If your definition of "heat of the moment" means when there are network cameras surrounding you and microphones in your face live broadcasting to millions of Americans then I proudly raise my hand!
Posted on 01/23/2014 11:20:30 AM PST by tom h
RENTON, Wash. (CBSNewYork/AP) — Richard Sherman wondered if he came to the NFL 20 years too late.
The Seattle Seahawks’ All-Pro cornerback wondered if his swagger might have fit better a few decades earlier when that confidence and an unfiltered tongue was perhaps more accepted.
“I studied the old school game more than I studied the new school game, and I play it that way. It rubs a lot of people the wrong way,” Sherman said Wednesday. “Giving a true speech after a game, a true passionate speech is old school football. Playing press corner and sitting up there every play is old school football. I guess maybe I just haven’t adjusted to the times.”
(Excerpt) Read more at newyork.cbslocal.com ...
You mean like the warriors who potentially face the next sunrise in a body bag because they won't let their women's genitals be raped at an airport? You don't think that's what people face? Then why don't they refuse? How about - because that's what they face.
Is it a time thing? You're not a warrior if you might die quick? So the psych strain or risk is out? And so, an enemy can easily defeat warriors by moving in slow motion, by gradually wearing down a society piece by piece, because they'll never face real warriors, because they move too slowly for a real warrior to go after them?
You know, like Leftist political strategies? Like the destruction of the schools? Like no one taking the time to understand the law, and its limits?
What good are warriors, then, if they don't face the enemy where the enemy really is, but only where they want the enemy to be?
Uh...no. That's what's meant by "words mean things." You can call a dog a fish and a horse an airplane, but you'd be wrong. A dog is a dog, a fish is a fish, a horse is a horse, and an airplane is an airplane. Words mean things, not whatever someone wants them to mean at any particular time.
People may want to think of themselves, or those they admire, as "warriors", but unless they served in a combat arms MOS in the military, they're not. They may wish they were warriors, but again, they're not. They're only deluding themselves...they're not warriors, only whatever they are.
To call some room temperature IQ'd, knuckle dragging, illiterate professional football player(s) a "warrior" is to dishonor those who have fought our nation's battles for 238+ years.
"Best of luck to you. I think you're going to need it."
Why would I need luck? God loves me, and I was a US Army 19D Cavalry Scout for 11 years. If I can't fight my way out of a tight spot, God's got my back. I don't need luck...I'm a warrior.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Okay, so there’s no alternative definitions of words than - yours.
And, there is no acting with courage for the right things and facing serious harm or death on behalf of principles which affect all of humanity except the acts that are made by trained military personnel in militaries which - you approve.
Because that’s what warriors do, right? They act with courage for the right things and face serious harm or death on behalf of principles which affect all of humanity - right?
And NO ONE ELSE does that in the whole world except MOS-certified military personnel that you acknowledge.
Just wanted to get all of that clear. Thanks for sharing.
You still don't get it. The English language is the rule book of our civilization. If we start playing fast and loose with what words mean, the next thing you know, we start getting homosexuals demanding the right to be "married", even though by definition of "marriage", they can't. We get illegal aliens demanding to be called "undocumented immigrants", even that's not what they are. We get gloBULL warming dipsticks calling a blast of winter weather a "polar vortex". We get anti-gun tyrants calling semi-auto rifles "assault weapons", even though they're not. We get dumba** reporters calling presidential candidates in a debate "combatants" -- though I wouldn't have minded seeing a big brawl onstage during one of those endless debates in 2012...at least that one would've been interesting.
"Because that’s what warriors do, right? They act with courage for the right things and face serious harm or death on behalf of principles which affect all of humanity - right?"
No...you're still not getting it. Warriors train for and engage in combat on behalf of their nation/state/village/tribe/etc. All the flowery rhetoric about the good of humanity sounds warm and fuzzy...but it's delusional. Army Cav Scouts, Marine infantrymen, A-10 pilots, Navy destroyer gunners -- they are warriors. Ghandi, Rev. Martin Luther King and yes, even Marcus Lutrell's mother, were/are not, despite the good deeds they did and the suffering they endured.
