Right wingnuts scare me...

[Exploding Kitchen]

You know the people I'm talking about. Not just your average, well-spoken conservative (of which we have many on these boards that I'm quite thankful for), but the people who say things that just make your jaw drop.

This Pitting comes from statements made on another forum I frequent that tends towards political debate. We were discussing the whole topic of Bush mentioning wanting to bomb Al-Jazeera. Over there, we had come to the conclusion that this was probably a joke from Bush, that was put into an official, secret transcript, that got leaked.

Because really, I may not like Bush and the Republicans, but the man just cannot be that dumb.

But then...we start seeing statements like this pop up from one of the participants:

Names changed to protect the innocent.

Originally Posted by Crazy Neo Con poster from other board

LibPosterA, propaganda doesn't have to be false in order to be propaganda. If it's determined that the broadcasts are harmful to our soldiers or the effort, they become a legal target whether they are reporting factual information or not.

I agree with NeoConPosterA. I'm surprised the Coalition didn't put them out of commission early in the war. If they don't want to be considered a target, they should adjust their coverage so that they aren't a propaganda organ of the enemy or move to a location where we can't reach them - like China or Antartica.

I'd be more dissappointed if it came out that there was no discussion of bombing Al Jazeera.

Mind you, this quote comes from an American, who considers himself a "strict constructionist", but apparently thinks that the Constitution doesn't matter when it comes to freedom of information or media.

Frankly, I'm just sickened that there are people out there that would actually support the bombing of a media outlet simply because they bring to daylight mistakes made. Shooting the messenger is never a good idea.

Anyhow, I apologize for ranting here...but I had to rant somewhere.

[Apos]

To be non-partisan about this, I should point out that Clinton's people actually DID go ahead and bomb/kill journalists in Kosovo in a manner that was really questionable. While some of these people certainly were part of the state media, and the state media did run information for the dictator, they were still by and large journalists who hadn't hurt anyone.

[lonesome loser]

Originally Posted by Apos

To be non-partisan about this, I should point out that Clinton's people actually DID go ahead and bomb/kill journalists in Kosovo in a manner that was really questionable. While some of these people certainly were part of the state media, and the state media did run information for the dictator, they were still by and large journalists who hadn't hurt anyone.

Of course you have a legit cite for this.

[Syntropy]

He said Clinton did it. Jeez, lonesome loser, I can't begin to imagine how much more legit you can get than that. Everyone knows that Clinton did way worse things than Bush II ever thought of. And he did 'em first!

[Apos]

Well, since most of this was before lots of internet reporting, it's not easy, but here are some:

Definately a wacko group's perspective on things, but they are talking about real events.
http://www.progress.org/archive/yugo07.htm

In an April 8th news briefing NATO Air Commodore David Wilby explained: "Serb radio is an instrument of propaganda and repression. It has filled the airwaves with hate and with lies over the years, and especially now. It is therefore a legitimate target in this campaign. If President Milosevic would provide equal time for Western news broadcasts in his programs without censorship...then his TV would become an acceptable instrument of public information."

In fact, now that I read back through the history again, the decision seems even more questionable: the justification for lack of balance was.... that the Serb media was broadcasting pictures of dead civilians who had been killed in an accidental bombings that the US had indeed conducted.

Some of this is discussed here:
http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3228

There is no question that the Serb media outlets had indeed been pulling water for the Serbian government. But we did kill them and blow up their buildings, and at the time there was a lot of debate over whether targeting journlists, even state-controlled ones, was really a legitimate target of war.

[Syntropy]

Okay, I am genuinely confused.
From your cite:

NATO spokespersons have justified the bombing of Serbian TV and radio on the grounds that these broadcasters are an "instrument of state propaganda," tell lies, spew forth hatred, provide no "balance" in their offerings, and thus help prolong the war.

So, did Clinton order the NATO attack? It doesn't say in either of those articles.

[minor7flat5]

And rightfully so!

It is so easy to not take into consideration the natural turning direction of a rotating machine part when one is selecting a fastener to hold things together. Reach in the box and slap on a right wing nut on the end of a component that normally rotates counter clockwise and your machine may come apart at a critical moment causing disaster.

Just like pedals on one side of a bike have left handed threads, you need to find a supplier for left-handed wing nuts for these situations. I have never purchased any, though I am sure they are out there.

