We can go back and forth all day on this stuff. Instead, I'll just leave you with the powerful words of Kevin Tillman, army ranger and brother of Pat Tillman.
After Pat’s Birthday
posted Oct 19, 2006
By Kevin Tillman
Editor’s note: Kevin Tillman joined the Army with his brother Pat in 2002, and they served together in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pat was killed in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004. Kevin, who was discharged in 2005, has written a powerful, must-read document.
It is Pat’s birthday on November 6, and elections are the day after. It gets me thinking about a conversation I had with Pat before we joined the military. He spoke about the risks with signing the papers. How once we committed, we were at the mercy of the American leadership and the American people. How we could be thrown in a direction not of our volition. How fighting as a soldier would leave us without a voice… until we got out.
Much has happened since we handed over our voice:
Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can’t be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that.
Somehow our elected leaders were subverting international law and humanity by setting up secret prisons around the world, secretly kidnapping people, secretly holding them indefinitely, secretly not charging them with anything, secretly torturing them. Somehow that overt policy of torture became the fault of a few “bad apples” in the military.
Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra pad in a helmet. It’s interesting that a soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing from a five-year-old; or a faded sticker on a car as his friends die around him; or an extra pad in a helmet, as if it will protect him when an IED throws his vehicle 50 feet into the air as his body comes apart and his skin melts to the seat.
Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.
Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground.
Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.
Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.
Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.
Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.
Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.
Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.
Somehow torture is tolerated.
Somehow lying is tolerated.
Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense.
Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world.
Somehow a narrative is more important than reality.
Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.
Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world.
Somehow being politically informed, diligent, and skeptical has been replaced by apathy through active ignorance.
Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country.
Somehow this is tolerated.
Somehow nobody is accountable for this.
In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that “somehow” was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.
Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It can start after Pat’s birthday.
Brother and Friend of Pat Tillman,
Kevin Tillman
This, just proves the low depths that the Leftist
Liberals would stoop to to denegrade not only the President (that they've tried doing since day one)
but the hatred they are filled with in trying to undermine our troops and the effort against Terrorists. ALL they care about, is getting a couple disgruntled soldiers(out of thousands) and
exploit them, in the efforts to interfere with an upcoming election. This George Soros, Jewish Athiest,Socialist/Secular Progressive who uses his big money to try to change the Traditional
values(who are the majority of our people in our country, should go BACK to where he came from.
I think that the only way to be a Liberal is to be simple-minded---because it seems that all of their 'positions' are based on oversimplification of the facts.
So a few soldiers are against the war. So?? Do the math. What are the mathematical probablilities of every member of such a large group being in agreement?
There are IBM employees who hate IBM---should we all burn our computers?
The Pentagon consists of thousands of military officers, administrators, and employees. But when a few disagree with the majority, the few are held up by the Left as proof---PROOF, dontcha know!----of what they claim is overwhelming and significant dissension. Let a couple of disgruntled generals, whose noses are out of joint because their ideas were overruled in favor of someone else's, start to grumble and the radical Left holds them up as the ultimate authorities.
How many million people are serving in the military in various capacities? And how many are lining up to support MoveOn and its minions?
And how many of those are acting out of personal cowardice, afraid they might actually be asked to SERVE their country instead of just putting in some time in uniform?
People who actually research what is called the "anti-war" movement find that its political origin, its foundation, is in radical socialism, and that it is not an idealist desire for peace but a cynical effort to undermine and divide a country in an effort to gain political power. This is not to say that everyone who joins the movement is of the same mind---there are millions of good-hearted people who simply freak out at the thought of violence and war. They are for the most part sincere in their desire that no one ever be killed in any conflict ever again.
But this passion often leads to two very erroneous conclusions. One is that anyone who sees war as a necessity is often portrayed as someone who LIKES war, LIKES violence and killing, and who is indifferent to human suffering and death. This is grossly unfair and grossly inaccurate, but it is promoted as a divisive tactic, and it is very effective on those who over-simplify everything.
The other is that it depends on a belief that if WE stop fighting, THEY will stop fighting. We might look at the pacifist reaction of Jews in the 1930's for an example of how well that tends to work. They did not fight back, believing that resistance would only make things worse, and that it was better to live peacefully in reduced circumstances than to fight and 'escalate' the violence. It's a sweet, naive, and unreasonable view of the world, but it is false and dangerous.
