He is making a lot of non-sequiturs to reach what I would say are politically biased conclusions. I don't know how much is cut out though?

The question is interesting though on many levels.
The ALCU defended the KKK's right to free speech.
A person accused of horrendous crimes gets an attorney. That could be akin to defending evil.
Remember the movie with Tom Hanks defending a Russian spy? He was criticized and someone shot up his house for upholding an important right in our constitution (a true patriot). Not necessarily an issue of evil though. 

A whole lot of nuance to this question.

1992 – During his presidential campaign, Governor Bill Clinton promises that, if elected, he would allow military service by all who otherwise qualify to serve – regardless of sexual orientation.

June 12, 1992 – The Government Accounting Office (GAO) releases a report estimating that the cost associated for replacing service men and women discharged for homosexuality is $28,266 for each enlisted member and $120,772 for each officer. The GAO notes that the estimates do not include investigation, out-processing and court costs.

November 30, 1993 – After failing to overcome opposition to allowing gays to serve openly in the military, President Clinton signs into law the current policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” into law. Although often referred to as a compromise, the policy defined homosexuality as “an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.” More than 13,000 members of the armed services have been discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

He is making a lot of non-sequiturs to reach what I would say are politically biased conclusions. I don't know how much is cut out though?

The question is interesting though on many levels.
The ALCU defended the KKK's right to free speech.
A person accused of horrendous crimes gets an attorney. That could be akin to defending evil.
Remember the movie with Tom Hanks defending a Russian spy? He was criticized and someone shot up his house for upholding an important right in our constitution (a true patriot). Not necessarily an issue of evil though. 

A whole lot of nuance to this question.

Is he? Sounds pretty straight forward to me.

For those who don't know, when he mentions he served with spec ops, he is referring to his time in the 75th ranger battalion. He has his ranger scroll and not a ranger tab.

What I do find interesting is that the term "woke" has been changed. Before recently, "woke" would mean that someone took the red pill. As in their eyes were opened to seeing the truth and thru all the BS that the media and politicians are spewing.  So since this term has been in use, guess what, they decided to change it's meaning and usage. Just like how they changed other definitions. Now the term "woke" is a negative one from what it once was.

The better question for America's military is rather, "Why do you serve to defend the imperial adventures and garrison the planet in the name of the US empire?"

You have hit the bullseye on this. The COMMUNIST MEDIA notice when certain ideas are gaining traction. Then they NEUTRALIZE it by CO-OPTING the terminology.

ALT-RIGHT used to mean an alternative to the white supremacist, corrupt, abusive warmongering right wingers. It was almost like a third alternative to liberal/conservative thinking, back to America's true roots of truth, liberty, justice.

FAKE NEWS was also initially used to describe the brainwashing mainstream media. Now it has become "anything not authorized is not real news"

Same with WOKE. Now WOKE actually means to get sucked into the blackhole of insanity, irrationality, emotional, ANTI-NATURE ANTI-HUMAN ANTI-HUMAN RIGHTS crazy shit, even deeper.

Why would you not?

If you feel so strongly that the nation in which you were born is not worth defending from terrorists, Communists and other nations who want to destroy us, why would you not move somewhere else and forfeit your citizenship?

The answer is, regardless of our PAST, and the obvious flaws in our present, the US is still the best place on Earth to live, work, and thrive. 

The opportunities and civil protections are unmatched elsewhere.  For example, we are the ONLY country on the planet with a First Amendment protection.  So, in many other countries, you would not be allowed to post what you just did without fear of severe retaliation by the state.

To help visualize the answer, you have to separate the military from the government.  Serving in the military is no different that paying taxes in the context of your answer.  You could have just as easily asked, "Why would you pay taxes to support and defend the imperial adventures and garrison the planet in the name of the US empire?"  Taxes go to pay for our military, so you, in effect, are doing the same as the military -- only less directly.

I may not live in the nicest house in the nicest neighborhood, but if someone wants to break in and threaten me and my family, I will defend my home with force if necessary.  It's mine, and I will not let anyone take my rights, nor the rights of my family, to life and liberty without a fight.

One can't expect to live in an empire and have the same civil liberties and freedoms of a republic.  If you talk to people like Groveler, he can share exactly what elements of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights that either does not or is about to not exist, at least in-practice.

Those are terms that may express your feelings, but in the US, we have a Constitution and laws that supersede any labels you'd attach to our government.  Most of the time, rights are respected and not violated,  Those instances don't make the national news.  Only when rights are violated, and often in the most egregious ways, do we get those stories plastered all across the Internet.  That gives the impression that violating civil rights in this country is running rampant.  Such is not the case.

