One of the things we’ve got to start doing is quit accepting that the nonsense ginned up by the Republican PR industry (RNC, White House, MRC, AEI, Heritage, Fox, MRC, etc.) has any merits and must always be answered.
Folks, they’re lying and full of shit. When your opponent is lying like that, just say it and keep talking about what’s important. If someone says the sky is green, it’s no use to point out scientific data otherwise. It just isn’t true and you should say so. The time for this attitude has long passed.
Thanks for that thoughtful post Oliver. This is why you don’t have any merit, you say that those organizations are liars and that MM — funded by a billionaire mudslinger –, the DNC, and other radical organizations are truth tellers. Sometimes I just don’t get you.
Problem is, OW, is the shouters don’t tell their lies just once. They keep repeating them until they become part of the standard narrative. (Even Nancy Pelosi was caught recently joking about Al Gore “inventing the Internet.”)
I agree that the response has to be more direct. However, simply calling out a lie won’t get the job done.
Quaker’s right, you have to battle these in a different way. OW, the Democratic party has been doing it your way for years. How’s it working? Ask President Gore.
Some teenage idiot in Maryland says I don’t have any merit and calls one of the two major political parties a “radical organization”. Yeah, I’m gonna have a hard time sleeping at night. All those ordinary people who donate to Media Matters are going to be surprised that they’re “billionaire mudslinger[s]”.
Actually, that’s just the point. The Dem party hasn’t been doing it the way I’ve outlined. They’ve spent eons explaining themselves to Republicans (right now we’re debating the historical merits of Clinton and Carter’s position papers instead of the fact that president Bush broke the law, for instance) instead of simply stating their version of the facts again and again until they’re blue in the face, the tactic the right has used to great advantage against the Whipped Media.
OW,
People aren’t argueing that Clenis and Carter said it was alright, we are arguing that the attorneys for those administrations said the president had that right. I mean, Jaime freaking Gorelick said it herself! Isn’t law argued on the basis of precedent?
I definately get tired of the ad hominem attacks….here is the data and the link
“Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that “the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.” FISA contains a provision making it illegal to “engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute.” The term “electronic surveillance” is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication “sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person” (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by “intentionally targeting that United States person.” The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act’s prohibition on electronic surveillance.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
Notice the clause “intentionally targeting that United States person”? If OW is calling OBL, we can sure as hell listen in, cause we want to know what OBL is up to….
Pedro, you’re lying and full of shit. We’re not chasing the rabbit. What is important is to understand that Bush believes that his war powers leave him above the law.
The founders believed in checks and balances, but the Bush regime doesn’t believe in what the founders believed in.
pedro, I’m not sure I have this quite straight, but let me call your attention to a small detail:
Physical, not electronic. If I understand correctly, at the time Gorelick made this assertion, the FISA statute did not limit physical searches. The statute was subsequently amended.
In any event, Schmidt isn’t quite on point. He quotes Gorelick saying that the law doesn’t specifically deny the President the authority to order physical searches. On the other hand, the statute clearly does limit the President’s latitude in ordering warrantless electronic searches.
Once again, factcheck beats me to the Submit Comment button. Swine.
OW, do you remember that Swift Boat Liars for Slander? JK wanted to talk about the issues, instead of attacking their lies and their backers. And his Ohio poll numbers crashed as JK refused to take on the lies.
Now, I agree that we shouldn’t chase the rabbit and allow them to redefine the debate. But at the same time liars need to be called out.
Instead of allowing the right to parse words and draw us into a seperate debate, we can just redirect people to the 4th Amendment.
Howard Dean is trying to do just that- his policy of not responding to anonymous items is a good way to keep on message- which is the Bush regime is destroying what America stands for. And he is also willing to call out liars.
ian, billionaire mudslinger? Didn’t know Media Matters was funded by Dick Scaife. Or is it the Coors family? Or Sun Yung Moon? Maybe the Olin family? The Duponts? All of the above?
