantly more likely to come from middle and upper-class neighborhoods of our country. They are better educated than their civilian counterparts, greatly so.

"The facts do not support the belief that many American soldiers volunteer because society offers them few other opportunities. The average enlisted person or officer could have had lucrative career opportunities in the private sector. Those who argue that American soldiers risk their lives because they have no other opportunities belittle the personal sacrifices of those who serve out of love for their country." (Heritage Foundation, Center for Data Analysis)

You will find very few who consider what they do "just a job."

But to paint all wars as just about profit makes you sound uneducated. Ask Jews liberated in from camps in WWII about that. Ask those people now free of the Soviet boot about it. Ask the South Koreans.

Le sighs. Yet AGAIN you take what someone says and purposely manipulate it out of context in order to argue against a phantom position NO ONE ELSE was arguing. Did I say this about WWII or about the Korean war? No I did not. And you interpreting that as much just shows that you do not care about context and that makes you hyperbolic and reactionary. Again you are so outraged that you're not even thinking through the things you are saying. Chris Hayes was NOT talking about WWII or Vietnam now was he? He was NOT talking about people who died in past wars now was he? He specifically stated he was talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iraq war was fought purely for profit. Afghanistan started out as a justified war, but because of the debacle of the Iraq War we now linger on in Afghanistan for no reason what so ever. The war that was justified has now became a war for profit. In both cases this is wrong. What is more what Chris was saying would just as easily work in the hypothetical so your choice to get touchy here shows just how far you are reaching for straws.

Enlisted recruits are significantly more likely to come from middle and upper-class neighborhoods of our country. They are better educated than their civilian counterparts, greatly so.

Umm no and no. They are more likely to come from the middle-class. Lower-class people do usually join at higher percentages and upper-middle class and upper-class persons usually join at lower percentages. However it usually mirrors the general population. Since the middle-class makes up the bulk of the United States this too makes up the bulk of the US military. Very, very rarely are well to do people the ones who join the service. Furthermore this is a completely irrelevant note since it has nothing to do w/ the discussion, doesn't make you correct about your point against Chris Hayes, and is yet again another attempt by you to derail the conversation AWAY from honoring our troops. You are- yet again- attempting to dishonor those in uniform.

A survey of the American military's endlessly compiled and analyzed demographics paints a picture of a fighting force that is anything but a cross section of America. With minorities overrepresented and the wealthy and the underclass essentially absent, with political conservatism ascendant in the officer corps and Northeasterners fading from the ranks, America's 1.4 million-strong military seems to resemble the makeup of a two-year commuter or trade school outside Birmingham or Biloxi far more than that of a ghetto or barrio or four-year university in Boston.

The military does seem to test better though for people coming out of high school, although there are plenty of dumb@!$%#s who join the service. I quite honestly doubt now that you have served in the military if you are attempting to say that every person in the service is incredibly intelligent. But, generally speaking, high school graduates join the military and the various military academies as well as ROTC schools are the highest academic institutions were have in America for a reason. So it would stand that yes the US military does tend to attract more intelligent people. What does this have to do w/ Chris Hayes' comment or my comments? Nothing. Again you realize you've lost the argument, but you want to still be right so you're attempting to through stuff into the conversation that has nothing to do w/ anything in order to remove accountability. Sighs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/30/us/a-nation-at-war-the-troops-military-mirrors-a-working-class-america.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

The facts do not support the belief that many American soldiers volunteer because society offers them few other opportunities. The average enlisted person or officer could have had lucrative career opportunities in the private sector. Those who argue that American soldiers risk their lives because they have no other opportunities belittle the personal sacrifices of those who serve out of love for their country.

First and foremost the Heritage Foundation isn't a reliable source for information since they are an openly biased organization that openly changes numbers, falsifies numbers, and publishes opinion as fact. Secondly the argument has never been that American soldiers are people who were forced into service because they were poor. The argument has been that poor people who join the military are generally people who were forced to join the service. If you cannot distinguish the difference then I think you need to re-access whom you are calling ignorant.

You will find very few who consider what they do "just a job."

