Let's cheer the right-wing smear machine! [Archive] - Page 2

NDP

08-16-2005, 01:04 AM

From Christopher Hitchens' article in Slate (hardly a right-wing rag): http://slate.msn.com/id/2124500/

"Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel." - Cindy Sheehan

What is it with her obsession with Israel? Does this strike anyone else as rather odd?
This is slightly off-topic but Christopher Hitchens is not the best person to cite if you're looking for support of your argument from a "left-wing" source. Although he hasn't admitted it yet, it's been obvious to anyone who's been reading his columns that Hitchens has been lurching rightward for at least the last ten years. (The intense hatred he expressed towards the Clintons during the 90's would've been at home on Rush Limbaugh). On the Iraqi War, he's been a hawk's hawk and has never once questioned the Bush Administration's policy. Moreover, as evident in his evisceration of Cindy Sheehan in this week's column, he's been unmercifully nasty towards anybody saying anything remotely critical about the war. Were it not for the fact that Hitchens occasionally tosses in an anti-religious or pro-free speech column to remind everyone of his leftist roots, he could very easily fit in with the pro-war hawks at the National Review, The Weekly Standard, or the American Spectator.

John Mace

08-16-2005, 01:17 AM

IThere are folks whose kids have died in Iraq and still support the war, yet I don't know of any anti-war folks who would condemn those parents the way the Bush apologists have been bashing on Mrs. Sheehan.

So, anyone who continues to support Bush and the Iraq war has "drunk the coolaid" unless they are a parent of a soldier who died in Iraq? Guess I missed that exception to the rule.

Starving Artist

08-16-2005, 02:38 AM

Moreover, as evident in his evisceration of Cindy Sheehan in this week's column...Evisceration?

Hardly!

Merely a common-sense evaluation of the situation, combined with a well-deserved swipe or two at another liberal columnist who has about as much credibility (and critical thinking skills) as Janeane Garofolo, Maureen Dowd. Were it not for the fact that Hitchens occasionally tosses in an anti-religious or pro-free speech column to remind everyone of his leftist roots, he could very easily fit in with the pro-war hawks at the National Review, The Weekly Standard, or the American Spectator.I have to admit, given that Hitchens doesn't completely toe the liberal line, how it is that Graydon Carter, Vanity Fair's rabidly leftist editor, has allowed Hitchens so many of his spot-on analyses of leftist behavior.

Starving Artist

08-16-2005, 02:46 AM

Hmm...and I even previewed that, too.

I meant to say, "I have to admit, given that Hitchens doesn't completely toe the liberal line, I've wondered how it is that...etc."

Evil Captor

08-16-2005, 07:00 AM

WTF are you talking about? Just because a website (Crooksandliars.com, very impartial I bet :rolleyes:) posts something about Drudge or O'Reilly doesn't make them a liar. Please point out anything that they have said which is not true.

Sheehan has been inconsistent in her story. She is in bed with some radical elements of the anti-Bush left such as Michael Moore, Code Pink, and Moveon.org. Her family is opposed to her rhetoric since she's been taken in by these groups. Drudge and O'Reilly are simply reporting this. That doesn't make them liars.

Simply chanting something over and over doesn't make it true. You can point fingers at those who disagree with you and call them liars all day long. It won't make you any less wrong.

All right, looks like defending the lying liars even though, rationally speaking, you don't have a leg to stand on, will be the game.

Evil Captor

08-16-2005, 07:03 AM

So the lefties are now quoting a site named "crooksandliars.com" to back up their positions? :D

It's named for various Bush admin officials and their supporters. Sometimes you have to call a thing what it is.

Evil Captor

08-16-2005, 07:04 AM

According to The Smoking Gun http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0815051sheehan1.html
Cindy Sheehan's husband, Patrick, has filed for divorce. Hmmm. I'm just speculating here, but let's see how the Leftist loons treat him now. Is he a traitor? I wonder how quickly they'll move to demonize the husband...who, after all, has also lost a son in Iraq.

I suspect that he realizes Cindy has been snared and brainwashed by the Michael Morons (sort of like the Scientologists) and he knows she's never coming back.

I wish I had the power to bring Casey Sheehan back to life, give him a copy of the things you've posted about his mother, and your RL name and address. I'd really enjoy watching THAT confrontation! I don't believe the troops would be supporting YOU.

Evil Captor

08-16-2005, 07:15 AM

ElvisL1ves

08-16-2005, 08:15 AM

The fact that she lost her son does not give her one ounce of extra weight regarding her opinion of the Iraq war. This would be true if she were for or against it. You don't think that those who have made a sacrifice have a little more invested than those of you who haven't?

it's obvious that the left is using herThere you go again with this charge against an amorphous "The Left" that you can never identify when challenged. Okay, tell us, O Oracle - who is this "Left" you refer to? Are you suggesting there was a board meeting of The Left, perhaps chaired by Michael Moore and George Soros, at which it was decided to go recruit a Gold Star Mother for a publicity stunt? If that's what you mean, you're being even more ridiculous than usual. If it isn't, put up or shut up.

This is all theater.You can only hope so.

In the last poll I sawYour credibility with cites is so spotty (to be charitable) that it's time to demand one for this, too - including the date and the wording of the question, of course.

79% of active duty military and 65% of their families support the Iraq war. Think about that. Almost 80% of the people actually serving in the war support it. That kind of cuts the legs out from under the 'chickenhawk' argumentSo when are you enlisting?

As for Bush meeting with her, that would be silly.You really don't know dick about how American politics really works, do you? Bush's refusal is totally tone-deaf and politically damaging, especially given what he's very publicly doing instead. Are you really that unaware how it's playing?

I would have hoped the people on the left on this board would be a little more intelligent and/or honorable than to fall lock-step into this silly ploy.Looked in a mirror recently?

And it will be interesting to see how you all react when a Republican mother who lost her son (or fifty of them) comes forward to support the President. Because both sides can play that game. And it will be just as meaningless.When that actually happens, be sure to let us know. Meanwhile, be aware that you're attempting to counter a fact with a fantasy, in the endless campaign by GOP partisans (such as yourself) to create self-excusing tu quoques, out of whole cloth when necessary. Do you ever wonder why your bullshit doesn't work here? Ever?

plnnr

08-16-2005, 08:16 AM

I have to admit, given that Hitchens doesn't completely toe the liberal line, how it is that Graydon Carter, Vanity Fair's rabidly leftist editor, has allowed Hitchens so many of his spot-on analyses of leftist behavior.

Because he tends to balance them out with more spot-on analyses about equally egregious right-wing behavior as exemplified by the article in this month's issue about the as yet un-indicted co-conspirator Karl Rove.

Rufus Xavier

08-16-2005, 08:32 AM

In the last poll I saw, 79% of active duty military and 65% of their families support the Iraq war. Think about that. Almost 80% of the people actually serving in the war support it. That kind of cuts the legs out from under the 'chickenhawk' argument, and it also means that Mrs. Sheehan's opinion isn't even shared by a majority of her fellow war families.

Actually, it doesn't even make a dent in the chickenhawk argument. To do that, you would need a poll that shows that almost 80% of the people actually supporting the war served in it.

I'm sure it's not nearly as hard to find active duty soldiers who support the war as it is to find family members of the Bush administration on active duty.

Stephe96

08-16-2005, 09:16 AM

You know, it occurs to me that the Left is demanding that Cindy Sheehan be listened to respectfully and without any criticism of her motives, due to the terrible pain she has endured on behalf of her country. It doesn't matter which liberal websites she's posting on, it doesn't matter which radical leftist groups are aligning themselves with her and it doesn't matter at all if her position has (arguably) changed over the past year. Fine. Fair enough.

But you know what? I can think of another group of people who sacrificed for their country who recently decided to speak out against another politician. The Swift Boat vets. I don't seem to remember the liberals in this country granting these 60 or so decorated combat veterans any slack when it was their turn criticize John Kerry. Do you? All I seem to recall is that they were called "liars" who were backed by "the GOP and Karl Rove." Isn't it possible, just possible, that the Swift Boat vets were just as honest in their criticism of Kerry as is Cindy Sheehan in her criticism of Bush? Or were they just being "used" by right-wing groups to help defeat John Kerry? I'm just asking...

Debaser

08-16-2005, 09:22 AM

I can think of another group of people who sacrificed for their country who recently decided to speak out against another politician. The Swift Boat vets.

Great point.

GIGObuster

08-16-2005, 09:30 AM

Homebrew

08-16-2005, 09:34 AM

Because he tends to balance them out with more spot-on analyses about equally egregious right-wing behavior as exemplified by the article in this month's issue about the as yet un-indicted co-conspirator Karl Rove.
That and "the left-wing" is intellectually honest enough to allow self criticism and introspection, something Bush could use a little of himself.

"I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things."—Aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

ElvisL1ves

08-16-2005, 09:36 AM

I don't seem to remember the liberals in this country granting these 60 or so decorated combat veterans any slack when it was their turn criticize John Kerry. Do you? All I seem to recall is that they were called "liars" who were backed by "the GOP and Karl Rove." Isn't it possible, just possible, that the Swift Boat vets were just as honest in their criticism of Kerry as is Cindy Sheehan in her criticism of Bush?The Swifties were indeed determined to be lying, pretty much right across the board. Read this (http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/) for the facts. There's no question of "slack", nor is the accusation of lying just more rhetoric. The fact is that they were lying. Why should that not be discussed?

Stephe96

08-16-2005, 09:43 AM

The Swifties were indeed determined to be lying, pretty much right across the board. Read this (http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/) for the facts. There's no question of "slack", nor is the accusation of lying just more rhetoric. The fact is that they were lying. Why should that not be discussed?

Uh huh. Sure. 60 or highly decorated combat veterans just decided to all get together and trash their reputations by 'lying' about John Kerry? I'm sorry, but you're gonna have to do a little bit better than that. Your website is meaningless. Do you have any credible sources showing the Swift Boat vets all decided to lie about Kerry?

ElvisL1ves

08-16-2005, 09:46 AM

Horse, meet water.

light strand

08-16-2005, 09:46 AM

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

How's that? Will you admit they lied? OR maybe the Navy lied. It's hard to tell.

Domokun

08-16-2005, 09:53 AM

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

.org? Clearly they're communists.

bizzwire

08-16-2005, 09:56 AM

You know, it occurs to me that the Left is demanding that Cindy Sheehan be listened to respectfully and without any criticism of her motives, due to the terrible pain she has endured on behalf of her country.

Question her motives all you want. gratuitous ad hominems, on the other hand, are a different matter.

Uh huh. Sure. 60 or highly decorated combat veterans just decided to all get together and trash their reputations by 'lying' about John Kerry?

Actually, for once you've almost got it right. (http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&tts=1&display=rednews/2004/09/01/build/state/25-swift-boat.inc)

I'm pretty nonpolitical," the 56-year-old Anderson said Tuesday. So, when he found out last week that his name was one of about 300 signed on a letter questioning Kerry's service, he was "flabbergasted."
"It's kind of like stealing my identity," said Anderson, who spent a year on a swift boat as an engine man and gunner.
The letter, which was posted on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Web site, claims the Demo-cratic presidential candidate has "grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen of that (Vietnam) war." The letter also criticizes Kerry for trying to change his image from a critic of the war to a war hero.
"After reading the letter," Anderson said, "it kind of got under my skin. I had never come across a situation where someone used my name without my support or approval. It's not a very comforting feeling."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the head of the Swifties recruited by Nixon for the express purpose of smearing Kerry?

light strand

08-16-2005, 10:00 AM

But...but... it's got footnotes!

I didn't figure Stephe96 would consider the Navy itself as a "credible sources" anyway. Because, by God, if they don't agree with Rush, then they can't be true Lalalalalala, I can't hear you!

However, I will tell you the similarities between Shehan, ans Kerry. Both are victims of a right-wing smear machine, who will stop at nothing to get their “talking points’ (Sweet Jesus I hate that phrase) on the air.

RedFury

08-16-2005, 10:34 AM

it's obvious that the left is using her

Great. Works both ways. She's obviously media-savvy and is using loosely related assets of the anti-war movement to get her message out to as many people as possible. Having read and seen her story in Spanish TV and print, I'd say she is doing just that.

And seeing how the Chimp is bleeding in the polls, the timing's perfect too.

This is all theater

As is the Iraq invasion to emotionally disconnected cheerleaders such as yourself.

Think about that. Almost 80% of the people actually serving in the war support it. That kind of cuts the legs out from under the 'chickenhawk' argument

Horsefeathers, chickenlittle! Show them the "courage of your convictions" by visiting your friendly recruiting office -- and yes, I'm pretty sure they'll make an exception for a Canadian: U.S. seeking foreign fighters to fill Iraq jobs (http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/world/12273064.htm)

Of course you'd expect a feeling of solidarity amongst the majority of the US rank and file; otherwise you'd have yet another insurgency to deal with and no one to fight it with -- not you, Shrub, Scylla, or the majority of the Neocrazies. As for the troops, they are professional soldiers carrying out a mission. It's what they are trained for and their lives often hang on that very esprit de corps that is fostered in the military -- even if they don't necessarily agree with their mission.

Having said that, I'd also like to see where you got your numbers from -- you're not exactly a bulwark of credibility as far as I am concerned. Plus there's this:

Majority of soldiers say Iraq morale low (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/iraq/military/072005ccjrcwiraqmorale.16592a01.html)

Dallas Morning News, July 20, 2005. Registration required. Pertinent citation, lenght of same hopefully within SDMB bounds:

The Army sent a team of mental health specialists to Iraq and Kuwait late last summer to assess conditions and measure progress in implementing programs designed to fix mental health problems discovered during a similar survey of troops a year earlier. Its report, dated Jan. 30, 2005, was released Wednesday.
The good:

The overall assessment said 13 percent of soldiers in the most recent study screened positive for a mental health problem, compared with 18 percent a year earlier. Symptoms of acute or post-traumatic stress remained the top mental health problem, affecting at least 10 percent of all soldiers checked in the latest survey.

In the anonymous survey, 17 percent of soldiers said they had experienced moderate or severe stress or problems with alcohol, emotions or their families. That compares with 23 percent a year earlier.
The bad:

Only 55 percent of National Guard support soldiers said they have "real confidence" in their unit's ability to perform its mission, compared with 63 percent of active-duty Army support soldiers. And only 28 percent of the Guard troops rated their level of training as high, compared with 50 percent of their active-duty counterparts.

Small focus groups were held to ascertain troop morale.

The report said 54 percent of soldiers rated their units' morale as low or very low. The comparable figure in a year-earlier Army survey was 72 percent. Although respondents said "combat stressors" like mortar attacks were higher in the most recent survey, "noncombat stressors" like uncertain tour lengths were much lower, the report said. (bolding mine)

Not quite the same rosy picture you'd have us believe, is it?
And it will be interesting to see how you all react when a Republican mother who lost her son (or fifty of them) comes forward to support the President. Because both sides can play that game.

Get to it right quick. I'll even help you with the name:

"Mothers for Continuing the Iraq Clusterfuck" or MCIC, for expediency.

De nada.

elucidator

08-16-2005, 10:42 AM

Certainly sounds better than "Gold Star Moms for Terror".

THespos

08-16-2005, 10:58 AM

You know, it occurs to me that the Left is demanding that Cindy Sheehan be listened to respectfully and without any criticism of her motives, due to the terrible pain she has endured on behalf of her country. It doesn't matter which liberal websites she's posting on, it doesn't matter which radical leftist groups are aligning themselves with her and it doesn't matter at all if her position has (arguably) changed over the past year. Fine. Fair enough.

<Reagan>There you go again.</Reagan>

On top of making near-constant references to Sheehan's alignment with "radical leftist groups," you keep engaging in hyperbole with regard to this amorphous group you call "the Left" (with a capital "L"). Since you appear to be painting with a bigger brush than any I've seen, I can only assume you're talking about liberals in general, in which case I need for you to show me just exactly how "the Left" is demanding no one criticize Sheehan's motives.

Oh, and I've been waiting patiently for 6 pages for your cite regarding the earlier assertion you made regarding how Sheehan is being controlled by either Michael Moore or MoveOn. Where is it? Put up or shut up.

Stephe96

08-16-2005, 11:07 AM

<Reagan>There you go again.</Reagan>

On top of making near-constant references to Sheehan's alignment with "radical leftist groups," you keep engaging in hyperbole with regard to this amorphous group you call "the Left" (with a capital "L"). Since you appear to be painting with a bigger brush than any I've seen, I can only assume you're talking about liberals in general, in which case I need for you to show me just exactly how "the Left" is demanding no one criticize Sheehan's motives.

Oh, and I've been waiting patiently for 6 pages for your cite regarding the earlier assertion you made regarding how Sheehan is being controlled by either Michael Moore or MoveOn. Where is it? Put up or shut up.

As soon as any lib shows me proof that the Swift Boat vets were controlled by Karl Rove. :p

Stephe96

08-16-2005, 11:09 AM

Fine. The Left has no problem believing that sixty or so highly decorated combat veterans decided to get together and lie about John Kerry's four months in Vietnam, totally trashing their reputations in the process. They made charges, by the way, that I don't seem to recall Kerry as calling "lies." In fact, I don't remember Kerry addressing the Swift Boat vets at all. OK.