BTW how are you doing finding that proof that the ACLU is attacking everything Christmas?
Explain to me how a “wiretap” is a physical search. Moron. If you can’t or won’t read, it is no use discussing this with you further. You are lying.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240002
4: Clinton, Carter also authorized warrantless searches of U.S. citizens
Another tactic conservatives have used to defend the Bush administration has been to claim that it is not unusual for a president to authorize secret surveillance of U.S. citizens without a court order, asserting that Democratic presidents have also done so. For example, on the December 21 edition of Fox News’s Special Report, host Brit Hume claimed that former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton issued executive orders “to perform wiretaps and searches of American citizens without a warrant.”
But as the ThinkProgress weblog noted on December 20, executive orders on the topic by Clinton and Carter were merely explaining the rules established by FISA, which do not allow for warrantless searches on “United States persons.” Subsequent reports by NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell and The Washington Post also debunked the conservative talking point while noting that the claim was highlighted in the December 21 RNC press release.
From ThinkProgress, which documented how internet gossip Matt Drudge selectively cited from the Clinton and Carter executive orders to falsely suggest they authorized secret surveillance of U.S. citizens without court-obtained warrants:
What Drudge says:
Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”
What Clinton actually signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.
The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.
Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.
What Drudge says:
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”
What Carter’s executive order actually says:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
I can see the response already.
“But do electronics not occur in the physical world?”
And OW, factcheck is right–ignoring the liars just allows them to spread their lies unchecked. The Democratic problem is not that we shouldn’t respond to baseless lies on our character (”They’re Fifth Columnists! They want bin Laden to take over the country! They want all Americans to be gruesomely murdered by jihadists!”), it’s that we need to figure out how to make those responses more palatable to a soundbite-obsessed public.
Kerry got accused of all sorts of garbage and his responses were winding and intellectual. Nobody cared.
DeLay gets accused of conspiracy and money laundering and his responses are concise and incendiary: “I’m being oppressed by activist judges.”
You gave good advice on another thread, Quaker, I’m going to return the advice to you. Don’t chase the rabbit!
Physical, not electronic.
Quaker;
Now you’ve done it. Killed the thread for Dr. Scholl
peedro, it seems like you’re shifting gears in that last comment. Are we still arguing “Clinton did it too!” or have you zagged to “Not illegal! Not! Not!”?
If I’m reading you correctly, it’s the latter.
At least two FISA court judges seem to think there’s something to the idea that what the NSA has been doing isn’t legal. One resigned and the other told them not to ask for warrants based on the tainted sources they offered.
Man, if you lefties could concentrate long enough to read beyond the first paragraph….
FISA contains a provision making it illegal to engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute. The term electronic surveillance is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by intentionally targeting that United States person.
Keep screaming,everyone knows that proves you are right…
Thanks for that thoughtful post Oliver. This is why you don t have any merit, you say that those organizations are liars and that MM funded by a billionaire mudslinger , the DNC, and other radical organizations are truth tellers. Sometimes I just don t get you.
The GOP message machine is always most effective when dealing with unintelligent people.
OW’s central point is well-taken, however.
Instead of starting the rebuttal with: “Actually, that’s only partially right, but it brings up a different viewpoint on an interesting question….” it needs to start with: “He’s telling you something that isn’t true.”
And the teenage idiot lives up to his nom de plume by countering Oliver with a fat joke.
Really, I have a hard time taking the political opinions of someone who just grew pubic hair seriously.
Thanks Oliver for printing the truth,it seems everything that happens they try and go back in history,we do’nt live in history we live in the present.
