Younger voters are far less convinced than their elders that the protests at U.S. embassies in the Middle East have been planned in advance. Female voters are not as sure of that as male voters are.I'm guessing that the more you like President Obama, the more you've been influenced by the administration's propaganda about the "Innocence of Muslims" video.
The government last week spent $70,000 in Pakistan to run a television ad featuring President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denouncing the video in hopes of limiting protests there.They don't have to run that ad in the United States, where the mainstream media carries their message free of charge. Here's what they showed in Pakistan:
What's that red flag with the pentagram behind her? It seems kind of Satanic. Is it this:
What's going on there? And, more importantly, should we fly into a rage and take to the streets?
পোস্টগুলি
৩০৯টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 309 এর 201 – থেকে 309PurplePenguin reasoned: I never said that was the reason, rather I was responding to your request to hear if anyone can think of any possibilities for why the White House might have lied about this.
Even if we buy your fog-of-war-truth-is-the first-casualty scenario, the alternative still exists that the Administration lied about this because it would hurt his re-election. That's the kind of lying that people really, really resent.
Thanks Ken.
The other day one of the commenters here suggested that the assault on the Benghazi consulate was a botched kidnap attempt.
That got me to thinking that if that were so, perhaps the intent was to trade for the Blind Sheik.
I'm curious, any of you have a science background? It's a question concerning evolution. If Obama wins in Nov and serves another four years will the media develop gills from having their faces planted in the sweaty crack of his ass for eight years?
@Inga the Obama Whore:
I predict you will die a horrible death one day and deservedly so
---p.s. and lol. Almost forgot this little gem: the Obama WHore bitches about incivility and cries to the moderators to delete my posts--- and then says I deserve a horrible death and whines about "fascism" "squeliching" her freedom of speech.
Such a hypocritical cunt, just like garage.
Civility is Bullshit.
Even if we buy your fog-of-war-truth-is-the first-casualty scenario
That ain't exactly what I'm saying, but yes, that could have been a factor as well with the initial statements.
the alternative still exists that the Administration lied about this because it would hurt his re-election
Sure does, and I never said otherwise.
Only difference is, I don't see anyone having a melt-down 'cause that particular idea was suggested...but the thought that Obama might have had not-bad-intentions was enough to launch a baseless/unwarranted personal attack.
*shrug*
McTriumph said...
I'm curious, any of you have a science background? It's a question concerning evolution. If Obama wins in Nov and serves another four years will the media develop gills from having their faces planted in the sweaty crack of his ass for eight years?
I think the Obama/MSM felationship is more like a "Human Centipede" bad science experiment.
I think the Obama/MSM felationship is more like a "Human Centipede" bad science experiment.
Meaning that after 8 years or so the "hind feeder," the press, will die.
Just think of how the press could rejuvenate itself by actually doing a credible job under a different administration. I think the press has gotten lazy, safe, and dispirited in large part because of competition from the likes of Drudge. But there's a failure of imagination on the MSM's part. Imagine an Army of Drudges (not all the same political flavor either). The left is too used to cocooning in safe havens like the NYT, the WaPo, etc.
Liberals have equal opportunity to post here
Depends what you mean by "opportunity".
Would you say that the heckler's veto is used equally against liberals and conservatives on this site?
For instance, in this thread we see many vile comments against Garage and Alli, err, I mean Inga. These not only seem to be due to their political leanings, but I also don't recall ever seeing attacks of this nature against conservative commentators. Liberals (and those who are labeled as liberals) are in for a much rougher time on this blog than conservatives.
Doesn't sound to me like both groups have quite the same opportunity to comment, but I can understand why others would perceive that they do.
There is a German word that describes those who wish other's CHILDREN dead and wishes a sick CHILD on another (for the mere sin of being a liberal).
Mistfiech. Animal that dwells in a dung heap. Fitting.
It's Ok PP, y'all can call me Allie or Inga, whatever.
Well Revenant you do it, wash, rinse, repeat and not on a liberal blog
The problem isn't that you post anonymously; the problem is that you're so self-involved about it. You want credit for personal courage and special consideration for the details of your personal life, but you're unwilling to actually admit who you really are.
The internet is full of crazies, so being anonymous is the smart play. But NOT having the courage to put your real identity behind your remarks means you forfeit the right to brag about your courage -- or invoke details of your personal life to defend your arguments. Which is why I do my best to avoid doing either of those things.
On a side note -- you might want to think about why you thought a libertarian would be more at home on a "conservative" blog than a liberal one. :)
Revenent being a Phuckhead...
Seriously, though, if you don't like it here you can always leave. It isn't like you contribute anything. We already have a few resident national-socialist types like Cedarford ready to advocate for censorship and conscription; we don't need you.
We are at war, phuckhead!
Does the fact that Lincoln or FDR not only advocating but doing censorship and conscription make them National Socialists?
The stupidity of Revenent and others arguing that anything the National Socialists or their leaders did or believed...anything.. makes one a Nazi is ridiculous.
Hitler liked children and dogs, ergo anyone that likes children and dogs IS JUST LIKE HITLER.
Godwin's law was invented with idiots like Revenent in mind.
The video shown in Pakistan is embarrassing, just embarrassing.