Now. Can't these same liberals admit that there is a chance, a chance, that Cindy Sheehan who:

-Met with President Bush last year, had the chance to call him a 'murderer' to his face but didn't. In fact, said very nice things about him....whether out-of-context or not, she still said them...

-Is now posting daily to Michael Moore's website...

-Whose husband has filed for divorce and whose family is apparently asking her to stop her vigil and come home...

Can you libs admit that there is the chance that Sheehan has in fact been "gotten to" and is being used by a group of twisted Bush-hating extremist libs to suit their own agendas? Is it just possible? And if so, shouldn't an investigation into her motives be welcomed? Even encouraged? Or is that too much of a 'smear?'

I suspect she is being used. I don't see why that is so hard to believe...or why it's considered 'trashing' her to point it out.

Debaser

08-16-2005, 11:12 AM

Oh, and I've been waiting patiently for 6 pages for your cite regarding the earlier assertion you made regarding how Sheehan is being controlled by either Michael Moore or MoveOn. Where is it? Put up or shut up.

What exactly would constitute proof of this? I can save you the suspense: there probably isn't a picture out there of Moore with his hand up her ass.

However, that she is linked to these groups, and more radical ones like Code Pink is not in dispute. Obviously this affects her credibility.

Mr. Moto

08-16-2005, 11:13 AM

The morale issue relies on the opinions of soldiers in determining overall unit morale. I've seen first hand that this is not always a reliable measurement.

When I was stationed in Sigonella, and we were mobilized for the Yugoslav conflict, anyone there would have reported low morale. We were all working long hours under less than ideal conditions. Nobody felt like we had enough materiel support. In addition, a new Officer-in-Charge and some personal problems among the crew contributed to this overall perception.

Through it all, though, we performed our job flawlessly, to the point that the unit was given a Joint Meritorious Unit Award and a Navy Unit Commendation. We also had decent retention, even winning a Golden Anchor one year for reenlistments and promotions.

I remember clearly discussing the perceived low morale with my division officer at the time, and he allowed as how it didn't matter whether we were always perfectly happy, only that we could always do our jobs.

That's not to say, of course, that morale and mission readiness is hunky-dory in Iraq. Just that I don't rely on polls to make these determinations. That's what a chain of command is for.

Johnny L.A.

08-16-2005, 11:20 AM

Fine. The Left has no problem believing that sixty or so highly decorated combat veterans decided to get together and lie about John Kerry's four months in Vietnam, totally trashing their reputations in the process.
Did you even bother to read light strand's cite? :dubious:
I didn't figure Stephe96 would consider the Navy itself as a "credible sources" anyway.
Looks like you're right. If the Navy diasgrees with a party-supported political group, the Navy must be wrong. :rolleyes:
As soon as any lib shows me proof that the Swift Boat vets were controlled by Karl Rove. :p
Fish off of moving (Swift?) boats much?

light strand

08-16-2005, 11:20 AM

John Mace

08-16-2005, 11:21 AM

Certainly sounds better than "Gold Star Moms for Terror".

You are so going to hell for that one. Me, too, for laughing.

Starving Artist

08-16-2005, 11:21 AM

Club 33

08-16-2005, 11:22 AM

As soon as any lib shows me proof that the Swift Boat vets were controlled by Karl Rove. :p

So, in other words, you have no proof and are talking out of your ass. Got it.

ElvisL1ves

08-16-2005, 11:23 AM

What exactly would constitute proof of this?It's your assertion. Just tell us how you reached that conclusion - if in fact it is the product of reasoning based on facts.

However, that she is linked to these groups, and more radical ones like Code Pink is not in dispute. Obviously this affects her credibility.Tell us what you mean by "linked", while you're at it - is it the same way Saddam was "linked" to Osama?

Steph, you could save yourself a ton of embarrassment by simply reading the material you've already been given. Your claim, btw, that a person's getting a divorce is evidence of "twisted Bush-hating extremist" politics is, well, quite remarkable.

Revtim

08-16-2005, 11:59 AM

Would you say there’s a chance, yes just a chance, that Mrs. Sheehan, who lost her son in a war, and whose been denouncing this war prior to her first meeting with Bush is sincere?This point can't be stressed enough I think. Why is there a need to think this woman is being influenced by anything else about her view about the war other than the death of her son? Occam must be spinning in his grave.

Of course, that's a rhetorical question, everybody with a brain sees it's an ad hominem attack on her. But likely a counter-productive one, in my opinion. If I was a strong supporter of the war I would counter her view with whatever reasons I would have for supporting the war, and point out that unfortunately people die in wars. I suppose the people who try to counter Sheehan's view with these "she's been brainwashed by Michael Moore and Jimmy Carter and Barbara Streisand and the pulsating brain of Che Guevara in John Kerry's rec room aquarium" theories must not be too confident of their arguments in support of the war anymore.

If the war was justified, no other arguments are needed to counter this woman's claims. All this bullshit about who's influencing her and her divorce is classic textbook ad hominem.

RedFury

08-16-2005, 01:07 PM

MrMoto, I agree with you this time around. Low morale does not necessarily equate mission failure. I simply provided that cite to counter Sam's own Panglossian view.

I'd also like to add that as a father of a soon to be of draft-age boy, myself, I can certainly understand the need for many a family member of those in service to attempt to find some sort of "noble cause" in this sordid mess. After all no one wants to die for "nothing," much less volunteer to do so. But yet that is precisely what those of us who opposed this war all along -- and the many that have "flip-flopped" since -- have been saying all along.

What did Casey die for? What was truly so urgent/important to the US's vital interests that the dogs of war, with all the horrific consequences (both known and unknown, if I may borrow from Rumsfeld) of doing so, had to be let out?

And that's exactly the question/indictment that Mrs. Sheehan wants the President to answer. Problem is, outside dogmatic faith in policies that have already backfired just like many of us predicted they would, manipulated charges against Iraq and post 9/11 emotional exploitation, he does not have one.

What was that Kerry said about 'asking the last man to die for a mistake'? Seems particularly apropos under the circunstances.

RedFury

08-16-2005, 01:15 PM

Meant to preview. That last paragraph should read:

What was that Kerry said about 'asking the last man to die for a mistake'? It would seem particularly apropos under the circunstances -- 'cept this was no mistake. Those that launched this war knew exactly what they were doing. To the point of starting the war that is...the rest was all faith-based. And we can all see how well that's going.

Stephe96

08-16-2005, 01:52 PM

[QUOTE=Revtim]This point can't be stressed enough I think. Why is there a need to think this woman is being influenced by anything else about her view about the war other than the death of her son? Occam must be spinning in his grave.

QUOTE]

Because she's already met with Bush. She could've called him a 'murderer' to his face. She didn't. She said nice things about him.

But now, all of a sudden, she's calling him a "liar" and a "murderer" and...well, how 'bout that? She's also posting daily on Michael Moore's website. It doesn't take a genius to suspect that something funny is going on.

I'd like to know who came up with idea of camping out at Bush's ranch. That kind of tactic, along with exploiting grieving mothers for ratings and box-office, has Michael Moore's fingerprints all over it. I suspect that some wacko Bush-hating group suggested the idea to her and has been supporting her financially all along. I'd simply like to know how far back her connection with Moore goes. I think we have the right to know. Don't you?

Revtim

08-16-2005, 01:59 PM

Starving Artist

08-16-2005, 02:06 PM

And again, this is all pure ad hominem. If you don't know what that means, Google it.You say ad hominem; I say simple, common-sense cognizance.

(If you don't know what that means, M-W.com it.) :D

light strand

08-16-2005, 02:10 PM

Because she's already met with Bush. She could've called him a 'murderer' to his face. She didn't. She said nice things about him.

But now, all of a sudden, she's calling him a "liar" and a "murderer" and...well, how 'bout that? She's also posting daily on Michael Moore's website. It doesn't take a genius to suspect that something funny is going on.

I'd like to know who came up with idea of camping out at Bush's ranch. That kind of tactic, along with exploiting grieving mothers for ratings and box-office, has Michael Moore's fingerprints all over it. I suspect that some wacko Bush-hating group suggested the idea to her and has been supporting her financially all along. I'd simply like to know how far back her connection with Moore goes. I think we have the right to know. Don't you?Goddamn you're a dense little one aren't you. I've already given you a valid cite (http://www.thereporter.com/search/ci_2923921) where your above assumptions are shown false. That is the original 2004 source of all of the shit the right been flinging like three year old Macaques.We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."

The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey's sacrifice would make the world a safer place.

But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election. Moreover, your conspiratorial suspicions don't mean a tinker's damn in the real world. I give you info, educate yourself. The Swiftboaters lied, and Sheehan didn't like the Bush policy prior to her first visit.

Revtim

08-16-2005, 02:16 PM

You say ad hominem; I say simple, common-sense cognizance.

(If you don't know what that means, M-W.com it.) :DDo you actually believe these attacks on her regarding Moore disprove her arguments and claims? If so, you have a very basic misunderstanding of logic.

THespos

08-16-2005, 02:56 PM

Surprise, surprise. More of the same crapola that makes trying to have a civilized debate with many neocons like debating a brick wall. Seems to be SOP these days...

1) Initiate ad hominem attack
2) Receive evidence showing already flimsy substance behind attack is horseshit
3) Ignore evidence
4) Reassert ad hominem attack
5) Repeat step #4 until people get so sick of hearing it that many of them start to believe it's true

Stephe96, your method of asserting your point of view reminds me of that episode of The Simpsons where Marge asks Homer what he wants for dinner, and he keeps going "Steak?" over and over again until Marge caves.

Merijeek

08-16-2005, 03:10 PM

Surprise, surprise. More of the same crapola that makes trying to have a civilized debate with many neocons like debating a brick wall. Seems to be SOP these days...

Argument by attrition.

I suspect I should have trademarked that phrase.

-Joe

Miller

08-16-2005, 03:14 PM

But now, all of a sudden, she's calling him a "liar" and a "murderer" and...well, how 'bout that? She's also posting daily on Michael Moore's website. It doesn't take a genius to suspect that something funny is going on.

Quite true. In fact, it appears it would take exactly the opposite to suspect that.

rjung

08-16-2005, 03:19 PM

So, anyone who continues to support Bush and the Iraq war has "drunk the coolaid" unless they are a parent of a soldier who died in Iraq?
:rolleyes:

Even by your lax standards, John, that was a shoddy strawman.

Debaser

08-16-2005, 03:29 PM

The Swiftboaters lied

No they did not. Some of their claims lacked complete evidence, but most of what they claimed was accurate. Sam Stone did a good job back in the many trainwreck threads pointing this out. Just because he was outnumbered twenty to one doesn't mean that this issue is settled.

Sheehan didn't like the Bush policy prior to her first visit.

Nobody has claimed she did. Her story has changed on other elements of the meeting. Specifically, the reaction of Bush and his concern/caring or lack therof. She's done a complete 180 on this. Also, she's done a complete 180 on the issue of confronting Bush. At first she wanted to respect what her son would have wanted and be civil to Bush. Now she's thrashing about wildly at Bush, Neocons, the media in general, Isreal, you name it. Simply pointing this out does not make a "smear". It's just reporting the full truth. The entire premise of this OP is bullshit. That so many have come forward to defend it is telling.

Stephe96

08-16-2005, 03:33 PM

Goddamn you're a dense little one aren't you. I've already given you a valid cite (http://www.thereporter.com/search/ci_2923921) where your above assumptions are shown false. That is the original 2004 source of all of the shit the right been flinging like three year old Macaques. Moreover, your conspiratorial suspicions don't mean a tinker's damn in the real world. I give you info, educate yourself. The Swiftboaters lied, and Sheehan didn't like the Bush policy prior to her first visit.

I'll try one more time. From your own cite!

---"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."

The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

While meeting with Bush, as well as Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, was an honor, it was almost a tangent benefit of the trip.---

Like I said...she could've called him a "murderer" then and there but she didn't. She chose to honor her son and behave as he would've wanted her to. Fine. What has changed her position? Who has gotten to her and made her want to not honor her son's wishes? Bush isn't "stumping for votes" now, is he?

rjung

08-16-2005, 03:37 PM

Because she's already met with Bush. She could've called him a 'murderer' to his face. She didn't. She said nice things about him.
"Please sacrifice another child for an additional visit with the President"?

Stephe96

08-16-2005, 03:45 PM

"Please sacrifice another child for an additional visit with the President"?

You know, that's another reason I tend to believe Michael Moore is behind this stunt. In her interview with Chris Matthews, Sheehan refers to US troops as "children." That's a typical Moore strategy. "Would you sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah?" As if we have a military of nine-year-olds over there. As for my response to Moore's idiotic question? "No, Michael, I wouldn't. Would you sacrifice your child to cure cancer?"

light strand

08-16-2005, 04:07 PM

I'll try one more time. From your own cite![QUOTE]So apparently your reading skills aren't quite as developed as your conspiracy ones are. [quote]---"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." I don't know anyone thinks he's not sincere about freedom for the Iraqis, but that is not the issue. She wants to know why he went. Quite frankly so do I. I think he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis, but I don't think that's why he went. And "some" grief isn't an overwhelming endorsementThe meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.Isn't this exactly what she says she want to discuss with him?While meeting with Bush, as well as Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, was an honor, it was almost a tangent benefit of the trip.---
[//quote]What the fuck does this have to do with anything. It's editorializing. But I did notice you cut out the bottom part which stated "The Sheehans said they enjoyed meeting the other families of fallen soldiers, sharing stories, contact information, grief and support. ", editorializing, but certainly context is a good thing.[quote]Like I said...she could've called him a "murderer" then and there but she didn't. She chose to honor her son and behave as he would've wanted her to. Fine. What has changed her position? Who has gotten to her and made her want to not honor her son's wishes? Bush isn't "stumping for votes" now, is he?She says why she didn't. In addition, perhaps her husband, or the other families were moderating factors. The point was, that they were unhappy with policy prior to the fist meeting, despite what Rush tells you.

Just tell me on thing. How the hell did Michael Moore start this? Did he know her prior to her plans to camp out? Have they ever even met?

Stephe96

08-16-2005, 04:17 PM

[Just tell me on thing. How the hell did Michael Moore start this? Did he know her prior to her plans to camp out? Have they ever even met?

That's all I'm asking. I think the public deserves to know if Cindy Sheehan is simply part of a Michael Moore publicity stunt. Her vigil has all the earmarks of Moore's strategy. AND she's posting daily to Moore's website. That suggests to me some kind of agreement between the two. I'd simply like to know who's idea the vigil was.

Also, she says in the Matthews interview that her husband disagrees with the "intensity" of her tactics. Is it possible that Casey's father doesn't believe his son's memory should be exploited by someone like Michael Moore?

RedFury

08-16-2005, 04:23 PM

light strand,

IIRC, you and I had a bit of a heated exchange not too long ago, perhaps due to my faulty memory, perhaps due to a mutual misunderstanding. Be that as it may, allow me to congratulate on all your recent postings on this matter. Impressive. Not only do I think you're coming off as smart and eloquent, but tough as nails as well. Regrettably a required trait when dealing with many a Bush backer and/or members of the make-our-own-reality.

Not that I am telling you anything you didn't already know, but hey, just wanted to set the record straight...if it needed setting. I realize I may well appear 'radical' in my condemnation of current US actions in Iraq, specially by American standards, but the truth of the matter is that I am quite fond of both your country and your people -- the fact that my son's a born and bred American (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v259/OwnRules/P1010009.jpg) should be a testament to that fact. Of course, others still might point to the fact that I twice failed in marriage to Americans and draw a different conclusion. Hey! I tried, I really did!

Anyway, although I've said in the past -- and more than once -- that I am not here to make friends/win popularity awards, I don't really chew nails or walk on glass. Just don't let the 101st Keyboarders in on that ;)

BTW, here's hoping your husband stays out of harm's way -- preferably in your arms.

All the best to you and yours,

~Red

PS-Probably not a good idea posting this in The Pit. But what the hey, I'm low on vitriol at the moment.

No doubt Sam or Scylla will be of great help in that department.

EddyTeddyFreddy

08-16-2005, 05:15 PM

Michael Moore, Michael Moore -- The face of the demon Liberalism!

I can just picture all those neocon mommies telling their children, "If you don't behave this instant, the MichaelMoore will come and get you!"

"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! I'll be good, Mommy, I promise I will! Please don't let the MichaelMoore get me!"

The Tooth

08-16-2005, 05:46 PM

Also, she says in the Matthews interview that her husband disagrees with the "intensity" of her tactics. Is it possible that Casey's father doesn't believe his son's memory should be exploited by someone like Michael Moore?

It's possible, but you certainly can't tell from the man's statements because they make no mention of Michael Moore.

No, wait, lemmee guess: he's covering for her, right? He's part of this conspiracy too! That Michael Moore sure is clever to get the husband in on the act. Does his tyranny know no bounds?

light strand

08-16-2005, 06:30 PM

That's all I'm asking. I think the public deserves to know if Cindy Sheehan is simply part of a Michael Moore publicity stunt. Her vigil has all the earmarks of Moore's strategy. AND she's posting daily to Moore's website. That suggests to me some kind of agreement between the two. I'd simply like to know who's idea the vigil was.

Also, she says in the Matthews interview that her husband disagrees with the "intensity" of her tactics. Is it possible that Casey's father doesn't believe his son's memory should be exploited by someone like Michael Moore?You see, I just got XM radio, so it's been my new hobby to listen to the "right wing smear machine", and the factual errors are astounding! However, I was listen to this Larry guy on ABC radio and he had a really funny point something to the effect of "Dean said I have three words for you ' we must do better'". Now that's funny!. But he beat that horse to a pulp. To the point where it just wasn't particularly relevant anymore. That's what this Michal Moore thing is. An interesting point, that just isn't relevant after you think about it. I mean really think about it. It's simply not logical. As a scientist I go with Occam (as mentioned somewhere here). The simplest solution is that there is no conspiracy. It's simply expedient.

Why should I not believe the vigil was her idea? How complex is it: "Hey Bush is at his ranch, perhaps I should go there?" I have more complex thoughts in my dreams (although I also have been known to solve calculus problems I my dreams too). This is not complex.

The funny thing is, that despise how much I hear about the main steam media obsession with her, the right stream is simply obsessed! I couldn't even listen to the drivel today, because they just wouldn't stop. I get it! But then again, I have to say, for all of bitching about why the media doesn't cover the families of dead soldiers who support the war. I switched to the sports station. They were talking about Raphael Palermo, and I wonder why they weren't covering all of the guys who aren't doing drugs?

Do you see it? Dog bites man...not story. Man bites dog, now that's a story!

rjung

08-16-2005, 06:38 PM

I think the public deserves to know if Cindy Sheehan is simply part of a Michael Moore publicity stunt.
:rolleyes:

Gee, did we pass a law saying that it's illegal to be associated with Michael Moore? I must'a missed that in the morning Moment Of Unrestrained Praise For Our Glorious Leader GWBush Session.

AND she's posting daily to Moore's website.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
--The Princess Bride

Considering that Cindy's blog has been updated almost daily on a dozen sympathetic web sites (among them Huffington's blog, Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, and TruthOut), this is as disingenious as saying Fox News is affiliated with Al Qaeda just because the former reports on the latter. For all we know (and I'm sure you don't have any evidence contrarywise), Cindy is simply e-mailing updates to a mailing list, and sympathetic folks like those above are merely reposting them.

But no, that makes too much sense; you gotta have your little "secretly affiliated with the evvvvvvvvvvvvil Michael Moore" meme fix, don'cha?

Revtim

08-16-2005, 06:48 PM

As long as they keep the anti-war people spending their time and effort fighting the ad hominem attacks, they'll never have to actually address the woman's claims.

light strand

08-16-2005, 06:49 PM

RedFury Thanks, for the kind words. Your son is a handsome young man.

My Dear friend is a Spainard (from Vigo). Her mother just came to visit here (TX) and woe be to person who has bad things to say about Americans to her. I think all of us are far more similar that different.

Be assured, my husband is fine, he retires from the Marines in Oct. Twenty years is plenty.

rjung

08-16-2005, 07:04 PM

Squink

08-16-2005, 07:51 PM

Bush Neighbor Lets War Protesters Use Land (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050817/ap_on_re_us/peace_mom) One of President Bush's neighbors will allow use of his land by dozens of war protesters who have camped in roadside ditches the past 11 days, giving them more room and halving their distance from Bush's ranch.
Demonstrators said Fred Mattlage made the offer because he sympathizes with them. There's one the right wing smear machine hasn't gotten to yet.
I wonder if he's gay, or just fat like Michael Moore? :)

Stephe96

08-16-2005, 08:23 PM

An additional thought: given how the right-wing smear machine characterizes Michael Moore as a shameless glory hound, wouldn't you expect him to be down there in Crawford mugging for the cameras if he really was behind all this, as StepheNutjob claims?

You know, you just inadvertently hit on what is so damn peculiar here: why the hell isn't Michael Moore down in Crawford this week?!

Frank

08-16-2005, 08:27 PM

You know, you just inadvertently hit on what is so damn peculiar here: why the hell isn't Michael Moore down in Crawford this week?!
Perhaps your confusion about that may have something to do with the fact that your hydrocephalic brain cannot process information properly.

Sam Stone

08-16-2005, 09:08 PM

For those who wanted a cite for the support for the war in the military:

Annenburg public policy center poll of military on Iraq war (http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_2military-data_10-16_pr.pdf).

Note that this poll is almost a year old - something I didn't realize earlier. Also note that there's plenty of ammunition for both sides of the debate, although it's clear that the military supports both Bush and the war in much greater numbers than does the public at large. For example:

Do you approve or disapprove of George W. Bush's handling of the war in Iraq?

Actively serving military members: 68% approve
Their families: 55%

Note that of those who disapprove, it's quite likely that a some percentage of them think they should have been even more aggressive. That may be reflected in this question:

Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until a stable government is established there, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as
possible?

Active duty military: 79% YES
Their familiies: 65% YES
Cindy Sheehan: NO

But of course, she's only one who's sacrifice entitles her to a big megaphone.

Other interesting questions:

Do you think the regular forces sent to Iraq were properly trained and equipped for service there?

Active Duty: 67% yes, 17% no

It's an article of faith among the anti-war crowd that Bush sent the troops in with inadequate armor and supplies. But only 17% of the soldiers actually serving in the war agree.

The polls also break out the answers by rank. For example, 64% of officers serving in the war agree with Bush's handling of the conflict. 65% think the troops were adequately trained and equipped for the mission. and 76% of the officers think the U.S. should stay in Iraq until there is a stable government.

And if you look at table C, at the time this poll was taken only 41% of the public agreed with Bush on the war, vs 63% overall for the military sample.

Barely Adequate

08-16-2005, 09:13 PM

"And it will be interesting to see how you all react when a Republican mother who lost her son (or fifty of them) comes forward to support the President. Because both sides can play that game. And it will be just as meaningless."
I'm not so sure about "meaningless". When Drudge, O'Reilly and Hannity get done polishing it up, we may see movement toward having "Republican Mom" emblazoned on Mt Rushmore, right next to Reagan. You gotta' admit those 3 know how to do their assigned tasks.

Stephe96

08-16-2005, 09:17 PM

It's possible, but you certainly can't tell from the man's statements because they make no mention of Michael Moore.

No, wait, lemmee guess: he's covering for her, right? He's part of this conspiracy too! That Michael Moore sure is clever to get the husband in on the act. Does his tyranny know no bounds?

Why, that's so diabolical...it sounds downright Rovian!!!

Frank

08-16-2005, 09:22 PM

Note that this poll is almost a year old - something I didn't realize earlier. Also note that there's plenty of ammunition for both sides of the debate, although it's clear that the military supports both Bush and the war in much greater numbers than does the public at large.
I have no problem agreeing that the people inclined to join the military are the same type of people that would support a war.
Do you think the regular forces sent to Iraq were properly trained and equipped for service there?

Active Duty: 67% yes, 17% no

It's an article of faith among the anti-war crowd that Bush sent the troops in with inadequate armor and supplies. But only 17% of the soldiers actually serving in the war agree.
Was this question asked of the military in general, or of those who served in Iraq?

And if you look at table C, at the time this poll was taken only 41% of the public agreed with Bush on the war, vs 63% overall for the military sample.
If the poll was taken a year ago, as claimed above, the public agreement with Bush on the invasion of Iraq was still over 50%.

Fear Itself

08-16-2005, 09:29 PM

it's clear that the military supports both Bush and the war in much greater numbers than does the public at large. And to what do you attribute this astounding spinlet? Surely it couldn't be because active duty troops would find it deleterious to their careers to be forthcoming about their true feelings about their Commander-in-Chief? Where are the polls from veterans, who can safely express themselves without risking the rath of the Pentagon?

Fear Itself

08-16-2005, 09:30 PM

wrath

The Tooth

08-16-2005, 09:58 PM

Why, that's so diabolical...it sounds downright Rovian!!!

Naw, any dittohead can make claims on a message board then refuse to back them up.

Sam Stone

08-16-2005, 10:15 PM

And to what do you attribute this astounding spinlet? Surely it couldn't be because active duty troops would find it deleterious to their careers to be forthcoming about their true feelings about their Commander-in-Chief? Where are the polls from veterans, who can safely express themselves without risking the rath of the Pentagon?

Oh, please. What, you think the survey was done while their officers watched? You don't think the pollsters might have taken that into account? And since the officers questioned were also supportive of Bush, doesn't that undercut your argument?

In any event, it should be obvious to everyone that Bush is wildly popular among active-duty military. He gets wild cheers whenever he's with them. I'd guess that he's more popular within the military than any President since Reagan.

If you need another data point to support this, how about the 2004 election?

Military supports Bush 4-1 over Kerry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm)

In the survey of more than 4,000 full-time and part-time troops, 73% said they would vote for Bush if the election were held today; 18% said they would vote for Kerry. Of the respondents, 59% identified themselves as Republicans, 20% as independents and 13% as Democrats.

Those were people actively serving in the military at the time of the election. By a ratio of 4-1 they picked the guy who sent the military into war over the other guy.

Was this question asked of the military in general, or of those who served in Iraq?

From the cite:

From September 22 through October 5, Annenberg polled 655 adults who have either served on active duty between February and October or who were family members of those who served but were not available to be interviewed. Their answers were compared to the responses of 2,436 adults polled nationally from September 27 through October 3.

Frank

08-16-2005, 10:24 PM

Do you think the regular forces sent to Iraq were properly trained and equipped for service there?

Active Duty: 67% yes, 17% no

It's an article of faith among the anti-war crowd that Bush sent the troops in with inadequate armor and supplies. But only 17% of the soldiers actually serving in the war agree.
Was this question asked of the military in general, or of those who served in Iraq?

From the cite:
From September 22 through October 5, Annenberg polled 655 adults who have either served on active duty between February and October or who were family members of those who served but were not available to be interviewed. Their answers were compared to the responses of 2,436 adults polled nationally from September 27 through October 3.
OK, so it was asked of active duty military who may or may not have served in Iraq at any point in time, and if they were not available, it was asked of family members who were definitely never in Iraq.

Stephe96

08-16-2005, 10:26 PM

Naw, any dittohead can make claims on a message board then refuse to back them up.

I hear ya! I'm still chuckling over the mindless libs who were positive that Karl Rove was behind the forged CBS National Guard documents. They didn't know how, exactly....but they knew it had to be Rove's fault!

Sam Stone

08-16-2005, 10:36 PM

OK, so it was asked of active duty military who may or may not have served in Iraq at any point in time, and if they were not available, it was asked of family members who were definitely never in Iraq.

Yes, except that the family member's answers were broken out from active duty personnel.

The Tooth

08-16-2005, 10:58 PM

In any event, it should be obvious to everyone that Bush is wildly popular among active-duty military. He gets wild cheers whenever he's with them. I'd guess that he's more popular within the military than any President since Reagan.

It seems to me this wasn't the case at his last televised speech, made at Fort Bragg. He didn't get wild cheers when he was with them then. He got polite applause, apparently prompted by his own staff.

Your second citation, the survey conducted and published by Army Times, is unscientific and specifically states that its sample underrepresents enlisted men:To conduct the survey, Military Times e-mailed more than 31,000 subscribers Sept. 15. They were invited to access an Internet site seeking their opinions on the presidential race and related issues. From Sept. 21 to 28, and before the first presidential debate on Sept. 30, a total of 2,754 active-duty and 1,411 reserve and Guard members took part.

The nature of the survey led experts to caution against reading the results as representative of the military as a whole.

Unlike most public opinion polls, the Military Times survey did not randomly select those to question. Instead, subscribers with e-mail addresses on file were sent an invitation. That means there is no statistical margin of error for the survey — so it’s impossible to calculate how accurately the results reflect the views of Military Times readers.

The surveyed group is older, higher in rank and more career-oriented than the military as a whole. Junior enlisted troops in particular are underrepresented in the group that responded.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-383722.php

I don't find the results of that poll especially surprising or informative, considering the nature of the sample.

RedFury

08-16-2005, 11:11 PM

Scylla, this is "the courage of our convictions"

17 Spanish troops die in air crash (http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1550481,00.html?gusrc=rss)

Seventeen Spanish soldiers on a peacekeeping mission were killed yesterday when their helicopter crashed in western Afghanistan.

Spain's defence ministry and the Nato-led international security assistance force in Afghanistan initially believed the crash was an accident. But in a press conference yesterday, José Bono, the defence minister, did not rule out an attack.

<snip>

The 17 dead troops were among the 850 Spanish troops stationed with the Nato force in Afghanistan.

They died in the service of a just cause, one that Spain, along with most of the rest of the world, believes in -- although I wish your nation hadn't strayed so far off-course. Perhaps then Afghanistan would be in better shape than it is.

Not to worry though, for as much or as little as our presence there might mean to you, those brave men didn't die in vain.

We won't be leaving anytime soon.

R.I.P.

RedFury

08-16-2005, 11:20 PM

light strand,

Thank you. I'm glad to say he gives me all sorts of reasons to be proud.

As for your Galician friend, it is indeed a small world. For while I never made out to Vigo, I visited other Galician cities often as my parents hail from the next province over, Asturias, where they kept a small summer cottage -- not far from Oviedo, the capital -- in my youth.

Not a good day for Galicia though, as twelve of the seventeen dead soldiers were based in Pontevedra.

Take care.

The Tooth

08-16-2005, 11:26 PM

Stephe96

08-16-2005, 11:47 PM

When you're done chuckling, maybe you'll see fit to back up claims you've made.

Like...?

The Tooth

08-17-2005, 12:32 AM

You must be joking.

You know, that's another reason I tend to believe Michael Moore is behind this stunt.

I'd like to know who came up with idea of camping out at Bush's ranch. That kind of tactic, along with exploiting grieving mothers for ratings and box-office, has Michael Moore's fingerprints all over it. I suspect that some wacko Bush-hating group suggested the idea to her and has been supporting her financially all along.

Is it possible that Casey's father doesn't believe his son's memory should be exploited by someone like Michael Moore?

That last one is very subtle, so read slowly: it isn't a direct claim, but the claim that the man's son's memory is being exploited is being made through implication. Get it? Im-pli-ca-tion.

Stephe96

08-17-2005, 12:53 AM

You must be joking.

That last one is very subtle, so read slowly: it isn't a direct claim, but the claim that the man's son's memory is being exploited is being made through implication. Get it? Im-pli-ca-tion.

The Tooth steps up the plate...here's the pitch....swung on and missed!

1) You know, that's another reason I tend to believe Michael Moore is behind this stunt.

2)I suspect that some wacko Bush-hating group suggested the idea to her and has been supporting her financially all along.

3) Is it possible that Casey's father doesn't believe his son's memory should be exploited by someone like Michael Moore?

Nothing even close to a "claim" made in those statements. Care to try again?

rjung

08-17-2005, 12:57 AM

Admit it, Stephe96, the only reason for your Michael Moore fixation is because that idea got tooted by Rush Limbaugh last week...

The Tooth

08-17-2005, 02:24 AM

The Tooth steps up the plate...here's the pitch....swung on and missed!

1) You know, that's another reason I tend to believe Michael Moore is behind this stunt.

2)I suspect that some wacko Bush-hating group suggested the idea to her and has been supporting her financially all along.

3) Is it possible that Casey's father doesn't believe his son's memory should be exploited by someone like Michael Moore?

Nothing even close to a "claim" made in those statements. Care to try again?

Not really. I tend to believe rational discussion is beyond the capabilities of some people, and I suspect you're one of them. You just go on pretending your failure to back up your statements constitutes a swing and a miss on my part if it lets you believe the things you say make sense.

Personally, I think a cat wandering across a keyboard could come up with a more cogent statement than "I suspect some wacko Bush-hating group suggested the idea to her and has been supporting her financially all along, but I'm not claiming this is so", so you and your conspiracy theories will just have to get along without me.

Stephe96

08-17-2005, 03:14 AM

Not really. I tend to believe rational discussion is beyond the capabilities of some people, and I suspect you're one of them. You just go on pretending your failure to back up your statements constitutes a swing and a miss on my part if it lets you believe the things you say make sense.

Personally, I think a cat wandering across a keyboard could come up with a more cogent statement than "I suspect some wacko Bush-hating group suggested the idea to her and has been supporting her financially all along, but I'm not claiming this is so", so you and your conspiracy theories will just have to get along without me.

Uh huh. Sure.

wring

08-17-2005, 06:20 AM

Uh huh. Sure.
what's the deal lately w/ the lame ass responses????? 10 year olds could do better.

elucidator

08-17-2005, 06:28 AM

I suspect that GW is a Stepford robot, totally controlled by Laura and her coven of lesbian Satanists. I mean, is there any actual proof that "Karl" Rove is a man? What with his Pillsbury Deathboy figure and soft, waxy features?

Mind you, I'm not claiming this....

Frank

08-17-2005, 06:57 AM

what's the deal lately w/ the lame ass responses????? 10 year olds could do better.
I was thinking yesterday that Stephe96's style of argument is very reminiscent of my little sister's (I have six, pick one) when we were kids. He/She never argues any point for longer than two posts, the points he/she does attempt to make are weasly insinuations issued with plausible deniability, his/her rebuttal style is basically "na, na, I can't hear you!", and any evidence shown is completely ignored. Of course, my little sisters have a brain (actually, a number of brains - one each, except maybe... no, we won't go there), so they grew out of it.

plnnr

08-17-2005, 07:04 AM

I suspect that if you don't feed him, he'll go away.