See we believe that spying on American citizens is wrong,I just read an article on wired news which said to the effect that the NSA has put “cookies” out there. It seems to be a neverending story of this mess,to which the “right” seems justified in it seems anymore thier main agenda is lies. Thier argument is that they have an agenda and we do’nt,I would be interested to know this agenda?? So far all I’ve seen is “milk the government on Medicare,Medicaid,student loans & poor women trying to feed thier kids,” I forgot another bragging right is the passage of the bankruptcy legislation to benefit the credit cards bilking us at 14/23 percent interest,if they call that an agenda I’m surely glad I’m no part of it.
Teenage idiot .. nice one. Oliver I don’t think that you have any room to insult anyone, no literally you have no room. Haha, that was funny.
When you say others don’t have merit you better believe you will be called the same. Just because you have donations set up doesn’t mean that you wouldn’t be where you are without the help of a billionaire. You liberals can’t accomplish anything unless someone with deep pockets is behind it.
“You liberals can t accomplish anything unless someone with deep pockets is behind it.”
COUGH*Dick Scaife* COUGH COUGH
Shouldn’t you be filling out enlistment papers or fellating Michael “Cookies” Steele or something?
Well, this is about the level of argument I grown to expect. No comment on the substance of what I have actually shown you morons, just statements about how I am reading the republican talking points (I haven’t, don’t know where to find them and aren’t that interested anyway) and that I am lying, but no actual evidence of such.
No one “debunked” my “talking points” they just didn’t read far enough along to make a cogent argument, and repeating to yourselves over and over again that I was “debunked” doesn’t make it so.
At the end of the day, my guys keeping winning elections so I guess I am ok with that. I would dearly love, some day, to find one of you leftist that can actually string together a fact based argument that is carefully thought out and doesn’t end with “nyah,nyah, you’re lyiing and a full of shit….”
ROFLMAO
This is so interesting…let’s review.
Oliver says:
In a typically Freudian way, Pedro doesn’t actually get the point of the post and gloms onto “nonsense ginned up by the Republican PR industry” and for some reason assumes that the nonsense in question is the recent Republican talking point about electronic surveillance and FISA.
At which point he regurgitates the recent Republican talking point ginned up by the Republican PR industry.
Two commenters proceed (for the umpteenth time on this site) to debunk the talking point, perhaps graciously allowing that Pedro has not read the other threads that contained this same argument, or any other article anywhere else on the web and in the media that debunked this point.
So, in following Oliver’s advice, what these two commenters should have done is simply told the back-alley doctor that he is “lying and full of shit”.
So, Dr. Pedro, with all due respect (and I do mean that literally), you are lying and full of shit.
Great points OW, here it is shorter..
Echo chamber (repeat until bored).
Kerry couldn’t respond, cause it was true. Ultimately that is the “progressives” problems, no good, logical argument, just invective and emotion.
By all means, don’t let yourselves get pulled into the quicksand of facts.
Bravo OW, brilliant work.
“I would dearly love, some day, to find one of you leftist that can actually string together a fact based argument that is carefully thought out and doesn t end with nyah,nyah, you re lyiing and a full of shit& . ”
Some advice for your quest: Don’t lie and post stuff that’s full of shit.
Hope this helps.
Mouse, very perceptive post, the only thing I would take issue with is that I was “gracious” in allowing that Pedro didn’t read. I was purposely ungracious, though I posit that I gave him all the respect he deserved.
It was very Freudian that he conflagrated Republican Talking Point with FISA Scandal. The conscience of a conservative is finally waking up from its long slumber.
You guys are not getting me (The progressives. I’ll let the wingnuts feast on their own nonsense). The response to the Swift Boat Vets on the left was to talk about the details of the incidents they talked about in mind numbing detail. That was a loser. So was Kerry’s response of talking about the issues. The issues mean dick. The proper response should have been - coordinated among the entire left - “These people are paid liars in service of the Republican party. John Kerry served his country with distinction, and killed enemies of ours with his own two hands.”
And that’s it. And repeat it over and over, rejecting the entire premise of their slander and responding to it on your own terms.
