Reply With Quote
And y'all wonder why I become snarky and resort to ad hominem. Usually, it proceeds from nonsensical rhetoric such as this.Why does Yoni hate our military?
I'll try not to be baited.
Why does Yoni hate our military?
And y'all wonder why I become snarky and resort to ad hominem. Usually, it proceeds from nonsensical rhetoric such as this.Why does Yoni hate our military?
I'll try not to be baited.
lobbying?
Fair enough, but there were a few signs you read in haste. Enough that your dismissiveness comes off as more temperamental than learned, even now. Your rejection of material it is clear you barely read in the first place, is not very compelling.
Bush era violations of the Logan Act still upset you? Ok. This relates to the current discussion how, please?
Well and good, but we mainly trade in opinion here.
The discussion has no time to wait for the legal facts to be established, that can take years. Anyway, the discussion itself relates to the underlying actions.
You may limit yourself to legal certainties if you wish, but it is absurd to expect much emulation in free-flowing, wide ranging conversations between adults.
Sidebar related to: Smith-Mundt.
I figured any salient detail would be elucidated here. But, you're right, I did read in haste -- after discovering in the first page -- the article wasn't going to point to any specific illegalities but would, instead, rely on the allegations of an aggrieved tattler.
I saw the narrative developing. And, since you didn't come up with any specific acts being alleged, either; I can only conclude my judgment, in not wasting more time closely studying the article, was accurate.
The selective outrage of the Left. It seems the left is willing to construct awful conclusions about the acts of Republican administrations based on the slimmest of innuendo while completely failing to notice the blatant acts of the Left.
And, my opinion is, absent an specific allegation if criminal wrongdoing, I'm not buying it. It appears, on the surface, to be another liberal attempt at smearing an effort with which it simply disagrees.
The article doesn't allege a crime it crafts a narrative.
Can't get the link to work. May be my browser as I'm having trouble with other domains and sites. Will try later.
(still works for me, boss)
Who got railroaded by the army for making a principled stand. There's a story there for sure.
Your prerogative of course.
Classic projection. You do the very same thing with striking regularity. Your apparent unawareness of your own resemblance to the hypocrisy you claim to despise, is very striking too.
Loyal, principled soldiers got smeared for making a principled stand. Just saying.
Fair enough, but so what? This whole forum is narrative and nothing but.
Or so we're told.
Of course.
You don't list any examples but, how you characterize me would not be affected by my knowing and responding to such claims...so, have at it.
Exactly...just saying. That's all the Rolling Stone did, as well. Just said.
This forum isn't the Rolling Stone Magazine.
Nobody said it was. Do you like arguing with nobody?This forum isn't the Rolling Stone Magazine.
Obviously.
Between what real posters actually say and what nobody says, you choose to refute what nobody says. Which is totally your prerogative.
Ignoring the plain meaning of what other posters say in favor of your own rather obvious twistification of what they say is an irritating habit and not a little discourteous.
Nor does it serve any broader purpose of understanding or moving the conversation. Quite the contrary: it is a hazard that often impedes it.
There are real posters here, Yoni, should you choose to engage them.
Paying attention to what they actually say on a putative discussion board is a fairly minimal/basic level of courtesy, don't you think?
You're the nobody advancing the Rolling Stone's narrative...it's not your narrative or opinion, it's something you read and believe.
Holy ! I pull up one post, to respond, only to find out you've had some sort of posting spasm. What's the matter, do you think this is Twitter and, therefore, each post is limited by word count?
Nobody in here is real. Nobody. Not even me.
lol. Not at all.
Others have accused me of post padding, but in truth sometimes I just prefer to keep my posts short.
Put my original words back in:
What an awesome way to make a story.
Take actual quotes, arrange the facts, leave out others...
Instant story to fit the Rolling Stone's agenda!
At no time is the colonel quoted as saying he was asked to use his skills on the congressmen.
Dignitaries include local tribesmen and other people of influence in the region.
--Add edit--
Let me change this:
At no time is the colonel quoted as saying he was asked to use his skills on the congressmen.
to this:
At no time is the colonel quoted as saying the general asked to use his skills on the congressmen.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-24-2011 at 04:37 PM.
We're all brains in vats, or something like that?
According to Holmes, the general wanted the IO team to provide a "deeper analysis of pressure points we could use to leverage the delegation for more funds." The general’s chief of staff also asked Holmes how Caldwell could secretly manipulate the U.S. lawmakers without their knowledge. "How do we get these guys to give us more people?" he demanded. "What do I have to plant inside their heads?"
Or are we on the 13th floor?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions