Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 561 To 570 Of 657 Comments
WHEN YOU THINK IDIOCY, "THINK PROGRESS"
@Lamontyoubigdummy:
"Liberals control 90% of the MSM and 90% of academia, providing a propaganda machine Hitler & Stalin could only dream of. Liberals demand lock-step obedience, no independence, tow the line, tell us what we can say, what we can’t say, police our thought . . " etc. etc.
Wow. You forgot eat babies and kick puppies.
Loosen the tinfoil hat.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 18.09.2007 @ 02:02
LAYING IT IN ON THE LINE FOR PEACE
#Chip:
Maby you missed in #16, where I said pretty clearly I agree that the "chickenhawk" argument is foolish:
"I agree both sides of the “chicken†argument make fools of themselves. No doubt in my mind"
At least, that was my intent. If it didn't come thru that I don't believe the argument, from either side, then I failed to convey my thoughts clearly.
Mr. Moran is using the argument to attack Leftie talking heads for, essentially, being punks. Talking a good game, but not putting their keisters on the line when it counts and all that:"The fact is, those who are truly dedicated to peace and prove it by their actions make pretenders like Greenwald et al look like the cowardly wretches they truly are"
"The left will no more fight for peace than they will fight for anything else important. Their “fighting†consists solely of lecturing the rest of us on how we should obey their petulant demands because of their moral superiority."
And so forth. Again, in my opinion the argument is baseless, but if Mr. Moran truly believes it (as implied by the post), then he presumably would apply it to Rightie "all talk and no action" people as well. Yet he doesn't. That is either hypocricy, foolishness, or a deliberate attempt to use a false argument to smear an opponent. Unfortunately, I don't think he's either a hypicrite or a fool.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 18.09.2007 @ 02:17
#20
Attacking the argument does not expose hypocricy. Defending one side for using the argument while attacking the other side for using the same argument is hypocricy.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.09.2007 @ 12:32
@Davebo:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 16.09.2007 @ 19:03
I wouldn't come to this site if Mr. Moran didn't impress me, even if I disagree with his positions most of the time.
I agree both sides of the "chicken" argument make fools of themselves. No doubt in my mind.
Was it 100k at the rally, or 10k? I had thought it was 10k, but I could be wrong.
I support the protesters firmly (when there's a rally around me I go whenever I can).
Didn't intend to sound harsh. Its just that the post didn't attack the hypocritical argument, it attacked the Left. Now, granted, this is the RightWingNutHouse, so mabye I was expecting too much, but I was hoping for more "tough decisions require followthru and personal sacrifice" rather than "this is why the Left are punks."
@Rick:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 16.09.2007 @ 15:29
I agree with you 100% about the gasbag "all talk and no action" critics of the war. But how on Earth can you mock the "enlist or shut up" argument by telling them to enlist (take action) or shut up? Your entire post justifies their argument; its easy for the gasbag Righties to talk about how glorioius the war is, but when the recruiter comes around they aren't so excited.
Pick one; either the argument has merit (making solider-in-Texas W, King-of-deferments Cheney, my-sons-serve-by-not-fighting Romney, etc.) two-faced cowards, or the argument does not have merit. The point works both ways. If the war protesters who didn't go to the rally are cowards in your opinion, does that make the war supporters who didn't go cowards as well?
Again, I agree with you. I'm just not sure how you're weakening their argument by pointing out how right it is.
RUDY EXPLOITS MOVEON'S STUPIDITY
@Rick:
Whats your take on the Pentagon saying the use of the General in Rudy's ad wasn't authorized? Bad move for Rudy, or no big deal?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 16.09.2007 @ 00:25
FANTASTIC FABULIST DEBAT FOOLS THE FOOLISH
As if anybody needs more proof the MSM is a joke.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 16.09.2007 @ 01:47
Sigh. I miss Cronkite.
The worst part of their patheitc attempts at "journalism" is now I'm starting to wonder has the MSM always been this horrible, but we just didn't know it?
@ chip:
"Not only does using words like “failure†to describe an on-going mission work against the “good guys†having a productive discussion/debate on forward-looking policy, but worse yet it only serves as more fodder for the enemy’s propaganda mill."Are you saying its not a failure, or that it is, but we just shouldn't say it out loud? Would you be happier with "failing" instead of "failure"? How about "not achieving successful outcomes?" If we all stood up and loudly decalred we were winning, the enemy propaganda mill would run out of bad things to say? Whenever war critics voice their concerns, the usual response is "you're aiding the enemy." No. Screwing up this war from day one is aiding the enemy. Denying the reality of our current situation only makes it more difficult to find a solution.
You want a "productive discussion/debate on forward-looking policy" -- I can't speak for the entire anti-war population, but go ahead. I'm willing to listen to productive discussion/debate. The trouble is, I haven't heard alot. Mabye thats my "liberal Leftie bias", and I'm not hearing all the other options being offered by the reasoned Right side. Please, school me. I'm being serious . . . I haven't heard a plan for even a close cousin to success yet from anybody (Right, Left, Center, Insane, anybody), and at this point if Satan himself rose from the depths and had a coherent plan, I'd give it serious consideration.
p.s. -- "let's keep doing the same damn thing that hasn't worked so far and hope the Iraqis fix the problem so we can take credit for it" isn't going to count. Neither is "lets keep shooting bad guys until they are all dead".
p.p.s. -- "equivilant bloodbath". In time or scope? Yes, we leave, the place blows up. No doubt. Are you saying that the steady rates of murder, genocide, ethnic cleansing, bombings, etc. that are occuring under our presence will lead to fewer overall deaths, displacement, and misery that the place blowing up? Possibly, but thats just a guess on your part. We're propping up a dam that has water pouring thru holes. If we leave, the dam comes down and the place floods rapidly. If we hold the dam up . . .its still gonna flood, it'll just take a little longer.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 15.09.2007 @ 14:44
@johnmc:
"Ok, how do we end it without leaving behind a disaster?Or, do you have no problems in withdrawing to leave hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to the slaughter?"
Let me turn this around -- do you think that there's not a slaughter occuring right now with us there?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 14.09.2007 @ 21:06
Stay -- Iraqis get slaughtered, its a chaotic bloodbath, and more Americans die.
Leave -- Iraqis get slaughtered, its a chaotic bloodbath, and fewer Americans die.
Given these two choices, I choose #2. Yes, its a huge stain on our honor. Don't blame leaving for that. Blame going in.
BUSH'S IRAQ UNRECOGNIZABLE FROM THE REAL THING
@johnmc:
"I think his speech last night finally outlined a realistic end-game: hold, stabilize, drawdown, leave defensive garrisons in place for deterrence (i.e. West Germany, South Korea, etc.). "
Thats not a strategy. Hold and Stabilize are goals. Strategies are how you achieve goals. Do I have a strategy for the football game this afternoon? Sure -- score points, and stop the other team from getting any. W has always been great at these vague, good-sounding goals (protect America, spread democracy, stop terrorism, etc.) The trouble is, he doesn't have a strategy for accomplishing the goals.
Drawdown -- he's planning a drawdown? I didn't hear that. He's willing to go back to roughly pre-surge levels. Generous of him, since they were going to start rotating out beginning in April anyway regardless of his desires. After that, he's willing to withdraw most of the troops once he gets the "hold and stabilize" thingy . . . which was the plan since 2003. In other words, he'll drawdown the troop level after we win (stabilizing Iraq). How has he ponied up anything new?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 14.09.2007 @ 13:14
