LMAO, Look at all the spin in this email I received!!!

I just received this email from a friend who was in the military. I can not believe the distortions it has in it. Please read the email (in bold) below. See how many distortions you can spot. Hint: if you've never seen this email, a little research will go a long way in dispelling its falsehoods. After I will point the problem spots of this EPIC ANTI-OBAMA PROPAGANDA FAIL.

MILITARY PAY

If you get this more than once, feel honored that you know more than one person who supports our military and appreciates what they do .



CINDY WILLIAMS was appointed by Obama as an Assistant Director for NATIONAL SECURITY in the Congressional Budget Office.

This is an Airman's response to Cindy Williams' editorial piece in the Washington Times about MILITARY PAY, it should be printed in all newspapers across America .

Ms. Cindy Williams wrote a piece for the Washington Times denouncing the pay raise(s) coming service members' way this year citing that she stated a 13% wage increase was more than they deserve.

A young airman from Hill AFB responds to her article below. He ought to get a bonus for this.

"Ms Williams:

I just had the pleasure of reading your column, "Our GI's earn enough" and I am a bit confused. Frankly, I'm wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account. Checking my latest earnings statement I see that I make $1,117.80 before taxes per month. After taxes, I take home $874.20. When I run that through the calculator, I come up with an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,490.40 after.

I work in the Air Force Network Control Center where I am part of the team responsible for a 5,000 host computer network. I am involved with infrastructure segments, specifically with Cisco Systems equipment. A quick check under jobs for "Network Technicians" in the Washington , D.C. area reveals a position in my career field, requiring three years’ experience in my job. Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year. No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum............ I'm sure you can draw the obvious conclusions.

Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you NEVER had the pleasure of serving your country in her armed forces.

Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military's lowest pay brackets off of WIC and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for AFGHANISTAN ; I leave the choice of service branch up to you. Whatever choice you make though, opt for the SIX month rotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full "deployment experience."

As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones. Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they'll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone. Obviously they've been squandering the "vast" piles of cash the government has been giving them.

Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are perennial favorites. And when you're actually over there, sitting in a foxhole, shivering against the cold desert night, and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren't enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this: trade whatever MRE's (meal-ready-to-eat) you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything. This gives some flavor.

Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won't be nearly long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for it. You may have picked up on the fact that I disagree with most of the points you present in your open piece.

But, tomorrow from KABUL , I will defend to the death your right to say it.

You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your First Amendment right and every other right you cherish...On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective noses at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe. We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector because we can't offer the stability and pay of civilian companies.

And you, Ms. Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve?

A1C Michael Bragg, Hill AFB AFNCC

IF YOU AGREE, PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE AND SHOW YOUR SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN FIGHTING MEN AND WOMEN.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!

Yea, thanks, Michael. LOL

Now to the distortions:

First, the implications: The main problem with this email is that it implies the editorial was written "this year". It does this multiple times.

a. It uses the phrase "this year" in the sentence: "Ms. Cindy Williams wrote a piece for the Washington Times denouncing the pay raise(s) coming service members' way this year..."

b. The airman, in his response, mentions Afghanistan, implying he is responding to an editorial that was just written.

c. At the start of his response, the airman says "I just had the pleasure of reading your column", further implying he is responding to an editorial that was just published.



Implication 2.) It implies, through INTENTIONAL omission, that Cindy Williams wrote this editorial while serving in the Obama administration and while the U.S. was at war.

a. It opens with the mention that Cindy was "appointed by Obama as an Assistant Director for NATIONAL SECURITY..." but fails to include the date that Cindy Williams wrote the editorial. Nor is a link provided to the actual editorial, found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33607-2000Jan11.html

b. The editorial piece was actually written in Jan. 2000, BEFORE 9/11 and BEFORE we invaded Iraq or Afghanistan.

C. The omission of the date of the editorial date cannot simply attributed to "an old email that hasn't been updated" because the email clearly updates Mrs. Williams' status to working with the Obama administration, a good 10 years after writing the editorial. So the omission of the date of the editorial is no accident.


This vile piece of pure propaganda fail would have its recipients falsely believe, through omission and clever wording, that Cindy Williams wants to deny service men and woman a raise TODAY, while at war.

I THINK WE SHOULD DEMAND AND EXPLANATION OF AIRMAN 1ST CLASS MICHAEL BRAGG (IF HE EVEN EXISTS) FOR THE DISSEMINATION OF THIS CLEARLY INTENTIONAL DISTORTION OF FACTS.

