Some gave all... Paul Beaudry, not so much...

And best of all... (0.00 / 0)

this guy is riding the same ticket as Brian Dubie, essentially joining them at the hip!

---

by: Sue Prent @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 16:02:35 PM UTC

Joined at the (0.00 / 0)

hubbly bubbly.

---

by: BP @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 16:58:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

there's service and then there's service.... (3.00 / 1)

I hate his politics.  But I admire his principles.  Quit the military rather than quit weed?  Right on, Paul!

---

by: GeorgeLTirebiter @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 16:52:36 PM UTC

You could have at least waited (4.00 / 1)

another 6 hours and 36 minutes to post this, you know.....

Usually when people are sad, they don't do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about a change.

---

by: kestrel9000 @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 19:25:15 PM UTC

or (0.00 / 0)

seven?

sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

---

by: Caoimhin Laochdha @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 23:24:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The real problem (0.00 / 0)

Is that someone who chooses to smoke marijuana is considered a criminal, forced to stop serving their country, and even snickered at by posters on this board ( I note that current vote leader in the Democratic primary does not think marijuana use should be a crime).

If Mr. Beaudry woke up one day while serving the Guard, and had a nasty hangover, there may have been some jokes about a rough night, but there would be no harm done and nobody would ask him to choose between serving his country or going out for a drink.

Alcohol is far, far more dangerous, kills more people annually, and ruins more people than marijuana ever will.

It's considered acceptable for people to bum cigarettes from each other, and if Paul smoked and asked a fellow guardsman for one, nobody would have batted an eye and his service record would be intact.  

Tobacco is one of the leading cause of heart-related deaths, and has been directly linked to both lung cancer and emphysema, heath problems that cost us millions of dollars annually.

Society doesn't question the legality of those two drugs in spite of the clear and convincing evidence of destruction caused by their use and abuse.  

Marijuana should be legalized.  It is far, far less dangerous than either alcohol or tobacco.

I applaud Mr. Beaudry for his choice.  The more people who are willing to stand up and make the same choice, the sooner we start to have a real discussion about a rational drug policy.

---

by: raincntry @ Sun Aug 29, 2010 at 19:07:08 PM UTC

he didn't stand up... (4.00 / 1)

He got caught.

---

by: Undamned Yankee @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 00:20:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

ummmm (0.00 / 0)

I didn't say he stood up.  I did say he made a choice.

---

by: raincntry @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 00:27:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Or, possibly... (4.00 / 1)

...was just too stoned and forgot to show up (like I was the only one thinking it).

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

---

by: JulieWaters @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 00:29:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

of course, he could have chosen (0.00 / 0)

none of the above.  It is possible to live life without mood-altering substances.

You applaud him for sneaking a joint.  You're very easily impressed!

---

by: Undamned Yankee @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:37:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No I'm not (0.00 / 0)

I even less impressed that people are tying to use this issue as a wedge in the campaign, or even reporting on it when his opponent has also admitted smoking pot.

Let's be clear, my point is that using and possessing marijuana should not be illegal.  It is far less harmful than other legal drugs.  

Unlike other posters on this board, I refuse to see marijuana use as a scarlet letter.  

Beaudry smoked pot.  It showed up on a drug test.  The test happened while he was in the National Guard.  It's a non-issue.  Get over it.  

---

by: raincntry @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:23:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

ppplpt (4.00 / 2)

The point is - obviously - hypocrisy. He was told he had to stop the pot and go to some sort of drug program if he wanted to stay in the military, which he now uses to sell his campaign. He made a choice, and its the choice that I am rolling my eyes at.

The diary was worded very carefully in that regard. If "the guy whose whole campaign is centered around being the gung-ho, arch-conservative super-military dude was told that, if he wanted to keep serving his country, he would just have to put down the beer" had gone with the beer, that would've been the post. It would have been goofy to infer from such a post that I was against legal beer. Your leap of logic here is equally off.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:32:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nope (0.00 / 0)

It's only hypocrisy if he has taken an anti-legalization stand and has argued that using and possessing marijuana should be illegal.  As the Free Press reports, that is not his stance.  

The story that gave birth to this post was about marijuana usage, not his views on the military.  Those two idea, that someone can both support the military and support decriminalization are not hypocritical.  Nor is the idea that someone can be a "gung-ho, arch-conservative super-military dude" and smoke pot and support decriminalization, even when put to a choice.    

My analogies were merely meant to illustrate the internal hypocrisy in the system.  One that, at times, celebrates alcohol usage (see:  TV and print ads) while simultaneously screaming about the evils of marijuana.

---

by: raincntry @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 12:46:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wrong (4.00 / 2)

Look up "hypocrisy," or consider a bit more before you post so you don't have to defend yourself by myopically defining words. That's a dead giveaway.

Beaudry: Military, first, military last. Military, military, military. I am a veteran, and that's my first and primary definition of myself. I identify myself first and foremost with that group and that culture. Anybody who looks at them funny - or speaks of the military in anything less than a reverential, arch-conservative way is to be slammed. There is no higher calling and nothing should be more important to any of us.

Reality: What, to stay in the Guard I have to give up my recreational drug of choice? Geez, no way man.

Hypocrite.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 12:52:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You know if I claimed that... (4.00 / 3)

...military service was the most important thing in the world and tried to browbeat others over their record on the military, such as...:

That same year that his family moved to Vermont, Beaudry signed up for the National Guard, launching what would become a 21-year career with the military as a crewman, instructor and recruiter. He retired in 2000 and one thing is clear from talking with him: He loves the military and has a deep respect for the troops (his energy platform, for example, is cast not in terms of environmental concerns, but a desire to wean the country off dangerous foreign oil).

