How many liberals does it take to win a war?

And I repeat, Then what, in your own words?

 

I've asked twice already, but you haven't answered except with taunts. I'm beginning to think you cannot say...

For the third time, what, in your own words, is the poem about?

 

If that were the long standing policy of the more evolved community some believe they live in, then there would be no reason to continue this arguement.

That asks how long *you* think your agenda will be respected when the people you think your campaign protects are slaughtered by the very one's you claim are innocent or misquided.

But Hey! I have a great idea..ice cream and hugs for everyone!



Yeah, that'll help.

 

That's a pity.

There you go, third time's the charm... I knew you could do it.

And his diatribe was roundly refuted by the facts. Appealing to emotion at the expense of the facts is a wonderfully effective propaganda technique.

Russ does the same thing when he writes:

I feel compelled to a little eyerolling of my own. I suppose it is the progressive approach to get at the root cause of problems, but it's also sensible, whether common among the reactionaries or not.

Aslanspal's list shows the lie in that statement.

Are you contending that the world's most powerful nation is "cornered" by a handful of third-world terrorists? Yes, I can see why you'd be terrified of your survival until the liberals come around to your "crush, kill" philosophy.

 

"I'm sure if you weren't so blinded by your feelings that you feel you must defend your ideology, you would have a better understanding of this poem."

Your not trying to defend any ideology by posting this OP are you Carpro? Like maybe the neocon ideology of playing on your "feelings" to scare you into submitance to their goals.

That's how it looks to me, but I'll give you the opportunity for a rebutal without the lame name calling techniques the neocons seem to always resort too.

The floor is yours.

 

Obviously he was answering the OP's contention that only right-wingers are willing to fight and that all left-wingers are sniveling cowards by presenting evidence to the contrary. </font>[/QUOTE]The problem with the list is that it a) lists men who were of service age before conservatives took over the GOP and b) is anecdotal.

A better test would be the voting preference of our military... overwhelmingly conservative even without factoring out minorities.

 

Daisy, Since you posted the list then you should "prove" the assumptions about Republicans.

Please "prove" that Bob Dornan intentionally enlisted after Korea.

Please prove the conclusions about GWB. The press tried to make that dog hunt and couldn't. Bush served his obligation to the satisfaction of his commanders... and no one has ever proven different even though his records (versus Kerry) were laid open.

 

That's a weird sentence - "If that were ... " subjective tense, meaning 'it is not' "... the long standing policy ..." as if the length of time a particular policy has stood determined it's validity - but this policy has already been determined not to exist by the tense of the preceding verb "...of the more evolved community..." I have no idea what a more evolved community means or implies "...some believe they live in,... who are these mysterious people who believe they live in a 'more evolved community', whatever that is, which does not have a long standing policy of refuting lies? "...then there would be no reason to continue this arguement" future conditional, the condition is false, so 'no reason' becomes 'the reason', turned around, we get -

'The reason to continue this arguement is that some people falsely believe they live in a more evolved community and this community they don't live in does not have a long standing policy of letting lies stand unanswered.'

Well, ok, sure.

That begs the question, actually many questions. I don't necessarily think *my* agenda (such as it may be), will be respected, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Who does Russ think I'm claiming as innocent? I know who I think is misguided, but I doubt that is who you think I think is (this day is filled with awful sentences).

It might. I'd like some, please - ice cream, not so much the group hugs.

 

Hey Scott,

I didn't post any list so the rest of your post is pointless.

 

You left out the crucial "even" which changes the sense of the sentence.

 

The truth is I paid no attention to your list in the first place. The reason was simple, you missed the point and I expect you will continue to do so.

However, in actually taking a quick scan of your list, I was struck more by some of the names that were missing than the ones that were there.

Was it intentional on your part to leave out Republicans like President George H.W. Bush and Senator Bob Dole and democrats like Zell Miller? </font>[/QUOTE]Right on target, Carpro!

ASLANSPAL has a habit of posting the same information several times when he gets cornered and wants to change subjects. I think it's partly a tactic to bump his responses to the top of the thread in hopes the previous postings won't be seen and read.

 

Hey Scott,

I didn't post any list so the rest of your post is pointless. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry. It was someone else.

 

"ASLANSPAL has a habit of posting the same information several times when he gets cornered and wants to change subjects. I think it's partly a tactic to bump his responses to the top of the thread in hopes the previous postings won't be seen and read."

Funny,...the same thing could be said of the neocons and the corporate MSM. Although they (neocons and media) have a far greater propaganda machine than ASLANSPAL.

 

Yes, you are right: why is George McGovern on that list?

Amazing: those who rattle the sabres the loudest are least likely to actually serve.......

Regards, Ken,

BiR