Anyone who wants to be a warrior needs to go talk to their local recruiter, take the oath of enlistment, and put on the uniform of their nation.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Combat. That's what you call a word in the "English language rule book of our civilization."
Warriors is another word. And now, see, here's how civilization rule books work - you can't have different words mean the same things. So if combat meant all warriors, then you would have to come up with another word for warriors who are not in combat. Because combat is only one type of fighting.
You see, if you take a combat warrior prisoner, then he's no longer in combat. Then an interrogator gets ahold of him, and does things to his mind. Is he still a warrior? Yes. But he's not in combat anymore. He's fighting a different type of fight.
That's one small difference.
Another difference in civilization rule book words is "we." Now, the FOunder of this country did not, in fact, declare it a Christian country inside the Constitution, because they knew Christians would argue about the meaning of that concept, and re-create what the Founder left back in Europe.
So when you say "we" start playing fast and loose with what words mean, the next thing you know, we start getting homosexuals demanding the right to be "married", even though by definition of "marriage", they can't, you forget that you are talking about YOUR "we."
You don't like homosexuals being married, because you don't think they can be married because of the meaning of "marriage"? WHOSE meaning of marriage? Yours? Christianities? Which denomination? Because some denominations accept it. How about men and women getting married under Hinduism? Is that valid? For a man and a woman to pledge themselves together under the holy auspices of the blue-colored, four-armed Vishnu? Because they do. Is the word "marriage" not valid in that case? Should the law be changed?
You treat words like a child. Or better yet - you treat word the way a liberal thinks of military training. Simplistically. A liberal doesn't know of the sophistication and depth of military training. And you don't know of the sophistication and depth of words. And you both treat them with contempt.
YOU are playing fast and loose with the English language, with the rule book of society. The reasons warriors ARE warriors is to protect that rule book, but what is that worth is people don't even bother learning how it works? Then they get stuck with homosexual marriage and can't figure out how to stop it, or watch their women molested at their own airports while those they fought in combat warfare walk through without being checked at all.
You think this is a damn game? The country is melting down because of an enemy. This particular country - America - by its Founders declaration, sees ALL of its People as warriors in whatever way is required of them. That's why they called them the militia.
Combat is only one way of being a warrior. It is a genuine way, and a noble way, and deserves immense respect. But it is by no means the only way. You write: Warriors train for and engage in combat on behalf of their nation/state/village/tribe/etc. All the flowery rhetoric about the good of humanity sounds warm and fuzzy...but it's delusional. Army Cav Scouts, Marine infantrymen, A-10 pilots, Navy destroyer gunners -- they are warriors. Ghandi, Rev. Martin Luther King and yes, even Marcus Lutrell's mother, were/are not, despite the good deeds they did and the suffering they endured.
Okay, by your own definitions, getting rid of that delusional flowery rhetoric about the good of humanity, you know who you left IN? You know who fits your definition of "warrior" - those who "train for and engage in combat on behalf of their nation/state/village/tribe/etc."?
The mob. Gangs. Muslim terrorists. Suicide bombers. Mujahaddim, Al Qaida, Muslim Brotherhood, the Nazis in WWII, etc. They ALL "train for and engage in combat on behalf of their nation/state/village/tribe/etc." with NONE of that flowery humanistic rhetoric.
I know some American servicemen and women who might object to what they do being made EQUAL to what those monsters, thugs, maniacs and criminals do.
But you believe what you want.
Hey, that's great! We can all be warriors, without having to risk our lives or limbs to earn the real title...yay! Just like when we were kids and we all got trophies...even when we lost! Gee, I always wanted to be a warrior, but was too afraid to join the military, so I guess now that Talisker has said there are different types of warriors, I can pretend I am one...yay!
Oh yeah.../sarc
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Hey, that's great! We can all be warriors, without having to risk our lives or limbs to earn the real title...yay! Just like when we were kids and we all got trophies...even when we lost! Gee, I always wanted to be a warrior, but was too afraid to join the military, so I guess now that Talisker has said there are different types of warriors, I can pretend I am one...yay!