You guys are falling into the trap with this Clinton/Carter nonsense again. Here’s the story: President Bush flaunted his presidential power, possibly illegally, and wiretapped American citizens without a warrant.
That’s it. The Clinton/Carter smokescreen is standard issue GOP propaganda, and you all have got to stop getting pulled into the quicksand with them. Once they pull you into the niggling details, no matter how right you are on the facts, its a win for them.
Niggling details like: “Possibly illegally”?
Trust me, it was all untrue, but the media didn’t care to report it. It’s a waste of time for the left to be pulled into the right’s muck, as evidenced right here again.
Oliver apparently hasn’t received the new talking points memo.
Here you go, Pedro-Here’s what the Vietnamese have to say:
Villagers say this is what they saw:
“Firing from over here. Firing from over there. Firing from the boat,” Vo Thi Vi told “Nightline.”
She was only a couple hundred yards away when a Swift boat turned and approached the shore, she said, adding that the boat was unleashing a barrage of gunfire as it approached.
“I ran,” she recalled, “Running fast. … And the Americans came from down there, yelling ‘Attack, Attack!’ And we ran.”
Her husband, Tam, said the man who fired the B-40 rocket was hit in this barrage of gunfire. Then, he said, “he ran about 18 meters before he died, falling dead.”
Was the man killed by Kerry or by fire from the Swift boat? It was the heat of battle, Tam said, and he doesn’t know exactly how the man with the rocket launcher died. But he knows the man’s name — Ba Thanh. He was one of the 12 reinforcements sent to the village by provincial headquarters, and after he died, the firefight continued, according to Tam.
“When the firing started, Ba Thanh was killed,” Tam said. “And I led Ba Thanh’s comrades, the whole unit, to fight back. And we ran around the back and fought the Americans from behind. We worked with the city soldiers to fire on the American boats.”
According to the after-action report, after beaching the Swift boat, Kerry “chased VC inland, behind hooch, and shot him while he fled, capturing one B-40 rocket launcher, with round in chamber.”
None of the villagers seems to be able to say for a fact that they saw an American chase the man who fired the B-40 into the woods and shoot him. Nobody seems to remember that. But they have no problem remembering Ba Thanh, the man who has been dismissed by Kerry’s detractors as “a lone, wounded, fleeing, young Vietcong in a loincloth.” (The description comes from “Unfit for Command,” by Swift boat veteran John O’Neill.)
“No, this is not correct,” Nguyen Thi Tuoi, 77, told ABC News. “He wore a black pajama. He was strong. He was big and strong. He was about 26 or 27.”
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2004/story?id=166434&page=1
Ian “Thanks for that thoughtful post Oliver. This is why you don t have any merit, you say that those organizations are liars and that MM funded by a billionaire mudslinger , the DNC, and other radical organizations are truth tellers. Sometimes I just don t get you”
Ian, yoiu incredibly stupid moron, there is a difference between using logic and facts, and lying.
Because someone calls names, it does not mean they are not also using logic and facts to back up their conclusions and opinions. You see how that works?
Here, let me simple it down a bit for you to possibly understand. If you use lies, and ignore facts, then you are … lying! It is not proper reasoning, it is “invalid”, and so are the coclusions you make !
On the other hand, if you provide credible, verifiable, logically consistent arguements and postulates from which to drwas your conclusions, then you are able to show WHY they are right, likely to work, and mostly, THAT IS HOW WE COMMUNICATE.
Without that structure of cause and effect, and veriable emperical evidence and observation, then you do not apply to the real world (reality) and are unable to properly react. Furthermore, decisions based on this faulty, not reality based reasoning, leads to a loss of predictability in the consequences.
Sort of like all the reality based people that knew there were no WMD in Iraq, and that Saddam wasn’t tied to al-Qaea-da.
See what has happened was not expected, or predicted, by the fantasy lie based reasoning of the you moronic neocon zombies! Now look, the shitpile and death that has happened is not good, but it WAS predicted, exactly like this. Why, you may ask?
Simple. The bleeding heart, traitorous, communist, socialistict wign-nut (a name that ise generally used for neocon fundies, tradition now) gay freaks that usually live on the left, also have “deductive” skills, commonly know as ’cause and effect’ reasoning.
Another tactic those (I am one of them) subversive Islamic jihaadist terrorist loving unpatriotic swill use is “inductive logic”, Can you say that, little one? (I mean your IQ)
You see, they rationally assed the situation, used the facts that were real, and came to logical conclusions, that lo and behold, have even now proven themselves correct, and that invading Iraq is not only illegal, it will deterorate and destabilize the Middle east, possibly leading to civil war!
They even had the audacity to say there were not any weapons off mass destruction going to be found, and that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the US, nor allied with al’Q, in fact an opponent of such!
So, what has this taught you about using logic, or listening to and following people that don’t use logic, only made up facts and emotionalism?
NOTHING, BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND.
Further more, calling names originated as a primary tactic of the lying subversives neocon Fundies - it is called propaganda and a tactic to divert attention from reason - and finally we, who despair for our lives, and humanity’s survival, realize that a large majority of you trolls and seive minded imbeciles cannot be reasoned with, so we have started taking out our frustration (I speak only for myself here, officially, that is) and actually, just damn well being honest in calling you what you are and represent.
If the shoe fits, wear it, but if it doesn’t, you better watch out, because Santa Claus will bring you a lump of coal next time :O)
Yes, you are right, Oliver, I am beyond being just frustrated.
I was just yesterday thinking that maybe the best bet, especially on blogs and forums, is to give someone the benefit of the doubt at first, like we all always do anyways, but then we should just reply
“What is your point? If you cannot use a reason or verifyable fact to support your conjectures, please, kindly shut the fuck up, I don’t care what you say”
Yeah, I like that: “What is your point? If you cannot use a reason or verifyable fact to support your conjectures, please, kindly shut the fuck up, I don’t care what you say”
Just use that all the time, but it has to be balanced with recognition of when the trolls do use actual logic.
Wait, what did I just say?? If they use logic and reason, it would be accidentally, so even they wouldn’t know what they meant LMFAO!
Hey, neocon-fundie-Bushzombie-idalworshippers. Your turn. See if you can refute any points, and if you point out that I have spelling errors, use name calling, that is nice, tell it your therapist, but please, don’t fucking bother saying whatever you want to say unless you al teast include some proper common sense reasoning, and mature insight in there, okay?
See, it is easy!
Now, you demonstrate a fucking severe lack of ability, just like your moron associate ther, depedro (or whatever he /she calls himself)
That’s the rub, O. If it’s not illegal (and given the evidence so far, it certainly doesn’t seem to be), then there’s NO STORY. You’re left complaining that President Bush is doing everything in his power to stop terrorism.
Go ahead: run against that. I beg you!
Like I said Kerry lied everytime his mouth moved& .
document one fucking instance you disingenuous hypocrite
He wore a black pajama. He was strong. He was big and strong. He was about 26 or 27. ……and he was dead. JFK was some big hero
Like I said Kerry lied everytime his mouth moved…..
Factcheck;
Sometimes you walk around a pile of dog poo on the sidewalk, and
sometimes you can’t resist kicking it.
Well, except for this. And this. And this. And in an earlier thread, this, this, this, and this.
But other than that, you’re right. There have been no comments on the (ahem) “substance” of what you have actually shown us.
Don’t chase the rabbit, Semanticleo.
When you reply to pedro off topic, God kills a kitten.
hehehehe, well OW is right about one things Leo, democrats ARE stupid (can’t resist kicking dog poo? ROFLMAO)
shorter dr;
ROFINMOP
Oh and Semanticleo,
Read the article by the vietnamese above describing the Kerry incident. They said the VC was killed from the boat, Kerry got a medal for “hunting” him down and shooting what kerry described as a fleeing combatant.
There is one (of many) “f’ing instances” cretin
CLASSIC MIKMIK!
An enormous post regarding the lack of factual detail by us wingnuts, and not a fact in the whole thing!
You make assertion after assertion, with virtually no evidence to back up any of your statements.
Do lefties even understand what irony is?
Your still rollin’ in poo, Dr Toe Jam.
You guys NEVER respond to the issue do you?
It’s a bitch, ain’t it? Why don’t you blubber to someone who gives
a crap.
Yea OW, you got yourself a mess of them “nukular” scientists here that’s for sure…..
drpedro: “CLASSIC MIKMIK!”
At least we agree on that. It *was* classic. Here’s a shorter version: If I say, “2 plus 2 equals 4, dammit, and you are an idiot for believing it to be 5″, that does not make the politely spoken believers in “2 plus 2 equals 5″ right. They are still lying sacks of shit. As are you.
In mathematics you need to prove your equations….nobody starts out by saying anything. You know, show your work.
And STILL no one addresses the issues at hand. And you wonder why you lose elections….Someone says “lower taxes” and the dhimmocrats scream “2 +2 = 4″!
uh,…..yea….
Um, if you need 2+2=4 proven to you, you have way bigger problems than the rest of us are able to resolve.
This is all exactly what Oliver appears to be talking about. The topic is the rather heavy handed, long winded responses from the Dems to GOP talking points (when they respond at all, that is), not another endless discussion about Kerry’s service (simple version: Kerry served, Bush didn’t, Cheney didn’t, and Rumsfeld didn’t, and it doesn’t matter whether the gun fire came from the boat or on land because both were in the ‘Nam, not Texas), or another go ’round about how Bush clearly broke the law (simple version: didn’t bother getting warrants even when given a full 72 hours AFTER the fact to get all his ducks in a row, effectively violating the 4th amendment to the Constitution). Any chit chat about past presidents can be answered thusly:
“Stop changing the subject. Bush broke the law and going to the “Clinton” well only makes you look desperate.”
It’s like some sort of involuntary Tourette’s Syndrome for wing nuts. Grumble…grumble…CLINTON!…grumble…grumble…LIBERAL!…grumble…9/11! …grumble…grumble.
So Bill, if you are in the military, but not in a war zone or fighting, you haven’t served our country? What kind of an asshole are you? Are you disrespecting all of our military folk that stand post all over the world, but aren’t getting actively shot at? Bush served, he was a fighter pilot….done.
“They also serve who only stand and wait.” John Milton
The leftists continue to make statements that are flat-out provable falsehoods and they think this is a good “strategy” for winning?
I’m not backpedaling, read my post. Bill said “Kerry served, Bush didn’t” A demonstrable lie. Where is all the wailing and gnashing of teeth from you guys about it? Isn’t OW who keeps saying that the republicans just “lie”. Is it OK for the leftists to just lie, or is there a double standard?
We “guys” never questioned Kerry’s service, we “questioned” his war hero status and his attempt to dishonor his brethren in arms after the fact.
I don’t know Peedro, it’s you guys who made questioning someones service ok, why are you backpedaling on it now?
“I m not backpedaling, read my post. Bill said Kerry served, Bush didn t A demonstrable lie”
Nope. No lie. Bush didn’t serve by a common definition, so he doesn’t believe it to be a lie. Bush really should have been in line for ‘Nam, and if his last name was anything but Bush, he would have been. And was he REALLY in danger in his service? Did he serve out his obligation with TANG? Questions have been raised, and not adequately answered.
Geez, Oliver, what is up? Your trolls are getting more stupid everyday.
Bejus, you guys just make stuff up?
By what common definition? Now you leftards are going to suggest that someone not serving in combat hasn’t served?
Yes, a lie. I received a nice letter from the POTUS thanking me for my service when my ten years as a naval officer was up, I never “served” in a combat zone. If you aren’t “in danger” you haven’t served? How much danger? Have you ever flown a high-performance fighter? Are you aware of the danger there? So now the standard is danger?
Do you honestly believe that a sensible human being with more than a room-temperature IQ would read your post and be at all convinced?
We’re back to the “it depends on what the definition of is, is”….and we know how well THAT went over with the american people
Yea, he received an honorable discharge.. the lesson endeth here.
I have to hand it to you though, the leftists here definately took to heart the lessons that old Joe Stalin put out. You just keep repeating lies, eventually someone will start to believe. Though you DID notice the trouble that RATHER got into with that!
Notice how easily drpedro is diverted? This is exactly the stunt righties pull in these forums. BTW, Bush bailed on his “service” before fufilling his obligations, hence he never “served.” Or do you consider people who desert honorable? Something you’re not telling us?
Let the Tourette’s begin!
Grumble…grumble…RATHER!….grumble….grumble…
I don’t know Peedro, do you REALLY have the right to put your service along side someone like John Kerry who was in combat and sustained wounds for this country?
You guys set the bar, I’m just following your lead. Where did you spend your time? Was it some champagne unit or somewhere hostile?
Tell you what dr., I’ll stop pointing out the obvious fact that Bush was a spoiled, priviledged booze hound who dodged serving his country in an admittedly illegal conflict by hanging out in the champagne unit of the Texas National Guard only to skip out on his obligations and score an “honorable” discharge courtesy of his family’s political connections (unlike the thousands who have done their duty at home and abroad…stop dissing our troops and supporting the terrorists pedro) if you promise to explain how anything Carter or Clinton did (or as has been pointed out, didn’t do) exhonerates the criminal in chief.
In other words, “stop changing the subject.”
Now if only the Dems could grasp the concept of staying on message and not getting into pointless minutiae or side debates, we might actually have a democracy in this country again…someday.
The Commander-in-Chief doesn’t need exhonerating, he hasn’t been charged with anything….as I have repeated again and again.
You and your ilk just continue to make completely unsubstantiated statements, in fact statements that have been throughly refuted again and again.
By all means, just repeat the proven lies again and again, that is a fabulous foundation for democracy.
Factcheck, I am tired of repeating myself so here is my response from a few lines above
So Bill, if you are in the military, but not in a war zone or fighting, you haven t served our country? What kind of an asshole are you? Are you disrespecting all of our military folk that stand post all over the world, but aren t getting actively shot at? Bush served, he was a fighter pilot& .done. Now, are you trying to say the same retarded thing Factcheck? As I stated before, I was forward deployed when 9/11 happened, never in a combat zone (specialist surgeons rarely are). My two years forward deployed was EASILY as valuable as J.F’ing Kerry’s 3 months on a swift boat. Next question coward?
You served your time in what branch of the service?
Anybody here want to guess at “dr” pedros’ BP about now?
Still, his rants do serve a purpose. Notice how my calling Bush on his pathetic excuse for “service” must therefore mean I think ALL servicemen and women who aren’t in the line of fire aren’t serving their country. Putting aside the utter stupidity of such a comment and notice the shift from defending Bush to attacking me. It’s much the same as the fascist attacks on dissenters and their patriotism. Like I said before, it’s classic “stop changing the subject” material. Why defend Bush when you can call people “asshole.”
Back to the Dems, though. Anybody catch Sen. Chuck Schumer on Fox News Sunday? Ack, what a meandering, weak kneed response to the whole wire tapping scandal.
GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell said:
“But here, where clearly we’re talking about intercepts with people who are communicating internationally and potentially plotting another 9/11, they don’t have apparently the same kind of outrage.”
