blah, blah, blah…

All previously answered.

The point was how commenters here jumped to the conclusion –in the absence of any reasonable proof– that the women were lefties or liberals or worse.

It’s sad to have to note how far afield some here go in order to defend and twist words in order to escape a simple fact: they jumped to conclusions that the women were liberals or lefties. And when called on the fact, try to twist and spin to avoid accountability.

It’s so sad. The facts are sometimes immaterial to the pleasure they derive from some good natured, boys-club-in-the-lockeroom sporting pillory of the fairer sex.

ILC, when you find a reliable source that supports the assumption these women were liberal lefties in a one piece, let me know. Like I said, I wouldn’t doubt they are but the more interesting aspect is how quick some here are to condemn, smear or indict those who don’t agree with the RIGHT position as liberals, lefties or Democrats.

I think it says far more about the level of intolerance here than what might have been in the hearts of those women.

…the way in which folks here jumped to the conclusion that these women must be liberals or lefties…

I can only speak for myself here. Again:

- I made an inference that the women had to be anti-military on some level. NDT has since proven that inference airtight. I stand by it.

- I further supported Vince’s inference that, while NOT all lefties are military-haters, true military-haters are almost invariably lefties.

- I further noted it would be desirable to hear the women’s side of the story – Even if their case ultimately is weak.

If that’s “jumping to conclusions” – Hey, so be it. But of course it isn’t.

I’m perfectly happy to grant that these women could be, shall we say, political ***moderates*** rather than leftists. But Churchillian or Thatcherite conservatives? Ha, ha, ha.

NDT, you raised a secondary allegation that the women were probably anti-military. I agree completely that it looks that way. Maybe they were not only anti-military, but probably jerks as well? And boors.

But the point of Kevin’s comment and my point isn’t that… it was the way in which folks here jumped to the conclusion that these women must be liberals or lefties for protesting the use of the pool by those honorable, valiant and injured vets.

I’m guessing that had either you or I or John been there (or even some of the others who frequent this blog) we would have had a similar type of reaction to each other that would have confronted the women and helped them understand their error, certainly supported the vets and their use of the pool, defended the therapist and staffers there with the vets and worked to ensure they could conduct the therapy and maybe even interacted with the pool manager to make certain the vets were treated with respect, decency and got to use the pool… heck, I’ve have quickly taken away the womens’ argument by paying for the vets admission. Pronto; damn the exchange rate, too. We’d have probably each done constructive things to see that the vets got their therapy.

But it wouldn’t have meant that the women were liberals or lefties. Heck, they may not even have a political philosophy beyond pure, 1000% self-interest. Were they wrong? Oh yeah. Were they jerks? Certainly. Were they liberals? Can’t tell from these reports… but what is telling is how folks here jumped on the notion/smear/indictment that they must be liberals because of their untoward, uncivil conduct.

And if we had acted against that “outrage”, as John terms it, it wouldn’t have meant that conservatives somehow have a lock on being pro-military, patriotic or and the only ones in favor of God, faith and country… or, open lanes at public pools for injured vets.

This isn’t “show me a conservative who is anti-military”. I know lots of conservatives who have a strong dislike of the military and see military brass as bumblers, ill contenders and misfits… mostly because of their experience in VietNam. Two of the brightest, seminal conservatives I have known –Russell Kirk and Bill Buckley– have/had distain for the military. if you want to find conservatives who dislike the military, spend some time with the wannabe militia types… but then, they see the military as the enforcing arm of the IRS and govt revenuers… so, maybe you shouldn’t spend time with them.

There are liberals who are pro-military. JFK was a big liberal and pro-military. Sen Joe Liberman is liberal to most and yet he’s pro-military. Former US Navy Secy under RReagan, Sen Jim Webb is a progressive/moderate and he’s pro-military. And I hate to admit it, but Michigan’s own Carl Levin –who is miles away from my politics– is pro-military. In fact, out of all the issues he touches on, it’s the only impluse we share. Otherwise, I have little use for his harsh partisanship.

Now, granted, if the sneering women turn out to be the Brit equivalent of Code Pinkers, it wouldn’t surprise me. Frankly, from the reports I’ve read, they were just incredibly selfish, self-centered twits. Just trying to be fair and balanced.