Would you say that the heckler's veto is used equally against liberals and conservatives on this site?
Absolutely! Those hecklers are not here today, but they're lurking. Need I name names?
Revenant, do you not see what you just wrote being incredibly HYPOCRITICAL, you dear Rev are even more anonymous than I . Who the hell are you?
I should reveal who I am, with crazies like Whore on this blog? Seriously, are you nuts?
@Inga the Obama Whore:
There is a German word that describes those who wish other's CHILDREN dead and wishes a sick CHILD on another (for the mere sin of being a liberal).
---Actually it was the sin of hypocritical shitheadedness, wishing totalitarianism upon everyone, begging for women to murder their children, and defending anything Mein Obama did. And for being a cheap whore.
do not see what you just wrote being incredibly HYPOCRITICAL
---Inga, you're an incredible lying hypocrite, so calling anyone else a hypocrite as an insult is to be laughed off and ignored. you have NO credibility in the area, bitch.
I think he's saying you shouldn't wave the bloody shirt all the time
Would you say that the heckler's veto is used equally against liberals and conservatives on this site?
In the sense that zero = zero, sure. Nobody (left, right, or other) has ever had their posts censored or removed here because of the reaction those comments provoked in others. The handful of removals were for violating content-neutral rules established by our hostess.
Now, you may have simply been misusing the term "heckler's veto" to mean "you get criticized" -- but that just changes the formula from "zero = zero" to "all = all". There is never a post here that doesn't include lefties sniping right-wingers and righties sniping left-wingers, with a little "Crack rants about New Age influences" and "Titus talks about his hog" sprinkled in as seasoning.
@Inga the Obama Whore:
crazies like Whore
---Yup, its plum crazy to criticize liberalism or point out black dysfunction or point out Garage and Inga are lying hypocritical pieces of shit or call them on their hypocrisy or use the same tactics the left uses against them instead of being polite while they shit all over civilization.
Crazy, I tell you!
Not that it really matters...but by having her own pic as an avatar Inga is one of the least anonymous folks posting in this thread.
Whore, you can rag on liberals all you want, that is NOT the issue and if you weren't insane you would know it. One does not wish others children dead or ill.
I did not mention YOUR children did I ? I wouldn't sink that low, even though I do predict YOU will die a horrible death, it will be Karma that kills you.
For instance, in this thread we see many vile comments against Garage and Alli, err, I mean Inga.
By one commenter, who is obviously a troll.
I said I'd say no more on the subject (following my troll policy of "ignore"), but I'll say this.
I'm not in the shoes of someone whose family member(s) (and him- or herself) have been personally attacked in a very vile way by a troll, so I must grant that the following is, as it were, "easy for me to say."
But I will note that in this thread Inga expressed glee and enjoyment at the opportunity this troll provides-- as it highlights "right-wing extremists" at this blog. I want to starve this thing of oxygen; Inga wants to spotlight it. In other words, whether or not it's a moby, it serves the purposes of a moby for her. Even though, almost without exception, right-wingers here have denounced this thing as a troll. I consider what it's said (e.g. to garage and Inga) as vile, and have said so. NB it's referred to the likes of me and Nathan Alexander as "Obama lovers" (!)-- which makes me, let's say, a little suspicious about the sincerity of its persona.
But it doesn't matter whether it's a moby or not, it's a troll. It would be nice if a thread could, at least before the 200 comment mark, remain more or less in the vicinity of its topic, and not turn into an opportunity for personal drama starring one or a couple of commenters. It's not the first time that's happened. Sometimes feeding a troll is a way to feed oneself.
And Whore, I've been told I have the gift of second sight.....
Revenant, do you not see what you just wrote being incredibly HYPOCRITICAL
You're just not bright enough to see that I was criticizing your self-importance, not your anonymity.
you dear Rev are even more anonymous than I . Who the hell are you?
We're both equally anonymous. "Even more anonymous" doesn't even make sense as an English term -- either people know who you are, or they don't.
whores doesn't have parents Inga?
Nobody (left, right, or other) has ever had their posts censored or removed here because of the reaction those comments provoked in others. The handful of removals were for violating content-neutral rules established by our hostess.
Not quite true. At least one poster gets her comments always removed, no matter what the content.
But I am probably mis-using the term in your book, and saying that non-conservatives (or those perceived to be) seem to get more personal attacks against 'em than conservatives do. But like I said, it is all a matter of perspective.
All that aside, I still can't help but wonder...if this really isn't a conservative blog then are companies that bought adspace via this service entitled to their money back?
@Inga the Obama Whore:
Whore, you can rag on liberals all you want,
---"until Mein Obama thankfully has you arrested and re-educated."
One does not wish others children dead or ill.
---Like when you assholes were calling Bush a war criminal, Michelle Malkin a whore, and SWATting right wingers night and day?
Piss off on the attempt to make ME act by rules YOU AND YOUR WHORISH FRIENDS will never bother to do.
I did not mention YOUR children did I ?
---You brought up your worthless offspring to argue how the 1st Amendment must be burned to the ground. Fuck off with that shit. Also, your gene pool would be much better off NOT reproducing, so your worthless, parasitic genes can die and stop INFECTING civilization, you bug.