One of the machinists I used to work with had such a complete toolbox that he had a full left-handed tap and die set. Pretty cool stuff. He could have made a left handed wingnut if he needed to.

What?

[Apos]

NATO, and, primarily Clinton's general, Wesley Clark, chose to do so.

I'm not genuinely arguing that Clinton is exactly on par with Bush. But this was a Democratic administration fighting a war that bombed foriegn media outlets because they said they were propagandists (and to be fair, to some extent, they were). Don't get me wrong: I'm a Democrat who voted for Clinton, Gore, Kerry and, god willing will vote for Mark Warner in 08. But I'm just saying that the larger issue here is a little less partisan than we might like.

[Frostillicus]

Originally Posted by Apos

Well, since most of this was before lots of internet reporting, it's not easy, but here are some:

Definately a wacko group's perspective on things, but they are talking about real events.
http://www.progress.org/archive/yugo07.htm



In fact, now that I read back through the history again, the decision seems even more questionable: the justification for lack of balance was.... that the Serb media was broadcasting pictures of dead civilians who had been killed in an accidental bombings that the US had indeed conducted.

Some of this is discussed here:
http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3228

There is no question that the Serb media outlets had indeed been pulling water for the Serbian government. But we did kill them and blow up their buildings, and at the time there was a lot of debate over whether targeting journlists, even state-controlled ones, was really a legitimate target of war.

If Clinton had decided to bomb an independent Germany-based media outlet because they were broadcasting footage of Serbian civilian casualties, then I think you might have an apt comparison.

[lonesome loser]

Thanks for the link.

The difference I can see is that NATO did target journalists that were fomenting hate and rebellion in Kosovo.

Were as in the war totally controled by Bush and his allies target journalists in general. Regardless of what they do.

[Syntropy]

Originally Posted by Apos

NATO, and, primarily Clinton's general, Wesley Clark, chose to do so.

I'm not genuinely arguing that Clinton is exactly on par with Bush. But this was a Democratic administration fighting a war that bombed foriegn media outlets because they said they were propagandists (and to be fair, to some extent, they were). Don't get me wrong: I'm a Democrat who voted for Clinton, Gore, Kerry and, god willing will vote for Mark Warner in 08. But I'm just saying that the larger issue here is a little less partisan than we might like.

I don't disagree. And I believe just about any Democrat you ask will tell you that Rwanda in particular was a HUGE fuck up by the Clinton administration. The difference, at least in my opinion, is that the Clinton administration at least acknowledged the fuck ups made & apologized for them. To my knowledge, Bush II has never apologized for anything, and in fact has not only refused the fuck ups were fuck ups, has insisted that anyone calling them fuck ups and the wrong thing to do is un-American and quite possibly a terrorist.

[Apos]

If Clinton had decided to bomb an independent Germany-based media outlet because they were broadcasting footage of Serbian civilian casualties, then I think you might have an apt comparison.

Obviously they are nto exactly the same. But the rationale isn't all that different: this foriegn media outlet that we think is anti-american is airing things we think are hurting the war effort and propaganda for the enemy. True, it's a lot more plausibly justified with the Serbians, but it's still a line crossed that's a little hard to re-draw.

[Scylla]

Maureen:

I agree with you concerning you quote in the OP.

Just a thread away though is this:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=347326

So, I'll see you Crazy neocon poster and raise you five moronic rabid left wing nutjobs

[Scylla]

Maureen:

I agree with you concerning your quote in the OP.

Just a thread away though is this:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=347326

So, I'll see your Crazy neocon poster and raise you five moronic rabid left wing nutjobs

[Revenant Threshold]

Well, the crazy dude is right in one respect - just because it's true, doesn't mean it's propaganda. Yes, Al-jazeera could be said to be putting forth propaganda. So could the US Army. So could Bush. So could whatever media outlet you suggest. Any information, when it shows one side in a good or bad light, whether it's true or not, is propaganda, and can be used as the same by others. Doesn't mean it would be allowed, or moral to bomb them - or threatening to do the same in order to make them change their broadcasts.

Imagine if someone bombed CNN HQ, or even Fox - while I may not agree with everything they put forth, or the style in which they do so, what right do I have to stop them? Or to kill people doing so?

