The War, Anti-Americanism & the Media

[red states rule]

Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge."

Translation: Do not waste your time arguing with an idiot

 

[maineman]

Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge."

Translation: Do not waste your time arguing with an idiot

you can't answer four simple yes or no questions?

methinks you are the last person to call anyone ELSE an idiot.

 

[red states rule]

you can't answer four simple yes or no questions?

methinks you are the last person to call anyone ELSE an idiot.

Being a liberal, you react to facts like the devil to Holy Water

It is not my fault you cannot accept the facts

 

[maineman]

four simple one sylabble answers. why are you so afraid of answering them?

So.... let's review the questions I have asked YOU so far:

1. Do you still hold to your earlier statement that Clinton did not try to take out Osama while he was in Afghanistan? yes or no
2. Do you know of any evidence that America was aware of in May of 1996 concerning Osama bin Laden that would have justified us taking custody of a foreign national on foreign soil and incarcerate him? yes or no
3. Can you explain the moral difference between America giving weapons to radical extremist sunni muslims in Afghanistan for their fight against the soviets and Iran giving weapons to radical Iraqi shi'ite muslims in their fight against the United States? yes or no...and if yes, please provide said explanation.
4. Can you show me any quote of MINE where I slimed America or our military? yes or no..and if yes, please produce said quote(s)

 

[red states rule]

Libs use the same tactics when they debate


1. Avoid factual arguments, they're usually against you anyway.

2. If for some obscure reason the facts actually fall your way (an extremely rare occurrence) then repeat them endlessly regardless of the reply of your conservative opponent. Remember time is limited, use this against him.

3. Get as personal and vicious as you can, maybe it will distract your opponent from his train of thought.

4. If you are unable to insult him with the usual insults such as 'racist', 'homophobe', or 'bigot', then insult someone else on his side (someone related to the subject under discussion is preferable but not required).

5. When you're losing, and you usually will be, abruptly change the subject. Again the object of this is to distract and deflect attention from your opponent's argument.

6. Talk loudly and rapidly, don't allow your opponent to get a word in. Remember the more time you consume, the less time your opponent will have.

7. Use hyperbole as an example of your opponent's argument and suggest that that is what they are suggesting.

8. Purposely misunderstand what is being said by your opponent and distort it into something you can use.

9. Make up 'facts' most people don't check them and anyway, you'll be long gone by the time the truth is known, and so will the audience.

10. Expect perfection. Focus on the slightest flaw in your opponent's argument, any kind of mistake, grammatical, spelling, contextual, anything no matter how slight is sufficient to deflect attention away from how vacuous your arguments are.

11. Act insulted. Take umbrage at the slightest contradiction and act as if it is a personal insult. This will make your personal attack seem warranted and just.

12. Mug the camera or audience while your opponent is speaking, make faces, sneering is good, head-shaking better, and looking toward the ceiling is best [notice the avoidance of the word Heaven, Liberals avoid words of a religious nature WM]. Let the audience know you disagree with your opponent (even if you’ve no idea what he’s saying)

13. Use condescending laughter as much as you can. It serves two purposes, first, it dismisses your opponent as being unworthy of your respect and second, it shows your contempt for his arguments. This is a very powerful tool and can really annoy your opponent and disrupt his train of thought.

14. You’re an arrogant Liberal; demonstrate your obvious intellectual superiority by acting in a condescending manner.

15. Forget how many of the wealthiest in this nation are Liberals, always beat the drum of “Rich Republicans” and “working class Democrats.”

16. Finally, always remember style trumps substance. Know it, Live it.
"

http://mongomutter.blogspot.com/2005/08/liberal-debate-playbook-from-will.html

 

[maineman]

all that blabber....all that spinning....all those words....just to avoid having to type"

NO NO NO NO

and you'd be done!

you really look desperate!

 

[red states rule]

The list fits you perfectly

Spin, lie, deflect, duck, dodsge, hide, and insult are your trademarks

 

[maineman]

four simple questions. why won't you answer them? what ARE you afraid of?