I wouldn't sink that low
---LIAR. LEFTISTS DO THIS ALL THE TIME AND YOU DO NOTHING. FUCK OFF YOU LYING WHORE.
even though I do predict YOU will die a horrible death, it will be Karma that kills you.
---HYPOCRISY RIGHT HERE. INGA WHINES THAT NO ONE SHOULD WISH HARM AND THEN WISHES HARM.
Jeez, I'm sick of lying street trash GARBAGE like Inga being taken seriously.
I should reveal who I am, with crazies like Whore on this blog? Seriously, are you nuts?
Are you blind or just stupid? I specifically said anonymity was the intelligent way to go. Pay attention. :)
It is just that you want to have your cake and eat it too -- to get credit for taking a Bold Stand while risking exactly nothing. I'll get into heated arguments over politics or evolution, but I'll never claim with a straight face that it takes courage to do so, anonymously, on a blog that doesn't censor anyone for content in the first place.
Purplepenguin ...
... the thought that Obama might have had not-bad-intentions ...
You know what? I don't think her had bad intentions. I don't he had any intentions. I think he is a clueless amateur in way over his head. I think the same about H. Clinton. It is both of their ambivalence, subsequent to the event, that infuriates me.
I know I have 99% more face to face experience, and knowledge gained thereby, with Arab Muslims on a daily basis, than either Hillary or Barack. Given that experience, I'd say that The Drill SGT got it about right regarding the event and its motivations, and most of the Arabs I've spoken to agree with that scenario.
What my neighbors wonder is how we can be so naive? How can we almost invite here what they fled from in their homelands?
I can't answer their questions, not even slightly...and that is embarrassing.
@Inga the Obama Whore:
I've been told I have the gift of second sight
---lol. Can you see my double middle fingers pointing at you, then?
Your New Age bullshit ain't gonna save you, lefty. Obama's policies are directly threatening your worthless offspring, deal with it. Channel your bullshit "second sight" on that.
Yashu, you are misreading my responses to the vile troll. Sometimes one must face their enemy, turning away only makes the enemy think you are fearful. Also I have seen in the past that pushback from you conservatives HAs shut this nutcase's gaping maw.
Nothing new age about it, it's old as time.
@Inga the Obama Whore:
Sometimes one must face their enemy, turning away only makes the enemy think you are fearful.
---HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Note the HYPOCRITICAL Obama Whore's illogic: standing up to meanie internet commentators who dare point out her hypocrisy is good...but running and hiding and burning the 1st amendment is good if we're pissing off terrorists.
FUCK YOU, YOU UNAMERICAN PIECE OF SHIT.
Also I have seen in the past that pushback from you conservatives HAs shut this nutcase's gaping maw.
---Keep dreaming, slut.
"The handful of removals were for violating content-neutral rules established by our hostess."
At least one poster gets her comments always removed, no matter what the content.
I'm sure there is some subtle difference between "content-neutral" and "no matter what the content", but it escapes me.
But I am probably mis-using the term in your book
It isn't "my book"; the term was coined specifically to refer to speech that is banned because of a feared disturbance to the peace that would result from it.
@Inga the Obama Whore:
Nothing new age about it, it's old as time
---lol. Old wives tales weak broads told each other because they were too stupid and worthless to effect any change on the world, so they pretended that they had "mystical powers" to alleviate their sorry egos.
YOU HAVE NO SECOND SIGHT, BITCH, JUST A PROBLEM WITH UNDERSTANDING LOGIC.
If you had second sight, you would have seen how Mein Obama threatened your daughter's life. A
Revenant, I understood your comment, I have the right to post as much or as little info about myself as I choose, it doesn't make it RIGHT that commenters are vile. Many conservatives here have posted details about their families, because I am a liberal, should expect any thing to be fair game, right?
You are not much better than Whore.
Not quite true. At least one poster gets her comments always removed, no matter what the content.
that's pretty weak analysis. Mary gets deleted for bad faith.
Yup, he's ALL YOURS.
are companies that bought adspace via this service entitled to their money back?
What would be the legal basis for the claim?
@Inga the Obama Whore:
it doesn't make it RIGHT that commenters are vile
---"Except if they're lefties, in which case the rules don't apply."
You are not much better than Whore.
---See anti-lefties? To a lefty, any deviation from the party line is the same as whole-hog degeneracy and open revolt and must be met with a jackboot on the throat.
And you still want to be "civil" with such vile creatures like garage and Inga.
" If Obama wins in Nov and serves another four years will the media develop gills from having their faces planted in the sweaty crack of his ass for eight years?"
No, but they will start to resemble dung beetles.
I'm sure there is some subtle difference between "content-neutral" and "no matter what the content", but it escapes me
I phrased it poorly, sorry.
For this one user I have in mind, all her content gets deleted even if the given rules of the blog are followed.
Ain't saying our hostess is wrong/improper to do so, but merely pointing out that it does occur.
It isn't "my book";
I keep forgetting that some folks have difficulties with American idioms. My apologies for the confusion...no offense/slur was intended.
Nathan Alexander said...
@Cedarford,
I'm a right winger, and I understand we are at war, at least as much as you do.
I also realize that one of the things we are at war over, is freedom. Freedom of religion, freedom of association, Rule of Law, freedom of speech, freedom of expression...all are things we have that they don't want us to have. All are things that Muslims intend to eradicate once everyone is subject to the worldwide Caliphate.