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Apos

True, it's a lot more plausibly justified with the Serbians, but it's still a line crossed that's a little hard to re-draw.

Alia iacta est.

[Revenant Threshold]

Whoops. "just because it's true, doesn't mean it's not propaganda"

[Syntropy]

Originally Posted by Scylla

Maureen:

I agree with you concerning you quote in the OP.

Just a thread away though is this:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=347326

So, I'll see you Crazy neocon poster and raise you five moronic rabid left wing nutjobs

*sigh*..... We weren't supposed to start spreading that porcine genetics experiment rumor for another week!

[Exploding Kitchen]

The OP was mine, dammit!

*shakes fist*

The main difference here, is that AJ is HQ'ed out of Qatar. This just happens to be one of those countries in the Coalition of the Willing (TM).

[Scylla]

Originally Posted by Exploding Kitchen

The OP was mine, dammit!

*shakes fist*

Yeah, sorry. I guess I just wanted to talk to Maureen

The main difference here, is that AJ is HQ'ed out of Qatar. This just happens to be one of those countries in the Coalition of the Willing (TM).

"Willing" just doesn't cut it any more. We expect rabid enthusiasm in exchange for respecting the fourth estate.

[Exploding Kitchen]

I just don't see the point in compromising our ideals when we want another country to actually follow them in some fashion.

I mean, we are trying to help Iraq set up a liberal democracy, right? Right?

[CynicalGabe]

Originally Posted by Exploding Kitchen

I mean, we are trying to help Iraq set up a liberal democracy, right? Right?

Aren't we idealistic...

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Originally Posted by Exploding Kitchen

I mean, we are trying to help Iraq set up a liberal democracy, right? Right?

"Liberal"? Hell, no! Not this administration.

[Exploding Kitchen]

Liberal in the governmental sense, not the policy sense.

I.E.: America under Bush is a liberal democracy with conservative policies.

[Cervaise]

Originally Posted by Exploding Kitchen

I mean, we are trying to help Iraq set up a liberal democracy, right? Right?

That statement is no longer operative.

Our current objective is to extract our foot from a bear trap without inadvertently triggering a horrifyingly vicious and quickly-expanding holy war. We manage that trick, we can claim success.

[Bill The Cat]

I'm right with the OP. For every small slip that Bush makes, there's 500 right-wing nutjobs who claim that the slip was intentional or that Clinton greased the floor.

I think Bush is a little dim, but quite honestly, I don't expect Presidents to be much more than a pretty face. It's the nutjobs that surround him that make me nervous.

We found chemical weapons in Iraq, Mister President! Only environazis believe in global warming, Mister President! Deficits are good because they prevent people from spending too much in the future, Mister President! Torture is unreliable and ineffective, but if we don't have the right to use it then the terrorists will win, Mister President!

[Shodan]

Boo.

Regards,
Shodan

[Debaser]

Howl.

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by Scylla

Maureen:

I agree with you concerning you quote in the OP.

Just a thread away though is this:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=347326

So, I'll see you Crazy neocon poster and raise you five moronic rabid left wing nutjobs

No, you're more than moronic for all of us. Plenty shrill enough too. Remember this little bit? Ever the voice of reason. (Bolding by me)....

Originally Posted by Scylla

... When Finn says our soldiers are torturing dozens to death he is making an implication that characterizes our armed forces in general.

Our soldiers do not deserve to be so characterized unless it can positively be demonstrated to the highest standard that it is true.

That has not been done.

It's treason. You're a scumbag if you do it. To do such a thing is to betray your country. You're not supporting our soldiers if you do it, you're indicting them. A person that does so does not deserve the freedoms they've betrayed.

I can't put it in stronger terms.

[brownie55]

The press is OK when you buy them (from IMDB):

U.S. Paying for Favorable News on Iraqi TV, Newspapers

The U.S. military has been secretly paying Iraqi newspapers and television stations via a defense contractor to run news stories favorable to the United States, the Los Angeles Times disclosed today (Wednesday), citing unnamed U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the newspaper. The Times said that the articles were planted in the Iraqi media by the Washington-based Lincoln Group, whose staff, or its subcontractors, sometimes pose as freelance reporters or advertising executives when they deliver the stories to the media outlets. One senior Pentagon official who opposes the practice told the Times: "Here we are trying to create the principles of democracy in Iraq. Every speech we give in that country is about democracy. And we're breaking all the first principles of democracy when we're doing it." The newspaper noted that besides its contract with the military in Iraq, Lincoln Group also won a $100-million contract with U.S. Special Operations Command to help "develop a strategic communications campaign."