But what bothers me is that underbelly of the movement, that cynical and callous use of emotionally distraught people to promote a political agenda.
Is this the new way for conservatives to snipe at their political opponents? To accuse them not of being bad or unpatriotic, but of allowing themselves to be hoodwinked or exploited by the left is a very interesting strategy...
Then again... it's not enough for the left just to be wrong, which is more often than not, they have to not only hate America, they have to wish America to be defeated...
Man... the toxicity of political debate today is just disgusting...
The democrats want ot politicize everything, Even in the work place!
It's a shame, some folks can't even get jobs on account of not being a democrat...the democratic party has gone totally insane, in the name of GREED...SICK!
Jeremiah
How does the phrase go???...
"Useful idiots"
...sort of explains most the leftist peace movement in our country.
Georgia,
But that is what it is - SANE has half a century of treason to its "credit", and if you think that any American soldier consciously and with malice aforethought wants to betray his country, then you really need to rethink your views...these are men who, likely, had a rough time over there and are hurt, angry and gripped by the despair all too often seen among men who have endured long, arduous combat duty. Along comes a group of very highly skilled leftists to give them hard and fast answers to all their quesitons, and all they have to do is make certain statements, and SANE, etc will do all the rest.
There is poison in our political debate, and it is entirely from the left that it comes...they are the hate-filled liars who hate America.
Whatever - you Bushians can say whatever you want about "Appeal for Redress". Whatever this group is about, who they are funded by, what their motive is, etc, is beside the point - who cares about this one group? What is significant, and what can't be hidden anymore, is the growing chorus from within the military calling Bush's Iraq war into question. From the rank and file all the way up though the top brass, members of the military are increasingly willing to openly criticize this war, its premises, and how it is being prosecuted. And everytime another general or another combat soldier comes forward to voice their opposition to this idiocy in Iraq, you Bushians are right here to slander them, from Gen William Caldwell, to General John Bastiste, to Pat Tillman's brother (also an Army Ranger).
(Ed. Note: Anti-military slanders dressed up as a news report deleted)
Aaron,
By my count, it might be up to 500 or so former and active soldiers who are opposed to the war.
There are more than 500,000 men and women in the Army, alone...hardly a significant number in opposition. You can dress up a few malcontents as a growing trend all you want, but enlistment and re-enlistment rates tell the true tale of the way the military feels about Iraq.
"...dressed up as a news report"?
Um, that story was quoted directly from the New York Times. You might disagree with the reporting, but it is not "dressed up" as a news report - it actually IS a news reports.
As I am sure you are well aware, Mark, it is not easy for military members to come forward like this. That any are doing so at all is nothing short of stunning, considering the disciplinary action they face. When decorated generals are drummed out of the service (ie, Gen Shinsheki) for voicing criticism with the Bush administration, of course rank and file soldiers with families to support know how they will be treated if they do the same. If there are 500 willing to make their views publically known, you can bet there are tens of thousands more who share the same view but who keep it to themselves. Those who come forward do not do so lightly.
And Mark, the only slander of our military going on here is by people like you who wish to squelch their voices, and denigrate their service when they return home and run for office as democrats.
Aaaaarrrrooooonnnnnn - No. The New York Times does not publish "news".
Oh - "And Mark, the only slander of our military going on here is by people like you who wish to squelch their voices, and denigrate their service when they return home and run for office as democrats."
What a load of crap.
Really, just crap.
Aaron,
You should keep in mind that I was in the military, so I know what a servicemember is permitted and what he isn't...he's not living under a dictatorship where he daren't raise his voice. That might be the leftwing view of how our military works, but it is entirely divorced from the facts, as are all leftwing views.
And the New York Times is as reliable as the Weekly World News.
Mark -
Can you ever remember a war in which so many current and recently retired generals voiced such criticisms of the administration? Is it just that the military brass are out to get Mr Bush and Mr Rumsfeld? How many generals will it take before any of you will stop attacking them and finally admit that maybe they are right?
Aaron,
Well, let's see:
McClellen disagreed so much with Lincoln's conduct of war that he ran against him for President.
Polk was so incensed with Scott's criticism that he nearly relieved him of command.
MacArthur was famously relieved of command for disagreeing with Truman's conduct of the Korean War.
These are just tips of icebergs - there will always be military members who disagree strongly with Administration policy. To dissent is not to be automatically right - sometimes the dissenters are a bunch of boneheads who don't know their a## from a hole in the ground.