Now I know you have never served in the US military. People who serve in the military consider their military service to be just a job and they get super annoyed when people suggest otherwise. I come from a military family. My grandfather served 30 years in the USAF as a quality control engineer. I have two cousins (one blood related and then her husband) who are LTCs in the US Army. I have another cousin who is an LT. Cmdr in the US Navy and another who is a Chief in the US Navy. One of my best friends is a retired 2nd Class Petty Officer from the US Navy. My brother was a 2nd Class Airmen in the USAF and another friend of mine just left the US Air National Guard as a Technical Sergeant in the USAF. They say working in the military is like working in any job. They take pride in their job because it serves their community and they enjoy the benefits that come w/ it. They also bitch about how people are stupid whom they serve w/, how people are jackasses, how the military lies to you, and how 90% of what you do in the service seems to be bullpuckey. I've never met a person in the service who would say otherwise. Hell we have people on this very blog who are veterans who have said as much. Point being: I think you aren't a veteran. I think you have fallen for the very romanticization problem that Chris was talking about and I think that's why you're taking such an offense to it. The fantasy isn't reality. And you aren't doing justice to the people who serve by attempting to make it so.

through = throw

Argh I wish we had more time to edit >.<

Can't call people stupid when you make basic slip ups. That's my bad

One more thing I should point out:

Just because someone comes from a family of 5 and that family makes 70k/yr prior to enlistment does NOT automatically mean that, that person had the ability to not join and therefore went into the military for solely patriotic reasons. Most recruiters will tell you that people do not enlist for patriotic reasons, although this isn't to say that the patriotic element isn't in place (just rather that when asked directly why they're joining it won't usually be the first response). The main reason why people enlist in the service is for the college benefit. Just because you're middle-class doesn't automatically mean that you have money to go to school, that your grades were high enough for you to go to college, or that you are mentally aware enough of what you want to do w/ your life as to feel comfortable going to college right out of high school. It's incredibly arrogant for you to pretend like because someone's family was classified as middle-class this therefore means that person was at liberty to do whatever he or she wanted.

Hard to reply to such a long comment. You did not say which wars. I say what war a soldier fights in is irrelevant to the question of "heroism." You did not discriminate between wars for profit and wars for something else. Again, that is not relevant to the adjectives applied to our soldiers, for reasons I already supplied.

I voted for Obama and likely will again. I did so because I felt that the Republicans had permitted us to invade a sovereign country that had done us no harm and which could not have done so. I will do so because I am not convinced that the Republicans will again lead us to war...which will break the bank as a minimum.

I served 30 years of active duty including combat in Vietnam and Iraq. I agree the second Gulf war was at best for stupid reasons. I see no long-term profit there. We did have ALL of Iraq's oil fields and returned them, yes? I agree Afghanistan was the right place to be, but time's up.

You are completely wrong about the demographics of our armed forces. Here is the reference: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-in-the-us-military-the-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-officers . You can find others that also demonstrate your error. This has to do with the claim made that most soldiers join to get a job. And you are wrong that soldiers consider what they do just a job.

Something from Kipling:

"For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!

But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;

An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;

    An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!"

Okayeeeeeeee ! Crazy rant much ?

You did not say which wars. I say what war a soldier fights in is irrelevant to the question of "heroism." You did not discriminate between wars for profit and wars for something else. Again, that is not relevant to the adjectives applied to our soldiers, for reasons I already supplied.

The problem w/ blogs is that you can go back and read people's comments. YOU started this conversation by accusing Chris Hayes of not believing fallen soldiers are heroes. YOU are the one who deliberately misinterpreted his comment. I then gave you the context w/ which he was speaking. YOU presumably watched Chris' speech and therefore knew he was talking about wars for profit. What is more- as I already stated- the preference is unnecessary since you already claimed that "not all wars" are fought for profit. If you believe WWII wasn't fought for profit then this would mean, by your own logic, that you were automatically ignoring those wars. So in both instances we were communicating about the same thing: Iraq and Afghanistan. Now you are attempting to pretend like you are somehow a doe eyed lamb who has just now heard about this the first time. Sorry, but this is why you don't speak in public, recordable forums unless you're prepared to follow it through. You knew the context and got angry to argue a point no one else was arguing. You did this because you want to win. You didn't do this because you have a cogent argument to make or because you are correct. You did this solely as a reactionary way of trying to be better. Sophism =/= correctness

You are completely wrong about the demographics of our armed forces. Here is the reference: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-in-the-us-military-the-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-officers . You can find others that also demonstrate your error. This has to do with the claim made that most soldiers join to get a job. And you are wrong that soldiers consider what they do just a job.

I cited a source for the information I gave. You apparently don't bother to read any information different from the opinion you've already developed. You could not have served 30 years in the US Army and be a Vietnam veteran and an Iraq veteran unless you're referring to the first Gulf War.

Secondly, as I already stated, Heritage Foundation is not a reliable source. They purposely manipulate data in order to present a false narrative that fits in line w/ the conservative belief system.