[Debaser]

Nope. That's not shrill. Not moronic either. Sorry.

On a related note: What to you guys do, have a special google search tool that you use to catalog all of Scylla's posts? I've never seen a poster so often searched and quoted, and for so little cause.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Originally Posted by Exploding Kitchen

You know the people I'm talking about. Not just your average, well-spoken conservative (of which we have many on these boards that I'm quite thankful for), but the people who say things that just make your jaw drop.

In other words: Brutus.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Nope. That's not shrill. Not moronic either.

Do y'all have a different dictionary than the rest of us?

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Nope. That's not shrill. Not moronic either. Sorry.

On a related note: What to you guys do, have a special google search tool that you use to catalog all of Scylla's posts? I've never seen a poster so often searched and quoted, and for so little cause.

No need to search, I was a participant in the thread where that took place. When the comment came up (by guess who), I jst had to run back and grab a great example of Shrill and Moronic for all of us to savor once again.

P.S.
I'm not too sure about you either

[FinnAgain]

Okay, I'm sorry for making a flip and quasi-driveby post to answer you Debaser. With more meat on the bones:

It is moronic to state that because a certain number of prisoners died due to our actions that that characterizes our armed forces in general. Only someone addicted to groupthink would possibly consider that to be an indictment of the military in general.

If, for instance, someone said "At several hospitals in the US there have been many cases of medical malpractice," would that person be guilty of indicting all doctors everywhere, or even all doctors in the US? '

If someone went on a hyper-angry lunatic binge while foaming at the mouth and claiming that someone was "slandering all doctors and as such didn't deserve medical care" wouldn't you question just where their anger, and agenda, were based? If someone is furious at someone for "indicting all doctors in the country" when no such thing happened, does it not point to something... odd, going on?

In addition, as I pointed out at the time of that trainwreck, there most certianly was evidence, mountains and mountains of it, including evidence of systemic failures and systemic coverups. That such evidence could be interpreted various ways was not being questioned, but to cast the debate in terms of 'amerca hating' 'treason' 'betraying your country' and 'malicious lies' was, indeed, both shrill and moronic.

And as Steve said nobody needs to search for these things. A rabid hateful angry lunatic tends to leave an impression in one's mind.

/hijack

[Syntropy]

It is moronic to state that because a certain number of prisoners died due to our actions that that characterizes our armed forces in general. Only someone addicted to groupthink would possibly consider that to be an indictment of the military in general.

Without in any way defending what Scylla posted, I believe I can at least shed some light on the rationale (heh) behind it.

One of the things service members are indoctrinated to think is what one does, so do you all. You are not an individual. You are a team. You wear the same uniform, eat the same food, sleep at the same time, work toward the same goals. You are one unit. What reflects on one reflects on the whole. If you screw up, you have caused your entire unit to screw up, and that reflects badly not just on you but on everyone*.

So while I disagree with the statement, I understand why he thinks that way. As an ex-service member, I have to say I'm ashamed that the soldiers at Abu Gharib wore the same uniform as I.








*As dehumanizing as it sounds, it is designed to save lives. Working together as a cohesive unit makes you protective of each other.

[FinnAgain]

Thanks for clearing up my ignorance on that topic Maureen.
I'm pretty sure you'd agree that the frothing, raging crazyness was somewhat beyond the pale, but you've at least helped me understand a possible motivation for such lunacy.

[Sweet Mercury]

I have to say that actually clears up a few things for me as well. I have, on more then one occasion, been told that I shouldn't debase "the military" when I have only railed against the actions of a few. I never understood why, no matter how many times I explained I was only condemning the actions of the guilty parties involved, the people I would be conversing with couldn't get past it.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

It is moronic to state that because a certain number of prisoners died due to our actions that that characterizes our armed forces in general. Only someone addicted to groupthink would possibly consider that to be an indictment of the military in general.