Oh yeah.../sarc
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
No, you still don't get it. There's only one type of warrior. A warrior engages the enemy where and how the enemy needs to be engaged, and does it for the highest reasons - those given by God.
One thing a warrior can do fight in combat. That is a genuine warrior act.
There are other genuine warrior acts beside combat.
And, the enemy lies about what acts are genuine warrior acts. The enemy wants people to run away from being warriros, to only have combat warriors be warriors, or to decide that if there is something more that a warrior can do than being in combat, that it is impossible to know what a warrior is supposed to do.
But a real warrior knows that the enemy will lie about the definition of a warrior.
And so takes precautions to remain very, very clear.
Because that, too, is battle.
Goodnite.
Exactly...that's why there are Cake Warriors, Parking Warriors, Storage Locker Warriors, and soon to be Rubber Warriors, right? I get it -- "warrior" no longer means what it used to...one who engages in war. It can now mean anything, because words have no meaning, apparently.
I guess fighting your neighbor over him using your garden hose can be a "war". Jockeying for the closest empty spot in a parking lot can be called "combat". All because we (well, not me...I was a warrior...a real one) feel so inadequate in our lives that we have to inflate our egos by debasing the language.
A "warrior" is someone who fights, or trains to fight "wars", which are armed and deadly struggles between nations, tribes, etc, where "warriors" engage in deadly "combat", which is to say violent attempts to take one another's lives, or inflict such grievous injury, so the warrior can't continue fighting. The object of "war" is to force the other nation, tribe, village, or government to acquiesce to your desires, take their land, etc. That's what warriors, wars, and combat are. If you can't deal with that, well, Rubber Warriors will be on the Discovery Channel next year, following Cake Wars and Soap Dish Warriors.
You know, I've been trying to think of what your argument reminds me of, and it finally hit me...Jerry Brown. Back in 1994, when I was stationed in California (in the Army, with which I was a warrior), Gov. Moonbeam had a radio show. He was talking before Memorial Day about how we should use the occasion to also memorialize the "pioneers" of the labor movement, the homo rights movement, the women's libbers, and so on. The way he saw it, Memorial Day, despite it being a day to honor those Americans who paid the ultimate sacrifice for their nation, while serving in the military, should be extended to those for whom it wasn't created. You, sir, think like Jerry Brown.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Don't want to let this jewel go unaddressed.
Wow...I guess they never got around to teaching us that at Knox. Maybe they were too busy teaching us how to fire machineguns, set land mines, blow stuff up with C4, conduct dismounted patrols, plan ambushes, engage targets with LAWs, Dragons and TOWs, and call for and adjust artillery fire to teach the important stuff...like the many wonderful definitions of "warrior".
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
I had an uncle who was cut in half on Iwo by a machine gun nest. Another parachuted in as a member of the 101st Airborne on D-Day. And I've dealt with the psychological wounds of another who was classified as psychologically damaged by his military experiences. What I've dealt with, personally and seen in other family members, as far as what makes a warrior, combat or otherwise, is so far beyond your hoo-ra idiocy you don't even rate my attention. In fact, you're an insult to just about every American who wore the uniform, because they learned and practiced those skills for a REASON - not just to wear and practice those skills.
I've tried to teach you something about what makes this country great. About a vision the Founders had about what makes the militia, and what kind of fighting is necessary from everyone, all the time, so we don't get split apart and feminized and psycho-babbled against each other. So that we can respect what needs to be respected in each other, and not throw the baby out with the bathwater like our enemies want us to do.
And for that, you compare me to Jerry Brown?
Bah. You're nothing.
They were/are warriors, and deserve our gratitude and respect. If you never served in the military, in combat, or in a combat arms job, you're not. Get over it.
Oh by the way, saying "combat warrior" is redundant..."warrior" implies "combat", but we'll get to that in good time.
"In fact, you're an insult to just about every American who wore the uniform, because they learned and practiced those skills for a REASON - not just to wear and practice those skills."
Yeah...you sure are funny, Talisker. For someone who has apparently no military experience, except for what he got vicariously through his brave family members, you sure do talk a lot of sh*t. I'm exercising self-control and not going into what would happen if you said that to my face...but needless to say, you wouldn't say it twice.