So when you are in a war, you don't just pre-emptively surrender one of the things you are fighting with and for, do you?
==================
Sure you "surrender" certain rights in wartime.
Some of the Bill of Rights stuff held sacrosanct as guaranteed in ALL circumstances by the Sacred Parchment are in abeyance in wartime.
But abeyance of those rights is piddling compared to us having the necessary power, given war's exegencies, to strip tens of millions of men of their freedom and rights in wartime and put them in harms way. Not of just enemy action, but increased risk of death or injury just from being in a risky, kinetic military environment.
In war, we have also forced portions of the civilian population into forced job assignments, made them take loyalty oaths, censored them, looked at all their mail and phone calls crossing our borders, put significant numbers under martial law, interned civilians with enemy sympathies, blocked their free travel, and comandeered their goods. Breaking all sorts of precious Sacred Parchment rights in the process.
In war, holding some rights in abeyance is not "surrender of those rights". It is doing what is needed to prevail in the struggle and not let certain maximum claimed peacetime rights of some civilians expose far larger numbers of Americans to harm in wartime. To cause needless American deaths by giving ammunition to the foe.
Revenant, I understood your comment, I have the right to post as much or as little info about myself as I choose
You do not, however, have a right to be taken seriously when you claim to be doing something courageous by anonymously posting at Althouse. :)
it doesn't make it RIGHT that commenters are vile.
If you think vile commenters are something new or ideology-specific here, you're sillier than I thought.
For this one user I have in mind, all her content gets deleted even if the given rules of the blog are followed.
She was banned for repeated failure to follow the rules.
What would be the legal basis for the claim?
The company is selling a service that places advertising on "conservative blogs", and states that Althouse is one of those blogs.
Are they really allowed to make...and profit from...that claim if it is untrue?
Revenant, as Cedarford's so aptly put it, you are a Phuckhead.
You are not much better than Whore
The amusing thing is that you think you are.
I mean, sure, you want countless innocent people conscripted and dragged off to fight in wars against their will -- but people said mean things about your anonymous, possibly-fictional daughter, so naturally you're in high dudgeon about the whole thing.
But there is a certain humor value in watching a quasi-fascist like yourself complain of personal attacks, I'll give you that. :)
Yup, most definitely a Phuckhead. Are you and Whore related?
Are they really allowed to make...and profit from...that claim if it is untrue?
Unless it is provably false, and subjective terms like "conservative" and "liberal" aren't. There are people in the world -- heck, there are people who post here -- who consider both Bush and Obama to be conservatives, and others who consider both men to be liberals.
PurpleP. How do you know they profit from ads? What margin do they work on? Do they have a parallel service for lefty blogs?
Mainly, have you straightened out your snack times with you employer?
To cause needless American deaths by giving ammunition to the foe.
Cedarford, this is a key element in our disagreement. As I've said before-- those of us arguing on behalf of free speech have realist considerations on our side as well.
One of our points is: to try to appease the Middle East by making exceptions to, or distancing ourselves from, the First Amendment and our commitment to free speech IS ITSELF to "give ammunition to the foe."
Chamberlain fancied himself a "realist" too-- but it turns out he was not.
So Revenant , was it acceptable to you that Whore said Garage Mahal deserved to have a sick child? Garage had some point shared that detail here on this blog, should that be used as ammo against him by vile people like you and Whore?
Unless it is provably false, and subjective terms like "conservative" and "liberal" aren't.
Interesting theory. Thanks for sharing.
~~~~~~~~
How do you know they profit from ads? What margin do they work on? Do they have a parallel service for lefty blogs? Mainly, have you straightened out your snack times with you employer?
Pure trollery, yet very insightful. Thanks for sharing.
@Cedarford: Your 6:16, just like PP fog-of-war scenario, doesn't exclude the simple possibility that somebody just phucked-up and it reflects poorly on Obama's reelection. I'll add that the Administration's first reponse to Romney was butt-out--stop shooting from the hip.
I think the CYA position in view of an election is a serious charge which needs to be addressed. Otherwise your position seems indistinguishable from a circled wagon defender.
Inga, any attempt to posit a moral equivalence between Revenant and that troll-- so obviously absurd-- only hurts your own credibility.
Yashu, that you defend Revenant is telling.
Yup, most definitely a Phuckhead. Are you and Whore related?
How would I know? He's anonymous.
But thanks for the humor value of watching you praise our resident Jew-hater just after your big speech about the importance of outing white supremacists. :)
Revenant, people who aren't ideological robots, are able to agree with other commenters on a few subjects while disagreeing with them on others. Surely you can understand that.
Yashu, that you defend Revenant is telling.
Is it? Well, let it tell.
(NB I've defended you in the past too, and I consider that just as telling-- as telling as any online indicia is-- of me.)
just like PP fog-of-war scenario, doesn't exclude the simple possibility that somebody just phucked-up and it reflects poorly on Obama's reelection
I'm sorry you missed my earlier response, but what I was referring to isn't a "fog of war" situation (where info is unknown 'cause of the chaos occurring) tho that would also explain the initial statements from the ObamaAdmin.