If, for instance, someone said "At several hospitals in the US there have been many cases of medical malpractice," would that person be guilty of indicting all doctors everywhere, or even all doctors in the US? '

I didn't participate in or read that thread. It's a six page trainwreck that I've just skimmed through.

It's completely dishonest for your to compare your statements in that thread to the hypothetical one you made about doctors. The doctor statement is limited, reasonable, and true. The statements in the thread are over the top, unreasonable, and false.

If you made a comparable statement about the US military to the one about doctors then you might have a point. Something like "At several prisons under control of the US military, there have been cases of abuse." is a reasonable statement and not one that would have led Scylla to call you a traitor I bet.

However, that's not what you was doing.

Here are a quick list of some choice gems:

Originally Posted by Finn

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he become a monster.
And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes back into you."

Wow... so even without the "Koran flushing", you think all the instances of torture murder and rape that've occured in our prisons don't matter?

And what of all the innocents we've captured and tortured?

We have chosen, of our own free will, to, in several ways, become the thing we said we were fighting.

What about the dozens of people who've died under torture by our forces? What does it say that such things can happen over, and over, and over again, and nobody stops them? If that doesn't point to systemic problem, I don't know what does.

This is all just from your first two posts in the thread.

After all of this, Scylla still didn't call you a traitor. He only said that he would consider you a traitor if he couldn't back up these accusations with proof.

You couldn't.

Now you bring this baggage up in another thread, with no link to the original (I had to search to find it) and you grossly mis-represent your statements. I think we can safely add "liar" to your resume now, traitor.

[FinnAgain]

Glad that after your 'thorough skimming' you're going to spout off here.
We need more keyboard warriors.

Originally Posted by Debaser

It's completely dishonest for your to compare your statements in that thread to the hypothetical one you made about doctors. The doctor statement is limited, reasonable, and true. The statements in the thread are over the top, unreasonable, and false.

Are you wrong or lying?
Over the top? They were all literally true. Unreasonable? As I showed with many, many cites an estimate of 24 was the absolute lowest reasonable estimate one could make. False? Have you done any fucking reading before babbling here, did you check on the multitude of links I provided in that thread and the one I link to when taking Uppy to task?

Originally Posted by Debaser

If you made a comparable statement about the US military to the one about doctors then you might have a point. Something like "At several prisons under control of the US military, there have been cases of abuse." is a reasonable statement and not one that would have led Scylla to call you a traitor I bet.

Are you disingenuous or dense?
That's the semantic value of what I said, except that many people happened to be 'abused' badly enough that they died.

Originally Posted by Debaser

However, that's not what you was doing.

Are you stupid and ignorant or purposefully inflamatory?

-I pointed out with the Neitzche quote that we had a responsbility to be better than those we fought, after it was said that we could act in an abhorent manner because they did to.
-There were instances of torture and murder. People have been charged with it. At least one congressman who saw the photos has gone on record as confirming it.
-We have captured and tortured innocents. Not just many who were at Abu Graib and other places, but Maher Arar would disagree with your bullshit.
- We have decided in many ways to become what we are fighting. We deliberately torture prisoners.

Originally Posted by Debaser

This is all just from your first two posts in the thread.

Wow, my first two posts were factually accurate. Pull me up a chair, I feel faint.

Originally Posted by Debaser

After all of this, Scylla still didn't call you a traitor. He only said that he would consider you a traitor if he couldn't back up these accusations with proof.
You couldn't.

Liar.

Your inability to do anything more than "skim" a thread does not constitute a failure to provide proof on mine. Lazy liar.

Originally Posted by Debaser

Now you bring this baggage up in another thread, with no link to the original (I had to search to find it) and you grossly mis-represent your statements.

Again you're lying? Idiot. Do you think that the posts in this thread will vanish because you're a lying piece of shit? I didn't bring it up in this thread you damned liar, and anybody who can fucking read already knows that. Are you really stupid enough to lie about what anybody can see with their own eyes?

You didn't even read the fucking thread, you "skimmed" it, you intellectually dishonest whore.

Originally Posted by Debaser

I think we can safely add "liar" to your resume now, traitor.

No, but we can to yours. Fucking lying piece of shit.

