PDA

View Full Version : Bush to troops


Taco John
05-01-2007, 04:33 PM
:middle finger:

http://home.comcast.net/~daschor/clipart/bush_middle_finger.png

Nightwish
05-01-2007, 04:38 PM
That pic is great, but in all fairness, he wasn't sending it to the troops. He was messing with the camera crew during a prep before a broadcast. I remember seeing the video.

MarcBulger
05-01-2007, 04:44 PM
Libs never let facts get in the way.

Nightwish
05-01-2007, 04:48 PM
Libs never let facts get in the way.
Neither do your kind, so that must have been old hat.

HolmeZz
05-01-2007, 04:49 PM
That man is the leader of the free world.

Jenson71
05-01-2007, 04:53 PM
That man is the leader of the free world.

In all fairness HolmeZz, the picture is what, 10 years old? Maybe more? I think before we start pointing out little gestures of current leaders that may seen tasteless, we must remember that the last president liked to receive oral sex from a White House intern in the Oval Office.

Logical
05-01-2007, 04:53 PM
Does it amaze anyone else that Bush can flip the bird properly?

HolmeZz
05-01-2007, 04:58 PM
In all fairness HolmeZz, the picture is what, 10 years old? Maybe more? I think before we start pointing out little gestures of current leaders that may seen tasteless, we must remember that the last president liked to receive oral sex from a White House intern in the Oval Office.

Yup. Doesn't make George look any less immature.

Nightwish
05-01-2007, 04:59 PM
we must remember that the last president liked to receive oral sex from a White House intern in the Oval Office.
Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Taco John
05-01-2007, 05:01 PM
Ugh... Do I have to explain everything....


He just vetoed the troop funding bill.

Nightwish
05-01-2007, 05:08 PM
Ugh... Do I have to explain everything....


He just vetoed the troop funding bill.
Ah, hadn't heard the announcement yet.

trndobrd
05-01-2007, 05:11 PM
Ugh... Do I have to explain everything....


He just vetoed the troop funding bill.

Or he vetoed the timeline to surrender bill, depending on how you view things.

Nightwish
05-01-2007, 05:14 PM
Or he vetoed the timeline to surrender bill, depending on how you spin things.
FYP

Jenson71
05-01-2007, 05:14 PM
Yup. Doesn't make George look any less immature.

Oh, and the president that was a couple before him liked to eat Jelly Beans in the office. But he always ate them with a suit and tie on.

trndobrd
05-01-2007, 05:24 PM
FYP


Sorry, I forgot that all opinions other than yours are 'spin'.

Nightwish
05-01-2007, 05:28 PM
Sorry, I forgot that all opinions other than yours are 'spin'.

From American Heritage Dictionary:

Spin: To provide an interpretation of (a statement or event, for example), especially in a way meant to sway public opinion.

Do you not feel your particular twist on it fits the bill?

trndobrd
05-01-2007, 05:31 PM
From American Heritage Dictionary:

Spin: To provide an interpretation of (a statement or event, for example), especially in a way meant to sway public opinion.

Do you not feel your particular twist on it fits the bill?


No.

Nightwish
05-01-2007, 05:33 PM
No.
So calling the bill a "surrender" bill, despite the word "surrender" appearing nowhere in the bill, is not an interpretation intended to sway the opinions of those reading your statement (what will suffice as "public opinion" in this medium)? If not an interpretation, what was it? If not intending to sway or influence opinion, what was it intended to do?

Logical
05-01-2007, 05:40 PM
Oh, and the president that was a couple before him liked to eat Jelly Beans in the office. But he always ate them with a suit and tie on.

You say this like it is a negative, are you part of the anti-jelly bean lobby mister?

Jenson71
05-01-2007, 05:44 PM
You say this like it is a negative, are you part of the anti-jelly bean lobby mister?

M&M's are proven to be healthier.

trndobrd
05-01-2007, 05:50 PM
So calling the bill a "surrender" bill, despite the word "surrender" appearing nowhere in the bill, is not an interpretation intended to sway the opinions of those reading your statement (what will suffice as "public opinion" in this medium)? If not an interpretation, what was it? If not intending to sway or influence opinion, what was it intended to do?


It is, as the orginal statement indicated, a view held by those predisposed to view it as such. It is a statement of my thoughts on the bill. Last I checked, I am still free to state a viewpoint or opinion, wholly of my own and for my own benefit.

However, applying your decidedly broad definition of 'spin' any statement made in a public forum would or could be interpreted to constitute 'spin'. Certainly every statement, from TJ's suggestion the GWB is giving Soldiers 'the bird' to your suggestion that American Soldiers are going to Iraq with the sole intent to die and everything rexjake posts in between, would constitute 'spin'. So, if it will bring a smile to your face, then yes, like everything else in DC, it is 'spin'.

Nightwish
05-01-2007, 06:02 PM
It is, as the orginal statement indicated, a view held by those predisposed to view it as such. It is a statement of my thoughts on the bill. Last I checked, I am still free to state a viewpoint or opinion, wholly of my own and for my own benefit.
It's spin, plain and simple. Spin is not "lie." It is not "falsehood." It is simply taking the part of the picture that is evident, then trying to fill in the rest in such a way as to convince others that the total picture you have extrapolated is correct. Trying to shift the association from the benign term "withdrawal" that is actually included in the legislation, to the negative term "surrender," which does not appear in the legislation, is textbook spin.