I'm also not discounting that Obama might have lied 'cause he doesn't want to hurt his re-election chances, but that was mentioned already and we were asked to suggest other possibilities.
And has ANYBODY been able to see what post Nath might have had in mind when he said I was mocking others for their typos? I thought at first he was just confusing me with someone else, but I don't see any mockery in this thread over typos...am I just missing something?
Yashu, I appreciate you defending me, it's your call to defend Revenant, I'm sorry I criticized you for it.
I'm also not discounting that Obama might have lied 'cause he doesn't want to hurt his re-election chances, but that was mentioned already and we were asked to suggest other possibilities.
Where? Not by Althouse. You and Cedarford seem to be pushing the "Necessary Evil" angle. I'm just asking for a delineation between a necessary evil because of wartime emergency and a simple cover-up.
And thanks for responding, PP. Everyone else seems to be caught up in Allie's diversionary tactics.
Chickilit ...Everyone else seems to be caught up in Allie's diversionary tactics.
Not everybody. But I'll grant you that most everyone else not in the newest ad hominem fest has given up.
Chickelit, diversionary? You give me too much credit.
Inga,
I've been told I have the gift of second sight.....
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Jesus, woman, you just don't stop!
What a fucking disaster,...
So Revenant , was it acceptable to you that Whore said Garage Mahal deserved to have a sick child?
I'll never know if "whores of the internet"'s comments are acceptable to me or not because I don't read comments by people named "whores of the internet". If your description of him is accurate (which would be a first) he sounds like a the right-wing version of LuckyOldSon, i.e. a jackass with no redeeming qualities.
by vile people like you and Whore?
You're getting so angry over just a few little holes poked in your self-importance. :)
Another day, another bickering match between Allie and ____________. Don't you ever get tired of it, Allie?
HAHA, Crack, I knew that one would get your attention. I don't really have or belive in second site, I was just poking the snake a bit more.
Revenant, people who aren't ideological robots, are able to agree with other commenters on a few subjects while disagreeing with them on others. Surely you can understand that
I understand that you're joining a Nazi sympathizer in condemning me for being a bad person. :)
Let's just say I like my taste in enemies.
No problem, Inga.
I just think it's important to distinguish between ideological/ political differences (which can get quite heated), and those having to do with morality/ character.
All of us (right and left) are biased, and tend accordingly to be more forgiving and/or critical of other commenters.
So, I think it's patently unfair for you to equate Revenant and a troll.
I also think it was unfair (or inaccurate) for Nathan to call purplepenguin a "troll"-- even though I agreed with much of Nathan's diagnosis of typical patterns of liberal argumentation.
You mitigate and conflate-- to understate things-- the awfulness of a real troll when you compare him to someone whom I consider one of the best commenters here (Revenant).
Erika, once in a while, yes. I won't let Whore get away with his behavior, should I?
Given the blurring of definitions of liberal and conservative, I am not sure that distinction is of much help in determining the nature of this particular blog. Oh well.
I was interested in the discussion of wether the POTUS should lie in some matters. It was Winston Churchill that said truth must often be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies. Not that aphorism sheds any light on the question at hand. My though is that it depends on the motives the POTUS has for lying or truth telling. And that question is one that will ultimately be determined Beyond that it seems the only safeguard the nation has is to elect men or women of principles and hold them accountable as best we can
Where? Not by Althouse. You and Cedarford seem to be pushing the "Necessary Evil" angle
9/24/12 1:57 PM, Nathan Alexander gave four different reasons why the WhiteHouse might feel the need to lie to the American Public, and he asked if anyone could think of any other possibilities why they would.
I'm not trying to push that "national security" is the reason, rather just offering up another possibility.
However, I am pushing to know what the hell Nath was talking about when he accused me of mocking others for typos and that I always paint the GOP/Republicans in a bad light.
Does anybody have any idea what he was referring to with those comments?
Seems pretty clear to me that you get off on the drama, Allie. Whatever floats your boat, I guess, but you know damn well that if you didn't respond he wouldn't get anything out of yanking your chain. You learned that on the elementary school playground just like the rest of us.
Inga said...
Chickelit, diversionary? You give me too much credit.
I learned not to underestimate you. You caused me pain elsewhere.
Erika, we all are individuals, my dramatic personality should not affect you in your real life. I hope it doesn't, that would be strange.
I am a drama queen, you are a bit droll. I bet we are both good moms and love our kids, so hey we have something in common, no?
I also think it was unfair (or inaccurate) for Nathan to call purplepenguin a "troll"-- even though I agreed with much of Nathan's diagnosis of typical patterns of liberal argumentation
Just to clarify - are you saying that list is an accurate portrayal of how I personally behave on this forum but it is more of a liberal-thing than a troll-thing? Or are you saying that list is truly how liberals behave, but it was inaccurate to label me as such?
Chickelit, I caused you pain elsewhere? Oh sorry didn't mean to swing my golf cliub while you were standing so close behind me.
Come here, I'll kiss your boo boo.;)
Come here, I'll kiss your boo boo.;)
I ain't exactly hurting, but I could use some of that too.
You have my email ;)
Careful, PP--that kind of banter will get you in trouble as Inga and I can vouchsafe.