And awfully cute with the 'traitor' bullshit, but I'm afraid that reading the news (as opposed to "skimming" it), doesn't make one a traitor.

You're pathetic.

[FinnAgain]

I would further note that one of the most harmful things for America is for ignorant loud mouthed liars, like you, to harass and hound those who actually read and call them 'traitors' for voicing facts. You do more harm to our country than our enemies can because your slanderous ignorance-based anger is a cancer within the Republic rather than an attack from without. Treason is giving aid and comfort to our enemies, not reading, you ignorant fuck.

You should be ashamed of yourself, fucking McCarthyite asshole.

[Debaser]

You can blow a gasket all day long, Flynn. It changes nothing. Your posts make it clear. You are a traitor and a liar. It doesn't surprise me that you get angry with Scylla and myself for pointing this out. But, it's not our fault what you are.

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Now you bring this baggage up in another thread, with no link to the original (I had to search to find it) and you grossly mis-represent your statements. I think we can safely add "liar" to your resume now, traitor.

Knock off the traitor bullshit. It doesn't mean shit, so go wave your little flag, listen to Gawd Bless Amurrica again, and shut your trap. I'll tell you who the fucking traitors are, since you brought it up. It's the sons of bitches who wear their flag and their heart on their sleeves, and support the sumbags who lied us into war, used up and shit on the military, and now don't have the fucking guts to give us any REAL reasons. It's the chickenhawks who got us all into the shit, and don't have the balls to explain why, or even admit they fucked up. It's the shitheads who still put their fucking party ahead of country. It's the assholes who toss "traitor" around, out their own people for convenience, piss on the bill of rights, and all those who support or defend them. YOU are the fucking traitor. Now fuck off.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Debaser

You can blow a gasket all day long, Flynn. It changes nothing.

You can lie through your teeth all day long you piece of shit, but my posts and my cites don't vanish because you're too fucking lazy to read them.

Originally Posted by Debaser

Your posts make it clear. You are a traitor and a liar.

I am neither, but you are scum that's not worthy to be wiped off a patriot's shoe. Why don't you respond to the many, many cites I posted, eh? Instead of lying through your teeth and claiming I didn't post them. Again, are you stupid enough to think that just because you didn't read them, my cites vanish?

Originally Posted by Debaser

It doesn't surprise me that you get angry with Scylla and myself for pointing this out. But, it's not our fault what you are.

I know this is the Pit and all, but honestly, and without hyperbole, you are probably one of the most ignorant, mindlessly inflamatory, un-American assholes I have ever read on this board.

Again, you pathalogical fuck: Your failure to read a thread does not constitute a failure on my part to provide cites.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Again, you pathalogical fuck: Your failure to read a thread does not constitute a failure on my part to provide cites.

As has been pointed out in the other thread, your cites don't prove your claims.

You jump to assume the absolute worst about the US military, and continue to dig in your heels after it's been pointed out that your claims are false. Then you lash out at those of us who point this out with the fury of someone who knows he's wrong but can't admit it. Man, I'm very glad that the likes of you two aren't on my side. The both of you are an embarrassment.

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by minor7flat5

And rightfully so!

It is so easy to not take into consideration the natural turning direction of a rotating machine part when one is selecting a fastener to hold things together. Reach in the box and slap on a right wing nut on the end of a component that normally rotates counter clockwise and your machine may come apart at a critical moment causing disaster.

Just like pedals on one side of a bike have left handed threads, you need to find a supplier for left-handed wing nuts for these situations. I have never purchased any, though I am sure they are out there.

One of the machinists I used to work with had such a complete toolbox that he had a full left-handed tap and die set. Pretty cool stuff. He could have made a left handed wingnut if he needed to.

What?

SCORE!!!

[FinnAgain]

Steve, with all due respect, the people you described are certainly assholes who are harming our country by, among other things, attempting to criminalize dissent and criminalize reading-instead-of-taking-the-party-line, but they're not traitors. Self destructive McCarthyite assholes, yes, but not traitors.

We need to keep our rhetoric above their scumfuck mentality.

Oh, and, for those playing along at home rather than simply calling one of our resident McCarthyite shills out, I'll give y'all some cites. They all come from the original thread that spawned the absured 'traitor' charge as well as a thread that was created to Pit intellectually dishonest fucks.