However, applying your decidedly broad definition of 'spin' any statement made in a public forum would or could be interpreted to constitute 'spin'.
It's not a "decidely broad" definition of spin. It's a Dictionary definition of spin.

Certainly every statement, from TJ's suggestion the GWB is giving Soldiers 'the bird' to your suggestion that American Soldiers are going to Iraq with the sole intent to die
I never made any such comment. I spoke of the sacrifice of American soldiers, after Logical had already clarified that the spirit and intent of his poll was that "sacrifice" should be construed to mean "risk," so you, patteeu, I, and everyone else who was following the thread were already well aware of what we meant by the term, your willful attempts at ignorance notwithstanding.

trndobrd
05-01-2007, 06:35 PM
It's spin, plain and simple. Spin is not "lie." It is not "falsehood." It is simply taking the part of the picture that is evident, then trying to fill in the rest in such a way as to convince others that the total picture you have extrapolated is correct. Trying to shift the association from the benign term "withdrawal" that is actually included in the legislation, to the negative term "surrender," which does not appear in the legislation, is textbook spin.

So now with the new definition of spin....from any statement intended to influence the view of others, to one in which purposely disingenous information is used in place of unknown facts or to replace known facts. Once you decide on a definition, let me know.

The statement that the bill in questions is "the Iraq Funding Bill" would, by any definition, be spin since it clearly and perhaps purposely (although I, unlike you, don't have the ability to plumb the depths of individuals motivations) left off the most controversial part of the bill.


It's not a "decidely broad" definition of spin. It's a Dictionary definition of spin.

It certainly is a broader definition than the one you lay out above.


I never made any such comment. I spoke of the sacrifice of American soldiers, after Logical had already clarified that the spirit and intent of his poll was that "sacrifice" should be construed to mean "risk," so you, patteeu, I, and everyone else who was following the thread were already well aware of what we meant by the term, your willful attempts at ignorance notwithstanding.

Sure you did, go back and look at post #93 on the Iraq sacrifice thread. However, if your intent was that Soldiers "risk" and not "sacrifice", then so be it. The poll as a means of determining the validity of a particular public policy based on the "risk" or "sacrifice" which posters are willing to take was pointless anyway.

Nightwish
05-01-2007, 06:59 PM
So now with the new definition of spin....from any statement intended to influence the view of others, to one in which purposely disingenous information is used in place of unknown facts or to replace known facts. Once you decide on a definition, let me know.Where did you see "purposely disingenuous information (used) in place of unknown facts or to replace known facts" anywhere in my description? Nowhere. What I said was, that spin is simply the act of taking the part of the picture that is evident and inarguable, then trying to fill in the rest of the picture (i.e. the parts that are not known) in such a way as to convince others that the total picture you have extrapolated is correct. Although many people who engage in spin do so in a disingenuous manner (usually by trying to replace known facts), that's certainly not always the case.

If you walk into a kitchen and see a bunch of apples cut up, flour poured into a measuring bowl, sugar and cinnamon set aside, you can extrapolate from all that that somebody is getting ready to make an apple pie. You don't know for sure that that's what they're doing, they might be going for apple streudel instead, but the chances are pretty good. If you then go to somebody and say, "Hey, I just found a baker, and she's making pie," that's spin. It may not be accurate, but it's not dishonest. It may be dead on.

If you take in the same scene, but tell people that what you saw was apples soaking in a sugar solution, fermenting, and that what you discovered was somebody trying to ferment the apples and sugar to make alcohol, that's disingenuous spin (you left out the flour, and added a liquid mixture that wasn't present, claiming you had seen it).The statement that the bill in questions is "the Iraq Funding Bill" would, by any definition, be spin since it clearly and perhaps purposely (although I, unlike you, don't have the ability to plumb the depths of individuals motivations) left off the most controversial part of the bill.Perhaps it is. And? It certainly is a broader definition than the one you lay out above.Am I to blame because you put too narrow a focus on the term? Politicos of all stripes have put a narrower focus on the term "spin" than it deserves, so that they can wield it as a sharper weapon or justify louder indignation when the term is levied against them. That tendency does not alter the meaning of the term, though.Sure you did, go back and look at post #93 on the Iraq sacrifice thread. However, if your intent was that Soldiers "risk" and not "sacrifice", then so be it.The equation was already established by the poll's originator before I even entered the thread. If you and patteeu had failed to notice, that's on you.
The poll as a means of determining the validity of a particular public policy based on the "risk" or "sacrifice" which posters are willing to take was pointless anyway.Yes, yes, so we've heard ad nauseum from those seeking to avoid the revelation that they're all talk.

stevieray
05-01-2007, 07:05 PM
I hate you Daddy!

trndobrd
05-01-2007, 07:19 PM
Where did you see "purposely disingenuous information (used) in place of unknown facts or to replace known facts" anywhere in my description? Nowhere. What I said was, that spin is simply the act of taking the part of the picture that is evident and inarguable, then trying to fill in the rest of the picture (i.e. the parts that are not known) in such a way as to convince others that the total picture you have extrapolated is correct. Although many people who engage in spin do so in a disingenuous manner (usually by trying to replace known facts), that's certainly not always the case.

Then lets use terms like "benign" and "negative".



If you walk into a kitchen and see a bunch of apples cut up, flour poured into a measuring bowl, sugar and cinnamon set aside, you can extrapolate from all that that somebody is getting ready to make an apple pie. You don't know for sure that that's what they're doing, they might be going for apple streudel instead, but the chances are pretty good. If you then go to somebody and say, "Hey, I just found a baker, and she's making pie," that's spin. It may not be accurate, but it's not dishonest. It may be dead on.