Dog bites man is not news.  Man bites dog is.  One is common, the other rare.

This has been already discussed ad nauseum with respect to the de-occupation of Hawaii and does not need to be regurgitated again.


That statement is only rhetoric now.  If that were 100% true, that does not explain why there have been and continue to be a growing number of American retirees and veterans alike that have chosen to live the rest of their lives in another country, with their pension and social security benefits forwarded to their new foreign home address, of course.

If America is the greatest place to live, then why retire and die in another country?

That's a common thing for retirees who want to experience a higher standard of living than their pensions provide in the US.  Living in Thailand or S. Korea, depending on the location, is dirt cheap compared to most US cities.  Add to that the "services" one can pay for overseas can be different than here, and the cost is ridiculously cheap.  Basically, a retired enlisted man with no wife or kids to support can live as a king in many countries. 

Additionally, after being in a strict disciplined career like the military, some just want to retire, do whatever they want, and not be bothered with the daily grind of making a paycheck.  Retiring after 20 years of service is attractive at age 38-ish.  It's easier to afford that lifestyle if not paying US prices for everything, paying US taxes and fees, and dealing with US cost of living increases.

We also have many jobs available overseas.  US civilians are often working on military bases or in foreign companies as experts or liaisons.  If they are in a civil service GS job, they can pay into their retirement and double-dip when they retire with both pensions.  When they reach SS retirement age, they are triple-dipping.

While living and working overseas, either on military duty or as a retired military member turned government employee, they find a mate, maybe get married, maybe start a family.  That's another reason many remain in country -- to be near the spouse's family, especially if the kids are in school there or the spouse has their own career there.

You may think there's only one factor that goes into a decision to remain in the US or expatriate to another country, but the reasons can be as basic as finances or as complicated as family ties.  Most people don't choose where to live because of their agreements, or disagreements, with political policies of their government.



I would offer the 1st Amendment has already been amended from free speech to permitted speech, as evidenced on the events on January 6th.  It will never revert back to what it was, unfortuntaely.

Things change when someone decides to change it.  If you're resigned to accepting that things will never change, then they never will.  It only takes one person with the courage to speak out and lead others to make change happen.  I guess you missed the civil rights era of the 60s?  It was a "thing" on the mainland.
 I was young when it happened, but I remember it well.  Many felt the same as you, but change came in waves because some refused to accept defeat.


That is a very nuanced, but valid reframing of the question.  The only differences, of course, is the obvious.  The military has US Constitutionally only one objective, which is to defend the nation from attack.  I fail to see how garrisoning the World with money America does not have as falling within the parameters of defense of the nation.  The current geopolitical policy's use of America's armed forces is that of aggression and intimidation; hardly anything remotely defensive in-posture.

That's getting into the weeds.  The original comment was from a birds-eye view.  Don't lose perspective.

Totally agree.

However, the theoretical underpinnings that are used to justify America's bellicose use of its armed forces abroad in its encirclement of Russia, China, Iran, Syria, etc. are based on a false premise.  Those nations are not in the business of taking away your livelihood.  It is a preposterous notion that only the mindless imperialist zealots would fall for.  It is pure fearmongering for ideologues to propagandize Putin, Xi, the Ayatollah, Assad, etc. as all working to destroy America in order to steal the rights and property of its people.

Overt attacks on our soil are rare, so we must protect our interests anywhere they are, even outside our borders.  Allowing another country to create strangleholds on supplies of oils or raw materials we need is a real national security issue.  We should be able to buy what we need without China buying it all up and refusing to sell to us or inflating the cost multiple times the fair market rate.  Having a military presence to assist our allies in their defense projects is a good thing.  Unfortunately, over time, the mission-creep can overwhelm the original size and scope of our involvement, which erodes the local public's willingness to have us there.  It's like most good things that you fail to appreciate until they are gone.  One day, Syria will be begging for US protection against Russian aggression. Leaders don't last forever.  Who's to say the next leaders of Russia will or won't be civil to their neighbors?

If you have not noticed, that theft is already taking place by the ultrawealthy and the Power Okole...

And there are peaceful means to stop that theft, if only the voters who aren't paying those taxes would stop electing the ones who steal from the "richer" and promise to give to the poorer.  Nobody ever thinks they will be the one's paying for a government program when they vote for it.  After the program is too big to kill, they realize fleecing everyone was the plan all along (Obamacare comes to mind).

I expect nothing less from someone who's never served in the military.

You're taking an academic approach to this -- as usual.  You think every situation exists in a vacuum and can be isolated based on your ideal set of rules and Constitutional interpretations.  In this particular case, you're 100% wrong. 