This is why the military has it's own justice system, the UCMJ. While I find no problem with active duty military members disagreeing with the conduct of the war, or their government, I find it appalling that they are allowed to form a group such as this.
They should all be given their General Discharge papers so they can pursue their life goals as maggot-infested, long-haired, dope-smoking, tree-hugging peaceniks who will never make a relevant contribution to society.
If these dirtbags are kicked out of the service, the MorOn pukes will drop 'em like a bad habit...
Aarontime,
By now you should know better to come trolling on a blog with so many who have served in the military who comment on a regular basis. There is no way you are going to come here, spewing venom and posting lies, distortions, and half-truths, and not get handed your a**.
As for Gen Shinseki (those of us who have served would appreciate it if you would spell the names of those in positions of authority within the military correctly), he was not "drummed out of the service...for voicing criticism with the Bush administration". He served his entire four year term as the Chief of Staff of the Army from 22 June 1999 to 11 June 2003. He retired on schedule, not before. Anyone who claims otherwise is spreading false information, otherwise known as lies.
Yes, his opinions and changes to the Army were controversial. His decision in 2001 to issue all Army troops black berets, was one of his worst.
As for the other generals who have voiced criticism, many have opined that we need more troops in Iraq, not less. However, the decision for the troop levels were made by the man in charge in theater, General Franks, not his subordinates. General Franks has confirmed that he had the complete support of the President and the SecDef in requesting specific troop strengths. He got what he asked for. If he had wanted more, he would have gotten more.
I find it interesting that you would stray from the Democrat talking point that we must withdraw from Iraq, to defend retired generals who are advocating additional troops.
But, as a true-blue liberal, you have taken this as another opportunity to bash the Bush Administration and Secretary Rumsfeld. Your behavior is expecially pathetic since you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. As usual, you have drunk the kood-aid and have come posting about things way above your paygrade.
Boy, you guys have gotten really good at this, haven't you???
A veteran of the War on Terror or the Iraq War speaks out and you throw the following at him or her:
1. He's confused or emotionally distraught.
2. He's an idiot and has been duped by trickster Democrats.
3. He's a coward. (Yes, Almiranta, I'm looking at you...)
4. He hates America.
What's really appalling is how quickly and without feeling you guys spew this garbage. Do you even care about anything anymore besides protecting the President, his war, and your fragile little egos?
Pathetic, just pathetic.
"You should keep in mind that I was in the military..."
-Noonan
"By now you should know better to come trolling on a blog with so many who have served in the military who comment on a regular basis."
- A-10
With all due respect, gentlemen, why is it that your military service is supposed to give your opinions extra weight and credibility, while the military service of those who have opinions differing from yours is supposed to count for nothing?
In fact, you all consistently side with those who have no combat service record at all over those who served with distinction. Worse still, you slander the combat service records of Bush critics and Democratic candidates to prop up Republican candidates who by and large have never seen combat. You all stood gleefully by as Rove planted rumors that McCain was a little coo-coo after his experiences in the Hanoi Hilton, you questioned the patriotism of triple amputee Max Cleland, you swift-boated Kerry, and now you're slandering Jim Webb. In all cases, these veterans' opponents had no combat record. In all such cases, you Bushians said that service record doesn't matter. Now you're here telling us that your opinions are more valid because you served?
You know, there are a total of 11 veterans of the war in Iraq running for congress right now. 9 of them are running as Democrats.
Why do you all hate the military so much?
General after general after general has boldly testified that the war in Iraq was a mistake, was incompetently planned, or is not in the best interest of the military nor the US to continue open-ended. Even General Casey, who was hand-picked to tow the admin line, has said that no one takes Rumsfeld seriously anymore. Now, the rank and file are increasingly joining in to say out loud what has been obvious to many of them for quite some time: their mission in Iraq is whacked.
But their experience is supposed to count for nothing (unlike the experience of A-10 and Mark). Like every other administration critic who actually served inside the administration, they are all dismissed as nut-jobs, or "selling a book", or Kerry supporters (gasp!), or malcontents, or traitors, or yadda yadda.
How long can you guys keep this up?
A-10
"He retired on schedule, not before."
Please. Since you have served in the military, you how disingenuous this statement is. You know that officers rarely get "fired" - that usually requires a courts martial. Instead, as you so delicately put it, they are "retired on schedule".