If you take in the same scene, but tell people that what you saw was apples soaking in a sugar solution, fermenting, and that what you discovered was somebody trying to ferment the apples and sugar to make alcohol, that's disingenuous spin (you left out the flour, and added a liquid mixture that wasn't present, claiming you had seen it).

By your definition, any statement made to any person that includes any conclusion, reasonable or otherwise, is 'spin'. It is the intent to sway public opinion that controls.

Spin: To provide an interpretation of (a statement or event, for example), especially in a way meant to sway public opinion.

Perhaps it is. And?

Am I to blame because you put too narrow a focus on the term? Politicos of all stripes have put a narrower focus on the term "spin" than it deserves, so that they can wield it as a sharper weapon or justify louder indignation when the term is levied against them.

Since 'spin' originated as a slang expression, used to degrade explanations generally used by politicians is has come to be used anytime someone makes a statement with which one disagrees. Since nearly every statement made by a human being requires some degree of a conclusion, every statement would be spin.

Whether or not I was attempting to sway public opinion is internal to my own thought process. For that matter, my original statement was not made in the first person, nor did I claim them as my own. Drawing that inference on your own accord, and "fixing my post" would be a clear example of 'spin' on your part.


That tendency does not alter the meaning of the term, though.The equation was already established by the poll's originator before I even entered the thread. If you and patteeu had failed to notice, that's on you.

Yes, yes, so we've heard ad nauseum from those seeking to avoid the revelation that they're all talk.

How does one's particpation in the war determine the validity as public policy? Can you explain that one again?

Nightwish
05-01-2007, 08:12 PM
Then lets use terms like "benign" and "negative".
Because those terms, especially "negative" are very subjective.

By your definition, any statement made to any person that includes any conclusion, reasonable or otherwise, is 'spin'. It is the intent to sway public opinion that controls.
More accurately, any statement made to any person that includes any conclusion, reasonable or otherwise, which presumes information that is actually uknown as part of the conclusion, and is intended to sway the other party into agreement, is "spin."

Spin: To provide an interpretation of (a statement or event, for example), especially in a way meant to sway public opinion.
Note the word "interpretation." This inclusion in the definition cedes that some relevant facts are unknown, otherwise no interpretation is necessary. If 100% of the facts are known, then there isn't much room for interpretation. The fewer facts are known, the more interpretation is required. With spin, of course, the interpretation process usually involves a lot of creative license, so that the person doing the spinning, when there is a choice of blank-fillers, chooses to fill those blanks with extrapolations that are most advantageous to their side (so that the physical act of troop withdrawal, something already intended eventually, becomes the ideological act of "surrender," though we're not giving anything up that we ostensibly sought to control, we're just doing what we already planned to eventually do earlier than the President wanted to do it, assuming the withdrawals happen anytime soon - but calling it "surrender," though fundamentally unsupported, benefits your side by working to make it a political wedge issue with the potential to divide moderate and liberal Democrats and give Republicans a better shot in '08).

Since 'spin' originated as a slang expression, used to degrade explanations generally used by politicians is has come to be used anytime someone makes a statement with which one disagrees.
"Spin" did not originate as a slang expression used to degrade political explanations. It originated as a term borrowed from sports to describe a tactic by politicians (not against politicians) manipulate information to their best advantage. Every government has its own spin department. The White House has its Press Department, Iraq has its Ministry of Information, the Germans had their Propaganda Ministry, and so on. The term originated in those circles to describe their own strategy. It has evolved over time to often serve as a derogatory term, but still enjoys its original less derogatory sense as well.

Whether or not I was attempting to sway public opinion is internal to my own thought process.
Of course, that's true. You could have posted that highly interpretive comment with absolutely no desire or intent to convince anyone reading it that it would, in fact, amount to surrender. It could have just been a typing fart. But I find that very doubtful.

For that matter, my original statement was not made in the first person, nor did I claim them as my own. Drawing that inference on your own accord, and "fixing my post" would be a clear example of 'spin' on your part.
Spin doesn't have to be first-person or represented as your own original idea to be spin. Without a doubt, except for absolute knowledge of your motives, your post contained every other textbook earmark of spin.

How does one's particpation in the war determine the validity as public policy? Can you explain that one again?
Where did you get anything to do with "public policy" from that poll? For that matter, the poll didn't even dictate that you would have to be a part of the military operations. It simply asked if you would be willing to sacrifice (clarified as "risk") your life to help Iraq become stable. There are many ways that could be done, both here or abroad.

Logical
05-01-2007, 08:25 PM
We are definitely not in the no spin zone.

Dr. Johnny Fever
05-01-2007, 08:27 PM
:middle finger:

http://home.comcast.net/~daschor/clipart/bush_middle_finger.png
Could also call it "Bush to the American people."

stevieray
05-01-2007, 08:31 PM
Could also call it "Bush to the American people."


BS.

trndobrd
05-01-2007, 09:20 PM
Because those terms, especially "negative" are very subjective.

Those were the terms you chose to use.


More accurately, any statement made to any person that includes any conclusion, reasonable or otherwise, which presumes information that is actually uknown as part of the conclusion, and is intended to sway the other party into agreement, is "spin."

Not sway the other party into agreement, "to sway public opinion." Go reread your original dictionary definition.