This video is not about political ideology, so any bias he has is irrelevant.  It's about indoctrination of CRT in the military, which is not specific to one party or another.  It could be the GOP supporting it, and it would not make any difference.  That the Democrats and woke Leftists are pushing it is incidental.  I find it interesting that you think he's biased against CRT because of politics, and not because he doesn't like CRT's content and messaging all on its own.

Talk about non-sequiturs!!  All the "examples" you threw out are just smoke, attempting to blind us from any cohesive argument you may have once been trying to convey.  If the ACLU protects the free speech of the KKK, how does that have anything to do with the military?  How does the justice system affording a killer a defense attorney parallel teaching CRT to our troops?

Just because your political affiliations and leanings are in one direction does not mean you can't criticize a policy or indoctrination program based solely on its merits and affects on operational readiness.

Is he? Sounds pretty straight forward to me.

For those who don't know, when he mentions he served with spec ops, he is referring to his time in the 75th ranger battalion. He has his ranger scroll and not a ranger tab.

What I do find interesting is that the term "woke" has been changed. Before recently, "woke" would mean that someone took the red pill. As in their eyes were opened to seeing the truth and thru all the BS that the media and politicians are spewing.  So since this term has been in use, guess what, they decided to change it's meaning and usage. Just like how they changed other definitions. Now the term "woke" is a negative one from what it once was.

Ad-hom and non sequitur. But I expect nothing less from you at this point.

Incorrect.

His language is biased, he uses loaded words. Do you dispute this?
When I said politically biased I was not using it in the sense of him being a democrat or republican. Perhaps my statement would be cleaner without the word politically.

If you don't understand how the ACLU defending the KKK touches on the issue of defending evil then I don't know anyone can explain it to you. Nothing to do with CRT, just the broader question of defending something that is evil.

I got no problem with him criticizing CRT but I do not agree with the way he does it. A lack of facts, just ideology and painting things with biased language.

The better question for America's military is rather, "Why do you serve to defend the imperial adventures and garrison the planet in the name of the US empire?"

Moreover, "Do those military offensive forward operating bases on the border of Russia and China keep the American populace safe from the illegal immigrants and drug cartels that come over the border on the US continent on a daily basis?"

John Lovell is a strong American patriot for sure, but is misguided to think Wokeism is the main problem facing American patriots.  Going after and wasting pressure time and energy against an ideological human construct totally sidesteps and draws attention away from the only and most dangerous enemy to freedom in America: the ultrawealthy and Power Okole that control EVERYTHING.

That's a common thing for retirees who want to experience a higher standard of living than their pensions provide in the US.  Living in Thailand or S. Korea, depending on the location, is dirt cheap compared to most US cities.  Add to that the "services" one can pay for overseas can be different than here, and the cost is ridiculously cheap.  Basically, a retired enlisted man with no wife or kids to support can live as a king in many countries.

Additionally, after being in a strict disciplined career like the military, some just want to retire, do whatever they want, and not be bothered with the daily grind of making a paycheck.  Retiring after 20 years of service is attractive at age 38-ish.  It's easier to afford that lifestyle if not paying US prices for everything, paying US taxes and fees, and dealing with US cost of living increases.

We also have many jobs available overseas.  US civilians are often working on military bases or in foreign companies as experts or liaisons.  If they are in a civil service GS job, they can pay into their retirement and double-dip when they retire with both pensions.  When they reach SS retirement age, they are triple-dipping.

While living and working overseas, either on military duty or as a retired military member turned government employee, they find a mate, maybe get married, maybe start a family.  That's another reason many remain in country -- to be near the spouse's family, especially if the kids are in school there or the spouse has their own career there.

You may think there's only one factor that goes into a decision to remain in the US or expatriate to another country, but the reasons can be as basic as finances or as complicated as family ties.  Most people don't choose where to live because of their agreements, or disagreements, with political policies of their government.

One day, Syria will be begging for US protection against Russian aggression. Leaders don't last forever.  Who's to say the next leaders of Russia will or won't be civil to their neighbors?

And there are peaceful means to stop that theft, if only the voters who aren't paying those taxes would stop electing the ones who steal from the "richer" and promise to give to the poorer.  Nobody ever thinks they will be the one's paying for a government program when they vote for it.  After the program is too big to kill, they realize fleecing everyone was the plan all along (Obamacare comes to mind).

I applaud your faith in the American political system.  However, seeing how Trump was overthrown in 2020 and how the 1st Amendment officially ended with the incarceration and demonization of those whose participated in the events of January 6th ordered by the ultrawealthy and Power Okole than rules the US empire, for all tense and purpose, the American republic is no more and now only the declining US empire remains.