Thirdly I am quoting the DoD numbers which dispute you. The majority of people who joint he military are from middle-class families. Those who come from poorer families join at a higher percent than those who come from wealthier families, but in general the US military mirrors the general population w/ some exceptions. The most basic exception is that there are more minorities in the US military (as a percentage of total force) than there is in the general population. This includes gays and blacks. Interestingly enough you cannot claim that the military has a huge minority population while simultaneously arguing that the military has a disproportionately high number of people from upper-middle class and upper class. This is because minorities are underrepresented in those classes. By both your logic and Hertiage's logic there is a contradiction. But, again, this has nothing to do w/ anything. Whether people are poor who join the military or not this has NOTHING to do w/ your initial claim. You have changed the subject because I proved you wrong and rather than admit you were outta line w/ your attack on Chris you're simply attempting to create another argument on which you believe you can stand. This is, again, a red herring and does a disservice to the point of this thread. The point of this thread was to honor veterans. You now have dishonored veterans by attempting to make this thread topic about your personal politics instead of the issue at hand.

You need to take a step back, take a deep breath, and stop reacting on your knee-jerk assumptions about other people. In doing so you have became the person who uses a funeral as an opportunity to preach about whatever political issue he or she is upset about at the moment. This isn't what you meant to do, I am sure, but it is what you've accomplished. You need to think your actions through instead of letting your emotions blind you to reason.

@Hope- yeah well it pisses me off when people think they can just espouse whatever stupid things they want to espouse. I get so annoyed w/ the over reactions and the hyperbolism and the knee-jerk attacks it just drives me nuts. Facts are facts. Opinion are opinions. If someone doesn't like what Hayes said that's fine, but it's obnoxious for someone to say MSNBC doesn't honor our vets when they are ranting on a page set up specifically TO honor our vets (and, of course, in doing so they take the conversation away from honoring our vets to derail it on something to do w/ nothing).

Stupidity shouldn't be allowed to fester simply because it makes someone else's ego feel better. I am so sick of this.

He said he was uncomfortable calling all fallen soldiers heroes. He did not qualify that statement with reference to wars for profit, a term that needs to be defended with facts not at hand.

I said the war we engage in has nothing to do with heroism. You couldn't address that, I suppose. Nor could he.

I served in the 1/4 Cav, 1st ID in Vietnam and in the First Gulf War. Actually the Vietnam war ended in 1975 and we invaded Iraq in 2003, so I could have been in the second Gulf war, but I was in the first. What did you serve in, Captain D's?

YOU say the Heritage Foundation is not a reliable source. That is YOUR opinion. "Facts are facts. Opinions are opinions."

You have proven me wrong on NOTHING, and you have been demonstrated to be wrong on several points.

"It seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that's problematic. But maybe I'm wrong about that."

And it seems to me Hayes has concern with society glorifying war and death. I am concerned any time a society martyrs war death. This is an observation of a characterization of war, NOT an evaluation of the merit of those lost.

Re DoD enlistment statistics. Stats do show a growing trend of middle class recruitment. The more consistent and significant demographic statistic within our armed services is the disproportionally high representation from small cities and towns, the rurals.

Perhaps this is why I can appeciate regional welcome home parades more than a NYC ticker tape parade (which seems to me more symbolic than for the recognition and reintegrating of our vets). If a NYC parade had already taken

...If a NYC parade had already taken place, how many local parades and support efforts would be happening?

YOU say the Heritage Foundation is not a reliable source. That is YOUR opinion. "Facts are facts. Opinions are opinions."

No. A reliable source is an institution which is considered reputable by it's academic peers. It cannot be an institution that skews information in order to fit a certain bias or agenda. Have you never taken a basic argument and debate, English, law, civics, or logic course? They go over this in those courses in the very first days of class. You are relying on logical fallacies and unreliable information to prove your point.

He said he was uncomfortable calling all fallen soldiers heroes. He did not qualify that statement with reference to wars for profit, a term that needs to be defended with facts not at hand.

You never bothered to watch the entire speech through, did you? You simply allowed mediate to tell you what to think and then reacted on the basis of that. That is the point I've been making this entire time.

I cited my sources through the DoD (a reliable source). You relied on the Heritage Foundation which commits a begging the question fallacy in it's very own assertion and doesn't back up non-partisan facts w/ the information it presents. In other words the Heritage study assumes X to be true, but does not provide sourcing for how it is concluding that X is true. That is evidence of bias and misinformation. I suggest you look up the Owl at Purdue or another university's website in order to learn what is and isn't reliable information. This isn't an opinion that I am representing.