And removing mercenary contracts, then that money can be used for military pay to maintain retention levels. From a practical stand point.

The sending of army people to mercenaries by unequal pay is intended, the corporations need an army that follows money, not the ideals he speaks of, without a loyalty to a nation, but only loyalty to money.


And I applaud his belief and intent of protecting freedom.

He said
But, tomorrow from KABUL , I will defend to the death your right to say it.

You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your First Amendment right and every other right you cherish...On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective noses at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe. We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector because we can't offer the stability and pay of civilian companies.


I ask him to join the many people defending free speech, and ask him to protest against the (Orwellian named)Patriot act, the non-recountable voting machines, the buying of elections by secret money, the hidden actions of the fed in collusion with big banks, the eroding of many rights by security services, and governmental and private sector data collection, and the many other issues happening in America.

Get out of those foreign countries and fight the battle where it is needed, in America, the same place that thought lying about wars was a good idea. How does that protect your freedoms? Unless you agree that you are not able to make decisions for yourself, what many think about you, and if that is the case, why are you complaining?

I think the army should be paid with the money going to private contractors, then if the contractors want to reenlist, they can.

As far as protecting free speech, with censorship systems or by allowing media to say what ever it wants if it can pay for air time, that is not protecting free speech, that is protecting 'bought speech'


Can't have it both ways.


Side note: my best estimation is there is some form of censorship by limitation of secondary effects within observations, although some have occurred, others that should have have not occurred. So if that post is from someone in an information system that might read this post, I would also say, .........................................................


Side note, I figure most people are in the military for reasons that have nothing to do with why they are stationed somewhere. Although the reasons they are told make sense for that kind of work, and understand that concept, even if I think the use of military is more then should be needed, and figure that it is only needed because of other imbalances. that work in a cyclical self feeding fashion.

while troops were in the field in Bosnia, and it is astro turf, Airman First Class Michael Bragg does not exist.

I read it and I went... damn this sounds and reads very familiar. It was a perennial at the AOL boards back in the day.

before all other beanies like hazard pay and housing

E-3 1706 1813 1923 1923 1923

Not that an E-3 with family is not quite possibly on food stamps. , since they are.

http://www.navycs.com/2010-military-pay-chart.html

that's just typical. Just when you think the right wing minions are as dumb as dumb can be for disseminating such obvious crap, you tell me it's even dumber than I imagined. LOL

How do you fight stupidity like this? They're too dumb to know they're dumb.

I was told that I did not know what I spoke off at the AOL boards, never mind that I WAS a Navy Wife, at the time my husband was an E-6...

When he made Chief I many a times bought milk for wives at the PX at the end of the month...

I remember some of those idiots going... you got no clue... yep, why I am posting from Navy Housing in Hawaii...

And the usual idiots never served, and would never serve.

Yes pay is low, especially for lower ranks, but it went up UNDER DEMOCRATS... not under REPUBLICANS... and this is easily provable.

1. There is NO DRAFT. You chose this career path.

2. You have NO EXPENSES. But you have many bennies....PX, insurance, housing, etc.

3. Do some reseach before you sign up for the ARMY, AIRFORCE, NAVY OR MARINES!

WAH!!!!

second it is REPUBLICAN astro turf. It was NOT written by an Airman First Class... and it goes back to the Clinton Administration. It is a perennial of astro turfing.

Third, none of these kids volunteers to go protect the empire, they sign up for economic reasons. So yes, there is a draft, both an economic one and a back door draft.

I'd like to compare the two versions and show my friend. Thanks!

All military personnel, in the year 2010, are volunteers.

Prove me otherwise, please.

so they can make 70,000 when they get out. Many decide to become lifers.

Enough said.

My heart breaks for them.....NOT

Part of the genre, ya know.

Debunked here by Snopes

Debunked here by TruthOrFiction.com

Most are easily debunked, and I send the details back to them pronto. But without the info provided here, particularly about the date, I might have let this one pass. Thanks!

right wing? Do they have a low opinion of your intelligence?

n/t

motives behind the continual stream of disinformation. I had to be somewhat tough at first, but it worked. I had to be well armed with with the facts and a good memory of what they had sent over the years.

I didn't switch them, but I did make them less susceptible to false propaganda.

This sentence was not well written and could have been misinterpreted. "Do they have a low opinion of your intelligence" should have defined "they" as Republican operatives.

Leaders continually lying to their followers could be interpreted as the leader having a low opinion of his/her followers. That was what I was trying to say.