Merijeek

08-17-2005, 07:34 AM

I suspect that if you don't feed him, he'll go away.

Footwear eats?

-Joe

Fear Itself

08-17-2005, 07:49 AM

ElvisL1ves

08-17-2005, 08:23 AM

Note that this poll is almost a year old - something I didn't realize earlier.And invalidating the conclusions you wish us to draw instead, as well as revealing that you hadn't actually read it before you copy 'n' pasted it from yet another Powerline (or similar) blog post.

Why not just give us the links directly to the blogs you rely on exclusively to form your sorry little worldview, and don't waste time paraphrasing them as your original contributions? It would save you both time and humiliation, and be no less honest.

So when are you enlisting in the glorious cause, schmuck?

Debaser

08-17-2005, 08:45 AM

Elvis, you are a stain on the SDMB.

ElvisL1ves

08-17-2005, 08:52 AM

That's the biggest problem with fighting ignorance. Those whose ignorance is exposed often think you're fighting them personally. Fortunately they can always be identified by their lack of any argument other than childish invective.

Debaser, you desperately need to grow the fuck up, even just a little bit would do.

Sam Stone

08-17-2005, 09:46 AM

That's the biggest problem with fighting ignorance. Those whose ignorance is exposed often think you're fighting them personally.

From Elvis two messages before:

So when are you enlisting in the glorious cause, schmuck?

Good thing the attacks are never personal.

Elvis, you're a fucking moron, and you discredit your own side. Every time you post there are about a dozen liberals who would normally agree with you who wince and wish you would just go away.

But the inner fanatic in you won't even notice that you rarely even get support from your own side any more. Because they don't want any of you to stick to their shoes.

Debaser, you desperately need to grow the fuck up, even just a little bit would do.

Well, at least you're good for a laugh on occasion.

light strand

08-17-2005, 10:07 AM

Debaser, your mental gymnastics amuse me. I like the “Swiftboaters didn’t lie” statement. Of course they lied.

Considering how “lying” was thrown around in the previous administration, it’s quite remarkable how much has to occur before you’ll admit that your guys lied.

For example: In the Swiftboat ads a man named Van O'Dell claims: “ John Kerry lied to get his bronze star...I know, I was there, I saw what happened.” Basically he claims they weren’t under fire. However, the other people on Kerry’s boat claimed they were under fire, the Naval records claim they were, and one of the few people who back O’Dell on this issue, got a medal for...you guessed it, being under fire!

Now we can believe the other Swiftboaters (apparently the ones not for truth), who were there and on the same damn boat, the Naval records, and logic, or we can’t back ourselves into a mental corner, and say the SVFT didn’t lie.

What exactly do you consider a lie? I know this is hard to believe, but I consider it lying when someone tells me an untruth. It’s immaterial what their motivations are, or whether they realize it’s an untruth. If I am presented with a “fact” that turns out not to be true. Then in my world, that is a lie.

I recently heard a quote from Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and it's now my new favorite:
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. He is not entitled to his own facts."

vibrotronica

08-17-2005, 12:23 PM

Here's Steph96's next talking point (http://mediamatters.org/items/200508160009):

I mean, Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real, including the mainstream media's glomming onto it. It's not real. It's nothing more than an attempt. It's the latest effort made by the coordinated left.

Brought to you via the Huffington Post.

RedFury

08-17-2005, 12:45 PM

Elvis, you're a fucking moron, and you discredit your own side. Every time you post there are about a dozen liberals who would normally agree with you who wince and wish you would just go away.

But the inner fanatic in you won't even notice that you rarely even get support from your own side any more. Because they don't want any of you to stick to their shoes.

Too right. Because as we all know, little Bush ankle-humpers, such as yourself, Debaser and Steph96, are doing sooo well in the public eye these days:

Public's doubts grow about Iraq war (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002441711_wardoubts16.html)

New poll reflects growing U.S. worry over Iraq (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N16165290.htm)

Wonder why? Nothing to do with what's happening on the ground, could it?

At least 43 killed, 88 wounded in blasts (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/17/iraq.violence/index.html)

Iraq morgue 'receives 1100 dead' (http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,16290565%255E1702,00.html)

Naw, best to ignore reality and keep dry-humping Georgieboy. Spin, spin, spiiiin! Wheehaaw!

Morans (http://www.dialmformax.com/images/morans.jpg)

Revtim

08-17-2005, 12:47 PM

What is Rush even implying? That she didn't have a son who died in Iraq?

Snowboarder Bo

08-17-2005, 12:52 PM

Morans (http://www.dialmformax.com/images/morans.jpg)

That is the single funniest thing I've seen this week. It's even funnier than the the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

ElvisL1ves

08-17-2005, 01:14 PM

You can't help wonder if somebody kindly took that yahoo aside and explained it to him.

And speaking of yahoos: Sammy, does that little foot-stamping display mean you're not going to tell us what tighty blog you copied that "poll" from, to present to us as both factual and relevant? I mean, you would if you could, right?

Naw, that's all right, we all know by now you don't have the courage even to do that much, to say nothing of putting your own ass into the same danger you demand the Americans accept. Speaks a lot of you, ya know, none of it positive.

cosmosdan

08-17-2005, 01:32 PM

I hear ya! I'm still chuckling over the mindless libs who were positive that Karl Rove was behind the forged CBS National Guard documents. They didn't know how, exactly....but they knew it had to be Rove's fault!

From reading your posts I think this is the pot calling the kettle black.

The thing that irritates me about this whole thing is that such a big deal is being made Cindy changing her mind and her attitude toward Bush, as if that makes it all meaningless and just pretense. Lot's of people have changed their mind about the war and Bush, including a republican congressman which was discussed here a few weeks back.

Look at the record of Bush and his little posse in DC. How many times have they changed their story.

So what if Moore or MoveOn are influencing her? Rush and ORielly calling them dangerous left wing radicals is just bullshit. I may not like their tactics but the dangerous ones are the people making policy decisions that affect the lives of millions.
So what if her family disagrees or she and her husband seperates? What the fuck does any of that have to do with the questions "Why are Americans giving their lives everyday in Iraq?" "Should we bring our soilders home?" Those are the questions that are being asked and should be asked. They are not meaningless or irrelevant because someone contrived to get them attention. They are essential questions.

I read the Rush quote posted just before mine. If you can read that kind of slanted biased dishonest BS and give it a nod of approval then you are just as mindless as anyone you accuse. That kind of BS is coming from both sides and we should have the nads to call bullshit what it is no matter who it comes from.

Stephe96

08-17-2005, 02:18 PM

From reading your posts I think this is the pot calling the kettle black.

So what if Moore or MoveOn are influencing her? .

I'll try this one more time. I have never said I know Michael Moore is behind Cindy Sheehan. I've said I tend to believe it for the following reasons:

1) There is certainly a connection between the two. Moore's website has become All Cindy/All The Time. This suggests to me a prior arrangement of some sort. Maybe anyone can simply post to Moore's homepage without his permission...I have no idea. Something tells me they have had contact with each other. Is this a big deal? Not at all. She's free to do whatever she wants and he's free to post whatever he wishes on his site.

2) This whole stunt smacks of Moore's vile strategy of a) demanding a meeting with someone you know will never meet with you (Roger & Me ) and b) putting grieving mothers before the cameras as if they are beyond any criticism (Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 911 ).

3) She has suddenly begun referring to US soldiers as "children," a classic Moore tactic designed to put any opponent into the impossible position of justifying the murder of toddlers (Moore to Bill O'Reilly: "Would you sacrifice your child to sacrifice Fallujah?").

4) Something has changed her mind since her last meeting with Bush. Is she allowed to change her mind? Of course. But the fact remains that she did meet with Bush and did not call him a 'murderer' when she had the chance. She said nice things about him, in fact. Squawk about the 'context' all you like....you cannot deny that she said what she has been quoted as saying.

Now. As I said, I have no problem if Moore and Sheehan are in cahoots to bring down the Bush presidency. Hell, I don't even care if they're lovers (although I'm not sure which partner I'd feel most sorry for!). Sheehan has every single right to protest the war in Iraq, just as I have every single right to question her motives. Does it matter if Moore is behind Sheehan's stunt? I'd argue that most Americans would feel very differently about what she's doing if it turned out it was nothing more than a Michael Moore publicity stunt. I'm not saying that anyone would feel that she hasn't suffered an unimaginable loss or think she doesn't have the right to protest the war...I'm simply saying, my opinion, that it would change a lot of views on the topic. I further think that if there is a connection (beyond the website postings), why not simply admit it? I'd just like to know who approached whom about the website. I don't think it's particularly evil to ask this question.

Why isn't Michael Moore in Crawford? Good question. I'd argue that Kerry's loss in November hurt Moore huge , and he may have come to the realization that these types of stunts might work better without his direct involvment. Who knows? Maybe he'd rather it didn't become a 'Michael Moore Event' in the public eye.

Squink

08-17-2005, 02:26 PM

Moore's website has become All Cindy/All The Time. This suggests to me a prior arrangement of some sort.You've become rather "All Moore/All The Time" yourself. Do you have a prior arrangement with Mr. Moore to make him look good by the constant lameitude of your rants against him and Ms. Sheehan? What's he paying you?

The Tooth

08-17-2005, 02:34 PM

Do people really think this way? "She was polite to someone's face even though she disagrees with him! Michael Moore must be behind this!" Wow.

I read an op-ed column in the Christian Science Monitor today that also referred to soldiers as "sons and daughters", something no one has ever done in the history of the printed word. Who knew Michael Moore had so much pull with the editors of that fine publication? Who knew?

Snowboarder Bo

08-17-2005, 02:36 PM

Stephe96 is playing the "guilt-by-constant-association" trick. Lame.

rjung

08-17-2005, 03:00 PM

What is Rush even implying? That she didn't have a son who died in Iraq?
Maybe he thinks Casey Sheehan isn't buried in a cemetary somewhere, but is actually hiding in an attic, playing video games on an XBox and munching on Cheetos while his Mom is staging a "fake" vigil/protest in the Crawford sun...

plnnr

08-17-2005, 03:12 PM

Who knows?

Exactly. So there's no point to the speculation.

Lamar Mundane

08-17-2005, 03:32 PM

Do people really think this way? "She was polite to someone's face even though she disagrees with him! Michael Moore must be behind this!" Wow.

There isn't a lot of thinking going on. It's a lot of cut-and-paste from right wing blogs and regurgitation of what was heard from Rush or Sean Hannity. How else would they know of all these "associations"? Hell, I'm on the left and I've never seen Michael Moore's website, nor do I have any need to. I didn't even know he had one.

Scylla

08-17-2005, 04:04 PM

Y'know, the Women's main purpose seems to be to smear Bush for getting us into this war and letting her son die.

There is no shortage of smears on either side, though if this thread is evidence the the left-wings smearers far outnumber the right wing smearers in numbers and smears.

I'm tempted to do a smear count on this thread, and I'd bet that smears by the left vastly outnumber those by the right.

So whine not to me of the right-wing smear machine which is at best a Ford Pinto compared to the hulking Hummer of the left-wing smear machine.

You're all a bunch of hypocrites.

Fortunately, I stand above all of you, chaste and impartial, and unwilling to lower my self to your disgusting penchant for derogatory behavior.

Merijeek

08-17-2005, 04:06 PM

There isn't a lot of thinking going on. It's a lot of cut-and-paste from right wing blogs and regurgitation of what was heard from Rush or Sean Hannity. How else would they know of all these "associations"? Hell, I'm on the left and I've never seen Michael Moore's website, nor do I have any need to. I didn't even know he had one.

Considering the Left Wing Media completely controls all your actions it's a wonder they don't make you check in for instructions more frequently...

-Joe

wring

08-17-2005, 04:16 PM

There is no shortage of smears on either side, though if this thread is evidence the the left-wings smearers far outnumber the right wing smearers in numbers and smears.

I'm tempted to do a smear count on this thread, and I'd bet that smears by the left vastly outnumber those by the right.

So whine not to me of the right-wing smear machine which is at best a Ford Pinto compared to the hulking Hummer of the left-wing smear machine.

are you suggesting that the traditional clamor from the posters on the right here about it being such a vast left leaning board isn't true? Surely (and I can call you that, can't I?) , that would have to be the truth for your idea here that the 'smearers on the left outnumbering those on the right in this thread' being significant of anything on a national scale.

and I suspect that you'd also be aware of the difference between musings on a message board and some cable tv schmuck pontificating ad infinitum on the national airways, eh?

Lamar Mundane

08-17-2005, 04:20 PM

Considering the Left Wing Media completely controls all your actions it's a wonder they don't make you check in for instructions more frequently...

-Joe
Now I see why you rely on Rush Limbaugh for your material. Original thought is not your strong suit, is it?

Squink

08-17-2005, 04:34 PM

Fortunately, I stand above all of you, chaste and impartial, and unwilling to lower my self to your disgusting penchant for derogatory behavior.Of course you do Scylla. You always have. :p

Merijeek

08-17-2005, 04:37 PM

Now I see why you rely on Rush Limbaugh for your material. Original thought is not your strong suit, is it?

Sarcasm, dude. ;)

Typically, though, the righties try to make themselves feel better by not telling you you're evil to your face. Instead, they point out that as a Librul you just don't know any better.

You just need some educatin'.

-Joe

cosmosdan

08-17-2005, 04:55 PM

I'll try this one more time. I have never said I know Michael Moore is behind Cindy Sheehan. I've said I tend to believe it for the following reasons:

1) There is certainly a connection between the two. Moore's website has become All Cindy/All The Time. This suggests to me a prior arrangement of some sort. Maybe anyone can simply post to Moore's homepage without his permission...I have no idea. Something tells me they have had contact with each other. Is this a big deal? Not at all. She's free to do whatever she wants and he's free to post whatever he wishes on his site. I didn't question this at all.

2) This whole stunt smacks of Moore's vile strategy of a) demanding a meeting with someone you know will never meet with you (Roger & Me ) and b) putting grieving mothers before the cameras as if they are beyond any criticism (Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 911 )

Vile? You called Moore's strategy vile? I'm not a Moore fan because he's dishonest. I'm not sure he has enough impact on anything to be vile. The dishonesty coming from the White House and the consequences of that dishonesty certainly qualifies as vile.

3) She has suddenly begun referring to US soldiers as "children," a classic Moore tactic designed to put any opponent into the impossible position of justifying the murder of toddlers (Moore to Bill O'Reilly: "Would you sacrifice your child to sacrifice Fallujah?"). PLease. She's a mother and identifies with other parents whose children are in harms way. Fahrenheit 9/11 was far to dishonest for my taste but that doesn't mean Moore had nothing to say. The comment to O'Reilly, {a waste of an interview} was about those who support the war sending their own kids. Our president for example, avoided combat when his fellow countrymen were risking their lives for the cause of freedom he professes to love.

4) Something has changed her mind since her last meeting with Bush. Is she allowed to change her mind? Of course. But the fact remains that she did meet with Bush and did not call him a 'murderer' when she had the chance. She said nice things about him, in fact. Squawk about the 'context' all you like....you cannot deny that she said what she has been quoted as saying. Sure, and she may have been influenced by Moore and/or MoveOn. SO FUCKING WHAT? I point out that loads of others, including a remorseful republican congressman, have changed their position on the war and the president. That's what information tends to do.

Now. As I said, I have no problem if Moore and Sheehan are in cahoots to bring down the Bush presidency. Hell, I don't even care if they're lovers (although I'm not sure which partner I'd feel most sorry for!). Sheehan has every single right to protest the war in Iraq, just as I have every single right to question her motives. Does it matter if Moore is behind Sheehan's stunt? I'd argue that most Americans would feel very differently about what she's doing if it turned out it was nothing more than a Michael Moore publicity stunt.
It could only be that if she didn't actually lose a son in Iraq or if it was discovered that Moore was paying her some huge sum to do all this. That would discredit her in my eyes but not change the importance of the message. In one of the articles cited by Mr. Moto Sheehan says she wants less support from liberal groups and less attention on herself and more on the message.
It's obvious that Rush, OReilly and others are trying to use any association with liberal organizations to take the attention off her message. "It's just a political stunt" is an often used tactic to divert attention from the issues. But it's not a stunt in the very real sense that other men and woman are dieing in Iraq on a regular basis and we as citizens have a right to ask why, over and over again and demand an answer.
I'd just like to know who approached whom about the website. I don't think it's particularly evil to ask this question.
Neither do I. But I'd ask the question, what possible difference does it make? Perhaps Sheehan likes Moore and thinks he's completely right about everything and wanted to be on his site. I wouldn't agree with her about Moore but that still doesn't change the importance of the issue about lives being lost daily basis.
Moore and MoveOn are painted by the White House shills you seem to enjoy as dangerous left wing radicals completely out of touch with reality and the American public. If you buy into that BS then you're only choosing which lie you prefer. Do you call that progress?

cosmosdan

08-17-2005, 05:03 PM

So whine not to me of the right-wing smear machine which is at best a Ford Pinto compared to the hulking Hummer of the left-wing smear machine.

You're all a bunch of hypocrites.

Fortunately, I stand above all of you, chaste and impartial, and unwilling to lower my self to your disgusting penchant for derogatory behavior.

