Help save America

[sexual_chocolate]

Now!

[allthumbs]

hey SC, got something for ya

lick it byotch

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

A new jet aeroplane and a set of maracas?

[Bronco]

Kind of an old story but, you could do like these guys did-

 

Some choose country over football

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Len Pasquarelli

ESPN.com

 

 

You never know what will touch a nerve but, for Arizona Cardinals strong safety Pat Tillman, the terrorist events of last Sept. 11 and the insidious sense of fear they engendered in all of us clearly were the equivalent of applying a cattle prod to an open wound.

 

And so, rather than allow his sense of duty-bound responsibility to expire in a graveyard of good intentions, Tillman did something about it by depositing his football career in layaway for the next three years and enlisting in the U.S. Army, aspiring to become a member of the elite Special Forces group.

 

It was, for most of us hearing of his intentions last week, an inexplicable decision. The free-spirited but still consummately disciplined Tillman turned his back on a three-year contract proposal worth $3.6 million for a gig that pays roughly 18 grand a year. Then again Pat Tillman, a man whose carefully sketched blueprint for life was altered by the arrival of terrorism on our shores, is not most of us.

 

There is, it has been said, nothing sadder than the death of an illusion. But happy is that occasional man who thumbs his nose at convention, who clings to nonconformity as if it were the last piece of driftwood floating past a sunken ship, and who answers to his heart and not his wallet.

 

Freshly back from his honeymoon in Bora Bora last week, Pat Tillman apprised friends and relatives and the Arizona Cardinals coaching staff that there were more significant things in his life right now, that his conscience would not allow him to tackle opposition fullbacks when there is still a bigger enemy that needs to be stopped in its tracks.

 

"This is not," cautioned Tillman's agent and friend, Frank Bauer, "some kind of publicity stunt or anything. This is Pat Tillman, through and through. It wasn't some wild thought that just occurred to him. Believe me, he thought this out, and he's clear about it. This is something he feels he has to do. For him, it's a mindset, a duty. For him it isn't as big a deal as it is to the rest of us. He figures, 'Hey, I'm not the first, you know?' "

 

Indeed, while Tillman's decision registers as incongruous for most who would sacrifice everything for a shot at the kind of celebrity he enjoyed, his own sacrifice is reminiscent this Memorial Day weekend of those made by other professional athletes. The baseball record books, in particular, are filled with examples of star players -- Joe DiMaggio, Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Willie Mays, among others -- whose incredible feats would be even more prodigious had they not trudged off to war.

 

More recently, Hall of Fame quarterback Roger Staubach served time in Vietnam, as did Rocky Bleier, the former Pittsburgh Steelers running back who nearly had his foot blown off by a land mine, but came back to win four Super Bowl rings. And then there's the case of Bob Kalsu, the only active NFL player killed in the Vietnam conflict.

 

Another former NFL player, Cleveland Browns offensive lineman Don Steinbrunner, was killed in Vietnam in 1967 when the C-123 Provider he was piloting was gunned down by enemy anti-aircraft forces. His loss certainly was no less a tragedy than that of Kalsu, but Steinbrunner was 10 years retired at the time of his death, his ties to football then defined by a coaching stint at the Air Force Academy.

 

Bob Kalsu, conversely, had just one year of NFL seniority when he opted not to contest his call-up to active service after his 1968 rookie season with the Buffalo Bills. Chosen in the eighth-round of that year's "other" draft, Kalsu started eight games at guard.

 

"As solid a player and more important, as solid an individual, as they make," recollected Billy Shaw, the Hall of Fame member who played the other guard spot for the Bills, two years ago. "He would have been a great player, believe me, and not because he was the best athlete. He just wanted to be good, that's all, and wanted it so badly that it would have been enough."

 

At a time when it was acceptable for professional athletes to defer military service, Kalsu felt obligated to honor the ROTC pledge that had been as much a part of his life at the University of Oklahoma as had his All-American role on the football team.

 

And so Kalsu left his pregnant wife and young daughter to fulfill what he deemed to be a responsibility he could not ignore.

 

In writing of Kalsu for a column two years ago, when the Buffalo Bills organization chose to honor him on its "Wall of Fame," this columnist spoke to family and friends and former teammates and gained some sense of the man. Noted sportswriter William Nack was far more eloquent than yours truly in a Sports Illustrated piece on Kalsu last summer. Doubtless many readers recall that feature, a narrative that thrust Kalsu into the public consciousness, if only for a too-brief time.

 

First lieutenant Kalsu died on July 21, 1970, on a stretch of desolate Ashau Valley mountaintop known as "Firebase Ripcord," where his 11th artillery unit of the 101st Airborne Division had been pinned down for weeks by relentless enemy fire. The legend was that he was shot as he sprinted across an open field to a helicopter, one he felt was delivering news of the birth of his second child.

 

His colleagues and family have debunked the legend, but Bob Kalsu Jr. was born within 24 hours of his father's death, and took years to accept that the dad he never knew would perish in a war that seemed to mean so little. Years later, the junior Kalsu claims to have heard his father's voice during a reception for the wedding his sister, Jill.

