How Liberals Debate

[Bullypulpit]

You get your ass kicked worse then Mondale did in 84

Like your Dem buddies you are now using the cut and run plan in your battles here

Not only do you lack style and substance, you're also delusional.

 

[red states rule]

Not only do you lack style and substance, you're also delusional.

Libs have cornered the market on being delusional. First they thought they could compete with Rush and Sean with their own radio network

Then they thought CNN and MSNBC would take care of Fox News

Now, the libs are doing exactly what the terrorists want them to by their slow bleed plan in Iraq

Libs are delusional, and alot of elected libs will be unemployed after the election in 08

 

[wiggles]

Now, the libs are doing exactly what the terrorists want them to by their slow bleed plan in Iraq

U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism
State Dept. Will Not Put Data in Report

By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 27, 2005; Page A01

The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.

Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.

Terrorist incidents in Iraq also dramatically increased, from 22 attacks to 198, or nine times the previous year's total -- a sensitive subset of the tally, given the Bush administration's assertion that the situation there had stabilized significantly after the U.S. handover of political authority to an interim Iraqi government last summer.

The State Department announced last week that it was breaking with tradition in withholding the statistics on terrorist attacks from its congressionally mandated annual report. Critics said the move was designed to shield the government from questions about the success of its effort to combat terrorism by eliminating what amounted to the only year-to-year benchmark of progress.

Although the State Department said the data would still be made public by the new National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which prepares the information, officials at the center said no decision to publish the statistics has been made.

The controversy comes a year after the State Department retracted its annual terrorism report and admitted that its initial version vastly understated the number of incidents. That became an election-year issue, as Democrats said the Bush administration tried to inflate its success in curbing global terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"Last year was bad. This year is worse. They are deliberately trying to withhold data because it shows that as far as the war on terrorism internationally, we're losing," said Larry C. Johnson, a former senior State Department counterterrorism official, who first revealed the decision not to publish the data.

After a week of complaints from Congress, top aides from the State Department and the NCTC were dispatched to the Hill on Monday for a private briefing. There they acknowledged for the first time the increase in terrorist incidents, calling it a "dramatic uptick," according to participants and a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.).

The administration aides sought to explain the rise in attacks as the result of more inclusive methodology in counting incidents, which they argued made year-to-year comparisons "increasingly problematic," sources said.

In his letter urging Rice to release the data, Waxman said that "the large increases in terrorist attacks reported in 2004 may undermine administration claims of success in the war on terror, but political inconvenience has never been a legitimate basis for withholding facts from the American people."

Both Republican and Democratic aides at the meeting criticized what a GOP attendee called the "absurd" explanation offered by the State Department's acting counterterrorism chief, Karen Aguilar, that the statistics are not relevant to the required report on trends in global terrorism. "It's absurd to issue a report without statistics," said the aide, who is not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. "This is a self-inflicted wound by the State Department."

Aguilar, according to Hill aides, told them that Rice decided to withhold the statistics on the recommendation of her counselor, Philip D. Zelikow. He was executive director of the Sept. 11 commission that investigated the terrorist attacks on the United States.

The terrorism statistics provided to the congressional aides were not classified but were stamped "for official use only." Last week, State Department spokesman Richard A. Boucher said the government would publish "all the facts," but at Monday's session Aguilar told the staff members that even if the NCTC decided not to release the data, the State Department would not reconsider and publicly do so itself.

A State Department spokesman said last night that he is confident the data will be officially released. He said the government is committed to "providing the public all the information it needs to have an informed debate on this issue."

Under the standards used by the government, "significant" terrorist attacks are defined as those that cause civilian casualties or fatalities or substantial damage to property. Attacks on uniformed military personnel such as the large number of U.S. troops stationed in Iraq are not included.

The data provided to the congressional aides also showed terrorist attacks doubling over the previous year in Afghanistan, to 27 significant incidents, and in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, where attacks rose to about 45, from 19 the year before. Also occurring last year were such deadly attacks as the seizure of a school in Beslan, Russia, by Chechen militants that resulted in at least 330 dead, and the Madrid train bombings that left nearly 200 dead.

The State Department did not disclose to the aides the overall number of those killed in incidents last year. Johnson said his count shows it was well over 1,000.

Libs are delusional, and alot of elected libs will be unemployed after the election in 08

Looking forward to 2008, a generic Democratic presidential candidate has a 21-point lead over an unnamed GOP challenger.

 

[Gunny]

Over the last several days, I have noticed a pattern among the lefties in their debate tactics.

After doing some research I have found the debate tactics libs use when confronting those who disagree with them

Here is a list of tactics liberals use to debate. Ready them. Study them. Be ready the next time you debate a liberal


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...from-will.html
__________________

I actually take more offense when conservatives employ these tactics than I do when liberals emply them. Conservatives who debate in this manner lend credence to the liberal accusations and in fact do nothing to present a legitimate opposing argument.