"I've tried to teach you something about what makes this country great."
You can't teach me a damn thing. I've been there and done that, while you read about it in a comic book. You're a pathetic wanna-be trying to justify your own lack of service, by elevating yourself to the level of those who have served selflessly and gallantly. If I had the opportunity, I would say that to your face.
"About a vision the Founders had about what makes the militia..."
The unorganized militia, once activated by their governor, become part of the military of their state. In the meantime, hey train to go to war...at least they're supposed to. Drilling militias are warriors. They don't train to be PAC clerks, truck drivers or football players...they train to fight. Don't lecture me about the militia, Bubba...I am the militia.
"And for that, you compare me to Jerry Brown?"
Damn right I do, because you're trying to take an honorable title -- warrior -- and bestow it upon people who haven't earned it, just as Jerry Brown tried to bestow the honor of Memorial Day upon those who didn't earn it.. That pi**es me off, frankly. Not that it matters to you and your pathetic delusions.
But just to put a period on this little back and forth, let me give you the definition of "warrior" from the 1977 (pre-PC) edition of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:
"warrior: n., a man engaged or experienced in warfare."
Even in the age of PC, the Random House Webster's Dictionary, 3rd Edition (1998) defines "warrior" exactly the same, adding the word "soldier" at the end!
Nothing about football players, nothing about the mothers of Navy SeALs, nothing about Ghandi, nothing about the multitudes of people doing good things for the benefit of humanity..."men engaged or experienced in warfare; soldier." Period...checkmate!
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Yes, I read your post. You said, “Sherman acted like a dick when he got caught up in the moment by yelling and screaming like a rabid dog.” There is a difference with this and, “I said Sherman just got caught up in the moment and went on to say it was no big deal and too much was being made of this.” When you are that excited about winning a game, you are not acting like a “dick” and a “rabid dog.” And, when you just got stiff armed, you would be excited about that too.
That being said, overlooking the unsportsmanlike conduct by Crabtree indicates your bias against the Seahawks. And, you can understand my bias for the Seahawks. We love the “Beast Mode” and hope the Seahawks haters don’t try to outlaw it. I say the Seahawks “Beast” the Broncos by 10 points.
Go Seahawks!
Everybody that ever finishes an NFL game is just as excited as Sherman was and people get treated bad by opponanets all the time but they don't scream and yell in a reporter's face like a rabid dog. He's supposed to be a professional. That's part of the game. If he hadn't been acting unprofessionally people wouldn't still be talking about. It happens and he appears to regret it. I'm willing to forgive him and more on.
Anyone who hasn’t said anything inappropriate in the heat of a moment raise your hand. Apparently being anonymous online gives you freedom to swear and be rude. Pot meet kettle.
If your definition of "heat of the moment" means when there are network cameras surrounding you and microphones in your face live broadcasting to millions of Americans then I proudly raise my hand!
Off your medication again, I see...
You really have issues, bro.
All this over the definition of a word. I’d hate to see you when you’re REALLY REALLY REALLY irritated.
Lord a’mighty....
wku brother, I think you’re falling on deaf ears with this one.
A civil discussion turns into a barn burner over the definition of a word.
Kind of ridiculous.
And for the record... No, football players are NOT warriors - STILL.
“...I’ve tried to teach you something about what makes this country great...”
Settle down, sparky. Nobody asked you for a school civics lesson. Especially not a combat veteran who KNOWS what makes the country great and actually put his life on the line for it.
A little humility goes a long way, Tal. You should learn some.
“...is so far beyond your hoo-ra idiocy you don’t even rate my attention. ...”
And yet, you take the time an effort to post a diatribe rant... insulting folks who just happen to disagree with you, and who had Z-E-R-O quarrel with you. Way to win friends and influence folks, Tal.
wku man, you’ve got quite a nasty mouth, and the arrogance of a 13 year old boy. I’m not really impressed with what comes out of it, either - it’s at about the same level as your chin. Nor am I impressed with your insults or evasions. You’ve changed your approach to this subject every time you’ve posted, and now you’re down to rank insults. Wow, that’s freakin’ impressive. Learn that in the military too?
