Obama Salutes Marines With Cup

[mmmmmmmQuestions]

didn't read any of thread just wanted to say that who gives a fuck

[Jedi Moped]

See above.

your fail insult constitutes a self-pwn. no response necessary.

Crikey, STFU you roo fucking shackle draggin' hoon. Ya have a face like a dropped pie ya skippy poofter

Also see above.

Can't think of anything as usual I see. It' sooo good to hear it!

[Irukanji]

He probably salutes them everyday, they probably had a giggle with him afterwards. Fucking plebs always getting offended

[Slave of the Beast]

Or, you know, he could have just had some coffee in his hand and needed to salute. Waving to someone with a glove on doesn't mean you think they're a piece of clothing.

The President of the United States of America doesn't need to salute anyone. He could simply have nodded and said thank you.

As for gloves, do Americans wear styrofoam cups on their hands?

WTF do you know about America you fake British Canadian faggart?

More than you do it seems.

Oh for fucks sake cut it out out with all this bogus "outrage". None of you actually care about this issue, it's just another cheap snipe you can make at the President and think you're being "principled" and "serious" when you're anything but.

"BUT HE SHOULD'VE JUST NOT SALUTED!!1!"

Yeah, and then you would be going on about "OMG HOW DISRESPECTFUL HE DIDN'T SALUTE!"

Just shut the fuck up you juvenile morons.

I think we've already covered that acknowledging their presence doesn't require a formal salute.

[Jedi Moped]

Or, you know, he could have just had some coffee in his hand and needed to salute. Waving to someone with a glove on doesn't mean you think they're a piece of clothing.

The President of the United States of America doesn't need to salute anyone. He could simply have nodded and said thank you.

As for gloves, do Americans wear styrofoam cups on their hands?

WTF do you know about America you fake British Canadian faggart?

More than you do it seems.

Oh for fucks sake cut it out out with all this bogus "outrage". None of you actually care about this issue, it's just another cheap snipe you can make at the President and think you're being "principled" and "serious" when you're anything but.

"BUT HE SHOULD'VE JUST NOT SALUTED!!1!"

Yeah, and then you would be going on about "OMG HOW DISRESPECTFUL HE DIDN'T SALUTE!"

Just shut the fuck up you juvenile morons.

I think we've already covered that acknowledging their presence doesn't require a formal salute.

What is at issue here is not whether or not a return of the salute that the any military member is required to give to the Commander-in-Chief is required by the Commander-in-Chief. What is at issue here is that should the Commander-in-Chief choose to return the salute he should do so properly and not with a throw away cup in his right hand as he returns the salute. He knew he was exiting the craft. He knew their would be U.S. Marine honor guards at the exit of the craft. From a veterans point of view he should have either not saluted at all or held the cup in his left hand as he exited the craft to return a proper salute. If you are not an American your opinion is meaningless on this issue. If you are not active duty or a veteran you opinion is next to meaningless on this issue. This is a matter of respect and honor for tradition and the sacrifices the men and women who are serving and have served to weigh in on. Anyone else who flaps their gums about this issue is simply wasting oxygen.

[-SpectraL]

Only the anally retentive, war mongering progressives would care.

[Cory]

What is at issue here is not whether or not a return of the salute that the any military member is required to give to the Commander-in-Chief is required by the Commander-in-Chief. What is at issue here is that should the Commander-in-Chief choose to return the salute he should do so properly and not with a throw away cup in his right hand as he returns the salute. He knew he was exiting the craft. He knew their would be U.S. Marine honor guards at the exit of the craft. From a veterans point of view he should have either not saluted at all or held the cup in his left hand as he exited the craft to return a proper salute. If you are not an American your opinion is meaningless on this issue. If you are not active duty or a veteran you opinion is next to meaningless on this issue. This is a matter of respect and honor for tradition and the sacrifices the men and women who are serving and have served to weigh in on. Anyone else who flaps their gums about this issue is simply wasting oxygen.

The faux outrage continues.

[Jedi Moped]

What is at issue here is not whether or not a return of the salute that the any military member is required to give to the Commander-in-Chief is required by the Commander-in-Chief. What is at issue here is that should the Commander-in-Chief choose to return the salute he should do so properly and not with a throw away cup in his right hand as he returns the salute. He knew he was exiting the craft. He knew their would be U.S. Marine honor guards at the exit of the craft. From a veterans point of view he should have either not saluted at all or held the cup in his left hand as he exited the craft to return a proper salute. If you are not an American your opinion is meaningless on this issue. If you are not active duty or a veteran you opinion is next to meaningless on this issue. This is a matter of respect and honor for tradition and the sacrifices the men and women who are serving and have served to weigh in on. Anyone else who flaps their gums about this issue is simply wasting oxygen.

The faux outrage continues.

You pretending that you know the motivation for the points of view that I and others have expressed in this thread just drives home the point that you were never good mod material. If you have a differing point of view why not present it in the intelligent fashion I have seen you do in the past rather than simply pretend that others of playing make believe like you are?

[Lanny]

Only the anally retentive, war mongering progressives would care.

You still don't know what that word means do you dumbfuck?

[Slave of the Beast]

What is at issue here is not whether or not a return of the salute that the any military member is required to give to the Commander-in-Chief is required by the Commander-in-Chief. What is at issue here is that should the Commander-in-Chief choose to return the salute he should do so properly and not with a throw away cup in his right hand as he returns the salute. He knew he was exiting the craft. He knew their would be U.S. Marine honor guards at the exit of the craft. From a veterans point of view he should have either not saluted at all or held the cup in his left hand as he exited the craft to return a proper salute. If you are not an American your opinion is meaningless on this issue. If you are not active duty or a veteran you opinion is next to meaningless on this issue. This is a matter of respect and honor for tradition and the sacrifices the men and women who are serving and have served to weigh in on. Anyone else who flaps their gums about this issue is simply wasting oxygen.