 

[maineman]

come on redstate....these really aren't that tough:

1. Do you still hold to your earlier statement that Clinton did not try to take out Osama while he was in Afghanistan? yes or no
2. Do you know of any evidence that America was aware of in May of 1996 concerning Osama bin Laden that would have justified us taking custody of a foreign national on foreign soil and incarcerate him? yes or no
3. Can you explain the moral difference between America giving weapons to radical extremist sunni muslims in Afghanistan for their fight against the soviets and Iran giving weapons to radical Iraqi shi'ite muslims in their fight against the United States? yes or no...and if yes, please provide said explanation.
4. Can you show me any quote of MINE where I slimed America or our military? yes or no..and if yes, please produce said quote(s)

 

[red states rule]

come on redstate....these really aren't that tough:

I know I have posted these. Do only type in english?

oh debate tactic number 2. If for some obscure reason the facts actually fall your way (an extremely rare occurrence) then repeat them endlessly regardless of the reply of your conservative opponent. Remember time is limited, use this against him.

 

[maineman]

I know I have posted these. Do only type in english?

oh debate tactic number 2. If for some obscure reason the facts actually fall your way (an extremely rare occurrence) then repeat them endlessly regardless of the reply of your conservative opponent. Remember time is limited, use this against him.

you have never answered them.... four one syllable answers .... come on....it is not that tough/

 

[maineman]

1. Do you still hold to your earlier statement that Clinton did not try to take out Osama while he was in Afghanistan? yes or no
2. Do you know of any evidence that America was aware of in May of 1996 concerning Osama bin Laden that would have justified us taking custody of a foreign national on foreign soil and incarcerate him? yes or no
3. Can you explain the moral difference between America giving weapons to radical extremist sunni muslims in Afghanistan for their fight against the soviets and Iran giving weapons to radical Iraqi shi'ite muslims in their fight against the United States? yes or no...and if yes, please provide said explanation.
4. Can you show me any quote of MINE where I slimed America or our military? yes or no..and if yes, please produce said quote(s)

really simple.... just four answers.... either yes or no.... not too tough

 

[maineman]

redstate: any chance you might be able to answer these questions sometime soon?

1. Do you still hold to your earlier statement that Clinton did not try to take out Osama while he was in Afghanistan? yes or no
2. Do you know of any evidence that America was aware of in May of 1996 concerning Osama bin Laden that would have justified us taking custody of a foreign national on foreign soil and incarcerate him? yes or no
3. Can you explain the moral difference between America giving weapons to radical extremist sunni muslims in Afghanistan for their fight against the soviets and Iran giving weapons to radical Iraqi shi'ite muslims in their fight against the United States? yes or no...and if yes, please provide said explanation.
4. Can you show me any quote of MINE where I slimed America or our military? yes or no..and if yes, please produce said quote(s)

really simple.... just four answers.... either yes or no.... not too tough

 

[red states rule]

The liberal media keeps slanting the what the folks want in Iraq

No surprise, Dems are hoping for failure



Couric Touts (Slight) Opposition to Funding Surge, Skips Even Split on Iraq Resolution
Posted by Brent Baker on February 12, 2007 - 20:41.
A new CBS News poll, released Monday night, determined that Americans are almost exactly evenly split on whether Congress should “pass a non-binding resolution against sending additional troops to Iraq” with 44 percent in favor and 45 percent opposed. But in highlighting how the Senate on Tuesday “will begin a three-day debate on a non-binding, symbolic resolution stating its disapproval of President Bush's Iraq troop build-up,” CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric ignored that finding of an evenly-divided nation. Instead, she focused on how “a total of 53 percent say Congress ought to block funding for additional troops or for the war entirely.”

In offering up that number, which combined two answers, she obscured the poll question’s real news: A piddling 8 percent wish to “block all funding” for the war in Iraq. As an on-screen graphic showed, to get to 53 percent Couric and CBS producers combined the 8 percent with the 45 percent who want to “block funding for more troops” -- a percent only slightly higher than, and within the three-point margin of error, the 42 percent who want to “allow all funding.” CBS’s graphic did not include the 42 percent result.

