Reply With Quote
Don't claim to have read everyone of your post, but the threads that I'm active in you usually reply with another editorial or you'll make some snide remark but never follow up to defend your position.
I comment on almost every editorial and news I post.When have you ever posted something you can claim as your own?
Don't claim to have read everyone of your post, but the threads that I'm active in you usually reply with another editorial or you'll make some snide remark but never follow up to defend your position.
The idea is to encourage other people to respond. I defend my position if someone makes a argument worth replying too, however, I don't respond to straw man arguments or those that are so obviously logically flawed that they aren't worth my time.Don't claim to have read everyone of your post, but the threads that I'm active in you usually reply with another editorial or you'll make some snide remark but never follow up to defend your position.
I don't post on the weekends. I also have dealt with a personal matter over the last few days that is none of your business. I don't have to spend hours and hours in here to reveal that most of what you bring is hot air.
Oh, I guess you're talking about when someone posts the rest of the article your take comes from and either shows how you take statements out of context, or bend them to whatever theory of the momment suits you.
It's gotten better, though. When you posted that pick of the supposedly bullet ridden car", that was funny. I know you will come up with a good "explination" as to how it fits the story.
I think the biggest problem is how you come across here. When I here about something our country is supposedly doing wrong, I want to hear the facts and understand the situation. Putting you in my place, you want to damn our country, make snide remarks, and then somehow tie it to a president that holds different views than your own. You are way to biased to every see the other side of these discussions. I mean, if there were no conservatives, what would do all day?
If its all just hotair then it should easily be proven wrong and should take no time at all, right?
How can you understand the facts of a situation if you only get half the story from our MSM? We already know that 'reporters'(i use the term loosely) like Williams and many other right-wing pundits, like Safire, ARE in the adminstrations pockets. Just yesterday Rummy was spotted having lunch with the CEO of Faux News. The adminstration also puts out Video News Releases and presents them as real news, and then we have the ugly Jeff Guckert/Yonivore situation.I think the biggest problem is how you come across here. When I here about something our country is supposedly doing wrong, I want to hear the facts and understand the situation. Putting you in my place, you want to damn our country, make snide remarks, and then somehow tie it to a president that holds different views than your own. You are way to biased to every see the other side of these discussions. I mean, if there were no conservatives, what would do all day?
That's code for you have no substance to offer.
All I need is a pin to burst your bubble. I just have to post the rest of the article you base you take on, or point out that it comes from the fourth translation of article from a unfriendly source.
Substance is in the eye of the beholder. Some people believe that Faux News has real substance.
In the irony of all ironies, ABC has blocked free speech in a Boston Legal episode that deals with free speech
Fox News may report only one side of a story, but at least critics have always had creative license to lace into the roost of Bill O'Reilly. Until now. AlterNet reports that an episode of "Boston Legal" slated to air on Sunday night on ABC has been "scrubbed" of all pejorative references to Fox News and O'Reilly. Top ABC executives heavily censored an earlier version of the script, in which a teacher calls Fox News "hate speech" and installs a "Fox Blocker" on every TV set in his school. A side-by-side comparison of the two versions of the script reveals it has been stripped of any references to the network. The Sunday episode is, ironically, about free speech.
Neither ABC nor David Kelley, the show's creator, would comment on the changes. The script also contained excerpts from "Outfoxed," an anti-Fox do entary by indie filmmaker Robert Greenwald which argues that the cable channel has an explicit conservative agenda. The "Outfoxed" excerpts will be included in the episode, although ABC would not allow Greenwald to buy ad time for his film to air during the episode. "The door has been closed in our face," said the film's distributor.
What is the MSM to you? What news organizations make up the MSM? If they are not trust worthy then I never want to see you use them again in an argument.
Again with the Fox news stuff. WHO CARES! I don't watch Fox news!!! Half the people you talk about as right wing pundits I've never even heard of before. It's funny that you classify the MSM as such an enemy to the truth, then jump all over them when the report something that you can twist to suit your own political agenda.
Just like you did in the Army shortage article in which I coincidently, or not, turned out to be right again?All I need is a pin to burst your bubble. I just have to post the rest of the article you base you take on, or point out that it comes from the fourth translation of article from a unfriendly source.
Fox/News/ABC/CNN/CBS/NBC/MSNBC they are all the corporate media whose owners love to pimp for the GOP.
HOW ARE YOU RIGHT???!!!
Where is the draft? You have been saying there will be one over and over again. Where is it? I never said there weren't shortages of recruits. I said you greatly exaggerate them because of the many factors that you leave out when you posted the articles discussing them.
Here is a quote from you of a posted article.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...t=recruit+army
Here is a little bit that you left out when you posted that article.First the guard and reserves, then the Marines, now the Army is falling short of recruitment goals...
Quote:
The active-duty Army is in danger of failing to meet its recruiting goals, and is beginning to suffer from manpower strains like those that have dropped the National Guard and Reserves below full strength, according to Army figures and interviews with senior officers .
For the first time since 2001, the Army began the fiscal year in October with only 18.4 percent of the year's target of 80,000 active-duty recruits already in the pipeline. That amounts to less than half of last year's figure and falls well below the Army's goal of 25 percent.
Meanwhile, the Army is rushing incoming recruits into training as quickly as it can. Compared with last year, it has cut by 50 percent the average number of days between the time a recruit signs up and enters boot camp. It is adding more than 800 active-duty recruiters to the 5,201 who were on the job last year, as attracting each enlistee requires more effort and monetary incentives.
Driving the manpower crunch is the Army's goal of boosting the number of combat brigades needed to rotate into Iraq (news - web sites) and handle other global contingencies. Yet Army officials see worrisome signs that young American men and women -- and their parents -- are growing wary of military service, largely because of the Iraq conflict.
Yahoo News
Seems like an important part to leave out now doesn't it? Well it's not important to you, since it makes your argument worthless.Army officials say the challenge is not yet a crisis. As of Jan. 31, the Army tallied 22,246 active-duty recruits for fiscal 2005, exceeding the year-to-date mission by more than 100.
perfect example of dan trying to make things appear differently...
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11885
read post 2 and see the highlighted part...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