Note the word "interpretation." This inclusion in the definition cedes that some relevant facts are unknown, otherwise no interpretation is necessary. If 100% of the facts are known, then there isn't much room for interpretation. The fewer facts are known, the more interpretation is required. With spin, of course, the interpretation process usually involves a lot of creative license, so that the person doing the spinning, when there is a choice of blank-fillers, chooses to fill those blanks with extrapolations that are most advantageous to their side (so that the physical act of troop withdrawal, something already intended eventually, becomes the ideological act of "surrender," though we're not giving anything up that we ostensibly sought to control, we're just doing what we already planned to eventually do earlier than the President wanted to do it, assuming the withdrawals happen anytime soon - but calling it "surrender," though fundamentally unsupported, benefits your side by working to make it a political wedge issue with the potential to divide moderate and liberal Democrats and give Republicans a better shot in '08).

Well, now you are back in the business of redefining 'spin'. Must have missed 'creative license' in the original def.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is my 'side'?


"Spin" did not originate as a slang expression used to degrade political explanations. It originated as a term borrowed from sports to describe a tactic by politicians (not against politicians) manipulate information to their best advantage. Every government has its own spin department. The White House has its Press Department, Iraq has its Ministry of Information, the Germans had their Propaganda Ministry, and so on. The term originated in those circles to describe their own strategy. It has evolved over time to often serve as a derogatory term, but still enjoys its original less derogatory sense as well.

I'm sure you will be providing the links to the origins of the term 'spin' shortly.

Dictionary.com....Used as a noun Slang. a particular viewpoint or bias, esp. in the media; slant:

Merriam-Websters Noun....4 a : a usually ingenious twist <puts an Asian spin on the pasta dishes> b (1) : a special point of view, emphasis, or interpretation presented for the purpose of influencing opinion


Of course, that's true. You could have posted that highly interpretive comment with absolutely no desire or intent to convince anyone reading it that it would, in fact, amount to surrender. It could have just been a typing fart. But I find that very doubtful.

Go reread my statement. Did I claim that as my position? In fact, you are the one adding your personal views. An attempt to place my statement that some would view the Iraq spending bill as a surrender bill, in a negative light? There's a word for that....


Spin doesn't have to be first-person or represented as your own original idea to be spin. Without a doubt, except for absolute knowledge of your motives, your post contained every other textbook earmark of spin.

Really? Is it untrue that there are people who would view the Iraq spending bill as a surrender bill? As a point of fact, there are people who hold that belief. Since my statement was entirely factual, by your definition it could not be 'spin'.


Where did you get anything to do with "public policy" from that poll? For that matter, the poll didn't even dictate that you would have to be a part of the military operations. It simply asked if you would be willing to sacrifice (clarified as "risk") your life to help Iraq become stable. There are many ways that could be done, both here or abroad.

If not to determine the public policy aspects, then what was the point of the poll?

No, the poll didn't dictate, although it was certainly implied, that one would be engaging in military operations and risking one's life therein for the purpose of bringing stability to Iraq.

I would be curious to know what ways one could risk their life here in the US for the purpose of bringing stability to Iraq.

penchief
05-01-2007, 09:32 PM
Or he vetoed the timeline to surrender bill, depending on how you view things.

He vetoed the plan to hold him accountable for the inevitable before the next president gets left holding the bag bill.

trndobrd
05-01-2007, 09:33 PM
He vetoed the plan to hold him accountable for the inevitable before the next president gets left holding the bag bill.


Uh, oh.....'spin' police are on the way.

stevieray
05-01-2007, 09:40 PM
He vetoed the plan to hold him accountable for the inevitable before the next president gets left holding the bag bill.

Like Clinton and Osama Bin Laden.

penchief
05-01-2007, 09:47 PM
Like Clinton and Osama Bin Laden.

Like 9/11 after being given fair warning? Is that what you mean?

stevieray
05-01-2007, 09:55 PM
Like 9/11 after being given fair warning? Is that what you mean?

ROFL

funny how nothing ever came of that....

just like it's funny that rove was going down...

just like alberto gonzales was going down..

It's amusing to watch you guys keep changing the accusations when they don't hold water.

Nightwish
05-01-2007, 10:02 PM
Those were the terms you chose to use.
And? Are you going to argue that "withdrawal" is not a more benign term than "surrender?"

Not sway the other party into agreement, "to sway public opinion." Go reread your original dictionary definition.
I'll give you that one. I suppose there are some cases where someone might try to sway the public into disagreeing with them, though I'm sure there would be ulterior motives involved.

Well, now you are back in the business of redefining 'spin'. Must have missed 'creative license' in the original def.
No, but you apparently missed the "usually involves" this time around. That's not saying that it is required, just an observant that it tends to be true more often than not.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is my 'side'?
You tell me. You talk like a right-wing hawk, sound like a right-wing hawk, look like a right-wing hawk, smell like a right-wing hawk, what does that usually add up to?

I'm sure you will be providing the links to the origins of the term 'spin' shortly.

Dictionary.com....Used as a noun Slang. a particular viewpoint or bias, esp. in the media; slant:

Merriam-Websters Noun....4 a : a usually ingenious twist b (1) : a special point of view, emphasis, or interpretation presented for the purpose of influencing opinion.
Your definitions offer less specific variations on the definition I already provided, but say nothing about origins. The first known instance of its being used by a journalist was in a 1986 article in the NY Times, by William Safire, who himself brought the term into journalism from his roots as a Presidential speech-writer, hence what I said about it originating among the government's press circles, and borrowed from sports, to give a name to their own tactics.

http://www.rsu.edu/faculty/khicks/Essays/Spin.htm

Go reread my statement. Did I claim that as my position? In fact, you are the one adding your personal views. An attempt to place my statement that some would view the Iraq spending bill as a surrender bill, in a negative light? There's a word for that....
Are you asking us to believe that you don't view the Iraq spending bill as a surrender bill, despite your pattern of aping exactly the people who do consistently frame it in that light?