Couric read this short item on the February 12 CBS Evening News:


“Tomorrow the House will begin a three-day debate on a non-binding, symbolic resolution stating its disapproval of President Bush’s Iraq troop build up. But our new CBS News poll shows a majority of Americans wants Congress to go even further. A total of 53 percent say Congress ought to block funding for additional troops or for the war entirely.”
The PDF of the CBS News poll, conducted February 8-11, reported:

The war in Iraq continues to take a toll on opinions of the President, but when it comes to what Congress ought to do about the war in Iraq, the public remains divided, much as it was last month. A slight majority thinks Congress ought to either block funding for more troops or block funding for the war entirely.

WHAT SHOULD CONGRESS DO ABOUT FUNDING FOR WAR?
Block all funding: 8%
Block funding for more troops: 45
Allow all funding: 42

77% of Democrats want Congress to block funding for additional troops or for the war entirely, while 69% of Republicans think Congress should allow all funding for the war. 44% would like to see Congress pass a non-binding resolution against sending additional troops to Iraq. Nearly the same percentage -- 45% -- oppose the resolution.

These views are highly correlated with partisanship. 57% of Democrats think Congress should pass a non-binding resolution against sending more troops to Iraq, while 65% of Republicans think they should not do so. Independents are divided.

http://newsbusters.org/node/10786

 

[maineman]

so...you still want to obfuscate and spin and avoid and cut and paste ad infinitum rather than just answer four simple questions?

wow. They must really scare you.

 

[red states rule]

Yes, the people know where Dems stand when it comes to the war in Iraq

Dems Hope for Failure?

The latest FOX News Opinion Dynamics poll indicates almost half of those surveyed believe Democrats want the president's plan for Iraq to fail.

48 percent said they believe Democrats are hoping for failure and a U.S. troop withdrawal in defeat. 32 percent said they believe Democrats want the president's plan to work.

The president's favorable rating was 38 percent in the latest poll — down five percent from October. But that was higher than the number for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who came in at 33 percent.

 

[maineman]

Yes, the people know where Dems stand when it comes to the war in Iraq

Dems Hope for Failure?

The latest FOX News Opinion Dynamics poll indicates almost half of those surveyed believe Democrats want the president's plan for Iraq to fail.

48 percent said they believe Democrats are hoping for failure and a U.S. troop withdrawal in defeat. 32 percent said they believe Democrats want the president's plan to work.

The president's favorable rating was 38 percent in the latest poll — down five percent from October. But that was higher than the number for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who came in at 33 percent.

why can't you answer my questions?

 

[maineman]

rd stat rul:

will you be ansering these four simple questions anytime soon?

2. Do you know of any evidence that America was aware of in May of 1996 concerning Osama bin Laden that would have justified us taking custody of a foreign national on foreign soil and incarcerate him? yes or no
3. Can you explain the moral difference between America giving weapons to radical extremist sunni muslims in Afghanistan for their fight against the soviets and Iran giving weapons to radical Iraqi shi'ite muslims in their fight against the United States? yes or no...and if yes, please provide said explanation.
4. Can you show me any quote of MINE where I slimed America or our military? yes or no..and if yes, please produce said quote(s)

really simple.... just four answers.... either yes or no.... not too tough

 

[maineman]

will today be the day that you finally answer these four simple questions?

rd stat rul:

will you be answering these four simple questions anytime soon?