 

[wiggles]

I know the left is jealous of Sean and Rush. Your Dead Air America netowrk was to be the liberal answer to them

Liberal debate tactic #5

Libs cannot debate on talk radio or on message boards

Repeating subjective assertions over and over and over and over as if they're facts.

 

[red states rule]

Liberal debate tactic #5


Repeating subjective assertions over and over and over and over as if they're facts.

Liberal debate tactics #8 and 14

Air America was to deliver liberals to the promise land instead it took the rich librals into bankruptcy court

 

[wiggles]

Liberal debate tactics #8 and 14

Air America was to deliver liberals to the promise land instead it took the rich librals into bankruptcy court

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

The demise of Air America is the same subject as liberals' "jealousy" of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, which is the same topic as debate tactics supposedly employed by liberals?

Again, liberal debate tactic #5.

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

I'm only pointing out where you're using these liberal debate tactics yourself. You're doing the same with me, except you're just inserting random numbers from the list you posted with no rhyme or reason.

 

[red states rule]

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

The demise of Air America is the same subject as liberals' "jealousy" of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, which is the same topic as debate tactics supposedly employed by liberals?

Again, liberal debate tactic #5.

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

I'm only pointing out where you're using these liberal debate tactics yourself. You're doing the same with me, except you're just inserting random numbers from the list you posted with no rhyme or reason.

You are now using liberal debate tactics 1, 7, 9, 11, and , 16

I know reminding liberals of their failures is considered a low blow - but someone has to do it

 

[wiggles]

1. What factual arguments am I avoiding?

7. What hyperbole am I using?

9. What facts am I making up?

11. How did I act insulted?

16. Thank you for complimenting me on my style. Your opinion on the substance of my arguments - you know, considering - don't carry a lot of weight with me.

 

[red states rule]

1. What factual arguments am I avoiding?

7. What hyperbole am I using?

9. What facts am I making up?

11. How did I act insulted?

16. Thank you for complimenting me on my style. Your opinion on the substance of my arguments - you know, considering - don't carry a lot of weight with me.

1) Air America was created by the left to be the lefts answer to Rush and Sean. You seem to be saying that is not trure

2) A UNNAMED Dem has a 21 point lead over Republicans - you sem to have "overlooked" Rudy is beating all your Dems currently running

3) Your posts have the victim card all over them. The inncent and pure liberal being attacked by a member of the right wing attack machine

 

[wiggles]

1) Air America was created by the left to be the lefts answer to Rush and Sean. You seem to be saying that is not trure

Where did I say this is not true and what does it have to do with the subject of this thread?

2) A UNNAMED Dem has a 21 point lead over Republicans - you sem to have "overlooked" Rudy is beating all your Dems currently running

I linked a credible source. Can you?

3) Your posts have the victim card all over them. The inncent and pure liberal being attacked by a member of the right wing attack machine

Your perception.
I never made any claims about being innocent or pure (LOL) and you're not a right-wing attack machine, you're just some poor dumb slob who doesn't know the difference between a fact and an opinion.

 

[red states rule]

Hang in there. Perhaps one day you may actually be aboe to post facts and actually make a valid argument

 

[wiggles]

Hang in there. Perhaps one day you may actually be aboe to post facts and actually make a valid argument

You're really a liberal, aren't you. You're a hardcore instigator just here to make right-wingers look stupid. You're doing an excellent job.

 

[red states rule]

You're really a liberal, aren't you. You're a hardcore instigator just here to make right-wingers look stupid. You're doing an excellent job.

For a thread you have dismissed as nothing -you are psoting alot here

You are getting killed here and on the Jillian thread. You must enjoy the abuse

 

[wiggles]

You are getting killed here and on the Jillian thread

Oh if you say so, then it must be true.

 

[red states rule]

Oh if you say so, then it must be true.

It is true, not because I said so, because it is a fact

 

[wiggles]

It is true, not because I said so, because it is a fact

You haven't stated a fact yet.

 

[Bullypulpit]

You haven't stated a fact yet.

Nor is it likely that he will. And, have you noticed, he's suffering from irony deficiency as well.

 

[wiggles]

Nor is it likely that he will. And, have you noticed, he's suffering from irony deficiency as well.

Right wingers smell like cheese!

I win! I win the argument! Hooray for me!

 

[Paul Revere]

Well tweddle, no matter where you go, here or the Chambersburg, PA. Public Opinion newspaper online, the readers peg you as the cut and paste Reich Wing idiot that you truly are.

You pretend to be some kind of cyber Rush Limbaugh as you parrot the same verbal hate vomit that they puke on air.

You are a sad example of humanity.