(Hope that one clears the censors; sorry; mea culpa)

I had intended no offense (this time) to either Kevin.

But here’s my approach to truth. I do believe there is such a thing as the “objective truth”. I do believe inquiry can arrive at it. And I do believe that, once arrived at, it may function as a basis for appropriate moral condemnation. But… During the inquiry phase… There are always 2 or more sides to be reported, let’s say.

You know sometimes an action is so wrong you really don’t need to hear both sides. Especially considering the media’s general anti-veteran bias. What good reason can you think for asking a crippled person in a rehab class to leave a pool?

The response of the wom(a/e)n indeed was so… out there.

Not quite.

Please note what the women stated:

Charles Murrin, 79, a Navy veteran who saw the incident, said: “The woman said the men do not deserve to be in there and that she pays to come in the pool and they don’t.

Now, how would she know that a) they don’t “deserve” to be in there, or b) that they “hadn’t paid”, if she knew nothing about who they were?

It is inconceivable that this woman did not know these men were servicemembers; they were accompanied by a military instructor, for heaven’s sake. She knew what they were, and she walked right up to them and treated them like dirt.

I’d say that’s proof positive she’s anti-military. Furthermore, how many antimilitary conservatives do you know, Matt, versus Code Pink and the other front groups of the Democrat Party?

why paint them as “liberals” like it’s a big red “A” on their foreheads?

Who’s done that? You’re exaggerating as usual.

Yet in point of simple fact, it is almost always the case, as Vince put it in “#16, “Not all Leftists hate the military but all military haters are Leftists.” If that bothers you MM – as evidently it does – talk to the left-liberals about it, OK?

nothing in the press statements referenced indicate the women were liberals or lefties or anti-military

Already answered at #22. Reading, MM. It’s about reading.

Their complaint was about being denied full use of the pool as a paying patron.

Exactly. The vets were paying patrons (in various ways) too. Sharing, MM. It’s called sharing. And respect.

I think the Brit Army Chief of Staff has it right… build the vets their OWN pool.

And they’re doing that. But why should they have to?

The women were wrong, surely. But why paint them as “liberals” like it’s a big red “A” on their foreheads? Or in your echo-chamber fashion, pile-on to others’ commentaries and imply the women must be vet-hating liberals.

The answer to Kevin’s honest query is that nothing in the press statements referenced indicate the women were liberals or lefties or anti-military. Their complaint was about being denied full use of the pool as a paying patron. Secondly, that the children present might be disturbed by seeing the injured likely-limbless vets splashing about in therapy.

Comprehension, ILC. It fails you often; that and not jumping to wild-assed purely speculative conclusions about the political leanings of these wrong-headed women. Oh wait, you didn’t do that… you just piled on in the echo chamber.

I think the Brit Army Chief of Staff has it right… build the vets their OWN pool. At the very least, they deserve some privacy while in therapy.

Or is this some of that crazy conservative lunancy that calls for military vets to use public pools to save the taxpayers… I can’t tell with your silliness. But I can tell comprehension escapes you, most surely.

Hell, the Republican leaders of our own government don’t want the coffins of the dead shown anywhere.

One of your standard Kevin falsehoods. “The facts are oftentimes immaterial”… indeed.

One woman, believed to be in her 30s, was so incensed that the soldiers – many of them amputees having returned from conflicts in the Middle East and Asia – were using the pool that she told them that they did not deserve to be there.

That ain’t “getting the willies” over the sight of the handicapped, Kevin. And it ain’t the response of Churchillian or Thatcherite conservatives, MM.

Assuming it’s fair and accurate, it could be the response of someone with mental illness. Or, the response of a military-hating moonbat – and in account of the latter, I refer you to Vince at #16.

It is alleged that she told the men that she pays to swim there and they do not. According to witnesses she was so abusive that the soldiers’ instructor pulled the groups out of the water to avoid further embarrassment.

The concept that the soldiers did pay, with their service to Britain – AND their injuries – AND whatever official rehabilitation programs / rights they were brought in under – seems lost to that woman.