Secondly what have you disproven? Everything you have argued has been a. an argument taken out of context so that you could make a point against a position NO ONE else held b. a factually incorrect point or c. a contradictory point that went against your own premise. On what point have I been proven wrong? You have proven me absolutely wrong on no point. I have, on the other hand, given you a cogent counter-argument and wittled this down to where you are unable to come up w/ a coherent response and have now ended w/ name calling. You started out complaining that Chris Hayes was disrespecting Veterans on a thread that was supposed to be honor veterans. This was pointed out as hypocritical. So you then...changed the subject to how military personnel are smart and apparently wealthy (in your mind, at least). Then this was disproven. So now you are left w/ only reasserting that your premise' were true, even though both were proven wrong.

Again you could just admit that you were way off line w/ Hayes and take the high road here and stop degrading what was supposed to be about veterans for your own selfish political rant. But, since you obviously don't want to apologize for being wrong, you apparently are content w/ derailing the conversation again and again.

I agree that war is romanticized in fiction, but in real life I see little of that. I have never met a soldier who thought himself a hero. I have never seen a movie that approximated the experience of real combat: maybe if we did a better job of that, even fictional depictions would make the point that war is hell. As a Vietnam vet, it is nice to see our current generation warmly welcomed back rather than cursed and spit on as my generation was. Perhaps that experience predisposed me to react as I did with the talking head's discomfort.

LOL, an academic institution is reliable? Most college faculties are a bunch of clowns. You didn't look at the data I referenced, did you! I have in fact studied and used statistics an find the data furnished to be straight-forward.

Yes I watched it. Please post a hypertext for your DoD source, as I missed it. I have one from 2010 that supports what I said. I did find your idiotic article from the NY times of 2004.

You can apologize for saying I lied about my prior service. Oh, and I'll have the Number three with shrimp.

butch, I have known a number of Vietnam vets, from single man special ops to those living with the effects of exposure to Agent Orange. And though I can not fully understand your sentiments, I have sensed a small measure of the difficulties and isolation they feel. They continue to give more to us as a learning nation than we have ever given to them. They, unfortunately, have become our learning curve.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/09/22/who-serves-in-the-military-today/

Here is a better representation of the point I was making. When you adjust for the ROTC and academies and high school graduates, the poor are overrepresented. But when you take it as a whole you see that it favors the middle class. The upper quintile is hardly ever represented (those who make more than 340k/yr). But, again, this is an entirely irrelevant point since it had nothing to do w/ the topic you started the argument w/.

But this will be my last post. I feel bad enough that we've argued this out on a thread that was supposed to be about honoring vets. This wasn't supposed to be about political views or how much you hate MSNBC. This was supposed to be about saying thank you to people who have sacrificed for their country. And it's been completely derailed because you decided to go on a pointless rant about MSNBC. I guess it just bothered me because I would think if you really are a soldier there would be some part of your brain that would realize you just became Frankenstein in order to kill Frankenstein. You became the thing you supposedly were outraged by and, subsequently, derailed what otherwise should not have been controversial. But I don't care anymore.

Happy Memorial Day and I hope we bring every one back home safely and quickly.

Yeah, slide on out with yet another ah hominem. And I will have the pecan pie for dessert, Nancy.

#1 - it's AD hominem. The H and the D are several keys away from each other, so know what you're saying before you say it.

#2 - Trying to keep pushing the "you work in food service, even when you don't, so I can mock you" thing just makes you look even sadder than you already do.

Accept defeat gracefully; Mouzer destroyed your positions with facts, while all you had was biased data from a foundation that manufactures justification for torture, a constantly changing idea of what you'd already claimed, and a self-righteous attitude. Someone with your supposed military knowledge would realize when a tactical withdrawal was in order.

1. Yes, I know it is ad hominem. The h is the letter following the d and so I made a common typo. Get over it.

2. He first insulted me by in so many words saying I lied about my service. I just reciprocated in humor asking him if he served at Captain Ds. Get over it.

3. There is no defeat to accept. Mr. Hayes just posted an apology for his statement. Our fallen won. Mouzer lost. Hayes lost. Get over it. It is a great memorial day.

butch62

" IT ( Chris Hayes) referred to FALLEN heros not just any soldier "

You just another gop out right liar who deserves zero respect

@Patango, I contest the invoking of the famous GOP faulty finger pointing tactics here. Hayes WAS referring to "fallen" in the "heroes" example on the power of semantics on public view of war.

"It is, I think, very difficult to talk about... the war debt and the fallen... without invoking valor... without invoking the words heroes... and um..."

Hayes tried to approach a tender teaching moment, for our contemplation, with the wrong example, at the wrong time.