I know many military people who take the position that the military can teach a person how to fight, but they cannot make them a combat warrior - some sinply are not cut out for it. But they can also serve in other capacities in the military AS WARRIORS. Many people who you’d call REMFs and non-warriors, would shut your bragging mouth permanently if you denied them that to their face, wku boy.
And I know civilian medical personnel and family members with more warriorship than you’ve ever shown in your life - or ever could. You’re a fool, wku man - by definition. Because ONLY only a fool would crap on millions of his own countrymen and women, and the courage of their lives, just so he can run around with some limited definition of himself being the toughest. In fact, you sound exactly like someone who has never actually been in combat - you have the toughest-guy attitude of a virgin. You know the talk, but never had the walk to make you grow up, like it did for everyone else.
Ya’ll want SO MUCH to keep “warrior” for combat vets alone - and hell, not even for those REMFs you mock - then you’re just living in a tiny bubble. I didn’t diss combat - *I acknowledged it specifically.* But as far as I’m concerned, every one of you is directly harming what this country is about by sticking your chins out. You’re like Catholics and Protestants arguing about which is a true Christian - except for you it’s combat versus REMF. Not even military versus civilian (which is still foolish, but more common). What a joke.
Well hell, how about SF versus regular Army? How about actual combat experience versus being in a combat zone? How about only those who got purple hearts? How about only those who walked point? How about pilots but not flight engineers? How about flight crews but not air chiefs? This entire conversation is a joke. You can’t even say your “argument” to another person IN the military without getting your lights punched out, wku man. Which one are you going to call a REMF to his face, and deny him warriorship? LOL!
And I don’t even have to punish you - you’ll punish yourselves. As I said, you warriors will stand hands together, meekly, while your women get groped at an airport, and you will not say one damn word, nor look up what the limits of the law are so you’d actually have an intelligent and legal objection to something so horrendous, and why? One single reason - because you’re too damn scared to do it. That’s a fact.
Warrior is a state of mind, a dedication to duty, and willingness to fight for it. I’m glad you’re so proud of your military service. But in your own definitions, you’re now no longer warriors, because it was merely something that came with an MOS, and you don’t have one anymore. Yet by my way of figuring, you’re still warriors. Go figure.
So you’re great because you were warriors, but now you’re not warriors, but the country is in trouble and needs its People to be warriors in the ways the Founders set out for people to fight evil, through civic duty, which is set up and protected and defended from harm BY the military because it is so precious, but - oops - there’s no one to defend it in civilian life, because there are no warriors outside of the military. Right? What a screwup on the part of the Founders! To make a country based on warriorship, and then forget the warriors! Bummer.
Except then you’d still have to explain problems in your definition... people problems... like, how about JimRob? Is he a warrior? I mean, by your way of thinking, he was a warrior when he had his MOS in the service. Then he got out of the service, so he was no longer a warrior - according to you. But then, while crippled with virtually no money whatsoever, he creates Free Republic and in doing so stood up to the evil trying to destroy this country i a way that has literally made history and scared the living shit out of every communist bastard and bitch alive in America. And he continues to do it, month after month, year after year, literally refusing to die and refusing to stop. And you DON’T think he’s a warrior?
Screw you.
But hey - you do have fans. Look at Obama, look at Clinton, look at what is happening to our country - they agree with you! They say that People need to let the military be the warriors, and the police be the warriors (police are the same as military, right? Gonna get in their faces too, wku man?), and let these brave people protect them, so they can just go on getting benefits from the government, and buying computers, and living a happy, carefree life while they are taken care of through Obamacare and through the educational system and through total economic control and surveillance. Because who’s going to fight back?
No one, right? Because according to you, the Founders were wrong about “the People” - The People aren’t warriors. They have no fighting spirit, dedication to duty, willingness to go into harm’s way. No! The whole American experiment is WRONG, because the warriorship of the People DOESN’T EXIST - right? That’s what Hillary, and Obama, and YOU, know - and everyone else is learning. Sleep, sleep, people. Nice babies, nice metrosexual males, don’t dream of warriors, don’t dream of living a life of courage, it doesn’t exist...
Hoo ra.
Good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.