 

The voice, Kalsu Jr. suggested, was his father telling him to substitute for him during the wedding dance. "It was clear and unmistakable," Kalsu Jr. said.

 

And so, apparently, was the voice that spoke to Pat Tillman in recent weeks.

 

Since he has deflected all interview requests and seems intent on allowing his actions to speak for themselves, it is difficult to precisely define Tillman's motivation. But on the weekend reserved for honoring those who sacrificed careers, lifestyles, relationships -- and, yes, even their lives -- one of Tillman's teammates offered a pithy but profound explanation for his reasoning.

 

"He is," said Cardinals free safety Kwamie Lassiter, "a man who loves this country."

 

Have a nice weekend!

 

 

 

[sexual_chocolate]

Hey, good for him.

 

Now help save America, and impeach.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Impeach cobbler!

[Fairweather]

SC,

I guess your buddy, Clinton was the only modern president worthy of impeachment. So sorry.

 

...almost forgot...

 

HAPPY BIRHTDAY (yesterday) RONALD REAGAN!

The greatest president America has had since Teddy Roosevelt!

 

[JoshK]

Let's see...a president getting a BJ from a fat chick or a president helping to run the country into the ground, which is worse...

 

Not that either one of them should be (or should have been impeached.) I am, however, looking forward to a 18 months from now when monkey-boy will be voted out of office.

[allthumbs]

whydonchu run for office, numbnutz

you got all the answers

[sexual_chocolate]

It don't take answers to run for office, only pliant stupidity.

 

As a matter of fact, ever thought of running?

[sexual_chocolate]

What I find weird is that I believe some Republican (and other) politicians truly do believe themselves to be Christians, yet so often act with total disregard for Christian ethics and morality. What's up with that?

[allthumbs]

It don't take answers to run for office, only pliant stupidity.

 

As a matter of fact, ever thought of running? --sex. choc.

 

the only thing I run from is your dick smiling at my tight ass.

[Fairweather]

I doubt that you (or I) are qualified to judge "Christian ethics". Even if you were, I doubt you could find a uniform standard from which to base. Additionally, I don't think any reasonable person believes that GW is pursuing his Iraq/world agenda based on his religous beliefs. ....but then, you haven't always demonstrated yourself reasonable.

 

 

[sexual_chocolate]

It is true,

My penis is happy.

It smiles and winks,

with poems so sappy.

 

But I'm afraid its smile

would turn to a frown

upon seeing a lard ass

on a midget clown.

[jkrueger]

What I find weird is that I believe some Republican (and other) politicians truly do believe themselves to be Christians, yet so often act with total disregard for Christian ethics and morality. What's up with that?

 

Ethics and morality obviously have no bearing whatsoever with the majority of this crowd. You're going to have to try a different angle...

[sexual_chocolate]

I doubt that you (or I) are qualified to judge "Christian ethics". Even if you were, I doubt you could find a uniform standard from which to base. Additionally, I don't think any reasonable person believes that GW is pursuing his Iraq/world agenda based on his religous beliefs. ....but then, you haven't always demonstrated yourself reasonable.

 

 

Do you really think Jesus would have supported the bombing raids in Afghanistan, and a pre-emptive strike in Iraq, with teh resultant civilian and other casualties? You are madder than I thought! Jesus wasn't much of a nationalist, from what I remember.

[JoshK]

The christian right in this country are the biggest hypocritical fools around. What they want is to dictact the lives of their countrymen based on the word of their supposed god, and use that same word to exact their will on the less fortunate of the world.

 

Honestly, I think they are a shame to any real christian.

[Fairweather]

...And would Jesus support abortion?

 

...capital punishment?

 

...SUV's?

 

...women's equality?

 

...the ethical treatment of animals? How about fish?

 

...the internet?

 

...movie theatres?

 

 

 

 

 

SC, you have made my point for me. GW realizes his first duty as president is to protect Americans. His moral approach to this is secular in nature, in spite of his strong Christian beliefs.

 

Should GW have said, "lets just turn the other cheek" on Sept 12th? (Would Jesus have done so?-I suspect the answer is yes.) Had the president done so, he would have betrayed his sworn duty to defend America from enemies foreign and domestic.

 

I find it ironic that an atheist (I suspect, based on your previous posts over the year) like you, is now trying to inject religon into the debate, when you have regularly lambasted Christian/conservative ideals in the past.

 

Feel free to use this tactic as you see fit, but know that you are a hypocrite for doing so.

 

 

[JoshK]

deleted double post

Edited February 8, 2003 by JoshK

[JoshK]

Which is exactly why I hate the christian right. They have no right to run this country based on christian ideals. So much for the seperation of church and state. I could give a shit what jesus would have done. He lived 2000 years ago. I'm sure he was a great guy, I really do, but I don't plan to live my life based on what a bunch of sorry asses that came after him wrote down in a book and claimed was the word of god.

 

Fairweather, while I'm sure we disagree politically (I'm just assuming based on some of your other posts ), I completely agree that the president's duty is to defend this country and not pander to the religious zealots on one side or the other. Unfortunatley, bush gets a lot of his support from the christian right, so they tend to affect politics more than I'd like.

