Letters to the Editor
-
Shooter
from http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml
Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-01-bush-cover_x.htm
Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time
Do you know anything about old/new testament and how God (bible sense) communicates with his fellow beings?
1)God talks directly to head of household, which changes to
2)God talks through his prophets to his people, which changes to
3)God talks through his son and the apostles to his people, which changes to
4)The gospel is all you need for guidance (God's written instructions).
God does not talk to people anymore (not directly, the gospel is his mouthpiece. Yes, pleas note this is the “Christian” version of God.) It burns me that a lot of Christians just stand there like a deer caught in headlights, because Bush is committing blasphemy.
-
Tsk.
What disturbs me is shooter appears to argue NOT that Limbaugh misspoke - a prospect I can't dismiss, given the Oxycontin fog that envelopes Rush - but that the syntactically correct reading of his words yields the conclusion that his plural reference to the caller's antecedent reference is really a reference to a singular object not referenced by Limgaugh until two minutes later!
If you are going to be an intellectual fraud, you can at least aspire to a literate fraudulence, in the manner of a Chris Hitchens. As it is, you're just a Jonah Goldberg-like joke.
As a matter of syntax, Limbaugh's "phony soldier" rejoinder paralleled the caller's contention that these were not "real soldiers", a syntactical parallelism that signals Limbaugh's concurrence with the caller's thesis.--thomas cGosh. Perhaps you could diagram the sentences in question as well. It would certainly be more straightforward than that pile you just wrote.
The caller said "soldiers" and so did Limbaugh. One can certainly count the Macbeth piece broadcast earlier that morning in reaction to his jail sentence, and most certainly the Baghdad Diarist, who while a soldier was certainly phony. Kerry would be the next most famous "phony", which compliments the ficticious "Jamil Hussein". And this is all after an ABC story on the subject of phony soldiers two days earlier. Plural certainly seems appropriate. This link will inform you, should you be teachable.....
http://influencepeddler.blogspot.com/2007/09/limbaugh-on-solid-ground-on-phony.htmlThe thing is that you will not be able to find a Limbaugh slur referencing combat veterans with sincere antiwar views. It's one of the reasons he's on Armed Forces radio and Air America isn't.
While on the subject of contextual correctness, I thought this missive from you to Broder interesting....."You level a most incendiary charge that democrats who voted to cut funding for the Iraq war would have been guilty of abandoning the troops had the legislation passed."
http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/07/davids/permalink/cc2e3b42d8b818efb12e7d1458d34ced.html
That doesn't sound like something Broder would do directly, but you conveniently don't provide a cite to check back on. So, I have to assume this is the verbiage you are referring to........the two front-runners, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, have abandoned their cautious advocacy of a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces and now are defending votes to cut off support for troops fighting insurgents in Iraq.
They are able to escape the charge of abandoning U.S. combat troops only because they knew when they voted that their Republican colleagues in Congress, joined by a few Democrats, would keep the funds flowing at least for a few more months.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/06/AR2007060602291.htmlSaying that some "escaped a charge" is a very long way from "leveling" a charge. No wonder you didn't get a response. Dealing with cranks is usually a waste of time for pundits, but great fun for trolls. Heh.
-
Shooter (again),
Religion and politics,
As much as the right would like to paint the left “non-religious”, the stats make no sense. Only 3-9% of the US is atheist/agnostic (see http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html). So Democrats make up only 3-9% of the population? Nope. Also, name me one presidential candidate in the history of this nation that was not religious. So, us heathens will be faced with the fact that whatever candidate runs, will most likely have some sort of religious affiliation. So what to do? Pick the one that is not totally crazy! Obama asking for prayers so that he may do the right thing – not crazy. God talking to Bush – crazy (see post above).
-
Ot/Ot?
I'm a converted Shaker.
I'll make brooms and Shaker oval boxes.
The stacking set of thin cherry oval boxes will be to store my lost two-front gold tooth's. I'll use copper tacks. No tack? None.
Is there anyone out there who's first initial starts with the letter "P" ( you no poop mouth to us Salon readers ) who will file two-fake false-teeth down with a nail-file? You got Sweet baby breath?
You got sharp,
gold tooth's?
I bet yes.
No tease me.
okay. apologies.
-
OT?
Let's see how much coverage this report by Reuters gets in the US media.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071008/ts_nm/britain_iraq_afghanistan_dc;_ylt=Agvm6EV3RwzE83KyTd1gWvas0NUE
-
@OliverA
As much as the right would like to paint the left “non-religious”, the stats make no sense. Only 3-9% of the US is atheist/agnostic (see http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html). So Democrats make up only 3-9% of the population? Nope.
Lest you misunderstand, I only bring up Obama's church appearance as a tweak toward lefty hypocrisy (what would the headline be if it were Bush making that statement?)and what looks like media manipulation by the supposed right-wing MSM. OTOH I appreciate the stats, which go to my assertion that the polls used here to prove American attitudes are specious.