Yeah, we're both way cool, I'm serious, you're silly, it's all good. Just wondering about how upset you really can be about the people you tangle with when you know darn well you're egging them on.
Erika, I'm guilty of egging him on, but only after he really really pissed me off. Whore did say twice he wished my daughter to be murdered by terrorists and said Garage deserved a sick child, THAT was reprehensible. I am a fighter and that is a sure way to get my blood boiling, I do apologize to the other commenters here, but I won't allow Whore's comments to stand unopposed.
PP, yes I do, don't I?
Just to clarify - are you saying that list is an accurate portrayal of how I personally behave on this forum but it is more of a liberal-thing than a troll-thing? Or are you saying that list is truly how liberals behave, but it was inaccurate to label me as such?
Honestly, I can't really bother going back to read the specific discussion (which I read, but skimmingly).
I found that Nathan's list captured certain characteristics of left/liberal argumentation I've noticed in the past. (I allow for the possbility that left/liberals might discern similar things in right-wing argumentation-- I myself haven't noticed those same patterns, but then again, I'm biased.)
I think (IIRC) I've noticed some of those moves from you in the past, purple, but there wasn't enough in this discussion (though like I said, I was skimming) for me to give a verdict here.
Suffice it to say, I don't consider you a troll. You don't merit that designation. Which is not to say that I don't find things to object to (not just in the content, but the form) of your arguments sometimes-- but the same can be said of many commenters here, right and left and independent.
As far as I'm concerned, you contribute to (rather than detract from) this blog-- as an interlocutor, provoking discussion/ argumentation/ articulation. Even though I may disagree with most of what you say. So, stick around!
Thanks for clearing that all up yashu, but I ain't gonna stick around....
...tonite, 'cause I don't have cable and I got to get to a bar if I wanna watch the game.
I rarely say "Good bye" in a blog thread, but this feels like a good time for an exception...take care all and see ya next time.
Revenant said...
Revenant, people who aren't ideological robots, are able to agree with other commenters on a few subjects while disagreeing with them on others. Surely you can understand that
I understand that you're joining a Nazi sympathizer in condemning me for being a bad person. :)
====================
So, criticism of certain things you, the mighty fuckhead Revenent believe in...makes one a Nazi..
Shall we then descend into the depth of such ideological purity that any disagreement with a foaming at the mouth rightwinger makes someone RINO and Obamite?
Any criticism at what happened at the babks and on Wall Street in the last decade makes you a Communist and Stalin-lover?
By fuckhead Revenent's standards, the entire world is now Nazi because they criticize Israel and have concerns about the disproportionate influence of Jews in the global banking system and mass media.
Cedarford,
In the future, when complaining about how unfair it is that you're being called a Nazi sympathizer, you might want to NOT end the rant with a complaint about the "the disproportionate influence of Jews in the global banking system and mass media".
I'm just sayin'.
Good night, pp.
Revenant. C4 seems to have it in for the jews but it is indisputable that they enjoy extra good representation in the higher ranks of banking and finance and entertainment No conspiracy theories there and no nazism either. I am myself in finance and am a gentile, on stilts, who is neither bothered or bettered by the jews in my game. I find them the best allies and competitors. Cant speak for the entertainment business where i presume all participants are loathesome.
yashu said...
To cause needless American deaths by giving ammunition to the foe.
Cedarford, this is a key element in our disagreement. As I've said before-- those of us arguing on behalf of free speech have realist considerations on our side as well.
One of our points is: to try to appease the Middle East by making exceptions to, or distancing ourselves from, the First Amendment and our commitment to free speech IS ITSELF to "give ammunition to the foe."
Chamberlain fancied himself a "realist" too-- but it turns out he was not.
=================
Doesn't work that way. We are a global presence trying to win allies on our side that will be useful in facing hostile or potentially hostile nations like N Korea, Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela - plus the need for allies globally against the most virulent and violent Islamists.
None of them particularly give a shit about our Sacred Parchment. Accomodation to Soviets in the early 40s or to the odious S Korean regime of the 60s who did not share our Beloved freedoms - is not appeasement.
What they care about is having mutual interests and that being seen by their population as working with America is not going to get them thrown out of power.
Certain vital interests are affected by our affiliations with Israel, and our promotion or tolerance of certain things that the Muslim world despises. Or with Latin America, with free market stuff that historically punished them.
Lets say that we reach a point where it is in our vital interest to hit Iran.
But along the way, we lost the right to base forces in the Gulf and ajoining nations to Iran. Or even overfly Azerbaijan, Turkey, Kuwait, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Khazakstan airspace to hit Iran. Because all conclude their population will not tolerate the Nation that supports or accepts Phophet blasphemy and other grave transgressions against the populations belief.
The result we would be quite right and properly be fucked in our ability to hit Iran.
We cannot let a few people have unlimited liberty - all so as to wreck 310 million Americans vital interests in alliances and ability to project power, in wartime.
but it is indisputable that they enjoy extra good representation in the higher ranks of banking and finance and entertainment
Sure, and I didn't dispute it. It is the "having concerns" bit -- which is quite the euphemism for C4's usual Jew-hatred -- that made the comment funny in context.