That's one of the areas that he likes to whack Welch, who was elected in 2006 during a wave of anti-war candidates. Beaudry said he feels Welch does not support the troops because he votes against funding for the wars.

I might look a little silly if it turned out the reason I retired was because I refused to give up a recreational hobby that violated my agreement with the service.

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

---

by: JulieWaters @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 13:51:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're missing the forrest for the trees here (0.00 / 0)

If we are to believe what the Freep reported, that he was faced with a choice of drug rehab and stopping using marijuana or an honorable discharge, and he choose the discharge, that does not make him a hypocrite.

It's not myopic to define words either, particularly one that is so constantly applied.  Just as people who attack our President, claiming he's a Marxist because he wants to expand access to health care don't know what marxism is.  

You can't have an intelligent discussion or debate unless both parties understand the issue, or in this case, the word that spawned the discussion.  Arguing in the absence of understanding the topic is the definition of ignorance.

The dictionary defines hypocrisy thusly:  the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

Again, Mr. Beaudry's constant support for the military, and his misguided attacks on people as "against the troops" when they support removing funding for unnecessary wars, all in light of him having relinquished his position in the Guard based on their policy toward marijuana does not make him a hypocrite.

If I understand your argument, boiled down to its essence is:  Person A claims to be a fervent supporter of the military.  Person A attacks those people who don't support the military as vociferously as they do, claiming they do not support the troops.  Person A was in the military.  Person A did something that was against military rules.  When confronted and given a choice to change or leave the military, Person A left the military.

If I have stated it correctly, that does not make him a hypocrite.

His arguments lack merit irrespective of his service.  They are shallow and show he lacks the depth to understand complex issues, particularly when it comes to Congressional procedures.  Blind support for the military without first questioning the rational for using force in the first place shows grave irresponsibility.

He is not, however, a hypocrite simply because he choose to end his service over a positive drug test.  If there were proof that he actually held anti-military beliefs, or that away from the press he did clearly anti-military things (attend peace rallies for example), then he would be a hypocrite.  

As of now he's just another run of the mill warmongering conservative trying to gin up votes by appearing to be tough but not knowing what he's trying to be tough about or whether it makes a lick of difference.

Marijuana and his use and potentially continued use is a red herring.

---

by: raincntry @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 17:00:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nope. Don't agree. (4.00 / 2)

He is a hypocrite; but debating the semantics is sort of a waste of energy, IMHO.

The point is that this guy is an unbalanced and toxic opportunist.

---

by: Sue Prent @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 17:17:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Strong analysis (0.00 / 0)

and not in anyway circular.

---

by: raincntry @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 17:27:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you're really... (0.00 / 0)

...kind of a jerk, aren't you?

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 18:03:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think you're a little late to the party (0.00 / 0)

Just sayin' :)

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

---

by: JulieWaters @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 18:07:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ahhh (0.00 / 1)

So wait, I point out a poorly worded post that nobody still can support and I'm the jerk?

I understand that it's far easier to attack the messenger than to simply edit the post or give actual examples of Beaudry being a hypocrite on this issue but please, save me your insults.

What galls me is that all these types of attacks, both on Beaudry and now me, are the exact same types of poorly constructed arguments proffered by the right that these posters likely shout down.  Now, simply because you agree with the overall point the rules of logic don't apply.  

Here's a novel thought, try intellectual consistency.  Try arguing from facts and knowledge.  Try actually supporting your statements with something other than bald assertions.  Try not whining when you get caught in fallacies.

We exist in a marketplace of ideas.  If your ideas are better, then great, put them out there and support them.  Don't tuck your tail and run, screeching that the person who disagrees with you is a jerk.  Don't be mad at me simply because you cannot properly construct and defend an argument

I may be a jerk.  You have no idea if I am or not.  Based on the logical conclusions you and others draw from their posts that is not a problem.  You speak it therefor it must be true.

loquitor hoc ergo propter hoc.

---

by: raincntry @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 18:25:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Heh. (0.00 / 0)

Sorry, not a jerk. Just a 12 year old with a head of steam.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 00:50:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Funny (0.00 / 0)

No, not really.
Again, your inability to counter what I've said with anything other than cheap personal attacks speaks more on your level of maturity than mine.

Laugh, make jokes.  It's far easier than realizing you're wrong.  

I suppose that it's a bit much to ask for, seeing as how you still can't grasp what a hypocrite is.

---

by: raincntry @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 16:23:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In retrospect, my response to this comment should have just been... (0.00 / 0)

..."Run, Forrest, Run!"

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

---

by: JulieWaters @ Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 11:51:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ms. Waters (0.00 / 1)

I take it your comment is supposed to suggest that I have some sort of mild form of mental retardation, right?

Funny.  Now you can not only make poor arguments but combine that with thinly veiled bigoted statements about the developmentally disabled.

Strong work.

---

by: raincntry @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 16:25:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh dear me, no. (3.00 / 1)

I was just making fun of your spelling, which admittedly was a little beneath me.  

I have no idea as to your mental capacity and wouldn't dream of making any comment about it.  As far as "retardation" goes, that's not a word I generally use as I find it personally offensive.  

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

---

by: JulieWaters @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 16:54:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ok (0.00 / 0)

I'll give you the spelling one.  That is a valid criticism.

---

by: raincntry @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 22:21:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The more we learn about Beaudry, (4.00 / 1)

the more and more we find out he's a "do like I say, not what I do" kinda guy.

The candidate who screamed the loudest won the primary. Although at first republicans might view it as a win, they've got to be regretting the outcome.

---

by: pete_n_vt @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 19:45:47 PM UTC