Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Stars and Stripes:"Our mission is not to communicate the [Department of Defense] or command message, but to be an independent, First Amendment publication that serves the troops" Pentagon: so you can see why we're cutting the hell out of THAT, right?   (thehill.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, United States Department of Defense, Iraq War, Virginia, independent newspaper, Defense Department, Pentagon Force Protection Agency, Arlington County, Virginia, The Pentagon  
•       •       •

1804 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Feb 2020 at 11:50 PM (20 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



40 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-02-11 2:28:46 PM  
I thought Stars and Stripes was a propaganda machine to the armed forces. So they actually tell the truth to our troops? Does this mean that Anne Margret isn't coming?
 
2020-02-11 2:29:39 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


Sir, does this mean that Ann-Margret's not coming?
 
2020-02-11 6:10:23 PM  
Can't have the military putting down their Dictator-in-Chief.
The optics don't look good.
 
2020-02-11 10:39:38 PM  

Jake Havechek: [Fark user image 425x239]

Sir, does this mean that Ann-Margret's not coming?


Joker, I've told you, we run two basic stories here. Grunts who give half their pay to buy [redacted] toothbrushes and deodorants--Winning of Hearts and Minds--okay? And combat action that results in a kill--Winning the War.
 
2020-02-11 11:44:06 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

The military's been censoring the news its employees receive since time immemorial.
 
2020-02-11 11:51:51 PM  
New name for the paper: "War is Peace."
 
2020-02-11 11:53:51 PM  
A government owned and run publication claiming objectivity?
Such a quaint artifact from an era when the Russians were our enemies.
 
2020-02-11 11:59:08 PM  
There was plenty of propaganda in Stars and Stripes, but it's like Playboy. There was some good journalism too.

But of course, you see this change coming. We're absolutely on the road to tyranny and Stars and Stripes will be all propaganda centerfolds.
 
2020-02-11 11:59:24 PM  
Pentagon: Increase spend for bombs!

NO WORDS!! ONLY BOMBS!
 
2020-02-11 11:59:29 PM  
So no more "in the rear with the gear"?

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-02-12 12:00:12 AM  

fragMasterFlash: Jake Havechek: [Fark user image 425x239]

Sir, does this mean that Ann-Margret's not coming?

Joker, I've told you, we run two basic stories here. Grunts who give half their pay to buy [redacted] toothbrushes and deodorants--Winning of Hearts and Minds--okay? And combat action that results in a kill--Winning the War.


Replace that with homecoming stories and drones strikes and that can pretty much describe right now.
 
2020-02-12 12:01:47 AM  
After being renamed "Der Sturmer," the paper got a surprising increase to its funding.
 
2020-02-12 12:03:55 AM  

skinink: So no more "in the rear with the gear"?

[Fark user image 299x168]


JOKER I DID MY TIME
 
2020-02-12 12:25:51 AM  

gameshowhost: skinink: So no more "in the rear with the gear"?

[Fark user image 299x168]

JOKER I DID MY TIME


Yeah I can get you a Honda.
 
2020-02-12 12:27:25 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-02-12 12:35:11 AM  
I'll stick with the Duffel Blog for my military reporting. Much more trustworthy.
 
2020-02-12 12:36:32 AM  
i.pinimg.comView Full Size


Better?
 
2020-02-12 1:00:59 AM  
America needs more media outlets not fewer.
 
2020-02-12 1:06:58 AM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2020-02-12 1:16:10 AM  
The train is in motion and has left the station. Nothing will stop this blitzkrieg from the full frontal assault the United States will wage against her foes. The King will have his minions reporting for basic training shortly. Yes, you will probably die, but you will have died for your King and your country.
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-02-12 1:28:17 AM  

BolshyGreatYarblocks: [i.pinimg.com image 736x1015]

Better?


Just me, or does that guy look like Ben Mendelsohn?
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-02-12 1:28:40 AM  

sat1va: [Fark user image image 400x225]