Like if I said "I'm no racist, but I'm concerned about how many black people there are in pro sports". Why the concern? :)
Is that why you're not explaining why you accused me of ridiculing others for typos? And why you're not clarifying what you meant when you say I put things in the worst possible light for GOP/Republicans?
You have a real problem with reading comprehension on top of lack of integrity and inability to reason, huh?
I listed the main points of the playbook that I have noted. I pointed out you were using plays from that playbook.
That doesn't mean that you use all those plays every single time.
But all you liberal-progressives use the same playbook. I've seen the same obfuscation and attempts to undermine objective truth from Inga, phx, ARM, you, shiloh, ritmo, Howard, garage, etc.
You can't win on the facts, so you try to discourage, undermine, question.
The same moves keep popping up in various comments from all of you (and maybe a few more that I've missed).
It's like you went to a training class or something.
You need him to admit that? You must be new here.
@Revenant,
Nah, I'm not new here. I know he doesn't argue in good faith, probably can't. Politics is more important to him and his ilk than integrity. But it is nice to point it out when you catch them in blatant Journolistic spin-mongering...for those who are new here, or for anyone who doesn't have the experience to see through their crap.
Accomodation to Soviets in the early 40s or to the odious S Korean regime of the 60s who did not share our Beloved freedoms - is not appeasement.
You see, yashu, this is why you aren't going to reach an agreement with Cedarford. The parallesl to accomodations we reached with the Soviets during WW2 and with right-wing dictators during the Cold War paint a clear picture: at heart, he sees the Muslim world as allies of America against a true common enemy.
Want to guess who he thinks the true common enemy is?
you are going on record that the US govt should lie to citizens?
Sometimes, yes.
I fully and absolutely disagree. To lie is for the govt to think it knows better than the citizenry, to put itself apart and above the citizenry. That is tyranny. Maybe just the beginnings of it, but tyranny nonetheless.
I'm not surprised a liberal progressive feels so comfortable with lying.
What frequency is okay?
As little as possible.
This is stupid. It is like being "a little bit pregnant."
You ever hear about the integrity of a ship or of an air seal? Once you lose a little bit of integrity, it is gone. There is no beneficial effect of lying.
On what topics?
National Security & military operations.
Wrong. You say "no comment" or ask for a need to know. Lying is corrosive. With-holding information is not lying.
For what purposes?
Overall good, safety of military personal.
There is no normal situation where overall good or safety is served through lies.
Case in point: no one lied about President Bush's whereabouts in November of 2003. They just maintained a security blackout until he arrived in Iraq to serve turkey to the troops.
how deliberate lies about the Libya attack serve national security.
I never said that was the reason, rather I was responding to your request to hear if anyone can think of any possibilities for why the White House might have lied about this.
However, having served in two different branches of the military I can think of a couple reasons why we'd want our enemy to think their fake-out was still fooling us.
I've served in two branches of the military, as well. So?
Ever work with the Air Force?
Integrity first.
Ever work with the Army? Where does "lying to your boss/peers/subordinates" come in under "Duty, Honor, Country"?
Ever work with the Marines? Does "Always faithful" stretch to mean "Always faithful, but try to lie as little as possible to your fellow Marines"?
Ever work with the Navy? Where does "lying" appear in the explanations of "Honor, Courage, and Commitment"?
Again, I ain't saying that this is what happened, rather am just responding to your request for other possibilities for why the C-in-C might lie to the public.
I'm fully into OPSEC. I am completely into Intelligence Oversight. I've never violated the highest clearances.
But there is no reason and no excuse for a govt to lie to the citizens.
That's the same as lying to your boss.
For the govt to lie to citizens is to place the govt in a superior position, to infantilize the citizenry.
Again, I'm not surprised you have no problem with that.
But it is objectively wrong.
hmm, was wondering how this thread got 300+ posts. Talk about cluttering the conversation! = 80% of this thread.
Reminds me of the "supposed" Althouse death threat thread which went well over (600) posts.
:::zzz:::
Nathan, some lying, or if you prefer, deception is inevitable. See Operation Vengeance; Operation Overlord/Patton/FUSAG/Pas de Calais; "doomed spies;" crypto. Some may even be fortuitous, viz., Dieppe.
If some Administration apologist wishes to make the case that the Ambassador was sacrificed in order to inject poisoned intelligence into the decision making apparatus of AQ, in order to help us destroy them...bring it!
C4, as I was saying on the other thread, which by the way you have slunk away from (which was your best move; which is always your best move), you're not really that smart. Your 9/24/12 8:52 PM is BS. No Arab nation could deny us their airspace, nor try because we would kill them. They would have to be a Russian or Chinese client and there are none. Even Syria is open like a loose woman to the IDFAF and I assume we can do as well. They will do what we want, as always, and if they have to save face, they will bluster and lie and deny and blame as usual. Yeah, fucking Oman or Kuwait will say no to us. Most of them wouldn't even know we were there.
At least, that's the way it should be. Of course, this may have gone off the rails in recent history back when Turkey blocked the 4th ID and we did not have the Turkish generals coup them at once.
The interesting question, Cedarford, would be if you are really that naive or if you think you can fool others.
If the former, I have to wonder: the first time you sucked a cock, did you believe him when he said he wouldn't come in your mouth? If the latter, did your cousin believe you when you used that line on him?
How about the second time?