In no particular order other than as I found them looking through the threads:

One.
Two.
Three.
Four.
Five.
Six.
Seven.
Eight.

Like I said, just because someone is too much of a lazy intellectually dishonest fuck to do more than "skim" a thread doesn't mean that my posts vanish. A failure to perform due dilligence on his part is not a lack of cites on mine.

Originally Posted by Debaser

As has been pointed out in the other thread, your cites don't prove your claims.

Lying ignorant piece of shit. You just said you didn't even read the thread, only skimmed it. You are stupid enough to think that posts vanish here. Moron.

And yes, they most certainly do prove my claims.

Originally Posted by Debaser

You jump to assume the absolute worst about the US military, and continue to dig in your heels after it's been pointed out that your claims are false.

Good gods you're dense! Not "the US military" that's an abhorent strawman and you are an honorless liar. Those who were guilty in the military, yes. Those who'e authorized the secret detentions and "extraordinary rendition", yes. Those who've argued for torture and that the Geneva Convention is 'quaint', yes.

And, again, the claims I made were true, which you wouldn't know as you didn't actually read them only "skimmed" them.

Originally Posted by Debaser

Then you lash out at those of us who point this out with the fury of someone who knows he's wrong but can't admit it.

Gods, you are a disgusting piece of infectious waste.

"I was just here minding my own bussiness when, like, Finn just went berserk and all I did was say that his conclusions were wrong. I didn't call him a lying traitor or anything. Oh, I am such a victim. Quick, someone get me a cross."

Originally Posted by Debaser

Man, I'm very glad that the likes of you two aren't on my side. The both of you are an embarrassment.

Moron. There are no "sides". We're all Americans. Fucking partisan shill. And you are the embarassment, you fucking Coulter wannabe, attempting to destroy honest debate and discussion, attempting to slander those who actually read, attempting to win by force of ad hominem rather than logical refutation. And in the process, damaging our nation, Her ideals, and Her standing in the global community.

Again, you should be ashamed of yourself.

[SteveG1]

Fuck you Debaser. I guess General Peter Pace of the USMC and Joint Chiefs of Staff is now a traitor too, just like Murtha and everyone else. Pace has said there IS abuse. He went further and said it is all soldier's duty to STOP it. Not look the other way, not report it, but stop it right then and there. Is he painting the military with some brush and committing treason too? How about Murth who said the army is virtually used up and broken? Fuck you again.

[SteveG1]

Fuck you Debaser. I guess General Peter Pace of the USMC and Joint Chiefs of Staff is now a traitor too, just like Murtha and everyone else. Pace has said there IS abuse. He went further and said it is all soldier's duty to STOP it. Not look the other way, not report it, but stop it right then and there. Is he painting the military with some brush and committing treason too? How about Murtha who said the army is virtually used up and broken? Fuck you again.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

In no particular order other than as I found them looking through the threads:

One.
Two.
Three.
Four.
Five.
Six.
Seven.
Eight.

Like I said, just because someone is too much of a lazy intellectually dishonest fuck to do more than "skim" a thread doesn't mean that my posts vanish. A failure to perform due dilligence on his part is not a lack of cites on mine.

I've been reading the other thread all this while. My initial reaction was based on simply reading the posts of you and Scylla. Now that I'm reading all the way through I see that my first impression was correct. Your cites do not prove what you claimed. You find a cite that someone died in a prison and jump without proof that he was tortured to death by US forces. Rinse. Repeat. That you did this eight times is hardly worth being proud of.

Lying ignorant piece of shit. You just said you didn't even read the thread, only skimmed it. You are stupid enough to think that posts vanish here. Moron.

And yes, they most certainly do prove my claims.

No. They do not. You should know that they do not since Scylla pointed this out to you in the thread. Again and again.

Not "the US military" that's an abhorent strawman and you are an honorless liar. Those who were guilty in the military, yes. Those who'e authorized the secret detentions and "extraordinary rendition", yes. Those who've argued for torture and that the Geneva Convention is 'quaint', yes.

You made no such distinctions. You didn't limit your treasonous slander to only certain people. You painted with the broadest of brushes.

There are no "sides". We're all Americans.

When some American's jump to make the worst kind of accusations without any proof of thier claims, they aren't on my side.