Butch - Umm, no, H follows nothing in the word "ad"; if you're in such a rush, maybe you should calm it down. Hayes lost nothing; you just proved a lack of reading comprehension all over again. As for your service, if it happened, great, though you could use an attitude adjustment; if you're another pretender, like so many conservatives who wrap themselves in the military but wouldn't know a M-16 from an AK-47 (like Romney who was for Vietnam but ducked out of it through his religion), then I wouldn't be surprised. You talk a big game, but nothing that someone who has read a lot of military fiction couldn't replicate. So, since your attitude dishonors our servicemen, and you were so arrogant to speak for them, AND you provided no real evidence of service, yeah, we're going to doubt it. All the servicepeople I know (and there's plenty, yay for a rural area with few good options!) know that real honor doesn't talk about it, and doesn't claim to speak for other servicepeople.

And yes, it's a great Memorial Day, because the wars are ending... just like real servicepeople want.

Now pay attention if you can. What letter comes after the D in the two words, ad hominem? Can you guess it?

I do not read military fiction. I do not lie about my service.

I do not have to prove anything to you. It is YOU who dishonor our service members.

Your pal Hayes was slam-dunked for the arrogant idiot that he is.

What letter is easily hit before moving on to the next word? Can you guess it?

So you say. Your behavior says more.

I honor our service members; you blacken their name by your association.

Nothing of the kind happened to Hayes; loud fools succeeded in advertising their ignorance in many places, including right here in your posts.

My typing is not the issue. You hear what you want to hear, conclude what you will. You will never find anything I say that is other than supportive of our service members.

You in no way have honored our service members. Of course, you do not have to. The issues are that Mr. Hayes minimized the sacrifices of our fallen soldiers and you defended his words. He stepped in it, was summarily called out, and apologized.

It is over-used as it is applied in many ways. I will tell you about the biggest military hero I had the privilege of serving with: my medic in Vietnam. He was killed by a mine (ied) and is now buried in a town in Arkansas, along side his parents. The VFW hall there named in his honor was torn down years ago. He was a Conscientious Objector, but told me he could not walk away from serving his country, but he could not kill...thus his service as a noncombatant. He was Sp 4, a great medic, very pious, and very young (I was the oldest in my platoon at age 23). He never fired a shot, but I hold him dear as a patriot and a hero, and I don't consider those words over-used in that context, nor do I consider them as glorifying war or soldiering.

MSNBC is a News Network comprised of many people who think differently. Saying that MSNBC in total does not think of our ward dead as heroes is completely illogical and also incorrect.

Most readers welcome opposing comments that are expressed in an intelligent fashion, not opinions...you can believe anything you choose. Your bias is obvious, stop trying to paint yourself as a patriotic and concerned citizen.

Or, here is an idea jjti.

How about if you educate yourself with regards to how many brown people/civilians around the world were murdered by bombing so that the natural resources of their country could be stolen from them by vulture capitalists and war criminals around the planet while their own dictators are propped up by criminal misuse of American tax dollars ?

How about if you educate yourself in regards to how many of our young people have served in the military simply because they need a job and then have been murdered by despicable military actions along with brown people around the planet ?

And by the way, where is the Not Pro-Life movement zealots while all this taking of life has been and is going on ?

True Patriots fight for the truth of freedom's purpose without using guns and hate and death : Life, Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happiness.

Actually, if you want to think about it a little sideways, if a fight was about preserving the liberty of ourselves and others, and what a fight is about is always going to be a matter of perspective, then the arguments on this blog are exactly what men have fought and died to preserve.

So that within our society places would exist where people were free to engage in debate over matters of importance to them. For those places to be available to everyone, no matter what their own belief may be. For society to improve through discussion, not fighting. For the ability to speak both the sickening truths and the noble lies.

There are no black and whites, to some guys combat is 'just a job', but the fact that we can sit at our computers, reading and commenting and thinking about the issue, says that they did their job, we are still free. We honor them by talking, and hopefully making the next fight a little less likely.

In the memory of friends still standing, and friends long gone.

So very well said TheActivist !! But, there is a diabolical purpose for wars that bomb and kill brown people and our soldiers for profit : Money, Natural Resources, Power Over.

By "not a man" I meant MAN as real men understand the word. Real men say their insults right to the face of the person they insult. If one wants to go down that "bullying" path, it seems he bullied fallen service members who could not respond.

His point, a valid one, now seems to have been we need to take care not to make war something attractive. But he used the respect we as a nation give to those of us who paid with their lives as roughly the same as glorifying war itself. At best, ill-timed and badly chosen words. At best.