1. Do you still hold to your earlier statement that Clinton did not try to take out Osama while he was in Afghanistan? yes or no
2. Do you know of any evidence that America was aware of in May of 1996 concerning Osama bin Laden that would have justified us taking custody of a foreign national on foreign soil and incarcerate him? yes or no
3. Can you explain the moral difference between America giving weapons to radical extremist sunni muslims in Afghanistan for their fight against the soviets and Iran giving weapons to radical Iraqi shi'ite muslims in their fight against the United States? yes or no...and if yes, please provide said explanation.
4. Can you show me any quote of MINE where I slimed America or our military? yes or no..and if yes, please produce said quote(s)

really simple.... just four answers.... either yes or no.... not too tough

 

[red states rule]

Ken Allard: NBC sinks too low for this talking head

Web Posted: 02/14/2007 11:04 PM CST


San Antonio Express-News

Like some second marriages and most Hollywood sequels, it's usually a bad idea for a columnist to revisit the same topic. But last week's discussion of renegade blogger and NBC military analyst Bill Arkin proved some larger points.
In case you missed it, Arkin characterized U.S. soldiers as "mercenaries" enjoying "obscene amenities" shipped into the war zone — pampered hirelings who then complain about declining public support for the war effort.

In reaction, many military people and their families wrote in. Some wondered why NBC would continue to give Arkin a platform for spreading slurs about our men and women serving in Iraq — and as volunteers rather than as mercenaries.

Soldiers treasure humor especially when angry, and a bittersweet correspondence followed about the nature of those supposedly obscene amenities. Did MREs count or, for that matter, heat-resistant Hershey bars with a shelf life measured in decades? What about interceptor body armor? A Marine lance corporal in Iraq reported that their tents were newly equipped with heaters: Did this mean they were pampered?

Writing for the National Review, Michael Ledeen argued this week that only "know-nothings" could call American soldiers mercenaries. "Our fighters are where they are because they believe in something bigger than themselves." And also because soldiers are members of a military community "where virtue does not equal narcissism."

Such communities are increasingly scarce, especially in certain precincts of our national media, where narcissism is apparently becoming a core value. Here, it is probably appropriate to note that for more than 10 years, I served as one of those military analysts you saw on NBC whenever international conflicts were looming.

NBC then was a network comfortably resonating to the rhythms of Tom Brokaw and the greatest generation. Especially after 9-11, our rivals at Fox and CNN scrambled for audience attention by recruiting their own military analysts — subsequently known as "Warheads." Especially for a post-draft nation where personal military service is increasingly rare, our band of TV brothers helped fill in some of the blanks about this new kind of war.

Being personally affected by the life-cycle of news stories, none of the Warheads was surprised to see our respective networks gradually reining in their coverage of the war as popular support waned. Audiences were wearying of a conflict with no end in sight, and, unlike the greatest generation, this one was being fought by Other People's Kids.

When you don't have skin in the game, war becomes a matter of sheer personal preference. Channel clickers are wielded, the soldier overlooked or, as we saw last week, even maligned as a mercenary without provoking a career-ending scandal.

It is, therefore, possible to argue that NBC is merely undergoing a delicate arabesque in anticipation of changing audience preferences and the long- hoped-for Democratic restoration (although journalists generally seem reluctant to raise the tough questions that should punctuate the 2008 campaign).

But has anyone else noticed the network's precipitous retreat from journalistic and ethical standards? Not only were no apologies given and no pink slips issued for Arkin's outburst, but on his MSNBC show last week, Keith Olberman went out of his way to defend this "valid criticism" of our military.

In January, Conan O'Brien was allowed to escape without apology after airing a particularly tasteless gay skit deriding Christianity: "Oh, Jesus, I love you, but only as a friend." (Just try doing that sometime using Mohammad's name!)

And only this week, questions have been raised about the cozy relationships between CNBC anchor Maria Bartiromo and the companies she covers as a supposedly objective journalist. The response by Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE and godfather of the NBC family: "Substantially, I don't think she did anything wrong."

Fine: Let's hope he's right. But sometimes the only way to show where you really stand is to vote with your feet. And so with great reluctance and best wishes to my former colleagues, with this column I am severing my 10-year relationship with NBC News.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retired Col. Ken Allard is an executive-in-residence at UTSA and author of "Warheads: Cable News and the Fog of War." E-mail him at [email protected].

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/stories/MYSA021507.02O.allard0215.39ca78.html