So the SDMB and Air America have more listeners than Fox and Rush? Doubt it.

Stateing the facts is not a smear. Twisting the facts and presenting an illogical conclusion as the only logical one is. You're right. Both sides do it.

GraceTX

08-17-2005, 05:12 PM

Stephe96

08-17-2005, 05:25 PM

So the SDMB and Air America have more listeners than Fox and Rush? Doubt it.
.

Am I missing out on the SDMB Radio Show? When's it on? :D

Scylla

08-17-2005, 05:30 PM

are you suggesting that the traditional clamor from the posters on the right here about it being such a vast left leaning board isn't true?,

Are you suggesting that I was suggesting such a thing? I was merely observing the vast prevalence of liberal smears in this thread.

that would have to be the truth for your idea here that the 'smearers on the left outnumbering those on the right in this thread' being significant of anything on a national scale.

I don't see the head of the Republican pulling a Howard Dean and talking about how he hates liberals and Democrats. I don't see TV news anchors fabricating documents to falsely implicate Democrativ figures. No. I stand by thesis. The liberal smear machine is a Hummer to the Pubbie Pinto

and I suspect that you'd also be aware of the difference between musings on a message board and some cable tv schmuck pontificating ad infinitum on the national airways, eh?

Like say..... Um..... Dan Rather?

NDP

08-17-2005, 05:35 PM

Here's Steph96's next talking point (http://mediamatters.org/items/200508160009):
Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh
I mean, Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real, including the mainstream media's glomming onto it. It's not real. It's nothing more than an attempt. It's the latest effort made by the coordinated left.

Brought to you via the Huffington Post.
This can't be for real. It's got to be some type of hoax or parody. I don't even think Michael Savage would make a charge like that. Then again, I didn't think the whole "Kerry faked getting his medals" claim would be taken seriously beyond a few delusional hardcore right-wingers.

Still, if Rush did say this and does believe it, I wouldn't be too harsh on him. It's just the OxyContin talking (again).

wring

08-17-2005, 05:42 PM

Most of your post, Scylla is about Dan Rather and the piece he did that got him fired. Um early retired. are you really attempting to stack that against Hannity & Colms, Bill O'Reilly, the entire Fox galaxy of stars, Rush Limbaugh et al?

wrt the counting posts here etc. what other interpretation should I get from your post? you posted this There is no shortage of smears on either side, though if this thread is evidence the the left-wings smearers far outnumber the right wing smearers in numbers and smears.

I'm tempted to do a smear count on this thread, and I'd bet that smears by the left vastly outnumber those by the right.
which merely should follow logically if we believe the standard SDMB right wing poster claim of the board being skewed hard to the left. Naturally one would expect far more posts from the left than the right here. why would one even bother to be tempted to 'do a smear count' unless one was attempting to link that thought to the next paragraph, to wit So whine not to me of the right-wing smear machine which is at best a Ford Pinto compared to the hulking Hummer of the left-wing smear machine.
ie the topic of this thread, that is the national smear campaign.

IOW - if this board skews to the left, we'd expect to see more stuff from the left in a thread. the concept of the board 'skewing to the left' inherently contains the concept "as opposed to the nation at large", does it not? So, talking about how many smear-left posts occur in this thread has no relation to the smear campaigns nationally.

Review: "small message board but lots of smear left posts" compaired to "nationally syndicated smear hard right news and 'entertainment' sources + one failed Dan Rather attempt"

I'd suggest the pinto is rather the small message board and the fleet of Hum-vees is O'Reilly et all.

Rufus Xavier

08-17-2005, 06:07 PM

"There is no shortage of smears on either side, though if this thread is evidence the the left-wings smearers far outnumber the right wing smearers in numbers and smears."

-Scylla

Of course, the OP itself contains several smears, including:
"Bill O'Reilly and Matt Drudge and the other Bush-apologizing idiots"
"the hypocrisy, fraud, and venom in these folks' hearts"
"right-wing nutjobs"
"pissing over the grieving parents back home"

that's four "left-wing" smears right there.

then there's a couple of mild Bush smears. Certainly on page 1 of this thread there is a preponderance of these "Left-wing" smears. But then a right wing smearer chimes in, Stephe96:

"the Michael Morons got ahold of her"
"The Left's shameless explotation of this woman is sickening."
"She's an excuse for the Move-On idiots and the Michael Moore dopes to camp out and chant 'Bush sucks' all night long."
"Michael Moore's army of idiots"
"Kerry and Hillary felt compelled to send US troops into battle"
"Funny how she's not blaming the enemy for killing her son."
"this lunatic liberal whackjob"
"money for children and Alzheimer's patients somehow winds up in the coffers of Air America?"
"I loved watching the Move-On idiots and the Michael Moore morons lose 'the most important election of our lives.'"

quickly tipping the balance back to the right side.

then Scylla calls RedFury a "dipshit," which causes an escalating "smear campaign," which culminates in the bizarre spectacle - no, let me simply display the words.

First, RedFury to Scylla:

"Otherwise they wouldn't have revised it, brainiac."
"Just not locksteppin', leave-your-brain-at-the-door, warmongering cumstains such as yourself."
"You're the prototype of imbecil that made Bush possible."
"For a member of the 101st Keyboarders like you"
"Which reminds me, how many ragheads did you kill from your puter-chair today anway?"
"I'd do it, but not much into looking at assholes."

There's more, but finally, here is Scylla's ultimate riposte to RedFury:

"You, know for a country that I think is leading the world history count for genocides and general bad behavior, you'd think you'd be a little more discreet about venturing opinions on adventurism."
"Admit it, you really hate neocons because you associate them with Jews, correct?"
"Total fucking cowardice."
"Fighting terrorists isn't exactly the same as torturing jews, or systematically exterminating indigenous peoples. Not quite the Spanish cup of tea."

Wow. Then, apparently to get us focused back on the matter at hand, we get Stephe96 again:

"I'm sure that the Cindy Sheehan protest is just the kind of 'cause' that gives these losers [Deadheads] an excuse to thumb a ride down to Crawford and sit in the dirt and sing protest songs to each other."

"is she being supported by the Soros/Move-On whackjobs?"
"Is she taking money from Michael Moore, by any chance?"
"I'll bet if those Deadhead hippie losers had jobs...they'd also vow not to pay any taxes!"
"Why doesn't she simply admit she's changed her mind once the Michael Morons and the Move-On idiots got ahold of her?"

Well, rather than take up any more space, let me just say that I have counted the smears in this thread, and I counted 52 right-wing smears to 47 left-wing smears. Pretty balanced, actually.

There are some more left-wing smears, such as:

Lamar Mundane

08-17-2005, 06:12 PM

. I don't see TV news anchors fabricating documents to falsely implicate Democrativ figures.
I love how those on the right have come to believe that Dan Rather personally forged those documents. Keep drinking that koolaid!

CLedet

08-17-2005, 06:13 PM

She's clearly stepped over the line from activism into politics, and that makes her fair game. She's being less than honest in saying she wants to meet with President Bush. All she wants to do is berate him and demand that he withdraw troops from Iraq. Even if all of that were to happen, she still wouldn't be happy and would continue berating the President. She had her time, and chose to act respectfully, so she should live with that and move on.

She's also made her political position clear and has chosen allies, now she should take it as well as she gives it. What's wrong with that?

Rufus Xavier

08-17-2005, 06:17 PM

Oops, I didn't notice that bottom bit, there. I can post others, if urged, but I doubt I will be.

One more thing, though. Early in this thread, Inigo Montoya posted this statement:

"She's gonna get creamed as a grieving woman who has lost her mind and is to be pitied"

Later in the thread, we got these three posts:

"Let hysterical women dictate US foreign policy now?" - Stephe96

"I feel worse for her that she's unable to find some kind of resolution or understanding of it that enables her her to find her own way through her grief." - Scylla

"I pity her, and I hope she comes to find some kind of peace." - Debaser

Oh, one more thing. Debaser keeps trying to let us know that CodePink is some kind of dangerous left-wing radical organization. Hee hee. That's a good one. From the website:
http://www.codepink4peace.org/article.php?list=type&type=3

"We call on women around the world to rise up and oppose the war in Iraq. We call on mothers, grandmothers, sisters, and daughters, on workers, students, teachers, healers, artists, writers, singers, poets and every ordinary outraged woman willing to be outrageous for peace. Women have been the guardians of life—not because we are better or purer or more innately nurturing than men, but because the men have busied themselves making war. Because of our responsibility to the next generation, because of our own love for our families and communities and this country that we are a part of, we understand the love of a mother in Iraq for her children and the driving desire of that child for life"

Woah. Why, they're practically commies!

Stephe96

08-17-2005, 06:28 PM

Seems to me we might need a recount here:

". But then a right wing smearer chimes in, Stephe96:

"Kerry and Hillary felt compelled to send US troops into battle" (Smear? I'd call this an irrefutable fact).

"Funny how she's not blaming the enemy for killing her son." (Another fact -she's blaming Bush for killing her son).

"money for children and Alzheimer's patients somehow winds up in the coffers of Air America?" (Fact).

"I loved watching the Move-On idiots and the Michael Moore morons lose 'the most important election of our lives.'" (Opinion).

"I'm sure that the Cindy Sheehan protest is just the kind of 'cause' that gives these losers [Deadheads] an excuse to thumb a ride down to Crawford and sit in the dirt and sing protest songs to each other." (Well, I guess this is a smear against Deadhead losers....but not Cindy Sheehan).

"Is she taking money from Michael Moore, by any chance?" (A simple question is now considered a 'smear?' Wow).

There are some more left-wing smears, such as:

bizzwire

08-17-2005, 06:33 PM

Like say..... Um..... Dan Rather?

Oh, touche, Scylla.
Sure, Ol' Gunga Dan fabricated that whole story himself. Wrote it, forged the documents, took care of the lighting, ran the cameras, the whole nine yards.

He got duped, bought into a scam which happened to fit nicely with his political bent*. He was not an objective journalist and it blew up in his face. CBS investigated, people were fired, CBS issued an apology and gave Dan the old heave-ho. In short, they said something that wasn't true, were called on it and admitted their failures.

I can't for the life of me see how you equate this single episode with "some cable tv schmuck pontificating ad infinitum on the national airways," but that's just me.

* To be fair, I have no idea what Dan Rather's political leanings are, but for argument's sake, we'll go with the current meme that he's an arch-liberal because..well, because of this one episode, as far as I can tell

cosmosdan

08-17-2005, 06:51 PM

Are you suggesting that I was suggesting such a thing? I was merely observing the vast prevalence of liberal smears in this thread. What constitutes a smear to you? Got a couple of examples from this thread?

I don't see the head of the Republican pulling a Howard Dean and talking about how he hates liberals and Democrats. I don't see TV news anchors fabricating documents to falsely implicate Democrativ figures. No. I stand by thesis. The liberal smear machine is a Hummer to the Pubbie Pinto

Did a news anchor fabricate documents or simply accept documents that were fabricated without checking them enough? Major difference. I think that qualifies as a right wing smear.

Howard Dean is not minority leader. He is DNC and the controversy is to raise money, which it is doing. That's his job.

You can cherry pick but for shear volume there is no comparision. The Pubbie media machine wins hands down.

rjung

08-17-2005, 06:57 PM

Y'know, the Women's main purpose seems to be to smear Bush for getting us into this war and letting her son die.
I dunno, I think her main purpose (and certainly her originally-stated intent) is for the POTUS to stop spreading the WMD/terrorism/liberation/Saddam manure and give us the truth about why we went to war.

But then, I haven't gotten the talking points from O'Reilly/Hannity/Limbaugh yet, so maybe you're more current on what the Sheehan-Bash of the Day is.

bizzwire

08-17-2005, 06:57 PM

I don't see the head of the Republican pulling a Howard Dean and talking about how he hates liberals and Democrats. I don't see TV news anchors fabricating documents to falsely implicate Democrativ figures. No. I stand by thesis. The liberal smear machine is a Hummer to the Pubbie Pinto

[Maxwell Smart]
"would you believe the Vice President of the United States telling a "Liberal" Senator to 'Go Fuck Yourself" on the Senate floor?"
[/Maxwell Smart]

Scylla

08-17-2005, 08:22 PM

Rufus:

That is completely unfair. I was smearing the Spanish, not liberals.

Wring:

Most of your post, Scylla is about Dan Rather and the piece he did that got him fired. Um early retired. are you really attempting to stack that against Hannity & Colms, Bill O'Reilly, the entire Fox galaxy of stars, Rush Limbaugh et al?

Oh foul! It was exactly 2/5 about Rather. That is considerably less than "most." No, I'm not "really" attempting to stack anything other than give a single example in response to your previous post. Surely you see that you are extrapolating my posts to ridiculous degrees simply to ask rhetorical "is this what you mean?" type questions. But, if we must play this game, I'll take your Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Hannitty & Colms (isn't one of them supposed to be a liberal) and raise you a Franken, Moore, Krugman, entire New York Times, LA Times, a Wolfowitz, and A Jane Fonda bus tour.

bizwire:

Oh, touche, Scylla.
Sure, Ol' Gunga Dan fabricated that whole story himself. Wrote it, forged the documents, took care of the lighting, ran the cameras, the whole nine yards

Where did I say he did that? What's up with false attribution. If you think Dan did that than you say it, but don't attribute it to me.

Cosmodon:

What constitutes a smear to you? Got a couple of examples from this thread?

The fact that you would ask such a stupid question is proof that you are incompetant to hold a valid opinion (that would be a smear if I were saying that sincerely)

Rjung:

I dunno, I think her main purpose (and certainly her originally-stated intent) is for the POTUS to stop spreading the WMD/terrorism/liberation/Saddam manure and give us the truth about why we went to war.

Well, I think, those are the reasons why we went to war. The implication that she is making by saying that she wants the truth is that there is some other reason that Bush isn't telling. She does not know this to be a fact, so, what she is doing is a blatant attempt to discredit him on an unproven premise. That my frien, is a smear.

In other words she is stating as fact, an unproven premise simply for the derogatory value. That's a Schmear.

But then, I haven't gotten the talking points from O'Reilly/Hannity/Limbaugh yet, so maybe you're more current on what the Sheehan-Bash of the Day is.

Oh, a cheap shot. You lying liberal scum-dog. I could respond in kind but I refuse to lower myself to your ad hominem tactics. I will maintain the high road thus garnering the respect and admiration of all readers regardless of their political bent.

Scylla

08-17-2005, 08:30 PM

[Maxwell Smart]
"would you believe the Vice President of the United States telling a "Liberal" Senator to 'Go Fuck Yourself" on the Senate floor?"
[/Maxwell Smart]

Technically, that would not be a smear. That would be a direct insult.

I do think Cosmodon is right. We do need to define "Smear."

I would suggest that the definition of a smear is: An proven premise disseminated with intent to dengrate.

A first degree smear would be if you knowingly make up a false premise and disseminate it.

A smear in the second degree would be if you merely suspect, beleive or think your premise is possible but disseminate it.

A third degree smear of "mansmear," would be if you are such an idiot that you think your premise is a fact and are doing a service by disseminating it.

By this accounting, the Texas lady is guilty of second degree smearing in my eye.

wring

08-17-2005, 08:31 PM

sure Scylla . market share of Air America vs Fox et al , especially factoring in amount of air play. Disingenous does not play well.

Scylla

08-17-2005, 08:32 PM

That would be an unproven premise.

Stephe96

08-17-2005, 08:35 PM

I love how those on the right have come to believe that Dan Rather personally forged those documents. Keep drinking that koolaid!

Don't you find it odd that Rather, CBS et al have shown no interest whatsoever in finding out just who did forge those documents and pass them off as real? One would imagine that finding that (ahem) unknown person would be a top priority, don't you think? Or could it be that they know damn well who forged those documents?

Scylla

08-17-2005, 08:36 PM

sure Scylla . market share of Air America vs Fox et al , especially factoring in amount of air play. Disingenous does not play well.

Shit, Babaloo. Franken is bigger than Air America, but who mentioned that? You, not me.

How about CNN vs. Fox. or NYT vs. Fox. or CBS vs. Fox.

Speaking of disingenuous! Shame on you. You used to be so virtuous, and perfect in my eye, but now you have marred this perfect divine image I have of you, and proven you have feat of clay.

Lamar Mundane

08-17-2005, 08:45 PM

Don't you find it odd that Rather, CBS et al have shown no interest whatsoever in finding out just who did forge those documents and pass them off as real? One would imagine that finding that (ahem) unknown person would be a top priority, don't you think? Or could it be that they know damn well who forged those documents?
Personally, I think they'd love more than anything to find out who produced the documents, considering it took less than an hour after the show aired for some guy on an obscure website to figure it all out and post a rather detailed debunking.

I think CBS got set up, big time.

wring

08-17-2005, 08:47 PM

Shit, Babaloo. Franken is bigger than Air America, but who mentioned that? You, not me. hell I like Franken, can't get him, can't get away from the rest. and aint no way CNN= Fox. or NYT vs. Fox. CBS /= rather.

Shame on you. You used to be so virtuous, and perfect in my eye, but now you have marred this perfect divine image I have of you, and proven you have feat of clay.
back atchya, babe.

Stephe96

08-17-2005, 08:53 PM

Personally, I think they'd love more than anything to find out who produced the documents, considering it took less than an hour after the show aired for some guy on an obscure website to figure it all out and post a rather detailed debunking.

