Neocon ruins his life with Bush devotion

[chitoryu12]

While I think Alvarez is pathetically stupid for continuing to support the war and the Bush administration even after they've heavily damaged the country and led to people I know as longtime Republicans to boo them, at least he's putting the walk with the talk. I can't count how many people I've known and seen constantly crow about the war and their support for it, but would be begging to go back home if they ever got dropped into the front lines. I'll give him credit for standing up for his beliefs, at least.

[Bug-Eyed Earl]

Freedom of speech applies to everyone, dumbass.

Are you talking about me?

Yup, I'm talking directly to you. You appear to be of the opinion that we should punish words instead of deeds, and people who have certain views, but do not act upon them should be banned from certain jobs.

I'll also note that many of the same people crowing about poetic justice would be calling this guy a chickenhawk if he hadn't enlisted.

I think you missed my point- he certainly comes off as someone who treats others who don't believe as he does as beneath contempt. Maybe he's mellowed since I stopped following him, but whether you're on the front line or not, you're part of a team, and considering his hatred of all things liberal (and the fact that he considers Bush to be "too liberal." shows that all of that falls under a wide umbrella for him), it would certainly give me pause as to accepting his application into armed service if I was in the army. I should point out I've been following the groups he's been a part of for years; one particularly memorable moment on his website was when he angrily said that a columnist he disagreed with registered on his board didn't try to have a discussion with him when they met in real life- I think the columnist could be forgiven for assuming Alvarez wouldn't talk to him, as his board bans everybody they disagree with.

So excuse me all to hell for being so naive that I though the army might not want an ignorant bigoted xenophobe trying to help the people he despises when they're not happily waving little US flags at our troops. I guess I'm also naive for assuming their screening processes and background checks wouldn't turn this shit up.

Avarez comes in at a disadvantage- many can say whatever the screening process demands to get in, but his real opinions are out there already.

As for Ender- Alvarez may be happy with his decision. The divorce rate is indeed high in this country. The army does indeed pay him. I still think he's a loser for letting his jingoism destroy his marriage(a point which is hammered home in that article despite the positive slant), for giving up a (then) successful job (Mayabird does make a good point, but given the dates one can surmise in the article, I doubt all of this happened before the market was starting to melt down in a way that would become apparent to someone even as stupid as Alvarez-and I think he's stupid because my limited interactions with him on his board betrayed low comprehensive skills, not his political beliefs).

I respect that he did it; I just can't believe the army wouldn't consider his rabid beliefs a liability in the field when it comes to working with others, and I think the cost on his family was too high for him to stand up to his beliefs

[KrauserKrauser]

I would think those would things that basic training would reveal. Were he not able to handle 2 weeks+ with a random assortment of ethnicities, political alignments and social classes, the Army would presumably kick him out.

If he were able to make it through basic training, what makes him different from any other bigoted asshole that's in the Army now?

[General Zod]

Yup, I'm talking directly to you. You appear to be of the opinion that we should punish words instead of deeds, and people who have certain views, but do not act upon them should be banned from certain jobs.

Why not? Would you want people who were open bigots working in jobs that required them to interact with the targets of their bigotry on a daily basis? Or how about pharmacists who oppose any forms of birth control? I can see lots of situations where having somebody in a job who opposed certain viewpoints being a very bad thing. Obviously it's situational dependent but saying it should never be that way ever is silly.

I'll also note that many of the same people crowing about poetic justice would be calling this guy a chickenhawk if he hadn't enlisted.

Based on what?

[salm]

If he were able to make it through basic training, what makes him different from any other bigoted asshole that's in the Army now?

That´s a pretty good point. The army is probably full of bigoted ultra right wing assholes just like him. Are there any statistics on this?

[salm]

I'll also note that many of the same people crowing about poetic justice would be calling this guy a chickenhawk if he hadn't enlisted.

Based on what?

I don´t doubt that he´d be called a chickenhawk. But why would it matter. He´d be a chicken hawk. That doesn´t mean that the way it is now it can´t be poetic justice. This is just a false dilemma.