Since my statement was entirely factual, by your definition it could not be 'spin'.
Incorrect. The way you framed the statement was clearly intended to convey the impression that it is, indeed, a surrender bill. It would have been much simpler and much more concise to say, "There are some people who believe it is a surrender bill," if that was what you were truly intending to convey. But considering the way you did say it, coupled with the knowledge of how you tend to fall on political discussions on this forum, you surely can't believe you're fooling anyone by claiming you were simply trying to inform us that there are some people out there (but not you, of course) who believe it is a surrender bill.

If not to determine the public policy aspects, then what was the point of the poll?
To see how many people, especially those who are constantly cheerleading the war and touting the new rationale that it's about stabilizing Iraq, would actually be willing to risk their own skins for it.

No, the poll didn't dictate, although it was certainly implied, that one would be engaging in military operations and risking one's life therein for the purpose of bringing stability to Iraq.
Did it imply that? Or did you merely infer that?

I would be curious to know what ways one could risk their life here in the US for the purpose of bringing stability to Iraq.
One popular notion is that Iraq cannot and will not become stable until its sectarian divisions run their full course, through civil war or whatever, and that our presence over there is actually hindering the process of stability, not helping it. People over here may organize demonstrations against the government, military, or whoever, and risk life and limb doing so - plenty of people have been killed during political demonstrations (look how easily the police opened up on demonstrators in Los Angeles this evening, and understand, they're not always rubber bullets). Though I'm sure that isn't what Logical had in mind, it is certainly one way that one could risk their life with the intent of doing their part to help Iraq become stable.

penchief
05-01-2007, 10:05 PM
ROFL

funny how nothing ever came of that one too.

just like it's funny that rove was going down...

just like alberto gonzales was going down..

It's amusing to watch you guys keep changing the accusations when they don't hold water.

Of course nothing has ever come of that. Nothing has ever come of anything until now. The power to investigate has just now entered the scene. The investigations that have begun since the election are already starting to peel back the layers. Slowly but surely, this administration's dishonesty and ideological disregard for good governance is being revealed.

Many of those things that you boast "nothing has come of" will eventually come home to roost. I believe we will eventually know the details of many things, such as the Energy Task Force Meetings.

Don't you believe the people have a right to know? And when so much tragedy surrounds our own government's activities, why is secrecy about things like that treated with the most zeal? Why is this administration's secrecy more virtuous than governmental transparency? That seems opposite of the way I was always taught is should be.

Nightwish
05-01-2007, 10:08 PM
ROFL
just like alberto gonzales was going down..
Gonzales is still in the hot seat, and his fate has yet to be determined. He's not out, but neither is he comfortable.

stevieray
05-01-2007, 10:08 PM
Of course nothing has ever come of that. Nothing has ever come of anything until now. The power to investigate has just now entered the scene. The investigations that have begun since the election are already starting to peel back the layers. Slowly but surely, this administration's dishonesty and ideological disregard for good governance is being revealed.

Many of those things that you boast "nothing has come of" will eventually come home to roost. I believe we will eventually know the details of many things, such as the Energy Task Force Meetings.

Don't you believe the people have a right to know? And when so much tragedy surrounds our own government's activities, why is secrecy about things like that treated with the most zeal? Why is this administration's secrecy more virtuous than governmental transparency? That seems opposite of the way I was always taught is should be.

ROFL

thnanks for the laugh...in one post they are true...now they eventually will be...

i'm out..gotta go love on the wife..

penchief
05-01-2007, 10:20 PM
ROFL

thnanks for the laugh...in one post they are true...now they eventually will be...

i'm out..gotta go love on the wife..

I'm not claiming to know the absolute truth about anything. But it is what it is. Nothing changes that. What makes the difference is whether or not that truth is ever discovered. I'm hopeful that it will be. And I think that it eventually will be.

It's up to us, though. We can be forceful and hold our government accountable to us (as it should be) or we can sheepishly cede the people's power to those who would gladly deprive us of our liberty and our privacy.

patteeu
05-01-2007, 10:44 PM
Bush hates the troops:

http://villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/images/bush-hugs-troops-300-thumb.jpg

And they obviously can't stand him:

http://www.brandonblog.homestead.com/files/blog-r1433177415.jpg

HolmeZz
05-01-2007, 10:48 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/thumb-Accomplished.jpg

IT'Z ALL OVA

penchief
05-01-2007, 10:48 PM
BS.

stevieray's on autopilot tonight.

Nightwish
05-01-2007, 10:50 PM
ROFL

funny how nothing ever came of that....

just like it's funny that rove was going down...

just like alberto gonzales was going down..

It's amusing to watch you guys keep changing the accusations when they don't hold water.
"Rove was going down" was a prediction, not an accusation. Whether the actual accusations against Rove hold water is quite another story. Those investigations are still under way, and he is a long way from being in the clear.

While I agree that nobody should consider it a foregone conclusion that these people are guilty of what they're accused of, but neither should anybody consider it a foregone conclusion that they're innocent of all charges. And penchief is right, as the investigations have been going on, more and more of the allegations against Rove, Cheney and others are appearing to have more and more meat.