I think CBS got set up, big time.

But wait a minute. Dan Rather told us his sources were "unimpeachable." He obviously knows who passed them along to CBS. Are you telling me that CBS can't follow the paper trail back to the Kerry campa----uh....I mean, whomever it was that forged the documents?

Lamar Mundane

08-17-2005, 09:09 PM

But wait a minute. Dan Rather told us his sources were "unimpeachable." He obviously knows who passed them along to CBS. Are you telling me that CBS can't follow the paper trail back to the Kerry campa----uh....I mean, whomever it was that forged the documents?
They know who gave them to CBS. The question is, who forged them in the first place?

Stephe96

08-17-2005, 09:13 PM

By the way, if, if, IF what Drudge is reporting tonight http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm is accurate then Cindy Sheehan has just become 'fair game,' as far as I'm concerned:

"We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!"

So declared Cindy Sheehan earlier this year during a rally at at San Francisco State University.

Also:

"We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now." (Huh?)

"If he thinks that it’s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go this war." (You cross the line right there, Cindy. Spare us the 'grieving mother' schtick, please. Your son was an adult and signed up for the military...in fact, he re -enlisted! Bush's daughters are adults...they can sign up or not. It's their choice. Bush cannot 'sign them up' anymore than you could've stop Casey from doing so).

As I said, this all depends on whether or not Drudge's source is accurate here. We all know he's no Dan Rather :dubious: , but I require a second source before I believe Drudge's own reports.

Scylla

08-17-2005, 09:14 PM

Debaser, your mental gymnastics amuse me. I like the “Swiftboaters didn’t lie” statement. Of course they lied.

For example: In the Swiftboat ads a man named Van O'Dell claims: “ John Kerry lied to get his bronze star...I know, I was there, I saw what happened.” Basically he claims they weren’t under fire.

Now we can believe the other Swiftboaters (apparently the ones not for truth), who were there and on the same damn boat, the Naval records, and logic, or we can’t back ourselves into a mental corner, and say the SVFT didn’t lie. [/quote]

I have really studied this March 13, 1969 incident. Your analysis is simply neither true nor fair. You have neglected to mention that the commanders of the two other working Swiftboats (after the mine under PCF3 went off) observed no fire, and the gunners on those boats who were saturating the area after the explosion reported no fire. Nor, did any of the boats suffer any bullet holes (yet this is not the terribly convincing argument one would think it is against incoming fire for reasons we don't need to go into.)

The naval records of the report are Kerry's version. Kerry has told at least three different versions of this incident. One of the wounds he reports to have suffered during this incident he describes getting in a different way on page 313 of his tour of duty book (he set off a grenade in a rice bin and stood to close.)

After reading all the different accounts both Kerry's and the Swiftvets, I beleive Kerry acted honorably and correctly that day and indeed during his Vietnam service.

But, I challenge you to prove your assertion that Van O'Dell lied.

Failing that:

What exactly do you consider a lie? I know this is hard to believe, but I consider it lying when someone tells me an untruth. It’s immaterial what their motivations are, or whether they realize it’s an untruth. If I am presented with a “fact” that turns out not to be true. Then in my world, that is a lie.

You will (by your definition, not mine) lied.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. He is not entitled to his own facts."

Oh, I agree.

Stephe96

08-17-2005, 09:15 PM

They know who gave them to CBS. The question is, who forged them in the first place?

Why doesn't Dan let us know who gave him the documents. Nobody needs to protect a source that has burned you. Give us a name, Dan. We'll take it from there!

Scylla

08-17-2005, 09:23 PM

By the way, if, if, IF what Drudge is reporting tonight http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm is accurate then Cindy Sheehan has just become 'fair game,' as far as I'm concerned:

No. The woman lost her son. She is entitled to her opinion. She can say what she wants. As far as I'm concerned that loss means it's wrong to attack her. For all I care, she can claim that Bush personally killed her son, and I won't attack her. I don't credit her opinions or give special weight to her desires, but I think she has a free pass to say what she wants about the war and what it has cost her without recrimination.

Rufus Xavier

08-17-2005, 09:25 PM

Seems to me we might need a recount here:

OK, well, let's use Scylla's definition: "An unproven premise disseminated with intent to denigrate."

"Kerry and Hillary felt compelled to send US troops into battle" (Smear? I'd call this an irrefutable fact). Well, I refute it. They authorized Bush to send US troops into battle, but only if he felt compelled to do so. Whether or not you see this as abdication of their responsibilities, it in no way indicates that they felt compelled. Since the decision to send troops to this battle is now widely seen as a mistake, this unproven premise can easily be seen as an attempt to denigrate.

"Funny how she's not blaming the enemy for killing her son." (Another fact -she's blaming Bush for killing her son). Another "fact," huh? You have knowledge of all her feelings regarding who is responsible for her son's death? You know that she blames only Bush? Unproven attempt to denigrate.

"money for children and Alzheimer's patients somehow winds up in the coffers of Air America?" (Fact). Yes, plainly stated, this is a fact. 51 to 47, now.

"I loved watching the Move-On idiots and the Michael Moore morons lose 'the most important election of our lives.'" (Opinion). Perhaps you can clarify your opinion, here. Is it your assertion that all the members of MoveOn.org are idiots and that the fans of Michael Moore are morons? The terms idiot and moron are real words with real meaning. Prove that they apply in this case.

(Well, I guess this is a smear against Deadhead losers....but not Cindy Sheehan). Where is it stated that I am only counting smears against Cindy Sheehan? Irrelevant.

Is she taking money from Michael Moore, by any chance?" (A simple question is now considered a 'smear?' Wow). This is not a simple question. In fact, taken in context with your many other postings in this thread, you have been insinuating that Cindy Sheehan is the paid puppet of Michael Moore, who has orchestrated this whole thing as a publicity stunt. Just attaching a question mark to an unproved assertion does not remove the implication. Is Rush Limbaugh taking money from Karl Rove, by any chance?

Scylla wrote
"Rufus:
That is completely unfair. I was smearing the Spanish, not liberals."

Actually, you were attempting to smear RedFury. "Unfair" is an apt word, though, for your attempt.

Scylla

08-17-2005, 09:26 PM

back atchya, babe.

That's hot.

Scylla

08-17-2005, 09:33 PM

Scylla wrote
"Rufus:
That is completely unfair. I was smearing the Spanish, not liberals."

Actually, you were attempting to smear RedFury. "Unfair" is an apt word, though, for your attempt.

To be more accurate, I was attempting to smear Redfury by way of the Spanish. As for "unfair" I strongly assert otherwise. Redfury had previously characterized me as a "chickenhawk" and suggested I liked to kill "towelheads." Turnabout is fair play, therefore my smears were justified.

He drew first smear, not me. Of course, I called him a "dipshit" before that, but that was simply because he claimed moral highground as a foreigner for having pointed out an ironic acronym, so clearly he is a dipshit for that and I was justified.

Stephe96

08-17-2005, 09:34 PM

."

"Kerry and Hillary felt compelled to send US troops into battle" (Smear? I'd call this an irrefutable fact). Well, I refute it. They authorized Bush to send US troops into battle, but only if he felt compelled to do so. Whether or not you see this as abdication of their responsibilities, it in no way indicates that they felt compelled. Since the decision to send troops to this battle is now widely seen as a mistake, this unproven premise can easily be seen as an attempt to denigrate.

".

If they didn't want to send US troops into battle, they should've voted 'No'...as did Ted Kennedy.

Scylla

08-17-2005, 09:42 PM

If they didn't want to send US troops into battle, they should've voted 'No'...as did Ted Kennedy.

I think Rufus is correct. The authorization they voted for clearly gives Bush a mandate for sending troops in to battle at his discretion.

If I tell you "If you feel it is necessary you may go to the store and buy bleach," this is a different thing from my telling you to go to the store and buy bleach.

They gave Bush permission and authority to do something. They didn't do it. Bush did.

Stephe96

08-17-2005, 09:52 PM

I think Rufus is correct. The authorization they voted for clearly gives Bush a mandate for sending troops in to battle at his discretion.

If I tell you "If you feel it is necessary you may go to the store and buy bleach," this is a different thing from my telling you to go to the store and buy bleach.

.

Well...this is a very fine line, I think you'll agree. OK, fine. It was a 'smear' to say that Kerry and Hillary voted to send troops to Iraq. I guess.

But, using your 'bleach' example...if you tell me, "Don't buy any bleach," then no bleach will be purchased.

Scylla

08-17-2005, 10:02 PM

Well...this is a very fine line, I think you'll agree. OK, fine. It was a 'smear' to say that Kerry and Hillary voted to send troops to Iraq. I guess.

Only if you had intent to denigrate, and don't worry, it's third degree mansmear at best since you thought it was true. Cop a plea and you'll be out in 6 months.

Paul in Qatar

08-17-2005, 11:26 PM

HPL

08-18-2005, 01:07 AM

Stephe96 is playing the "guilt-by-constant-association" trick. Lame.

So, the leftists are planning to kill Kevin Bacon! We must stop Moore and his dasterdly schemes once and for all!

Kevin Bacon, We shall avenge thee!

rjung

08-18-2005, 02:03 AM

I have checked the rulebook and I do not see that one person's death (her son) gives someone else (her) a morally superior position. Further, the rules do not have an exception to attack for bereaved family.
If you've been spending the last three or four years mouthing how you "support the troops," though, attacking bereaved family members of fallen servicemen does seem rather hypocritical, IMO.

There's a rather big difference between an opinionated "Cindy Sheehan is wrong" and an unsubstantiated "Cindy Sheehan is secretly funded by Michael Moore and is only in this for the money."

Paul in Qatar

08-18-2005, 03:28 AM

I have done neither. But so what if I did? This person has made herself fair game for all the traditional political gotcha. Remarkably (and I have not followed this non-story too closely) I do not think she herself is complaining.

Good for her.

cosmosdan

08-18-2005, 07:03 AM

Rufus:
Where did I say he did that? What's up with false attribution. If you think Dan did that than you say it, but don't attribute it to me.

I don't see TV news anchors fabricating documents to falsely implicate Democrativ figures.

Which TV news anchor were you speaking of here?

bizzwire

08-18-2005, 07:11 AM

Which TV news anchor were you speaking of here?

Thanks for fielding this one for me, [b]CosmoDan[b].

cosmosdan

08-18-2005, 08:00 AM

Thanks for fielding this one for me, [b]CosmoDan[b].

NP, It's a sincere question. I thought, Duh,...I must have missed some other news anchor thing.

BTW, there's an S, it's CosmosDan. For some reason it's a very common mistake here on the SDMB. You did better than Scylla. He called me Cosmodon twice, although it may not have been an accident.

ElvisL1ves

08-18-2005, 08:32 AM

I have checked the rulebook Really? I've been looking all over for a copy. Do you have a link?

Frank

08-18-2005, 08:43 AM

BTW, there's an S, it's CosmosDan. For some reason it's a very common mistake here on the SDMB. You did better than Scylla. He called me Cosmodon twice, although it may not have been an accident.
So tell, me, Cosmoodan, er, Comosodan, er, Comasoodan, er, Cosmosday, er... Aw, fuck it.

cosmosdan

08-18-2005, 08:52 AM

So tell, me, Cosmoodan, er, Comosodan, er, Comasoodan, er, Cosmosday, er... Aw, fuck it.

Now there's an idea, I could change my user name to AwFuckIt and everybody would get it right. Thanks for the inspiration This Year's Noodle

Paul in Qatar

08-18-2005, 09:38 AM

Really? I've been looking all over for a copy. Do you have a link?

Sorry, we all have copies, but you can't have or ever see it. It is right here in the rule book itself.

Merijeek

08-18-2005, 10:01 AM

Now there's an idea, I could change my user name to AwFuckIt and everybody would get it right. Thanks for the inspiration This Year's Noodle

I've always read it as cosmodan. Then again, if you change I just might have to read the new one as AwFuckWit. :)

-Joe, on hold for 32 minutes and counting

Scylla

08-18-2005, 08:41 PM

Which TV news anchor were you speaking of here?

Since I'm noting an absence, a sample of none, clearly I am discussing none.

Sorry about the mispelling of your name though. I'm dyslexic.

EddyTeddyFreddy

08-18-2005, 09:01 PM

No. The woman lost her son. She is entitled to her opinion. She can say what she wants. As far as I'm concerned that loss means it's wrong to attack her. For all I care, she can claim that Bush personally killed her son, and I won't attack her. I don't credit her opinions or give special weight to her desires, but I think she has a free pass to say what she wants about the war and what it has cost her without recrimination. Scylla, you and I are far apart on most issues, and there are times when you royally piss me off. But (whether you value it or not) you've earned my respect with this statement.

cosmosdan

08-18-2005, 09:24 PM

Since I'm noting an absence, a sample of none, clearly I am discussing none.

You made the statement I quoted when defending your position that there is much more Liberal/ Democratic media smearing on a national level than there is Republican / Conservative. It would only make sense or have any meaning if you were referencing some specific action that supported your position. In the same way you referenced Howard Dean in the sentance prior to it. Were you not referencing any action of Dean either?

If not a reference to some specific act then what was it? How did it support your position?

Scylla

08-18-2005, 09:42 PM

cosmosdan

08-18-2005, 10:18 PM

Cosmological:

I am happy with the words as I wrote them. They convey the exact meaning and sentiments I wished to convey, and I don't wish to alter them so that they convey a different meaning. I am unwilling to alter them so that they convey a falsehood simply so that you can have the satisfaction of pouncing on a falsehood.

And I am not asking you to do any such thing. According to your statements I evidently misunderstood your meaning. I have asked you to help me understand what you meant. Will you?

Scylla

08-18-2005, 10:26 PM

And I am not asking you to do any such thing. According to your statements I evidently misunderstood your meaning. I have asked you to help me understand what you meant. Will you?

Of course, and my apologies if I seemed surly.

I have merely noted the absence of network achormen forging documents that implicate liberal political figures in illegal and unethical activities.

Perhaps you wonder if conversely I am suggesting that they have done so for conservative political figures. I am not. I am however attempting to be evocative of Dan Rather's vouching for the authenticity of forged documents implicating a conservative political figure.

You may find fault or issue with the fact that the converse of my statement is not accurate, but if you were to do so, I would think you were being petty and engaging in unnecessary deconstruction as such accuracy is not required in this context in the implied converse. It merely has to be evocative. To this purpose I feel the statement suffices and stand behind it.

Better?

Barely Adequate

08-18-2005, 10:37 PM

"I have checked the rulebook and I do not see that one person's death (her son) gives someone else (her) a morally superior position."
Then is there anything that might give anyone a morally superior position in this instance? Are we to grant this position to solely the Commander-in-Chief? Scary... <shudder>

cosmosdan

08-18-2005, 10:42 PM

Of course, and my apologies if I seemed surly.

I have merely noted the absence of network achormen forging documents that implicate liberal political figures in illegal and unethical activities.

Perhaps you wonder if conversely I am suggesting that they have done so for conservative political figures. I am not. I am however attempting to be evocative of Dan Rather's vouching for the authenticity of forged documents implicating a conservative political figure.

You may find fault or issue with the fact that the converse of my statement is not accurate, but if you were to do so, I would think you were being petty and engaging in unnecessary deconstruction as such accuracy is not required in this context in the implied converse. It merely has to be evocative. To this purpose I feel the statement suffices and stand behind it.

Better?

Sure. I did wonder what the point was of making such a statement if the converse wasn't expected to be true. You're saying the point was to be evocative of the Dan Rather incident without pointing to it directly. I suspected as much.
You're correct, " such accuracy is not required in this context in the implied converse." I'm sure you knew how people would take it. That tells me enough.

Scylla

08-18-2005, 10:45 PM

I'm sure you knew how people would take it. That tells me enough.

What does it tell you?

cosmosdan

08-18-2005, 11:01 PM

Then is there anything that might give anyone a morally superior position in this instance? Are we to grant this position to solely the Commander-in-Chief? Scary... <shudder>

I think the point is that Mrs Sheehan's understandable grief and anger do not automatically give more wieght to her opinions or make her morally superior in any way.

I'm sure some parents who lost children in WWII thought FDR was a lying scumbag asshole who sent their child to die in a European war that was none of our buisness.
Does history indicate they were correct?

Don't misunderstand me. I think GWB is a lying scumbag asshole without an ounce of morality, but, the fact that Casey Sheehan was killed in Iraq doesn't make Cindy Sheehan an more {or less} correct. It does give her a platform and I'm glad she's useing it.

cosmosdan

08-18-2005, 11:02 PM

What does it tell you?

Oh,....I think you know. ;)

vibrotronica

08-19-2005, 11:14 AM

I have merely noted the absence of network achormen forging documents that implicate liberal political figures in illegal and unethical activities.
Please provide a cite of an instance where a network anchorman forged any documents. A network anchorman who did the forging, as you have accused here. That will give you another post in which you can avoid talking about the bullshit that got us into an untenable war that the Sheehan protest is designed to call attention to.

By the way, while we're on the subject of forging, who do you think forged the Niger uranium documents?

Evil Captor

08-19-2005, 11:53 AM

Sorry, Mrs Sheehan has entered the political arena and people do and say nasty things there. Even worse, they often say things that are nasty, rude and true. If she did not want that kind of attention, she ought not have put herself in that line of fire.