[Fairweather]

Josh,

 

I think GW has gone out of his way to separate his christian beliefs from his duties. Sure, he'll invoke the name of God during a somber and tragic event like the Columbia disaster, but "God" is a name used by many religons.

 

At least he's not posin' in front of church with bible in hand like Bill Clinton did every Sunday. I can still remember the media, getting lots of good footage of Bill at the top of the church steps, shaking hands and holding that bible. And all the while gettin' blowjobs and selling our missile staging technology to the Chinese.

 

No one seemed to mind back then. Media bias? Liberal hypocricy?

[JoshK]

I would agree that GW has seperated his beliefs and his politics for the most part. I don't like the guy as president, and disagree with almost all of his policies (environment, gun control, budget, abortion, etc.), but I think he has treated his job as exactly what it is, a job. I have no problem with "god" being used in remeberence speechs, etc. I totally agree that in that case the concept is bigger than word and it conveys the message as it should. I could do without the specific passages from the bible, but oh well.

 

About Clinton, you are right, he certainly did his best to get seen at church as much as possible. His politics obviously didn't reflect the christian right's views, but I more or less get the impression that the church visits were to appease the middle ground "family values" group. It goes without saying that church-gig stuff has been a favorite with poloticians for bolstering public opinion since the dawn of politics.

 

Somewhat off topic, but it's interesting that probably the most religous president in recent memory was Carter, who was definitely liberal. While he may have not been the most successful president (I wouldn't know, I wasn't old enough), I must say his post-presidency has certainly been productive with regard to helping the less fortunate of the world. For religious reasons or not, I think he's certainly done good for the world.

[sexual_chocolate]

...And would Jesus support abortion?

 

...capital punishment?

 

...SUV's?

 

...women's equality?

 

...the ethical treatment of animals? How about fish?

 

...the internet?

 

...movie theatres?

 

 

 

 

 

SC, you have made my point for me. GW realizes his first duty as president is to protect Americans. His moral approach to this is secular in nature, in spite of his strong Christian beliefs.

 

Should GW have said, "lets just turn the other cheek" on Sept 12th? (Would Jesus have done so?-I suspect the answer is yes.) Had the president done so, he would have betrayed his sworn duty to defend America from enemies foreign and domestic.

 

I find it ironic that an atheist (I suspect, based on your previous posts over the year) like you, is now trying to inject religon into the debate, when you have regularly lambasted Christian/conservative ideals in the past.

 

Feel free to use this tactic as you see fit, but know that you are a hypocrite for doing so.

 

 

I don't know what point I made for you, but I'd like to take a shot at the list:

 

 

1. No

2. No

3. No

4. Yes

5. Yes (Yes)

6. No support needed.

7. No support needed.

 

That's your interpretation. I don't personally believe his FIRST duty is to protect Americans. From where do you glean this fancitude? Plus, much of the current debate rightfully centers on whether or not his actions DO protect americans, or simply american business interests. There is a difference.

As far as Sept. 11 goes, I believe Jesus would have counseled for attempts at understanding and wisdom before knee-jerk militancy. His whole approach towards life was aimed at gaining wisdom, something this administration cares nothing about. Also, Jesus wasn't suicidal, although some might consider him as such.

 

I am not an Atheist. I think such a view is exactly as fanciful as Theism.

I do believe in many values espoused by Christianity, along with many (if not ALL) values of Buddhism (core Theravadan and Mahayanan), along with many values from many other sources, which often point very much in the same direction.

So I DON'T agree with you when you call me a hypocrite for injecting religion/spirituality into this; I believe it is important to do so.

 

[Fairweather]

Josh,

 

Jimmy Carter probably was the "most moral" president we've had in modern times. I disagree with his more recent politics of appeasment though. He made a real mess out of the 1994 North Korea negotiations IMHO.

 

I understand your distress re: the christian right. I would not live in a country ruled by the Christian version of the Taliban. I just don't see where they have the power you perceive them to have under the current administration.

 

You MUST consider this though: Just as YOU feel that certain interest groups have too much power/influence within the current government, I feel/felt just as strongly about the dangers of special interests on "your" side of the fence under Clinton. I still feel my freedoms were, and are, more at risk from a liberal/socialist agenda than from the right-wing.

 

The pendulum WILL swing back and forth. That's the beauty of the system we have.

 

 

 

 

[sexual_chocolate]

Josh,

 

I think GW has gone out of his way to separate his christian beliefs from his duties. Sure, he'll invoke the name of God during a somber and tragic event like the Columbia disaster, but "God" is a name used by many religons.

 

At least he's not posin' in front of church with bible in hand like Bill Clinton did every Sunday. I can still remember the media, getting lots of good footage of Bill at the top of the church steps, shaking hands and holding that bible. And all the while gettin' blowjobs and selling our missile staging technology to the Chinese.

 

No one seemed to mind back then. Media bias? Liberal hypocricy?

 

What on earth are you talking 'bout, "No one seemed to mind"? Are you off your rocker? He was almost impeached! Plus no one thought what he did was cool. It was horrible for Democrats also. They just didn't think it was an impeachable crime, and rightfully so.