So does the board skew left?

The BBQ Pit
201

Why should the Adminstration be involved? The Army screwed it up and the Army is (if slowly) uncovering the truth. The people best trained to investigate military problems is, like it or not, the military where the people know the culture as well as the law (UCMJ). Since the Army does not appear to be hiding anything at this point, any outside investigation would simply be grandstanding.

The issue of Bush using Tillman for propaganda is also irrelevant. Tillman was not celebrated for wiping out six machine gun nests and finding Saddam Hussein, single-handed. He was celebrated for giving up a multi-million dollar football career to join the military for a cause in which he believed. The fact that he died tragically before the weapons of his own troops does not change the fact that he was willing to go into harm’s way at great personal expense. Bush can still celebrate his intentions, even if the harm came from the wrong direction.

These arguments are part and parcel of why posters on the left and right have both taken issue with your posts. You hint that the Administration is part of a cover-up, when there is no evidence linking them to the cover-up that has clearly occurred and already been exposed. You then insist that they should be part of the investigation, when a professional investigation is already under way, with the odd reason given that President Bush used a memorial service for a person who really did sacrifice for his country to promote making sacrifices for one’s country. And your only defense for your first error was that you were “practicing” hyperbole–a claim that is without foundation: you did not exaggerate the association or responsibility of the Administration, you simply declared a fiction as if it were true.

(The impression you give with these tactics, is that you are going to criticize the Administration for every action they take regardless which action they take. Had the Administration actually involved themselves in the cover-up investigation, I suspect that you would have made a claim that they were looking for ways to hide their own involvement, even though there is no evidence of involvement. Had Bush not submitted some token to the Tillman memorial service, you would have criticized him for ignoring “even” Tillman, just as he ignores the other battle deaths (a more legitimate criticism). That tactic is fine (if off-putting) for a cheer-leader of the opposition, but it is in direct conflict with your earlier claim to be seeking truth.)

As I said, I don’t really have a problem with you as a poster–I simply ignore the stuff that seems excessively partisan, a trait you share with others on the left and right–and I am not going to continue this hijack with a detailed criticism of all your posts.

202

Mea culpa. That’s what I get for trying to multitask on a Thursday…

Just to end the Tillman matter – since, as I’ve said before, I was using it merely as a hypothetical example and not a genuine point – but I have to say that these claims are untestable. It’s as shaky as saying “If Al Gore was Pressident, he’d have invaded Iraq too!”

203

I’ve looked over the linked article. It does not offer any facts that prove that Bush was involved in the coverup. In fact, the word “bush” is used only once, and then to talk about his taped speech which was presented at the football game.

Your claim, even in the hypothetical, was that we had evidence that Bush’s adminstration " lied about the causes of his death, including deceiving his family and destroying evidence to uphold the myth."

Your suggestion that “the facts of the case are not dependent on how many Bush apologists show up to refute the charges. Truth can come out in open debate, but that’s certainly not the only venue for it.” implies that what you are presenting is factual.

If you were attempting to present your argument as clearly false, you might’ve wanted to upgrade from talking about hypotheticals, to making it clear that you were talking about fallacies. JMHO.

pulykamell already dealt with your SA quote.

Taggert was clearly in the wrong, and you’ve provided a cite for your claim that at least one conservative paints all liberals as traitors.

pldennison’s quote has nothing to do with saying feminists are lesbians, he merely mentions one lesbian-feminst course which was taught. Moreoever, his point is valid. Many college campuses do present politics as if it was fact. The Victim Industry is working quite hard on many college campuses. Indeed, I’ve found that it’s almost impossible to get anybody in the multiculturist departments I’ve encountered to talk about solutions or changing society. They’re most often busy presenting a littany of victimhood and nothing more.

Weirddave is also most likely right. Many colleges do have a very leftist bent to the faculty. Sometimes the free exchange of ideas is stifled.

december offered a good point. Beyond secular humanism, feminism begins to disintegrate as an ideology as far as I’m concerned. A great many arguments which I personally have heard from certain feminists are deeply flawed. You’ve heard the “one in four women is raped” statistic I take it? Hopefully, if you have, you’re aware that it’s a deliberate lie and that one in eight women in the study reported being raped, and one in eight reported some sort of physical advance that the “researchers” decided to say was attempted rape. IIRC other things were squirly with this study, but I can’t recall exactly what off the top of my head. Adoption of deliberately distorted statistics is not a good thing, and does not grant one credibility on intellectual matters. You have only to look for phrases such as “men are rapists” to find discussions of how instead of women being forced to be situationally aware and able to defend themselves (just like men are), all men should be under house arrest.

Farmer’s quote has obviously whooshed you pretty good. It’s quoting South Park when Mr Garrison is asked if a student can leave the room, and he tells the studnet (Kyle?) to ask Mr. Hat. Mr Hat’s response is “You go to hell! You go to hell and you die!”