P.S. Ukrainian or Polish? Slovak maybe? Probably not Polish, you'd be smarter.
but I won't allow Whore's comments to stand unopposed.
You wanted WOTI to be "outed." That's your word.
As if some racist jackass with an ISP matters.
He's purely a troll. In fact, his posts are so vitriolic and over the top they've become downright comical. ESPECIALLY WHEN HE TYPES IN ALL CAPS.
I'm glad you've taken on the mantle of Forum Cop, but really, you'd be better off to let him go.
If he can't get any traction here with his idiotic musings, he'll go someplace else.
No Arab nation could deny us their airspace, nor try because we would kill them. They would have to be a Russian or Chinese client and there are none. Even Syria is open like a loose woman to the IDFAF and I assume we can do as well.
============
Gah, what a Zionist tool you are, Nichevo. Not only did Turkey say no to the 4th ID, they blocked certain air ops and missions from Aviano.
The Iraqis have basically tossed us out and signed a defense treaty with Iran. Pakistan only allows us because we bribe them and they still hate us enough to try and backshoot us any chance they get. The Muslim nations of Central Asia, over a dispute on us encroaching on a former Soviet sphere and widespread dislike of us being Israel's catspaw...united with China and Russia in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that told the US to start closing down bases and economic offices we opened after 9/11.
The Russians have warned us to back off on threats to Syria, where they have a naval base - or they will arm Syria to the teeth with a cutting edge air defense. (Last time Syria had a top notch system they bloodied up your vaunted IADF badly until the US ended Israeli planes going down in smoke each hour by giving them better ECM and decoys and the satellite photo and ELINT the Israelis couldn't do without us.
Ps Nichevo - On all those cocks you sucked.
You didn't want to, the thought disgusted you, and you walked away.
But then you thought about the money those fat gay bear rabbis and goyim offered..the money! And you went back to suck away with a smile on your face.
You have a real problem with reading comprehension
I have enough reading comprehension to know that "Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present" is not the same thing as "definitely, absolutely, beyond a doubt"
The best part is how you're doubling-down on that claim. That says a lot right there.
I pointed out you were using plays from that playbook.
Actually, you only accused me of doing the stuff on the list. When asked to point out actual examples of such behavior you refused to do so.
But all you liberal-progressives use the same playbook
So Sally is your daughter, eh?
*rolls eyes*
Seriously, you need to shake this deep-rooted bigotry you have...'cause not everyone who disagrees with ya is a "progressive-liberal".
Your inability to see a person as an actual person, and instead viewing them only as a member of a group, is making it very difficult to have a productive discussion. Makes it especially difficult when your assessment of the other person is incorrect.
These statements of yours indicate that you aren't actually talking with me anymore (if you ever were) but rather you're having an argument with all of those "progressive-liberals" you've talked with in the past.
It's like you went to a training class or something.
Earlier you stated that I am constantly questioning your motives. THIS is an example of you doing exactly that to me...are you able to provide an example of me doing such to you?
There is no beneficial effect of lying.
Obviously you are finding it beneficial to tell lies about me, or you wouldn't be doing so.
Like I said earlier, I can think of a couple situations where it would be beneficial for the US if our enemy thought that their farce/fake-attack is actually fooling us. I guess we'll have to respectfully disagree about this one...
...or at least I'll be respectful while disagreeing with ya. I don't think you're capable of doing so.
It is important to keep in mind that I didn't say anything negative about the reasons you gave for why the White House might lie, but rather I simply answered your request to provide another possibility for why the ObamaAdmin might lie about this situation.
In response, you unloaded with this "Liberal Playbook" list that has nothing at all to do with the issue nor with me, and have continued on with nothing but personal slurs and baseless attacks.
Your reaction speaks volumes, and is very insightful.
@Inga the Obama Whore:
I bet we are both good moms and love our kids
---No lefty woman is a "good" mother or even loves their children, since you would murder your children at the drop of a hat for career advancement.
Also glad to see you're now admitting to lying about your beliefs. But its ok, you're a lefty, you just wanted to do something. Ends justify the means for lefties.
Hear that sound, Inga? Looks like the hordes of Obama-created jihadists are closing in on a base in the mideast....
Yes, C4, I understand they have been saying no a lot lately and we should take steps to fix that. However, it doesn't really matter. They couldn't stop us. I don't know what you're talking about with Syria carving up the Israeli Air Force, they came in in 2007 and iirc did whatever they wanted to that reactor, I believe undetected and certainly unmolested.
What is Turkey going to do if we run missions out of Incirlik? Are they going to shoot us down? Did the Paks, could the Paks shoot us down when we went and got OBL? No. They will bitch and moan but if Erdogan, Morsi et al don't know that we'll put their heads on sticks if they mess with us too much, they can always learn. One thing I will say in Obama's favor is that unlike Bush, he is a nasty son of a bitch who will not respect anybody's airspace if he wants a cookie on the other side of it, let alone a high value target.
As for your attempt at the withering remarks, is that really the best you can do? "No, you are!" You really are a plodder, C4, your imagination is sorely lacking. Which Eastern European peasant mentality do you represent? I should be able to figure that out with time, or you could fess up as requested on the other thread, and give us a little more insight into that sarcophagus of a mind of yours.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন