Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
Next time you declare, “I'm gonna try some common sense on you here…” at least try to ensure it makes sense, even if it isn’t common. Everything you wrote is nothing but a poorly written diatribe.
Even your subject line protrays your cluelessness. Courage is pulling your buddy back to safety under fire"...or out of the war entirely, possibly? Who said anything about war? I gave three examples, only one of which is about the war, and that example didn’t even involve fighting. Plenty of people are pulled to safety under fire in times other than war.
“Courage is pulling your buddy back to safety under fire, courage is treating Iraqis with respect when you have no whether they are enemies or not, courage is going into the South during Jim Crow and risking your life to register black voters.”
It’s obvious you don’t care about our soldiers, and it’s inconceivable for you to reconcile that people can oppose the war and not oppose our soldiers.
As to “who do you think gives more of a damn about the soldiers as living, breathing people---the so-called 'Lefties' who think those poor folks should be spared the indignity of being maimed and killed in Iraq, or TV-tanned burger-butt Hawks like YOU who love the catch-phrases” Perhaps when arguing against the use of catch phrases you shouldn’t resort to juvenile rhetoric phrases such as burger-butt or TV-Tanned, and even Dumbass Lifetime Achievement Certificate.
You have yet to refute any of my actual points, burger-butt! It's almost a sport, watching you asshole/idiots in your lame ad hominem rebuttals dodge the irrefutable bits in the most damning critiques of your empty, programmed 'beliefs',instead going for the inconsequential stuff you have more of a handle on. BTW, the pejorative phrase 'burger-butt' can't be conflated ideologically with the sort of political catch-phrase, a la 'support our soldiers', that you light the dark room in the back of your little brain with. But you wouldn't, like, understand that.
It's okay: go back to TV...a commercial is on! Funny commercial! Ha ha! Ha Ha!
(Note to self: investigate correlation between ridiculous-yet-unfunny pseudonyms and marsupial-grade powers of reasoning)
"Even your subject line protrays your cluelessness. Courage is pulling your buddy back to safety under fire"...or out of the war entirely, possibly? Who said anything about war? I gave three examples, only one of which is about the war, and that example didn’t even involve fighting. Plenty of people are pulled to safety under fire in times other than war."
“It's almost a sport, watching you asshole/idiots in your lame ad hominem rebuttals”
Odd that you resort to Ad hominem abusive personam, while accusing others of Ad hominem rebuttas.
“You have yet to refute any of my actual points, burger-butt! “
You haven’t made any actual points yet. All you’ve done is some name calling and set up straw man arguments.
Your posts are hollow and lack any substance to refute.
Post something substantial and perhaps, if people disagree with you then you’ll have a rebuttal, but when you set up false straw man positions, that’s not an actual point.
My terribly substantial point, which you weren't quite sharp enough to get the first few times, is that the phrase 'support the soldiers' is Orwellian double-speak considering the fact that your idea of 'supporting' them is an absolute willingness to oblige them to suffer and possibly die fighting a pointless war you're too bloody credulous to see through. They are humans before they are soldiers, and, as such, have as much right to live as you do; or don't you think so? Likewise, invoking the Ur-jingoistic phrase 'defending our nation' is absurd in this context given the fact that before the U.S. invasion, Iraq was neither capable of nor inclined towards invading North America. Both phrases have been very cleverly pressed through your dough-soft skull by political operatives whose boundless cynicism is far out-stripped by the even more boundless gullibility of their target demo: YOU.
That's my point.
'Nighty night, burger-butt.
“the phrase 'support the soldiers' is Orwellian double-speak considering the fact that your idea of 'supporting' them is an absolute willingness to oblige them to suffer and possibly die fighting a pointless war you're too bloody credulous to see through”
That is your straw man argument, because you and only you are making the argument. It doesn’t reflect anyone else’s point of view, because supporting our soldiers has nothing to do with supporting the war, or obliging them to suffer or die.
You try to play rhetorical games to disguise your contempt for your soldiers. I’ve supported them in peacetime, and I’ll support them during war, whether I agree with that war or how it is fought.
You may now post and get the last word in, because I tire of you.
"That is your straw man argument, because you and only you are making the argument." I know what you mean to say, only you contradict yourself a few lines later with: "I’ve supported them in peacetime, and I’ll support them during war, whether I agree with that war or how it is fought." Which is exactly what I've been claiming that you say.
(I've never, by the way, been tempted to use the abbreviation 'sic' so often)
"It doesn’t reflect anyone else’s point of view, because supporting our soldiers has nothing to do with supporting the war, or obliging them to suffer or die." The crux of my argument is that you use the word 'support' incorrectly because you've been trained to by people smarter than you...simply because it furthers their agenda. This sentence of yours does not refute my contention. You haven't defined the word 'support' with clarifying logic...you don't go into any detail that would contradict me. You just keep on like a robo-parrot with your simple defense because you've learned from the top of your rotten political pyramid that repeating something often enough makes it true. Which is a lie.
"You try to play rhetorical games to disguise your contempt for your soldiers." I used fairly direct sentences to make my point; where are the rhetorical games? It's your twisted logic which causes you to interpret common sense as 'rhetorical games'. Or your thickness. BTW, this 'whether I agree with that war or how it is fought' is the weakest link in the rusty chain of your reasoning. You have no idea how glad I am that thousands of miles are between us.
"You may now post and get the last word in, because I tire of you."
Xanthro, you speak like a toga-clad Roman in a B-movie from the 1950s. Or a sci fi alien (I guess the name leans more in that direction). I too, tire of you. Therefore, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for the mildly amusing diversion!
Gort Klaatu B'rada Nikto...
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