Taco John
05-02-2007, 12:07 AM
And they obviously can't stand him:




Especially all the dead ones:

<img src="http://home.ripway.com/2004-1/54222/warpresBIG.jpg" width="550" heigth="950">

|Zach|
05-02-2007, 12:19 AM
i'm out..gotta go love on the wife..
[/insecurity]

stevieray
05-02-2007, 08:05 AM
[/insecurity]

[envy]

Chief Henry
05-02-2007, 08:20 AM
We could have had alot of fun with that picture. But leave it to Taco Juan to turn it into a Bush bashing, scrotum licking luv fest for the
waco leftist on this board. The hate is unreal.

HolmeZz
05-02-2007, 09:59 AM
That big picture re-uses a lot of the pictures.

trndobrd
05-03-2007, 10:44 AM
And? Are you going to argue that "withdrawal" is not a more benign term than "surrender?"


I'll give you that one. I suppose there are some cases where someone might try to sway the public into disagreeing with them, though I'm sure there would be ulterior motives involved.


No, but you apparently missed the "usually involves" this time around. That's not saying that it is required, just an observant that it tends to be true more often than not.

Here's the definition used by the author in the essay you cited. Certainly a much narrower and, I believe, a more useful definition than the American Heratige dictionary.

Spin: attempts to reorient potentially embarrassing or ambiguous actions, (mis)statements, and/or circumstances in such a way as to deflect, minimize, or refute critical attention from a primary target (e.g. party, political actor, journalist or the journalistic profession).


You tell me. You talk like a right-wing hawk, sound like a right-wing hawk, look like a right-wing hawk, smell like a right-wing hawk, what does that usually add up to?

Ah, the 'she's a witch' argument.

You really haven't read many of my posts, have you? Except for stating that "Micheal Moore doesn't represent my views" (which makes me a 'right-wing hawk' only in the most left of center liberal's fantasy) I don't believe I have stated a position in support or against the invasion of Iraq. Nor have I stated a position in favor of 'the surge'. I suppose it's easier to simply label all people who disagree with you on any issue as 'right-wing hawks' and simply place them in the appropriate pidgeon hole.


Your definitions offer less specific variations on the definition I already provided, but say nothing about origins. The first known instance of its being used by a journalist was in a 1986 article in the NY Times, by William Safire, who himself brought the term into journalism from his roots as a Presidential speech-writer, hence what I said about it originating among the government's press circles, and borrowed from sports, to give a name to their own tactics.

http://www.rsu.edu/faculty/khicks/Essays/Spin.htm


Interesting article. Thanks.

[QUOTE=Nightwish]Are you asking us to believe that you don't view the Iraq spending bill as a surrender bill, despite your pattern of aping exactly the people who do consistently frame it in that light?


Incorrect. The way you framed the statement was clearly intended to convey the impression that it is, indeed, a surrender bill. It would have been much simpler and much more concise to say, "There are some people who believe it is a surrender bill," if that was what you were truly intending to convey. But considering the way you did say it, coupled with the knowledge of how you tend to fall on political discussions on this forum, you surely can't believe you're fooling anyone by claiming you were simply trying to inform us that there are some people out there (but not you, of course) who believe it is a surrender bill.

The old 'you could have said..." argument. If it were my intent, I simply would have said "It is a surrender bill." There are many ways to say things.

If jAZ or Logical had made the exact same statement, you would have rightly dismissed it as pure hyperbole. So it would seem that your entire argument rests on your perception of my intent. My wife would certainly like to have your ability to read my mind.

Your perception seems to be based on the idea that if I agree with posters X and Y on a particular issue, then I must agree with them on all the issues. That is the height of intellectual laziness. You agreed with me that Muslim kids should not be degraded in school. Does that make me a left-wing moonbat, or you a RWNJ? Mememe, jAZ and I all took the same position on flag burning. Does that mean I agree with the rest of their political positions? Of course not.

I'm not sure who I am "aping" or where. I believe you will find that the majority of my posts on Iraq deal with either mischaracterizations of the military, or explanations of factual issues. Please, remind me where I have been aping Rexjake, Patteau or been 'cheerleading' for the war in Iraq.

Frankly, no, I don't believe this is a 'surrender' bill. Not only is there is no one to surrender to, but as you pointed out, U.S. forces will eventually (hopefully sooner rather than later) leave Iraq. While I do not believe a publicly stated mandatory withdrawl date is wise policy, you would be hard pressed to find anyone happier to see a resolution and return of U.S. forces.


To see how many people, especially those who are constantly cheerleading the war and touting the new rationale that it's about stabilizing Iraq, would actually be willing to risk their own skins for it.

Fair enough. Although I should add that I voted 'yes', I would hardly consider myself a 'cheerleader'.


One popular notion is that Iraq cannot and will not become stable until its sectarian divisions run their full course, through civil war or whatever, and that our presence over there is actually hindering the process of stability, not helping it. People over here may organize demonstrations against the government, military, or whoever, and risk life and limb doing so - plenty of people have been killed during political demonstrations (look how easily the police opened up on demonstrators in Los Angeles this evening, and understand, they're not always rubber bullets). Though I'm sure that isn't what Logical had in mind, it is certainly one way that one could risk their life with the intent of doing their part to help Iraq become stable.