[Bug-Eyed Earl]

I would think those would things that basic training would reveal. Were he not able to handle 2 weeks+ with a random assortment of ethnicities, political alignments and social classes, the Army would presumably kick him out.

If he were able to make it through basic training, what makes him different from any other bigoted asshole that's in the Army now?

I admit I probably made the mistake of assuming that this guy would be as big an asshole in real life as his web presence reveals. But even taking into account that the real guy is probably a toned down version of his Net self, I still wonder about that.

Actually, I heard about this a few years ago, and the first few sentences of that new article gave me hope that maybe he learned from his experiences-"no longer supports President Bush" but then came "because he's too liberal."

[Bug-Eyed Earl]

TO put what I was saying another way:

www.rightnation.us

I can easily imagine the vast majority of these people functioning around others of different beliefs more than I could of Jon Alvarez.

[Edi]

What a clusterfuck of a thread. Nothing complicated to it, from where I stand.

The guy is a fool and an asshole who has made a lot of stupid decisions. He's ruined his marriage through his obsession with jingoism, he's got his family members worried sick for him and there's no indication that he is really going to amount to much of anything even if he comes back from Iraq.

The one thing in his favor can be said that at least unlike countless chickenhawks who we have seen, he put his money where his mouth is and enlisted and might actually end up in harm's way. Which makes him not a chickenhawk, but no less a fool for his support of their causes. If he does end up in Iraq and gets killed, few people are going to miss him. I certainly won't give a shit. This guy is a pathetic loser. The emotion most appropriate would perhaps be pity, if he rated anything worth giving damn about.

[KrauserKrauser]

I don´t doubt that he´d be called a chickenhawk. But why would it matter. He´d be a chicken hawk. That doesn´t mean that the way it is now it can´t be poetic justice. This is just a false dilemma.

See my argument above as to why his death would not be poetic justice, but a dramatic tragedy. As to why, refer to my Japanese Soldier comparison.

[KrauserKrauser]

What a clusterfuck of a thread. Nothing complicated to it, from where I stand.

The guy is a fool and an asshole who has made a lot of stupid decisions. He's ruined his marriage through his obsession with jingoism, he's got his family members worried sick for him and there's no indication that he is really going to amount to much of anything even if he comes back from Iraq.

The one thing in his favor can be said that at least unlike countless chickenhawks who we have seen, he put his money where his mouth is and enlisted and might actually end up in harm's way. Which makes him not a chickenhawk, but no less a fool for his support of their causes. If he does end up in Iraq and gets killed, few people are going to miss him. I certainly won't give a shit. This guy is a pathetic loser. The emotion most appropriate would perhaps be pity, if he rated anything worth giving damn about.

I can't say that I will be crying alot of tears, but humor is not the first thing that would come to mind. He blindly followed through with his rhetoric and will have paid the price if he is killed, which I do not wish on him or anyone else over there.

[Kanastrous]

But isn't the reason we laugh is because they are already dead. Is that the same as wishing the same people to die?

Is it the same for me to laugh at some that has died, compared to when actively wishing someone death?

I suggested that a better employment for this person, would be to stop bullets or shrapnel that might otherwise hit someone else.

That's not necessarily lethal. In fact, it doesn't even necessarily mean permanent injury.

[General Zod]

I can't say that I will be crying alot of tears, but humor is not the first thing that would come to mind. He blindly followed through with his rhetoric and will have paid the price if he is killed, which I do not wish on him or anyone else over there.

Poetic justice automatically equals humor now?

[Kanastrous]

So Kanastrous is right in wanting a cheap laugh from this guy dying because he supported an opinion that Kana disagreed with?

I never indicated that I'd find it good for a cheap laugh.

This is more fun if you stick to what people actually post, rather than what you would like them to have posted, so you can criticize.

[Kanastrous]

They guy has done nothing that brought about the events that you are now claiming would be his comeuppance. He just cheer-leaded from the sidelines for those that did.

In a participatory democracy, cheerleading from the sidelines *is* 'doing something.'

[KrauserKrauser]

I suggested that a better employment for this person, would be to stop bullets or shrapnel that might otherwise hit someone else.

That's not necessarily lethal. In fact, it doesn't even necessarily mean permanent injury.

Stop splitting hairs you disengenious shit stain, you said in the thread that you would rather him take a bullet that would allow someone else to come back alive. Why bother lying, be honest, you want him to die, we get it, you hate him, he's the devil, you're super, congratulations!

[KrauserKrauser]

Poetic justice automatically equals humor now?

As per DW it does.

This guy dying = Poetic Justice = Dark Humor = Massive Belly Laugh

[KrauserKrauser]

So Kanastrous is right in wanting a cheap laugh from this guy dying because he supported an opinion that Kana disagreed with?

I never indicated that I'd find it good for a cheap laugh.

This is more fun if you stick to what people actually post, rather than what you would like them to have posted, so you can criticize.

Correct, you did not. I was simply running with the Poetic Justice = Dark Humor from DW's post.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Since when is violent death poetic justice for being an asshole? Since when is it justice of any kind?

[KrauserKrauser]

I just want to expand on the objection I have with Kana.

You don't personally know this person, you have only seen what the internet, news, etc. has made available.

This person's reported opinions and support for an unpopular war and subsequent backing up of his stated opinions by enlistment has merited some sort of punishment up to and including death. Does this apply to any person in the Army in Iraq that supports the war? Do they all deserve punishment up to and including death?

[General Zod]

Since when is violent death poetic justice for being an asshole? Since when is it justice of any kind?

Don't be stupid. It's not just the fact that he's an asshole that makes it poetic. It's the fact that it would be by a cause he supported that's responsible for massive suffering that makes it poetic, as has been repeatedly stated in the thread.

[Kanastrous]

I just want to expand on the objection I have with Kana.

Okey dokey.

You don't personally know this person, you have only seen what the internet, news, etc. has made available.

That's correct. Exposure to new information on the subject might alter my perspective.

This person's reported opinions and support for an unpopular war and subsequent backing up of his stated opinions by enlistment has merited some sort of punishment up to and including death.

Again with this 'punishment' bullshit. *I* never mentioned 'punishment,' or even alluded to it. Not once. Go argue with whoever did; it wasn't me.

Does this apply to any person in the Army in Iraq that supports the war? Do they all deserve punishment up to and including death?

No.

[Darth Fanboy]

I think it is funny when the thread title accuses this guy of Bush Devotion when the article says this:

The absolutist who could stomach no criticism of the commander in chief no longer supports President Bush. He unenrolled from the Republican Party after he returned from basic training. The party has become too liberal. He's a man without a party.

There's a lot of room for criticism of the guy, but I give more credence to the valid criticisms put in this thread. Whereas the writer of the OP couldn't apparently be bothered enough to read the article he was posting and wanted to post something against the right for the sake of posting it. At least that's how I see it.

For the record though, I'm also of the opinion the guy turned his life upside down for all the wrong reasons.

[General Zod]

I think it is funny when the thread title accuses this guy of Bush Devotion when the article says this:

The absolutist who could stomach no criticism of the commander in chief no longer supports President Bush. He unenrolled from the Republican Party after he returned from basic training. The party has become too liberal. He's a man without a party.

There's a lot of room for criticism of the guy, but I give more credence to the valid criticisms put in this thread. Whereas the writer of the OP couldn't apparently be bothered enough to read the article he was posting and wanted to post something against the right for the sake of posting it. At least that's how I see it.

For the record though, I'm also of the opinion the guy turned his life upside down for all the wrong reasons.

The fact that he left because the Republicans are too liberal make him seem like a massive neocon douchebag though. Seriously, who the hell thinks the Republicans are too liberal?

[Darth Fanboy]

The fact that he left because the Republicans are too liberal make him seem like a massive neocon douchebag though. Seriously, who the hell thinks the Republicans are too liberal?

I'm not arguing that, what i'm against is people who post articles in an attempt to slam the right wing but don't take the time to get their facts straight. If you're right for the wrong reasons, it should be absolution from faulty reasoning.

If someone wants to sit down and make a commentary about why this guy is an idiot for doing what he did I have no problem with that, but they should also take a little time to make sure they have their facts straight.