This may come as a shock to your pompous ass but the concepts of military honor and tradition predate the USA by several thousand years. And I've already pointed out what I think Obama should have done, which you essentially repeat in one of your own suggestions.

Increase your fucking med's old man and you might be able to keep up with the conversation.

[Juicebox]

War mongering progressives?

Honestly I didn't know there was such a group.

[-SpectraL]

War mongering progressives?

Honestly I didn't know there was such a group.

Yeah, they're the nationalistic faggits proudly waving their dumb flags and wooing all the military equipment and protocols. Brainless sheeple who couldn't think for themselves if their lives depended on it, which it does.

[Juicebox]

I thought progressives were generally the ones trying to get rid of guns.

[Jedi Moped]

War mongering progressives?

Honestly I didn't know there was such a group.

Yeah, they're the nationalistic faggits proudly waving their dumb flags and wooing all the military equipment and protocols. Brainless sheeple who couldn't think for themselves if their lives depended on it, which it does.

You Might Be a Progressive If ...
by
Michael Schwalbe

In the propaganda wars that surround elections, political labels often become detached from reality. The leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama, has been called a "leftist" by Republican flacks and a "progressive" by some of his supporters. Others see Obama as a moderate Democrat only slightly less friendly to corporate capital and to the military-industrial complex than the Republican John McCain. It would be no surprise, then, if many people were wondering, Just who is a progressive?

No one, of course, has the authority to decide who is a progressive and who isn't. Yet if the label "progressive" has meaning at all, it is only because of some shared criteria we have in mind when we use it. So it might be worthwhile to put these criteria on the table, not to draw boundaries and hand out membership badges, but to spark a conversation about the common ground of ideas and values on which progressives stand, and to underscore the point that the center is not the left.

    So who is a progressive?
You might be one if ...You think health care is a basic human right, and that single-payer national health insurance is a worthwhile reform on our way toward creating a non-profit national health care service.

You think that human rights ought always to trump property rights.
   
You think U.S. military spending is an obscene waste of resources, and that the only freedom this spending protects is the freedom of economic elites to exploit working people all around the planet.
   
You think U.S. troops should be brought home not only from Afghanistan and Iraq, but from all 130 countries in which the U.S. has military bases.
   
You think political leaders who engage in "preemptive war" and invasions should be brought to trial for crimes against humanity and judged against the standards of international law established at Nuremberg after World War Two.
   
You think public education should be free, not just from kindergarten through high school, but as far as a person is willing and able to go.
   
You think that electoral reform should include instant run-off voting, publicly-financed elections, easy ballot access for all parties, and proportional representation.
   
You think that electoral democracy is not enough, and that democracy must also be participatory and extend to workplaces.
   
You think that strengthening the rights of all workers to unionize and bargain collectively is a useful step toward full economic democracy.
   
You think that as a society we have a collective obligation to provide everyone who is willing and able to work with a job that pays a living wage and offers dignity.
   
You think that a class system which forces some people to do dirty, dangerous, boring work all the time, while others get to do clean, safe, interesting work all the time, can never deliver social justice.
   
You think that regulating big corporations isn't enough, and that such corporations, if they are allowed to exist at all, must either serve the common good or be put into public receivership.
   
You think that the legal doctrine granting corporations the same constitutional rights as natural persons is absurd and must be overturned.
   
You think it's wrong to allow individuals to accumulate wealth without limits, and that the highest incomes should be capped well before they begin to threaten community and democracy.
   
You think that wealth, not just income, should be taxed.
   
You think it's crazy to use the Old Testament as a policy guide for the 21st century.
   
You believe in celebrating diversity, while also recognizing that having women and people of color proportionately represented among the class of oppressors is not the goal we should be aiming for.
   
You think that the state has no right to kill, and that putting people to death to show that killing is wrong will always be a self-defeating policy.
   
You think that anyone who desires the reins of power that come with high political office should, by reason of that desire, be seen as unfit for the job.
   
You think that instead of more leaders, we need fewer followers.
   
You think that national borders, while sometimes establishing territories of safety, more often establish territories of exploitation, much like gang turf.
   
You are open to considering how the privileges you enjoy because of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and/or physical ability might come at the expense of others.
   
You believe that voting every few years is a weak form of political participation, and that achieving social justice requires concerted effort before, during, and after elections.
   
You think that, ideally, no one would have more wealth more than they need until everyone has at least as much as they need to live a safe, happy, decent life.
   
You recognize that an economic system which requires continuous expansion, destroys the environment, relies on rapidly-depleting fossil fuels, exacerbates inequality, and leads to war after war is unsustainable and must be replaced. Score a bonus point if you understand that sticking to the existing system is what's unrealistic.

No doubt some readers will say this list is incomplete. It is. Many policy issues of importance to progressives go unmentioned. Others might say that the list leans too far to the left, or not far enough. It could also be said that some items are vague (what does it mean to say that human rights ought always to trump property rights?). These are all useful responses. If we hope to work together to transform the social world, we need to know what we agree on, what we don't agree on, and what needs further hashing-out.

In the end, however, it's not labels and identities and criteria for bestowing them that really matter. Political terms have consequences, but only because of how we use them. Which suggests another item for the list. You might be a progressive if you think that it's important to take seriously the meaning of political identities, but that what really matters is living out those identities in ways that help to create more peace, justice, and equality.

[Juicebox]

^
Why, that's nothing but old fashioned pinko communism, boy!

/sarcasm

Are you sure you're not thinking of a conservatives, spectral?

Not that political labels really mean anything but people I've met who match that description almost always identify as conservative.