As you grasp at straws, are surely not suggesting that participating in an anti-war demonstration in the U.S. is a comparable risk to hanging out in Iraq? Many non-military journalists, aid-workers, contruction workers and so forth take considerable risks, in many cases greater than those of military members. But a person participating in an anti-war rally is generally at greater risk driving to the rally, than actually participating. I'm suprised you didn't offer Patteau the option of risking his life by particpating in an anti-war rally, perhaps paying round-trip airfare to L.A. I'm sure, after lambasting him, you regularly risk your life particpating in rallies. Right?

Nightwish
05-03-2007, 11:00 AM
Here's the definition used by the author in the essay you cited. Certainly a much narrower and, I believe, a more useful definition than the American Heratige dictionary.

Spin: attempts to reorient potentially embarrassing or ambiguous actions, (mis)statements, and/or circumstances in such a way as to deflect, minimize, or refute critical attention from a primary target (e.g. party, political actor, journalist or the journalistic profession).That is spin as damage control. It is most definitely not the only kind of spin, nor even necessarily the most common kind of spin employed, though I'll admit this administration has rarely had an opportunity to use it in any other manner.Ah, the 'she's a witch' argument.I'm not a "she," but I am a "witch." Just saying.You really haven't read many of my posts, have you? Except for stating that "Micheal Moore doesn't represent my views" (which makes me a 'right-wing hawk' only in the most left of center liberal's fantasy) I don't believe I have stated a position in support or against the invasion of Iraq. Nor have I stated a position in favor of 'the surge'. I suppose it's easier to simply label all people who disagree with you on any issue as 'right-wing hawks' and simply place them in the appropriate pidgeon hole.No, I'll admit I haven't read a whole lot of your posts. The ones I have read have all contained little but right-wing slant, however. But if I've just been unfortunate to have only encountered the exceptions to your rule, then I offer my apologies.As you grasp at straws, are surely not suggesting that participating in an anti-war demonstration in the U.S. is a comparable risk to hanging out in Iraq?You didn't specify that the example you sought for how a person could risk their life without going to Iraq had to be comparable in scale to the risk of hanging out in Iraq. You simply asked for an example of how one could risk their life without going over there. It wasn't what I had in mind, either, when I said that risking one's life does not automatically require involvement with the military (though it related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rather than Iraq, I'm nevertheless reminded of the American student who was protesting the Israeli push into the West Bank when an Israeli soldier ran her down with his bulldozer - she wasn't military, but she's just as dead nonetheless).
I'm sure, after lambasting him, you regularly risk your life particpating in rallies. Right?If this was an attempt to put me on the ropes, it failed. Last time I checked, I wasn't the one masquerading with a faux bravado and trying to convince everyone on the board that I'd be willing to risk my life for a political agenda. It's not cowardice to refuse to risk your life for something you've never pretended to believe in. It is cowardice to trumpet a cause, even claim that you would risk your life, but not actually be willing to do so.

trndobrd
05-03-2007, 11:45 AM
That is spin as damage control. It is most definitely not the only kind of spin, nor even necessarily the most common kind of spin employed, though I'll admit this administration has rarely had an opportunity to use it in any other manner.

You should reread the entire article. It's very interesting. It goes into spin as an offensive weapon and other forms as well. This administration has used all forms of spin(the author cites some Karl Rove examples toward the end) both offensive, defensive and from surrogates.

I would go a step further and suggest that one of the problems with this administration (certainly in the 2nd term) has been an inability to use defensive spin effectively. Agree with the policy decisions or not, the Whitehouse has been unwilling or unable to forsee attacks or have responses/explanation/spin prepared from the outset and have been flat footed on issues for which there are reasonable explanations.


I'm not a "she," but I am a "witch." Just saying.

Disregard. It was a Monty Python Holy Grail reference.... "She's a Witch....BURN HER! BURN HER!"

No, I'll admit I haven't read a whole lot of your posts. The ones I have read have all contained little but right-wing slant, however. But if I've just been unfortunate to have only encountered the exceptions to your rule, then I offer my apologies.

None necessary. I don't have a 'rule' per se, rather, I tend to address issues individually based on my own thoughts and experiences.

You didn't specify that the example you sought for how a person could risk their life without going to Iraq had to be comparable in scale to the risk of hanging out in Iraq. You simply asked for an example of how one could risk their life without going over there. It wasn't what I had in mind, either, when I said that risking one's life does not automatically require involvement with the military (though it related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rather than Iraq, I'm nevertheless reminded of the American student who was protesting the Israeli push into the West Bank when an Israeli soldier ran her down with his bulldozer - she wasn't military, but she's just as dead nonetheless).

I agree that military involvement isn't required and provided examples. Is there an example of risking your life in the United States greater than the risk of driving to Taco-Bell for a double decker taco(NYC Taco-Bells excluded) or any other day-to-day activity?

If this was an attempt to put me on the ropes, it failed. Last time I checked, I wasn't the one masquerading with a faux bravado and trying to convince everyone on the board that I'd be willing to risk my life for a political agenda. It's not cowardice to refuse to risk your life for something you've never pretended to believe in. It is cowardice to trumpet a cause, even claim that you would risk your life, but not actually be willing to do so.

No, I just found it amusing that you criticized Patteau for not joining the military, even going so far as to offer him money for body armour and airfare to Iraq, but did not offer a trip to the nearest life-threatening protest as an option.

Sadly, in America today, too few people are willing to risk anything for the causes they profess to believe. (not directed at you, just an observation)

Taco John
05-03-2007, 12:00 PM
We could have had alot of fun with that picture. But leave it to Taco Juan to turn it into a Bush bashing, scrotum licking luv fest for the
waco leftist on this board. The hate is unreal.