So, at best, all you’ve done is prove that at least one conservative on the Dope has said that Liberals are traitors. Your other claims are distortions.

204

We’ll await your more detailed research when you don’t have to multitask. And remember that your claim included “=” in all cases, not just “some are”. I can say “some liberals are traitors” and that’s probably true, just as “some conservatives are traitors”. Both of those are meaningless statements.

205

Aww, come on, rjung, you’re acting like we take what Starving Artist says seriously. We only keep him around for comic effect! :slight_smile: (Oh, and Starving Artist: thanks for the nice compliment earlier! If it weren’t for your making asinine statements like the one above, I’m sure I’d reciprocate the warm feelings.)

It’s obviously true that jackasses will say jackassular things - there’s millions of posts here, and you can dig one up to support any point you look for. But I really don’t see anyone seriously present “feminists are all lesbians” or “liberals are all traitors” - when some jackhole pops up with a gem like that, people pile the fuck on and give them the beating they deserve.

I dunno. I can’t quantify it obviously, but it’s certainly my experience that neither of those two statements is at all common around here. Sure, occasionally an idiot will pop up to make the claim, but then, occasionally an idiot will pop up to promote having sex with children. It doesn’t mean that it’s a widely-held view around here.

The equation of Muslims and terrorists, though, is something that I agree appears with alarming frequency. It’s usually subtle, and the jackasses that spout those views aren’t actually breaking rules, so the mods aren’t going to step in. Americans seem to have forgotten all the countless terrorist attacks perpetrated by white guys throughout our country’s glorious history.

You’re correct in pointing out that this statement is not the same as equating Muslim and terrorist. However, it is a clear falsehood designed to support an agenda of racial profiling and the like that is just not supported by reason. Historically, white folk have commited a hell of a lot more terrorist attacks in the U.S. No denying that al Qaeda was enormously successful, one time - but it’s not like no one died in the Oklahoma City bombing either. It’s still not quite as stark as rjung described it, but it’s false, and it’s a statement that is (all-to-often) made to support an agenda that’s in actuality ideological, and it’s just plain morally indefensible to use lies in order to single people out to have their rights restricted.

If Starving Artist pops back into this thread, I sure hope he’ll realize what that statement looks like now that the argument’s over.

206

rjung: One other thing. Don’t forget that you have the option of simply saying you were wrong in the earlier post. People will think more of you, not less of you, if you do that.

207

They do not need to be testable (or even true). The point was not that you would actually do such a thing, but that your behavior in a great many threads has led many people to make that assumption about your posting style. You may be comfortable with that perception, but it still flies in contradiction to your claims of just seeking truth.

208

Rjung, that cite you provided to prove your claims was just a repulsive and pitiful attempt. You were called on your statement that conservatives on this board were claiming the following:

All Muslims are terrorists
Feminists are lesbians and
Liberals are traitors

Your cite for the first has someone claiming something entirely different.

Your cite for the second (by pldennison) doesn’t come close to saying what you claim. It seems to be an observation on the influence of political ideology on college courses. You apparently searched for ‘feminism’ and ‘lesbian’ and posted the only thing you found.

Your last comes from some dude who posted all of 200 times. Are you seriously claiming that he is representative of the well known conservatives on this board? If you want to be that dishonest why not just find a Stormfronter who posted six times and equate him to Shodan, Sam Stone, and Bricker. It would be just as intellectually honest of you.

You would be better off admitting you either pulled that nasty charge out of your ass, or you are just a liar. Your attempt to justify it was embarassing.

209

By an odd coincidence, I once spent a couple weeks working a temp contract in the Women’s Study Dept. at Local University. Once at lunch I overheard two women arguing whether a particular candidate was sufficiently lesbian for an academic position.

I was never very comfortable, it was all damned entertaining.

210

More accurate to say, one conservative troll who barely made two hundred posts before getting the ax. The original claim was that these remarks were made by resident conservatives, the implication being that he was refering to long-time or prolific posters, not any random loon or maldjusted bridge-dweller who happened to sign up for a free account.

211

Well, Starving Artist is popping back into the thread, and for your literary edification he presents the following, which is the full quote which rjung exerpted above in his typical misleading fashion:

Starving Artist quote: "Okay, then…how about 99.9999999 % of terrorists are Muslim? For crying out loud! These people are causing chaos in countries all over the globe and there are tens of thousands of them! Let’s not be so zealous in our aversion to stereotyping that we have such an open mind that our brains fall out. Let’s face it, these activities and attacks aren’t being carried out (as I’ve heard it said, although I can’t remember by whom) by blond 17-year old cheerleaders from Nebraska.

"I’m sure I will be hammered for racism and bigotry, but believe it or not I’m not anti-Muslim. But the fact of the matter is that by far most of the terrorist activity around the globe today is caused by people professing Muslim beliefs. And I know that these people are supposed to be extremists and not representative of the true Muslim faith, but there are certainly a hell of a lot them for just a lunatic fringe.

“I detest these deliberate attempts to sugar-coat things to try to avoid stereotyping. I believe honestry trumps everything else. If most of the terrorist attacks are being carried out by Muslims, people are certainly going to be suspicious and fearful of people of the Muslim faith. I myself have wondered why it seems to be that of all the terrorist activity in the world, it’s almost exclusively Muslim-driven. I know from first hand experience with Muslims myself that they can be very gracious, charming and delightful people to know. I have had Muslim neighbors and friends. But I do wonder what it is about the Muslim faith that has engendered so much aggresive and violent behavior among certain of its followers.”

If memory serves, it was pointed out to me at the time I made these comments that since Muslims make up a billion or more people, it is not unusual that they would make up by far the largest number of terrorists. I am fully aware of other terrorist groups that exist around the globe, but I still stand by my assertation that 99.9999, etc. % of them are Muslim, if for no other reason than their extraordinarily large numbers in the main. If anyone can provide a credible cite to show that this impression is erroneous, I would certainly be happy to retract my statement and adjust it to reflect the actual percentage of Muslim terrorists in the world compared to all others.

And thank you, SteveG1 for your complimentary comments. I remember you as one with whom it’s possible to disagree and yet still remain on friendly and reasonable terms. And thank you, Excalibre, for your thanks for my compliment. You are truly an intelligent, reasonable and worthy adversary. Believe it or not – and especially in light of your posts since we last spoke – I admire and respect you a great deal. You are a person to be taken seriously, even though we often disagree, and my respect for you is considerable.

My regards to you, SteveG1 and Excalibre.

rjung, you know you kind of have my regards, but not so much. You’re kind of a good guy and I kind of like you, but you need to quit being so much of a putz.

212

SA, you should be able to find the answers you seek here:

The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism

Late to the Party. No matter. What I wanted to say has already been said by any number of compañeros from the Shrill Lefty Brigade. Only better that I would have. Because, you know, I would have been, er…shrill. Yeah, that’s it.

BTW, is McCarthy really dead? I can vouch for Franco, just not sure about the former.

213

I don’t see where I’m wrong. The general thrust of my message was, quite simply, “Conservatives on the SDMB like to give grief to the liberals on the SDMB; turnabout is fair play.” I also claimed that the SDMB righties aren’t shy about throwing wild-ass remarks about, and gave some examples of same.

Nowhere did I claim that all SDMB conservatives used broad generalizations all the time, merely that it does happen – sometimes in a pitting, sometimes as snarky asides in other discussions (“A college education is useless because all you get is lefty propaganda”). And neither did I claim that anyone should be silenced on the matter, nor would I endorse such a motion.

Or, in other words, if the righties want to call the lefties “traitors” and “appeasers”, then they damn well better expect some comparable volleys in response.

214

That rjung…he twists and turns like a twisty-turny thing.

215

This is the BBQ Pit; I don’t see the point in putting too much effort behind my posts here, especially since that effort ends up getting wasted on dips such as yourself.

216

Nope.It seemed that the general thrust of your message was

Either you are needlessly inflamatory in making your point, or…

217

Oh, and, simply for the record, I just took the political compass and my results were:

Economic Left/Right: 0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33

Which puts me as a moderately right libertarian… I think.

218

Huh?

au·ral1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôrl)
adj.
Of, relating to, or perceived by the ear.

Did I use the word incorrectly? I meant to point out that shrill, etc. are things perceived by the ear, and not a part of written speech, and are therefore stupid adjectives to use to describe written words.

Well, no - I meant to write “aural”. If I used the word wrong, I apologize.

O.K., we have one “no” vote so far. I don’t see how you can characterize it as “accurate”, though.

219

Nor do you appear to put too much effort into proving your allegations, choosing instead to profer a few half-hearted explanations of generalities having nothing to do with the wrong-headed statements you have made. You haven’t proven I said Muslims = terrorists, or that any other conservative here has said feminists = lesbians or liberals = traitors. Now you don’t appear to think such cites are even necessary, claiming instead that since we conservatives “give grief” to the liberals here that “turn about is fair play”. That is patently false! The fact that you consider our POV to be cause for grief does not give you carte blanche to give us “grief” in return by falsely and dishonestly accusing us of advocating positions we’ve never held or saying things we’ve never said. I believe you should put up or shut up. Either cite your assertions or retract them, especially in light of your recent comments. To do any less will settle the question once and for all as to whether you are deceitful, dishonest, stubborn and immature.

220

THere is no “general thrust” of your message. You made a declarative statement which you cannot back up.

And nowhere did anyone claim that you did. However, you did claim that “resident conservatives” said, for example, that “muslim = terrorist”. That means all muslims are terrorists. Or have you redifend what the equal sign means?

Comparable volleys isn’t the point. Backing up your statements with facts is the point.