I have checked the rulebook and I do not see that one person's death (her son) gives someone else (her) a morally superior position. Further, the rules do not have an exception to attack for bereaved family.

She asked for it. She got. There is no reason to complain about it.

She DOES have the moral high ground. She wrote a check with her son's life, which the US government has cashed. Her sacrifice is incredibly greater than anyone else debating the issue, including Dubya, who just sent a bunch of poor kids to get killed cause it made him feel more like a man. While we are under no obligation to agree with Ms. Sheehan, we are obliged to listen respectfully to what she has to say, and to give her words greater weight than, say, some online potzer who's got nothing better to do than make derogatory comments about the mothers of dead soldiers.

Mr. Moto

08-19-2005, 12:58 PM

She DOES have the moral high ground. She wrote a check with her son's life, which the US government has cashed. Her sacrifice is incredibly greater than anyone else debating the issue, including Dubya, who just sent a bunch of poor kids to get killed cause it made him feel more like a man.

Ronald Griffin (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007122) is also debating this issue. His sacrifice is at least as great as Cindy Sheehan's, as he also lost a son in Iraq.

How would you judge his moral high ground?

I lost a son in Iraq and Cindy Sheehan does not speak for me.

I grieve with Mrs. Sheehan, for all too well I know the full measure of the agony she is forever going to endure. I honor her son for his service and sacrifice. However, I abhor all that she represents and those who would cast her as the symbol for parents of our fallen soldiers.

The fallen heroes, until now, have enjoyed virtually no individuality. They have been treated as a monolith, a mere number. Now Mrs. Sheehan, with adept public relations tactics, has succeeded in elevating herself above the rest of us. Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida declared that Mrs. Sheehan is now the symbol for all parents who have lost children in Iraq. Sorry, senator. Not for me.

Merijeek

08-19-2005, 01:47 PM

So?

A guy disagrees with a Senator who made a half-assed broad generalization. I thought it was okay as long as nobody put the word "official" in there anywhere.

Unless you're saying that "A cancels B therefore B should shut up". In which case I guess the only way to find out which side is right is to find the mothers of 1800+ dead servicemen/women and ask them how they feel.

I'll buy you the phone card if you make the calls.

-Joe

Evil Captor

08-19-2005, 01:52 PM

Ronald Griffin (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007122) is also debating this issue. His sacrifice is at least as great as Cindy Sheehan's, as he also lost a son in Iraq.

How would you judge his moral high ground?

I would say that I am obligated to listen respectfully to his words, though not to agree with him, and also I am obligated not to make personal attacks against him.

For example, I am obligated not to call him a hysterical right wing nut job being led astray by Bushco in his crazed grief. I will not do that, for that would be wrong. Even if that were my honest opinion, it would be wrong to belittle him so after what he's been through.

Would that everyone understood this.

cosmosdan

08-19-2005, 02:39 PM

I would say that I am obligated to listen respectfully to his words, though not to agree with him, and also I am obligated not to make personal attacks against him.

For example, I am obligated not to call him a hysterical right wing nut job being led astray by Bushco in his crazed grief. I will not do that, for that would be wrong. Even if that were my honest opinion, it would be wrong to belittle him so after what he's been through.

Would that everyone understood this.
Well put. I agree.

cosmosdan

08-19-2005, 02:40 PM

Please provide a cite of an instance where a network anchorman forged any documents. A network anchorman who did the forging, as you have accused here. That will give you another post in which you can avoid talking about the bullshit that got us into an untenable war that the Sheehan protest is designed to call attention to.

By the way, while we're on the subject of forging, who do you think forged the Niger uranium documents?
Better read what you quoted again. It says "abscence of"

Scylla

08-19-2005, 06:28 PM

Please provide a cite of an instance where a network anchorman forged any documents. A network anchorman who did the forging, as you have accused here.

Please provide a cite showing that I have made that specific accusation, and I will either gladly support it or retract it.

That will give you another post in which you can avoid talking about the bullshit that got us into an untenable war that the Sheehan protest is designed to call attention to.

Oh you lying sack of shit. I have not avoided any topic. In fact, I'll bet I've spent far more time on these boards talking specifically about the Iraq war than you have.

First, you prove yourself to be totally stupid that you can't even comprehend basic sentences, and ask me for a cite for something I didn't say, now you accuse me of avoiding a topic that I've been active upon at length. It's doubly stupid because this thread is not about the Iraq war, it is about the "Right wing smear machine."

Perhaps if we were posting in a thread about the Iraq war you might have a point. Seeing as we're not you just a moron. You wouldn't happen to be from spain, would you.

By the way, while we're on the subject of forging, who do you think forged the Niger uranium documents?

Col. Mustard in the library with a candlestick, you brainless twit.

bizzwire

08-19-2005, 07:09 PM

Squink

08-19-2005, 07:13 PM

Winding sheets, dead guys and bathroom humor: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050819/ts_nm/bush_protester_dc) 'I GIVE A SHEET'

More than 1,800 American soldiers have died in Iraq and thousands have been injured.

About 80 Bush supporters, including a group that chartered a plane from Georgia, held a rally dubbed "I Give A Sheet" at the nearby Crawford Community Center.

They hung up white sheets filled with written messages like "Mr. Bush, you are doing a great job, thank you for all your hard work! God Bless America!"I'll bet they all piled into the local diner for a soup and sandwich lunch after the big demo.

RedFury

08-19-2005, 07:27 PM

Scylla, you macho-man you, ever think of putting all that pent-up Internet anger to good use? Because if you haven't, I've got just the ticket for you:

Find a Recruiter (http://www.goarmy.com/contact/find_a_recruiter.jsp?hmref=cs)

Yeah, I know, I really shouldn't be so nice with total strangers, but what the hey, not like I'll be the one losing a limb or two over it. So no need to thanks me. Really.

But you're welcomed anyway.

BTW, is your needle stuck on "Spain"? Sure seems that way. Careful now, don't want to wear-out your ace in the asshole.

NicePete

08-19-2005, 08:17 PM

I liked this editorial cartoon. (http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050819/OPINION03/50818028) Pot, meet kettle.

Mr. Moto

08-19-2005, 08:26 PM

Scylla, you macho-man you, ever think of putting all that pent-up Internet anger to good use? Because if you haven't, I've got just the ticket for you:

Find a Recruiter (http://www.goarmy.com/contact/find_a_recruiter.jsp?hmref=cs)

That site shows that the Army is looking for medical corpsmen. Why aren't you signing up to do this important work?

You know, since you seem to be so concerned about the safety and well-being of the troops, here's an excellent way for you to demonstrate this.

RedFury

08-19-2005, 08:43 PM

That site shows that the Army is looking for medical corpsmen. Why aren't you signing up to do this important work?

You know, since you seem to be so concerned about the safety and well-being of the troops, here's an excellent way for you to demonstrate this.

You're asking the wrong guy -- on all levels. I'll leave it to you to figure out why (http://www.allstates-flag.com/images/full-size/flags/international/spain.gif).

Seriously now, what do you get if you rub two braincells together?

The likes of you, Scylla or Sam Stone. Not sure what happens to the leftovers other than Shrub could surely use them.

Scylla

08-19-2005, 08:49 PM

BTW, is your needle stuck on "Spain"? Sure seems that way. Careful now, don't want to wear-out your ace in the asshole.

It does seem that way, doesn't it?

I just read everything you write, and picture Antonio Banderas, or Inigo Montoya, or dare I say... Ricardo Montalban?

"By ze way. Is your needle, how do you say, ahhh, yes... "Stuck" on "Spain?".... etc, etc...

Your typos (Hey I have worse typos) seem somehow evocative of something Latino.

Mr. Moto

08-19-2005, 08:52 PM

You're asking the wrong guy -- on all levels. I'll leave it to you to figure out why (http://www.allstates-flag.com/images/full-size/flags/international/spain.gif).

Hell, that's no impediment. My ship had a good number of citizens of other countries serving right alongside our guys.

A few of these guys came from Mexico. Another was a Guatamalan. We also had some guys from the Philippines and a Scot.

All told, it was about a dozen guys out of a crew of about 300.

So, given your concern and all, you really should follow their fine example and sign up and help out.

RedFury

08-19-2005, 09:11 PM

Hell, that's no impediment. My ship had a good number of citizens of other countries serving right alongside our guys.

A few of these guys came from Mexico. Another was a Guatamalan. We also had some guys from the Philippines and a Scot.

All told, it was about a dozen guys out of a crew of about 300.

So, given your concern and all, you really should follow their fine example and sign up and help out.

Bzzzzt! Wrong! I am neither trying to get to the US nor do I need a Green Card as all those poor basteds obviosly do -- point of fact, I turned down US citizenship simply because it implied giving up my original nationality. As it stands now I can go in and out of the US anytime I want to, and that's just fine with me.

If anything, my born and bred American son won't be there much longer if it means becoming cannon-fodder for Imperialistic adventures. One of the few things my american ex and I agree on -- none of us will offer to die for your endless greed.

Determined,

~Red

RedFury

08-19-2005, 09:20 PM

It does seem that way, doesn't it?

I just read everything you write, and picture Antonio Banderas, or Inigo Montoya, or dare I say... Ricardo Montalban?

"By ze way. Is your needle, how do you say, ahhh, yes... "Stuck" on "Spain?".... etc, etc...

Your typos (Hey I have worse typos) seem somehow evocative of something Latino.

No doubt the CIA should hire you. For they need people like you to determine who's a true self-professed Latino or not.
Once again, I am here to help -- though it's getting a bit tedious:

How to Apply (http://www.cia.gov/employment/apply.html)

And once again, you're welcome.

Scylla

08-19-2005, 10:34 PM

Mr. Moto

08-19-2005, 11:22 PM

Bzzzzt! Wrong! I am neither trying to get to the US nor do I need a Green Card as all those poor basteds obviosly do -- point of fact, I turned down US citizenship simply because it implied giving up my original nationality. As it stands now I can go in and out of the US anytime I want to, and that's just fine with me.

I'm happy you enjoy our hospitality so much.

I don't like your disparagement of the honorable service of friends of mine, though. They did more for their adopted country than most newcomers, and I'm grateful to have had them around.

If anything, my born and bred American son won't be there much longer if it means becoming cannon-fodder for Imperialistic adventures. One of the few things my american ex and I agree on -- none of us will offer to die for your endless greed.

I wish your son every success, obviously. But if this little episone has taught us anything, it is that, whatever we might wish, we cannot determine what course our children might take when they grow up. They have to make their own way with their own choices. And these choices might be ones we disapprove of, and they might leave our sons or daughters dead before their time.

RedFury

08-20-2005, 01:31 AM

I wish your son every success, obviously. But if this little episone has taught us anything, it is that, whatever we might wish, we cannot determine what course our children might take when they grow up. They have to make their own way with their own choices. And these choices might be ones we disapprove of, and they might leave our sons or daughters dead before their time.

Dunno. Think this poor kid (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/illustrating_absurdity/gallery_12.parcol2.0015.ImageFile.jpg) has a shot at a normal life despite his rather obvious, huge handicap?

Disclaimer: Any resemblance to our Usual Suspects is purely coincidental.

RedFury

08-20-2005, 01:54 AM

Redfury:

Well, if I joined the CIA, I might actually have to expose myself to danger when they make me a secret agent. Being the chickenhawk that you claim I am you should no better than to make such a suggestion to me.

Don't let your worrying about me keep you from your native genocide or inquisitations, m'kay?

No problem, dude. I've kept my genocidal impulses under wraps for close to fifty years by now.

Can you say the same for yourself and your country (http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=91)? Yeah, I know, you don't give a fuck what the rest of us think.

Too bad the only way you're willing to back your position is from behind the comfort of your heroic keyboard.

Grow a pair, pussy. Enlist. (http://www.army.com/enlist/)

rjung

08-20-2005, 02:05 AM

I liked this editorial cartoon. (http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050819/OPINION03/50818028) Pot, meet kettle.
I recommend this one, myself. (http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20050817/cx_bs_uc/bs20050817;_ylt=AphcUsoaoz9gSeZWMs_IwS0xvTYC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

Mr. Moto

08-20-2005, 02:14 AM

Grow a pair, pussy. Enlist. (http://www.army.com/enlist/)

I invited you to do the same. Why haven't you taken me up on it?

RedFury

08-20-2005, 02:31 AM

I invited you to do the same. Why haven't you taken me up on it?

If you were any thicker they'd pour you out of a cement mixer.

IOW, asked and answered.

kiffa

08-20-2005, 03:48 AM

Is it true about that let's support our president sign the petition because I give a sheet???? I read that a WH spokesman accepted 32 white sheets signed by his supports from Chicago.... all the while no one could accept the other side's letter requesting accountability.

Give a sheet - shit. Sheets must have been crib sized.

bizzwire

08-20-2005, 01:07 PM

Cosmological:

I am happy with the words as I wrote them. They convey the exact meaning and sentiments I wished to convey, and I don't wish to alter them so that they convey a different meaning. I am unwilling to alter them so that they convey a falsehood simply so that you can have the satisfaction of pouncing on a falsehood.

So you're saying that neither the right nor the left used forged documents for partisan smears? That's an, um, interesting point, but I'll go you one better: It's equally true that no journalist from either side has stuffed a kielbasa up their ass and done the Mexican hat dance in an attempt to discredit the other side. Prove me wrong.

Revtim

08-20-2005, 02:52 PM

It's equally true that no journalist from either side has stuffed a kielbasa up their ass and done the Mexican hat dance in an attempt to discredit the other side. Prove me wrong.False: Tom Brokaw did in 1998. CNN link (http://just_kidding_dude)

Stoid

08-20-2005, 02:55 PM

I'm sure some parents who lost children in WWII thought FDR was a lying scumbag asshole who sent their child to die in a European war that was none of our buisness.
Does history indicate they were correct?

And I'm pretty sure that "some" might be 3 or 4 at best. WWII was pretty universally seen as a just and righteous war in America.

bizzwire

08-20-2005, 03:26 PM

False: Tom Brokaw did in 1998. CNN link (http://just_kidding_dude)

LOL..good one.....Ya got me, fair and square.

cosmosdan

08-20-2005, 06:21 PM

I'd say more "Byzantine" than "Better."

Did I mention how I liked this response. :)

cosmosdan

08-20-2005, 06:31 PM

And I'm pretty sure that "some" might be 3 or 4 at best. WWII was pretty universally seen as a just and righteous war in America.

Perhaps in the end that was true but FDR saw a need to stop Hitler years before the US got involved. The US was still hurting from WWI and our citizens didn't want to get involved in another European war. FDR had to promise during his campaign for reelection that he wouldn't take us into another war even though he believed we really needed to be there. He circumvented existing laws to provide military aide to England and to step up ourt military production. Then after he won again he sent ships out looking for German subs hoping for a reason to get in, such as being attacked. It took years of planning to convince the public to get involved and I'm sure even after we did go in plenty of people still disagreed.

Squink

08-20-2005, 07:11 PM

America First (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First) The America First movement was an isolationalist group that opposed United States involvement in World War II. Many prominent Americans were members, including aviator Charles Lindbergh. At its peak, America First had 800,000 members.

Scylla

08-20-2005, 07:24 PM

And I'm pretty sure that "some" might be 3 or 4 at best. WWII was pretty universally seen as a just and righteous war in America.

No. just absolutely, and inarguably false.

John Mace

08-20-2005, 08:14 PM

There was only one "no" vote when Congress declared war on Japan. As for Germany, they openly declared war on the US, so we were essentially forced to declare war on them. I couldn't find a cite for what the vote was for declaring war on Germany, but it couldn't have been much different.

Had Roosevelt pushed us into the war before Pearl Harbor, I suspect the oppostion to war, in Congress, would have been pretty substantial.

Sam Stone

08-20-2005, 08:16 PM

And I'm pretty sure that "some" might be 3 or 4 at best. WWII was pretty universally seen as a just and righteous war in America.

There was plenty of opposition to WWII, before, during, and criticism of U.S. occupation of Japan and Germany after. LOTS of opposition. My own grandfather refused to fight and was given conscientious objector status because of his religion. Some people were jailed. The U.S. didn't enter the war for 2 years after it really started, due to the strength of the isolationist movement.

Once in the war, FDR was heavily criticised for focusing on Germany, because after all, it was a distraction from the war on Japan. Japan attacked the U.S., not Germany. Sound familiar? If Germany hadn't declared war on the U.S., this would have been even more controversial. Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, and a few months later America is fighting the Germans in Africa? WTF? Those men could have been used to fight Japan! Maybe the Philippines could have been saved if FDR hadn't taken his eye off the ball...

The strategies and tactics all through the war were criticised by the opposition. MacArthur took heat for leaving the Philippines, and his 'island hopping' strategy even got him labelled a coward by some. The U.S. made all kinds of strategic errors during the war. Operation Market Garden was a colossal failure that cost the allies 4000 soldiers. A training accident in the run-up to D-Day killed 700 soldiers.

Had today's 24-7 media been around in WWII, I wonder what would have happened? Would the U.S. maintained the resolve it had if every mistake had been blasted all over the airwaves? How much hand-wringing would there have been been had reporters from the front lines had TV cameras broadcasting scenes of allied retreats, fields of bodies, and triumphant German soldiers? Would we have had major scandals over U.S. policy of summarily executing German soldiers caught out of uniform during the Battle of the Bulge?

No one knows, but to say that there was virtually no opposition to WWII and how it was conducted is simply ridiculous.

Squink

08-20-2005, 08:44 PM

Had today's 24-7 media been around in WWII, I wonder what would have happened?We'd have made sure that Hitler and Tojo really did have Weapons of Mass Destruction and the will to use them before attacking a foreign power that posed no threat to us.
Oh, wait... :smack: It's today's 24-7 media that provided much of the impetus to get us into this clusterfuck in the first place.

Updike

08-20-2005, 10:47 PM

No. just absolutely, and inarguably false.

I've got $50 that says Stoid won't be back to defend his/her position, either.

TVeblen

08-20-2005, 10:55 PM

Had Roosevelt pushed us into the war before Pearl Harbor, I suspect the oppostion to war, in Congress, would have been pretty substantial.

Roosevelt schmoozed, strong-armed and basically played every savvy political ploy available to jam through Lend Lease, etc. when the war was still confined to Europe. Even that carefully oblique level of involvement met with considerable resistance at home. He pushed all right--but he did it very cannily.

It's not an exact parallel, though history rarely runs to formulaic templates. A large portion of the significant-players globe was already at war or dry tinder ready for a spark. The US has tended toward isolationist comfort, based in large part on the blessings of geography. If those 'out there' run amok, we're cushioned by distance and the home-grown ability to ride out their fights.

The 9/11 attack was horrendous by any measure of civilized behavior. I fault Bush/Rove for dumbing down the entire context to careless, stupid shock-and-awe warmongering, tied together with flimsy patriotic ribbons. Not in selling this damned stupid war; for not knowing what the fuck he was doing in the first place.

Foolish Bush/Rove started where feisy Teddy Roosevelt ended after losing sons to the carnage of WWI: jingoistic, bellicose, narrow and blind to realities outside their immediate world.

cosmosdan

08-21-2005, 07:29 AM

I've got $50 that says Stoid won't be back to defend his/her position, either.

I think a white flag and a "thanks for the education" would be appropriate.

RickJay

08-21-2005, 08:45 AM

There was plenty of opposition to WWII, before, during, and criticism of U.S. occupation of Japan and Germany after.
While Stoid exaggerrated the unanimiity of support, you would be hard pressed to show that support for fighting the war wasn't quite a bit higher than support for Iraq. The U.S. citizenry went through far, far more loss and deprivation in WWII, by orders of magnitude, and still largely supported the war from start to finish - not only in terms of "opinion polls" but it terms of the substantial actions they took to support it.

cosmosdan

08-21-2005, 10:01 AM

While Stoid exaggerrated the unanimiity of support, you would be hard pressed to show that support for fighting the war wasn't quite a bit higher than support for Iraq. The U.S. citizenry went through far, far more loss and deprivation in WWII, by orders of magnitude, and still largely supported the war from start to finish - not only in terms of "opinion polls" but it terms of the substantial actions they took to support it.

But since nobody stated or even infered such a thing nobody has to defend it.

Sam Stone

08-21-2005, 12:21 PM

I never even came close to saying that. After Pearl Harbor, the isolationist movement quieted down, America First! disbanded, etc. Lindberg went from being a Nazi-sympathising isolationist to joining the war effort.

However, criticism of HOW the war was conducted continued, and sometimes it was quite vociferous. Every decision made was scrutinized and argued over. And after the war there was strident disagreement over the plans for the occupation and reconstruction of the axis powers.

And don't forget, the isolationist movement kept the U.S. out of WWII for two full years after all of its allies were fighting and dying. Canada entered the war in 1939, and had already suffered significant losses by the time of Pearl Harbor.

Has the isolationist movement not been so strong, the U.S. might have entered the war earlier, and it might have ended sooner with much less loss of life. Or maybe not - it's hard to predict the effect of a change of that magnitude. But the fact remains, America was very late to the party, and that was the result of a strong anti-war movement at home. That has to be counted as 'opposition to WWII'. It took a huge sneak attack that killed thousands and wiped out a good chunk of the U.S. Navy before that sentiment changed.

RickJay

08-21-2005, 06:14 PM

But since nobody stated or even infered such a thing nobody has to defend it.
You don't think Sam specifically comparing opposition to WWII to opposition to Iraq counts as an inference?

Stoid

08-28-2005, 08:10 PM

I've got $50 that says Stoid won't be back to defend his/her position, either.

"Defend" my "position"? Are you kidding? I made a casual remark in the middle of a ten page thread... I don't have a "position".

Good grief.

Evil One

08-28-2005, 08:41 PM

But the fact remains, America was very late to the party, and that was the result of a strong anti-war movement at home. That has to be counted as 'opposition to WWII'. It took a huge sneak attack that killed thousands and wiped out a good chunk of the U.S. Navy before that sentiment changed.

And unfortunately, something of the same magnitude is going to have to happen again before some people wake up and realize that their pacifism is nothing more than an intellectual luxury in todays world.

9/11 was enough for most people with a clue. But short memories and the lure of rose-colored glasses are apparently too strong for others.

cosmosdan

08-28-2005, 09:20 PM

You don't think Sam specifically comparing opposition to WWII to opposition to Iraq counts as an inference?
Read the part I bolded again. Nobody implied that support was WWII wasn't greater than support for Iraq. They merely discussed some of the differences. Since nobody took that position nobody has to defend it. Get it?

cosmosdan

08-28-2005, 09:22 PM

"Defend" my "position"? Are you kidding? I made a casual remark in the middle of a ten page thread... I don't have a "position".

Good grief.

Your casual remark turned out to be dead wrong. That's all.

cosmosdan

08-28-2005, 09:30 PM

Squink

08-28-2005, 09:55 PM

But short memories and the lure of rose-colored glasses are apparently too strong for others.What was the title of the August 6, 2001, President's Daily Briefing Memo? "bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040410-5.html)
What did the president do after seeing the memo?Diddly squat.

Updike

08-28-2005, 10:54 PM

"Defend" my "position"? Are you kidding? I made a casual remark in the middle of a ten page thread... I don't have a "position".

Good grief.

Well, your "casual remark" was demonstrably false. So was it just a drive-by, or?

elucidator

08-29-2005, 12:03 AM

And unfortunately, something of the same magnitude is going to have to happen again before some people wake up and realize that their pacifism is nothing more than an intellectual luxury in todays world.

9/11 was enough for most people with a clue. But short memories and the lure of rose-colored glasses are apparently too strong for others.

Astonishing how much intellectual dishonesty can be expressed in so few words. Its a haiku of horseshit.

"Pacificism"? What has "pacificism" to do with these issues? Of all the bitterly angry critics of the "damn fool war", can you point to any who argue from a position of pacificism? Can you point to anyone who suggested surrendering ourselves to ObL and his ilk? No, or course you can't. Furthermore, you know you can't. It isn''t even a dishonest attempt to persuade, it is nothing more than an insult flung from an empty position, pure butt-whistling.

And 9/11? To save your soul, you couldn't provide a solid connection between Saddam and 9/11. You have no facts to offer, only snide innuendo. Yet you have the bottomless temerity to insist that those who disagree with you are unrealistic idealists, whose minds are full of moonbeams, while presenting yourself as a clear-eyed and hard-headed realist. But shouldn't a realist have facts to offer, over and above waving the bloody shirt and sneering at those who actually have the facts?

Perhaps, with patience and forbearance, we can bring you along to a point where you would be ashamed to make such a vapid and repulsive "argument". In truth, though, I must admit such a prospect is the triumph of hope over experience.

Hentor the Barbarian

08-29-2005, 07:29 AM

I've always found Dr. Seuss' early political cartoons to provide some interesting insight into the Republican/conservative isolationism prior to entry into WWII.

Here's some examples: http://humor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=humor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Forpheus.ucsd.edu%2Fspeccoll%2Fdspolitic%2F

The Republican opposition to WWII, contrasted with their bloodthirsty unthinking lock-step for the Misadventure in Iraq, makes me think of the Nazi line from Raiders of the Lost Ark: "You [Republicans] are all alike; always overdressing for the wrong occasions."

Of course, I kid. Today's Republicans are a very different creature than their predecessors.

Xploder

08-29-2005, 09:15 AM

The U.S. made all kinds of strategic errors during the war. Operation Market Garden was a colossal failure that cost the allies 4000 soldiers.

Operation Market-Garden was envisioned and planned by Montgomery, not the U.S. In fact, Eisenhower only approved part of the plan due to a shortage of resources. It's only in hindsight that one can see that ALL the Allies were overconfidant at this point and believed that the war could be over before the end of the year.

Just sayin'.

Evil One

08-29-2005, 07:06 PM

Astonishing how much intellectual dishonesty can be expressed in so few words.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

"Pacificism"? What has "pacificism" to do with these issues? Of all the bitterly angry critics of the "damn fool war", can you point to any who argue from a position of pacificism?

I could spend hours combing the internet for examples of ridiculous arguements for varying degrees of pacifism. But you would ignore or discount them out of hand. Anyone who is advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq is apparently not capable of seeing what a huge mistake that would be for a number of reasons. The only reason I can think of for advocating such a position would be someone who is letting ideology triumph over common sense. Or someone who is unwilling to let the facts get in the way of a good slogan that can be screamed at people who are trying to deal with the terrorism issue.

And 9/11? To save your soul, you couldn't provide a solid connection between Saddam and 9/11.

Nor have I tried. But many on the left are trying very hard to forget the connections between Saddam and the terror infrastructure, including members of AQ. Saddam probably didn't have anything to do with 9/11 specifically. But he was diligently working against the best interest of the United States.

You have no facts to offer, only snide innuendo.

I certainly don't have the market cornered there.

Yet you have the bottomless temerity to insist that those who disagree with you are unrealistic idealists, whose minds are full of moonbeams, while presenting yourself as a clear-eyed and hard-headed realist.

Really listen to what Cindy Sheehan is saying. If you can get past the new age crap without the bile rising into your throat, you will notice that she apparently has no clue about how the world works.

Its a haiku of horseshit.

Here's a real one for you.

Terror stalks our country.
Some blame Bush for this sad state.
A clue for them, please.

Squink

08-29-2005, 08:01 PM

"people who are trying to deal with the terrorism issue" Do such people exist? Who are they?

Neurotik

08-29-2005, 08:33 PM

Brevity is the soul of wit.
Brevity is...wit.
But many on the left are trying very hard to forget the connections between Saddam and the terror infrastructure, including members of AQ.
It's difficult to forget something that didn't exist. The most you can point out is Hussein's "bounty" payments to people who blew themselves up in Palestine.

That's about it.
Saddam probably didn't have anything to do with 9/11 specifically.
Or any other terrorist attack on the United States. Come on, go ahead, say it.
But he was diligently working against the best interest of the United States.
Probably, but there's a hell of a long way from that to supporting terrorism against the US - which nobody has ever found he's done.

So tell me, skippy, if Bush was so concerned about terror, how come he diverted troops away from the al-Qaeda stronghold of Afghanistan before he ever captured ObL (who actually HAD planned and carried out attacks against the US) so they could go attack Iraq (who had NEVER used terror attacks against the US)?

The answer, of course, is that Bush doesn't give a fuck about terrorism - except incidentally. Never has, never will.

cosmosdan

08-29-2005, 08:45 PM

Brevity is the soul of wit. And then there are the exceptions

Really listen to what Cindy Sheehan is saying. If you can get past the new age crap without the bile rising into your throat, you will notice that she apparently has no clue about how the world works. Unlike folks like you who see things with such clarity? I don't agree with everything Sheehan says but I cut her some slack. I have far less tolerance for a lying president and administration.

Terror stalks our country.
Some blame Bush for this sad state.
A clue for them, please.

Tell me who blames Bush for terrorism?

More horseshit!!

Frank

08-29-2005, 10:17 PM

The only reason I can think of for advocating such a position would be someone who is letting ideology triumph over common sense. Or someone who is unwilling to let the facts get in the way of a good slogan that can be screamed at people who are trying to deal with the terrorism issue.
Funny, that is exactly what I think of your position.

rjung

08-30-2005, 12:20 AM

Evil One: Dumber than a cartoon critter. (http://www.comics.com/comics/hedge/archive/hedge-20050830.html)

elucidator

08-30-2005, 12:28 AM

... Nor have I tried. But many on the left are trying very hard to forget the connections between Saddam and the terror infrastructure, including members of AQ.....

What connections? Did Saddams hairdressers mother in law have a friend who knew somebody that went to high school with Osama? You could, yourself, rattle off at least ten nations with "connections" to "terrorism". Are you suggesting the invasion of Iraq was settled by a brisk round of "one-potato-two-potato..."?

....Saddam probably didn't have anything to do with 9/11 specifically. But he was diligently working against the best interest of the United States.....

An entirely fair statement, much like saying that "probably" Mother Theresa had nothing to do with the Unibomber. I think you are on very safe ground there.

I'll go you one better, since bald statements offered as irrefutable fact are your stock in trade. If Saddam knew about 9/11 in advance, he would have dropped a dime on ObL in a New York minute. Shit like this he didn't need. Saddam would no more have aligned himself with ObL that Stalin would have given a nuke to Rasputin.

Here's a real one for you.

Terror stalks our country.
Some blame Bush for this sad state.
A clue for them, please.

5, 7, 5. You could look it up.

Hentor the Barbarian

08-30-2005, 06:36 AM

5, 7, 5. You could look it up.Took note of this too, but you have to remember that "terror" is actually pronounced "terr," as in "terrist." A wonderful result of having a master of the language as our leader.

Evil One

08-30-2005, 02:59 PM

Guys, I suppose that I could go sentence by sentence and respond to each one of you, but it would be pointless. My ideology doesn't match yours, and that makes me a target for mockery and derision. And that's fine. If you feel like you've accomplished something or changed the world in some way by faithfully sticking to the templates of your faith, then more power to you.

I don't participate in the political threads as much as I used to because they are either an echo chamber or a snipefest if someone dares to break from the party line. And please save your "crybaby" catty comments...I'm simply pointing out things as I see them, not whining. I don't plan to post any more or any less based on the response that I get when I do contribute.

Merijeek

08-30-2005, 03:05 PM

Airman Doors, USAF

08-30-2005, 03:09 PM

See, he was right. You're a prick, dude.

wring

08-30-2005, 03:51 PM

My ideology doesn't match yours, and that makes me a target for mockery and derision. Don't be silly. There's any number of intelligent, thought provoking conservative voices here that don't get mocked or derided. It's the assholishness that elicits the mokery and derision.

And please save your "crybaby" catty comments...I'm simply pointing out things as I see them, not whining. I don't plan to post any more or any less based on the response that I get when I do contribute.

Don't forget your ball and bat.

crybaby.

:D

Hentor the Barbarian

08-30-2005, 06:18 PM

See, he was right. You're a prick, dude.C'mon. He's got the balls to claim connections between Hussein and 9/11, and then Hussein and al Queda, and then dismiss Cindy Sheehan as someone who doesn't see how the world works? Then he wants to claim this is some sort of echo chamber and he's being mistreated because his ideology doesn't follow the party line? Yeah, my feeling at reading that is a big fucking boo hoo.

Others manage to pull off the expression of varied points of view without having to cry foul about it later. I applaud them for it.

SteveG1

08-30-2005, 10:59 PM

We've all heard for years now about the link between Saddam and Al Queda. Nothing ever came of it (no proof that is). We've been told that we invaded Iran because they attacked us (holy shit! when did that happen?). We were told we would turn Afghanistan inside out and not rest until Bin Laden was captured or killed. He's still free and laughing at us. We were told the Patriot Act would make us safer (by examining what liberry books Granny is reading). It's all bullshit. How much longer will people keep vomiting up the same party line? It's a pack of lies. Repeating it over and over will not make it true. To really combat terror, we haven't done a damn thing. If anything, we made it less centralized and probably more efficient. Good job. :rolleyes

Shodan

08-31-2005, 07:42 AM

Don't be silly. There's any number of intelligent, thought provoking conservative voices here that don't get mocked or derided. Really? Name one.

Regards,
Shodan

rayh

08-31-2005, 07:55 AM

Really? Name one.

Regards,
Shodan

Errr, well there's...

Ok, can I get back to you on that?

Hentor the Barbarian

08-31-2005, 08:11 AM

Really? Name one.

Regards,
Shodan
John Mace

Shodan

08-31-2005, 08:13 AM

Errr, well there's...

Ok, can I get back to you on that?
I guess I should say I am not blaming wring (or you) for this. There are any number of intelligent, thought-provoking liberal voices here as well. I would even say that the number of intelligent liberals is greater than the number of intelligent conservatives on the SDMB.

But that is because the intelligent liberals don't get snarked at and derided and Pitted and insulted and misrepresented and piled-on at anything like the rate that intelligent conservatives do. And it is usually the same group of shit heads who do the piling on, and every contempible one of them is way left of center.

They know who they are. And they make a conscious effort to prevent reasonable debate.

The notion that "good conservatives don't get attacked on the SDMB" is bullshit. Ass holes who don't know intelligent debate when they see it don't respect it. They toe the party line, and they attack anyone who deviates from it. Unthinkingly, like they do everything else.

Regards,
Shodan