Are you high?

Don't come into a thread aimed at mocking the moron, and not expect some Bush bashing...

And for what it's worth, Bush bashing isn't just a "waco leftist" thing. It's mainstream baby.

Let's not get confused here about who is on the fringe.

Nightwish
05-03-2007, 12:14 PM
Disregard. It was a Monty Python Holy Grail reference.... "She's a Witch....BURN HER! BURN HER!"
I know, I'm a huge fan of the movie. Being a practicing (though not much of late) witch, that scene is one of the reasons I love it so much. I just figured that was an ample opportunity to mention my particular spiritual bent, as it might give some insight into why I hold some of the views I hold.

None necessary. I don't have a 'rule' per se, rather, I tend to address issues individually based on my own thoughts and experiences.
Fair enough. I shouldn't have pigeon-holed you like that. God knows I've been pigeon-holed the same way many times over, though I am usually mistakenly assigned to the hard left uberliberal camp (which couldn't be further from the truth on most issues, but isn't far off wrt the war in Iraq).

I agree that military involvement isn't required and provided examples. Is there an example of risking your life in the United States greater than the risk of driving to Taco-Bell for a double decker taco(NYC Taco-Bells excluded) or any other day-to-day activity?
None that I can think of right off hand. I just tossed in the comment about not even having to go to Iraq as an offhand comment that there are outside possibilities, to drive home the point that military affiliation is not the alpha and omega of risk-taking.

No, I just found it amusing that you criticized Patteau for not joining the military,
I'm not criticizing him for not joining the military. I'm just criticizing him for making the grandiose claim that he would risk his life for something I am nearly 100% certain he would not risk his life for. It goes to his pattern of putting on airs of unassailable bravado and patriotism and trying to shift blame for our failures in Iraq onto the opponents of the war ("if we're not winning in Iraq, it's because you doves won't keep your mouths shut"), not allowing that any of the blame belongs to Bush, the administration, Rumsfeld or poor war planning in general. If people dare to criticize the war, it's our fault that we're not making the headway we hoped to make, it's our fault that the Iraqis don't want us there, it's our fault when troops are killed in roadside explosions. Believe me, with all the airs he puts on around here, he more than deserves to be called to task for his typewriter bravado.

Sadly, in America today, too few people are willing to risk anything for the causes they profess to believe. (not directed at you, just an observation)
I don't believe in causes much anymore. I just disbelieve in this cause. I believe we've done what needed to be done to get the Iraqis out from under the yoke of Saddam Hussein, but it's their responsibility to make of it what they will. It's not our responsibility to stave off the inevitable. Sometimes civil war is necessary, as I believe it is in this case. A true democracy is not going to be had in Iraq, and least not until the country is either divided into ethnic territories, or one faction rises up and decisively takes the reins. Peace by the sword has been their way for eons, and we're not going to change that.

Jenson71
05-03-2007, 01:48 PM
You're a witch, Nightwish? Does this mean you do spells or tarot?

patteeu
05-03-2007, 08:24 PM
I'm not criticizing him for not joining the military. I'm just criticizing him for making the grandiose claim that he would risk his life for something I am nearly 100% certain he would not risk his life for. It goes to his pattern of putting on airs of unassailable bravado and patriotism and trying to shift blame for our failures in Iraq onto the opponents of the war ("if we're not winning in Iraq, it's because you doves won't keep your mouths shut"), not allowing that any of the blame belongs to Bush, the administration, Rumsfeld or poor war planning in general. If people dare to criticize the war, it's our fault that we're not making the headway we hoped to make, it's our fault that the Iraqis don't want us there, it's our fault when troops are killed in roadside explosions. Believe me, with all the airs he puts on around here, he more than deserves to be called to task for his typewriter bravado.

No, you were specifically criticizing me for not joining the military because you were too ignorant to figure out that that's not what I said "YES" to. No one can really know for sure what they would do if a currently hypothetical situation ever actually arose in which they were put in a position to either sacrifice their life for a greater good or save their own skin. We can only say what we think we would do. I could ask you whether you would sacrifice your life to save your mother or your child and you might say YES, but we could never know for sure whether you'd have what it takes to put your life where your mouth was if it came to that. Neither you nor I will ever know whether my YES answer reflects what I would actually do, but until you figure out what it is that I said YES about, you can't even begin to take a guess.

BucEyedPea
05-03-2007, 09:18 PM
You're a witch, Nightwish? Does this mean you do spells or tarot?
So mote it be. :)

Nightwish
05-03-2007, 11:19 PM
You're a witch, Nightwish? Does this mean you do spells or tarot?On some rare occasions, and not for awhile, respectively. I am skilled at tarot, though. I just haven't read them in awhile. I'm not so much a "practicing" witch as I used to be, nor am I any longer a doctrinal Wiccan, though my heart still lies with them. I'm an agnostic neopagan.

Nightwish
05-03-2007, 11:23 PM
No, you were specifically criticizing me for not joining the military."Military" never entered into my criticism. If I had the actual military in mind, I wouldn't have offered to fly you, arm you and armour you, as the military would that themselves. All I had in mind was you running around half-cocked in Iraq among all the other idiots with guns (not talking about our troops, the "idiots with guns" I'm referring to are the rest of the people going around shooting up the place), shitting yourself the first time somebody in a turban looked your way, and offering to help you get there, just to see if you really have the guts.