So what’s Schumer’s response to all this b.s.? Does he ask how, exactly, this is “clearly” about stopping another 9/11 (when in doubt, go to the “9/11″ well)? Why Bush couldn’t go get the warrants during the 72 hour grace period? How come Bush felt the need to tap into major communications arteries and listen in on the conversations, emails, etc. of millions of Americans? How about a quick “I don’t think there’s any merit to the argument that our President feels he must destroy our cherished freedoms to save them.” Maybe a “stop changing the subject and trying to turn the administration’s irresponsible outing of a CIA agent working to stop terrorism into an excuse to sidestep debate over the President’s violation the Constitution.”
Nope.
Instead Schumer rambles at length about how the President just needed to come to Congress and let everyone know what was up and, gosh, then nobody would have minded if he wanted to shred an article or two of the Constitution. My favorite Schumer line:
“And the problem here is that the president thought there was a problem. That’s legitimate.”
The President’s “problem,” was Congress, FISA, the Constitution, and those jerks who continue to believe in checks and balances and won’t just give him his crown and scepter. That’s not “legitimate,” Schumer, you dolt.
Freakin’ Dems, what’s your ball-less problem with siding strongly with the majority who think Bush is a reckless cowboy that needs to be reigned in? Yeah, we know you don’t control Congress, so the odds on seeing any major perp walks is nill, but you might want to start building momentum for ‘06 and ‘08 rather than laying down in traffic.
Sorry, Faux News Sunday.
I don’t know Peedro, you and your party wanted to question John Kerry’s service- you opened up the line of discussion, but when YOUR service is questioned, you squeal like a stuck pig. Why the hypocracy? Why the need to compare your service to John Kerry’s or anyone else? Is it because you are worried that your record won’t measure up?
There still are questions raised about your service- post your DD214 online- what have you got to hide? Remember, it was Republicans who said it was ok to question and malign someone’s service, I’m just expecting you to live with it.
Bill L., Schumer’s statements on Face the Nation are the big reason I want no Senators running for us in 2008. They are too much “politician”, conciliatory, and not battlers.
Factcheck wouldn’t be able to spot a fact if it bit him in the ass.
I just finished stating no one questioned J.F’ing Kerry’s service, but you repeat that ignorant statement back again. As far as I can tell, no one HAS questioned my service, which I think is smart coming from a group of people who couldn’t tell a Master Chief Petty Officer from a Lance Corporal.
This lie and repeat business that OW has you convinced is a winning strategy….it isn’t. Don’t try to be it’s poster boy “Fact”Check
Nice non-response. Interesting. Must have something to hide.
uh…factcheck, can you actually read my response? Or do you deliberately go off on tangents cause you think its irritating? Either way, it doesn’t add much to a discussion
Project much?
No, never.
Nurse Betty is lying:
Oliver said:
“The response to the Swift Boat Vets on the left was to talk about the details of the incidents they talked about in mind numbing detail. That was a loser. So was Kerry s response of talking about the issues.”
Which got this reply:
“Kerry couldn t respond, cause it was true.”
That sounds like an attack on Kerry’s service to me. Now I don’t care about anyone’s service right now because it’s not the subject (stop changing…eh, you know where I’m going). The subject is the violation of the 4th article of the Bill of Rights by one George W. Bush, which means the words “Vietnam” “Carter” or “Clinton” are all smokescreens to change the debate.
Schumer isn’t the only one who blew it, btw (no surprise). Head on over to http://www.liberaloasis.com (no comments there, sorry trolls) for a better look at the weak Dem response to the emperor Bush in the media this past Sunday.
“A couple of us expressed our concerns,” Daschle says. “But the information we were given was more technical and less substantive. We were told we were being informed and not consulted.”
And while we’re giving the NYT sh*t for not printing the whole wiretapping story before the election, let’s give some love to Congressional Dems who, while perhaps not entirely aware of Bush’s plans, seemed to know enough to be “concerned” and yet came out and said nothing until the story finally broke. That Daschle should be one of those is NO surprise.