I'm a news junky but during my 21 yrs of honorable military service I honestly did not read Stars & Stripesoften, maybe 2x or 3x/yr (except when stationed on Diego Garcia, BIOT because Hobson's choice there, eh?). Wherever I was, I liked to read the local paper to see how it differed from other places. Also, if asked the Chicago Tribune would find sponsors to pay for a subscription for military personnel from Chicagoland w/an APO/FPO address. All of my 12 yrs of Sea Duty I received the Trib 7 days/wk. Also, I began subscribing to the San Diego  Union-Tribuneafter becoming a homeowner there (eventually lived there 15 yrs). Had several division postal clerks cuss me when 10-12 days of newspapers arrived at Sea in the mails, especially after Mother (bless her bones) thought I'd like to know what was going on in our family's Illinois hometown & the Bloomington Pantagraphbegan arriving as well and my bunk would be buried in rolled papers. But, when I'd get a chance ashore, I'd find a place for the local coffee/beer and see how the people (75 countries, all 50 states) see us. Sometimes surprising, sometimes educating.) If nothing else available, I'd read the S&S. Never thought it too propaganda-y, but as a closet gay Sailor, I resented it several times stated clearly it would not advocate positions counter to the UCMJ wherein homosexuality was illegal in Service, period. But, I also understood it would not advocate breaking any laws, just or unjust. It just couldn't, so it chose to simply say nothing & avoid the subject if it could being as neutral as possible. Still, their adamant professionalism irked. But, it is necessary - it's the only one in town for many service personnel where on-line resources are censored & being caught circumventing those restrictions could risk prosecution.
 
2020-02-12 3:52:43 AM  
He wants the headline to be SPACE FORCE! every day from now on.
 
2020-02-12 4:19:42 AM  
It's a better straight journalism source than many of the progressive standards, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc.
Less political bias.  And of course it makes Fox News look like a bad joke, poorly told.

But it doesn't allow edited comments underneath the articles, like with the Military Times or the Navy Times.  Often those comments elucidate the articles, bringing a different view point.

For despite the consensus on fark, the military does not slack in scorn for Trump and his hubris.  They just fear the Democrats more.  When you consider what a lying asshole Trump is, and then figure that the Democrats have managed to out-asshole him, that's a recipe for disaster.
 
2020-02-12 6:41:37 AM  

Lurk Who's Talking: sat1va: [Fark user image image 400x225]

I'm a news junky but during my 21 yrs of honorable military service I honestly did not read Stars & Stripesoften, maybe 2x or 3x/yr (except when stationed on Diego Garcia, BIOT because Hobson's choice there, eh?). Wherever I was, I liked to read the local paper to see how it differed from other places. Also, if asked the Chicago Tribune would find sponsors to pay for a subscription for military personnel from Chicagoland w/an APO/FPO address. All of my 12 yrs of Sea Duty I received the Trib 7 days/wk. Also, I began subscribing to the San Diego  Union-Tribuneafter becoming a homeowner there (eventually lived there 15 yrs). Had several division postal clerks cuss me when 10-12 days of newspapers arrived at Sea in the mails, especially after Mother (bless her bones) thought I'd like to know what was going on in our family's Illinois hometown & the Bloomington Pantagraphbegan arriving as well and my bunk would be buried in rolled papers. But, when I'd get a chance ashore, I'd find a place for the local coffee/beer and see how the people (75 countries, all 50 states) see us. Sometimes surprising, sometimes educating.) If nothing else available, I'd read the S&S. Never thought it too propaganda-y, but as a closet gay Sailor, I resented it several times stated clearly it would not advocate positions counter to the UCMJ wherein homosexuality was illegal in Service, period. But, I also understood it would not advocate breaking any laws, just or unjust. It just couldn't, so it chose to simply say nothing & avoid the subject if it could being as neutral as possible. Still, their adamant professionalism irked. But, it is necessary - it's the only one in town for many service personnel where on-line resources are censored & being caught circumventing those restrictions could risk prosecution.


Thanks for that post. It was the sort of reader and vet opinion of S&S I was looking for, having never actually seen it myself.
 
2020-02-12 8:12:23 AM  
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comView Full Size
 
2020-02-12 8:27:20 AM  

mdarius: There was plenty of propaganda in Stars and Stripes, but it's like Playboy. There was some good journalism too.

But of course, you see this change coming. We're absolutely on the road to tyranny and Stars and Stripes will be all propaganda centerfolds.


It's tyranny when the government isn't funding an independent newspaper?

That's literally the opposite.

You sound like a journalist. Maybe you should learn to code.
 
2020-02-12 8:29:14 AM  

Purple_Urkle: America needs more media outlets not fewer.


Wrong.

We need more people who can code, and we'll recruit them from the ranks of former journalists.
 
2020-02-12 8:46:07 AM  

varmitydog: It's a better straight journalism source than many of the progressive standards, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc.
Less political bias.  And of course it makes Fox News look like a bad joke, poorly told.

But it doesn't allow edited comments underneath the articles, like with the Military Times or the Navy Times.  Often those comments elucidate the articles, bringing a different view point.

For despite the consensus on fark, the military does not slack in scorn for Trump and his hubris.  They just fear the Democrats more.  When you consider what a lying asshole Trump is, and then figure that the Democrats have managed to out-asshole him, that's a recipe for disaster.


Did the Dems out-asshole the military by funding the VA? Or was it stopping soldiers from dying in endless wars?
 
2020-02-12 8:47:25 AM  
The pentagon's budget was hijacked to build a wall.... but sure, stars and stripes is the drain on their funding.
 
2020-02-12 9:40:35 AM  

Cervetus: varmitydog: It's a better straight journalism source than many of the progressive standards, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc.
Less political bias.  And of course it makes Fox News look like a bad joke, poorly told.

But it doesn't allow edited comments underneath the articles, like with the Military Times or the Navy Times.  Often those comments elucidate the articles, bringing a different view point.

For despite the consensus on fark, the military does not slack in scorn for Trump and his hubris.  They just fear the Democrats more.  When you consider what a lying asshole Trump is, and then figure that the Democrats have managed to out-asshole him, that's a recipe for disaster.

Did the Dems out-asshole the military by funding the VA? Or was it stopping soldiers from dying in endless wars?


The active duty and military retirees voted 2-1 in favor of Trump in the last election. Take out the blacks who comprise 20 percent of them and who voted 90+ percent for Clinton, and those numbers go 3-1 in favor of Trump.

That was the result of of running a Clinton, who spent most of his term shutting down stateside military bases and reducing the size of the active duty force.  The VA was in a shambles back then, the problems were blamed on him and rightly so.

The military is well aware of what Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld did to them, and if you ever drag yourself away from the progressive propaganda machine to read what the military is saying, you would know that they were aghast when Trump placed former PNAC charter member Bolton in a key cabinet position.

Also remember that Clinton voted yes to invade Iraq and Trump promised no foreign entanglements.

The Democrats need to change those military numbers in the upcoming election to win, military voters see Trump as a dishonest loose cannon and are primed to switch.  But the Democratic leadership is ignoring them and here on Fark the democrats are openly hostile towards them, for voting against Clinton. Which was a vote in their own self interest.

/ Just my observations.
 
2020-02-12 10:06:54 AM  

varmitydog: The active duty and military retirees voted 2-1 in favor of Trump in the last election. Take out the blacks


Why would one do this? How does disregarding how black service members vote improve one's understanding of the situation?

Ask yourself that
 
2020-02-12 10:44:27 AM  

ricochet4: varmitydog: The active duty and military retirees voted 2-1 in favor of Trump in the last election. Take out the blacks

Why would one do this? How does disregarding how black service members vote improve one's understanding of the situation?

Ask yourself that


Demographics are a thing.  If you look at the white male vote for Trump then it's one picture, if you look at white males over 45 it's another, look at white college educated males and it's another.  The point is, the military will typically vote heavily on the Republican side, however white males in the military voted for Trump at an even higher rate than the entire population.  What this tells us is interesting.  Basically that there are certain aspects of identity that more heavily impact ones voting decision.  In this case, people who are black are influenced by this aspect of their identity in terms of voting trends to a greater degree than their military service influences their voting decision.  This also means that, absent the influence of this identity aspect, the military votes to an even larger degree to support the GOP position than a view of the entire population indicates.

Basically, it's not racist to recognize that a person's culture and identity impacts their political views, and in fact to deny this is to deny the importance of their cultural and racial identity.

Or to put it bluntly, "quit implying racism because it makes you the racist".
 
2020-02-12 2:05:39 PM  

Delezaio: The point is, the military will typically vote heavily on the Republican side, however white males in the military voted for Trump at an even higher rate than the entire population.


Well the military is by definition brainwashed so whatever and whoever they're told to support and vote for, they generally will.
 
2020-02-12 2:52:31 PM  

varmitydog: For despite the consensus on fark, the military does not slack in scorn for Trump and his hubris. They just fear the Democrats more. When you consider what a lying asshole Trump is, and then figure that the Democrats have managed to out-asshole him, that's a recipe for disaster.


I congratulate you on holding out against right-wing indoctrination so well!
 
2020-02-12 2:55:31 PM  

varmitydog: Cervetus: varmitydog: It's a better straight journalism source than many of the progressive standards, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc.
Less political bias.  And of course it makes Fox News look like a bad joke, poorly told.

But it doesn't allow edited comments underneath the articles, like with the Military Times or the Navy Times.  Often those comments elucidate the articles, bringing a different view point.

For despite the consensus on fark, the military does not slack in scorn for Trump and his hubris.  They just fear the Democrats more.  When you consider what a lying asshole Trump is, and then figure that the Democrats have managed to out-asshole him, that's a recipe for disaster.

Did the Dems out-asshole the military by funding the VA? Or was it stopping soldiers from dying in endless wars?

The active duty and military retirees voted 2-1 in favor of Trump in the last election. Take out the blacks who comprise 20 percent of them and who voted 90+ percent for Clinton, and those numbers go 3-1 in favor of Trump.

That was the result of of running a Clinton, who spent most of his term shutting down stateside military bases and reducing the size of the active duty force.  The VA was in a shambles back then, the problems were blamed on him and rightly so.

The military is well aware of what Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld did to them, and if you ever drag yourself away from the progressive propaganda machine to read what the military is saying, you would know that they were aghast when Trump placed former PNAC charter member Bolton in a key cabinet position.

Also remember that Clinton voted yes to invade Iraq and Trump promised no foreign entanglements.

The Democrats need to change those military numbers in the upcoming election to win, military voters see Trump as a dishonest loose cannon and are primed to switch.  But the Democratic leadership is ignoring them and here on Fark the democrats are openly hostile towards them, for voting against Clinton. Whic ...


Maybe the US military should try acting in America's interest sometime, instead of their own?
 
2020-02-12 3:51:53 PM  

varmitydog: The military is well aware of what Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld did to them, and if you ever drag yourself away from the progressive propaganda machine to read what the military is saying, you would know that they were aghast when Trump placed former PNAC charter member Bolton in a key cabinet position.


Then why did they overwhelmingly vote for Bush in 2004 over a decorated military veteran? https://www.forbes.com/2008/1​1/09/military-veterans-vote-oped-cx_kb​_1110bowman.html#3298e7be23c8

You're trying really hard to make the military seem like they vote in a high-minded and well-considered manner, but the facts don't match that.
 
2020-02-12 4:04:54 PM  

varmitydog: The Democrats need to change those military numbers in the upcoming election to win, military voters see Trump as a dishonest loose cannon and are primed to switch.  But the Democratic leadership is ignoring them and here on Fark the democrats are openly hostile towards them, for voting against Clinton. Which was a vote in their own self interest.


The way Trump treats veterans is in the military's best interest, OK.
 
2020-02-12 9:33:48 PM  

Mugato: varmitydog: The Democrats need to change those military numbers in the upcoming election to win, military voters see Trump as a dishonest loose cannon and are primed to switch.  But the Democratic leadership is ignoring them and here on Fark the democrats are openly hostile towards them, for voting against Clinton. Which was a vote in their own self interest.

The way Trump treats veterans is in the military's best interest, OK.


No, voting against Hillary Clinton was in their best interests, as the Clintons had closed bases and reduced troop levels.
 
2020-02-12 10:34:51 PM  

Cervetus: varmitydog: The military is well aware of what Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld did to them, and if you ever drag yourself away from the progressive propaganda machine to read what the military is saying, you would know that they were aghast when Trump placed former PNAC charter member Bolton in a key cabinet position.

Then why did they overwhelmingly vote for Bush in 2004 over a decorated military veteran? https://www.forbes.com/2008/1​1/09/military-veterans-vote-oped-cx_kb​_1110bowman.html#3298e7be23c8

You're trying really hard to make the military seem like they vote in a high-minded and well-considered manner, but the facts don't match that.


That was a surprise to me as well.
Most of my family are military lifers and I had terrific arguments with them at that time that Rumsfeld had already lost the war, and Bush didn't sack him so Bush had to go. I had been reading blogger Riverbends "Bagdad Burning" and it didn't match up with the embedded US news, nor the statistics from the
DOD, which later proved to be fabricated.  They believed the Bush
administration's version, told me that I wasn't in the military and that the joint cheifs wouldn't allow that.  Remember that Rove was dictating the rules of battle, that Bush was considered heroic for looking presidental at the ruins of the twin towers and Rumsfeld was given a pass for his stupidity by the press because of his BS about "going to war with the army you have".
Nor had the stop/loss repeat tours of duty been fully implemented.

If the election was held a mere six months later, when most of that was uncovered, they might have not voted 60-40 for Bush.

I live near two military bases and most of my friends and family are either active duty or retired.  They run the scale from very pro Trump to very anti Trump.  With most of the ones on active duty, finding out which way they lean politically is like pulling teeth, for in the military staying neutral and keeping your opinions to yourself is an aid to ones career.  From the retirees, the majority of them seem to be against Trump but waiting to see who the Democrats run.

I myself think Trump is an outright menace to society and am in the vote blue matter who camp.  I am constantly reminding my friends and family the things that Trump has done that dishonor the military, and that he will very likely only get worse. They don't argue against me much, I seem to be getting through to them.


On the other hand, you may well be correct that I am giving them too much credit.  They do have a history of siding with the Republicans.
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.