Aarontime,
Nothing "disingenuous" about it at all. The position of Army Chief of Staff is the senior position within the Army. The tour of duty as Army Chief of Staff is four years. There is no "renewal" of the tour of duty. In fact, in the 100 year history of the Army Chief of staff, only one individual served more than the statutory four yeras: General George C. Marshall, during WWII, who served for six years. Every other Chief served for the statutory four years.
The only way General Shinseki could have continued to serve was if he was selected to be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As the tour of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is staggered with those of the Service Chiefs, there's no wasy General Shinseki could have been selected as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. So he retired.
So, the only one being "disingenuous" is you. You, and the MSM, were/are attempting to create a controversy where none existed. General Shinseki retired when his tour as the Chief of Staff expired, not before. He was not forced out.
Aarontime,
"With all due respect, gentlemen, why is it that your military service is supposed to give your opinions extra weight and credibility, while the military service of those who have opinions differing from yours is supposed to count for nothing?"
I almost feel like having a Howard Dean moment: AAAAARRRRRHHHHH.
It's not that our opinions have extra weight and credibility compared to those with military service whose opinion is different. Its that we have experience, sometimes decades of experience, where many, if not most, of the liberal posters on this site have none. That's who I was comparing us to. You "sheep", not those who also have served.
"now you're slandering Jim Webb"
I'm not "slandering" Jim Webb. I just don't think he should be representing Virginians in the Senate. But that's another thread.
"Why do you all hate the military so much?"
That's a joke, right?
"General after general after general has boldly testified that the war in Iraq was a mistake"
So three generals have testified. You realize that they are not testifying that the war in Iraq was a mistake, but how, in their opinion, the war is being conducted. You also conveniently don't mention the Generals who have testified that the war in Iraq is and was the correct thing to do.
"Even General Casey, who was hand-picked to tow the admin line, has said that no one takes Rumsfeld seriously anymore."
Got to call "BS" on that one. Can you provide a cite?
I did find the exact quote, however. But it was made by Senator Biden, commenting on the Bob Woodward book. Even then he got it wrong. The quote was supposed to be made by General Abazaid, who has denied ever saying anything even close to that.
How long can you guys keep this up? Being proven wrong again and again and again.
A-10 -
Quit your quibbling, soldier!
We can go back and forth all day on this stuff. Instead, I'll just leave you with the powerful words of Kevin Tillman, army ranger and brother of Pat Tillman.
Go ahead - slander away at Kevin Tillman
Aarontime,
"Quit your quibbling, soldier!"
I'm not "quibbling". You're proven wrong again. But like a true-blue liberal, you're not man enough to admit it. So you change the subject.
"Go ahead - slander away at Kevin Tillman"
Do you even know the definition of slander? Its "a false defamation (expressed in spoken words, signs, or gestures) which injures the character or reputation of the person defamed."
So, if we were to point the errors in Mr. Tillman's letter, that wouldn't be "slander", it would be correcting distortions of the truth, half-truths, and misrepresentations.
Having said that, if Mr. Tillman has made these statements with knowledge that they are false or with reckless disregard of whether or not it was false, he may be committing slander against a variety of public officials.
Now, Mr. Tillman is welcome to voice his opinion. However, we are not obliged to agree with it. There are a number of opinions of his that are not based in fact:
"Somehow our elected leaders were subverting international law and humanity by ...secretly kidnapping people" - It seems Mr. Tillman has confused capturing a terrorist on the battlefield with "kidnapping" people. DNC talking point reference #1.
"secretly holding them indefinitely" - I don't think its any "secret" that we will not be releasing these terrorists back to the battlefield so they can kill again. DNC talking point reference #2.
"secretly not charging them with anything" - HELLO, they're unlawful enemy combatants, this isn't a criminal case, they are our enemies, captured on the battlefield. DNC talking point reference #3.
"Somehow that overt policy of torture became the fault of a few “bad apples” in the military." - The US doesn't have a "overt" policy of torture, or any other policy of torture. DNC talking point reference #4.
"Somehow back at home...blah, blah, blah" - Actually, we have been advocating actually supporting the Global War on Terror, by all Americans, not just those who recognize the danger of Islamic-Fascism. But the liberals are doing just the opposite, obstructing our efforts to win the War on Terror.
"Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes." - Hmmm, last time I checked, there were two Congressional Authorizations for the intervention in Iraq. Does Mr. Tillman think that these were illegal? DNC talking point reference #5.
"Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground." - See above. DNC talking point reference #6.
"Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started." - Ah-ha, the "Chicken-Hawk" DNC point. Mr. Tillman is batting 1.000. Six for six.
"Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated." - Somehow, those opining who not understanding the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is tolerated. DNC talking point reference #7.
"Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe." - I suppose he is referring to the Military Commissions Act that only applies to alien, unlawful enemy combatants. Can Mr. Tillman read? DNC talking point reference #8.
"Somehow torture is tolerated." - He's starting to run out of talking points, so he repeating himself. Same as DNC talking point reference #4.
"Somehow lying is tolerated." - Oops, another repeat. Same as DNC talking point reference #6.
"Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world." - So the American leadership is responsible for causing the Global War on Terror? The terrorists don't having anything to do with creating a more dangerous world? In retrospect, we have made being a terrorist very dangerous, so perhaps he right. DNC talking point reference #9.
"Somehow a narrative is more important than reality." - Must be a talking point from the liberal alternate universe.
"Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.." - Another talking point from the liberal alternate universe.
"Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world." - Only in the minds and eyes of liberals and socialists. DNC talking point reference #10.
"Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country." - Oh-oh, he's getting dangerously close to slander. Calling the President a "criminal". DNC talking point reference #11.
It's a lovely letter. Too bad it doesn't appear that Mr. Tillman wrote it himself. Too many DNC talking points.
While I salute Mr. Tillman's service to his country, it seems to me that he is following in the footsteps of Cindy "whats-her-name" by dishonoring the memory of his brother by politicizing Pat Tillman's supreme sacrifice.
A-10
Once again, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you maintain that you are not slandering Tillman - you are merely disagreeing with his opinion on a factual basis. Sounds fair enough. But then you then go on to express your "disagreement" with his opinion not by presenting facts, but by simply rejecting what he has to say as "DNC Talking points", or as from the "Liberal Alternate Universe".
The latest flawed rhetorical device employed by the wingers increasingly seems to go something like this: If a Veteran says the sky is blue, and the DNC also says the sky is blue, then the Vet is merely parroting DNC talking points. (And in a related line of "reasoning": if the DNC says the sky is blue, and al-qaeda also says the sky is blue, then al-qaeda and the DNC are the same - because as everyone knows, the sky is really green. To say otherwise is to aid and comfort the enemy.)
What you are really saying, A-10, is that Kevin Tillman is merely a dupe, an idiot who can't think for himself, and who only regurgitates the DNC talking points that are handed to him. As Georgia Frawg points out, you guys are saying that the Vet critics of the Iraq fiasco are "allowing themselves to be hoodwinked or exploited by the left." It can't be that they have reasonable points based on their own experiences. It's the same slime you are throwing against Michael J Fox.
Thank you A-10 for the definition of "slander": false defamation which injures the character or reputation of the person defamed. I'd say that saying that someone is an idiot dupe who can't think for themselves pretty much constitutes slander. I think Kevin Tillman would agree. I also think he'd kick your sorry arse if you said that stuff to his face.
Aarontime,
"But then you then go on to express your "disagreement" with his opinion not by presenting facts".
Since Mr. Tillman gave absolutely no facts to back up his opinion, it's pretty hard from me to disput his opinion with the facts. However, I'd be glad to expand on a couple of his comments (I see you are also deficient in reading comprehension, as I gave several facts in my comments). How's this:
At least three separate investigations have determined that the President did not lie, distort the facts, or pressure analysts to give assessments favorable to the decision to intervene in Iraq.
List who was "kidnapped", then I'd do the research for the facts to disprove this opinion.
What "international law" was subverted? Its easy to talk in generalities, but Mr. Tillman does not provide any specifics.
I gave two factual authorizations for the intervention. Since our actions were in accordance with Congressional Authorizations, they cannot be "illegal". How's that for fact?
Tell us how the Bill of Rights and The Constitution are being subverted, and I provide facts to refute the opinion.
The list goes on and on and on.
They may have "reasonable points based on their own experiences". However, on the surface, their "points" are not based on fact, thus become unreasonable.
"saying that someone is an idiot dupe who can't think for themselves pretty much constitutes slander."
You liberals are so very good at trying to put words in other people's mouths (and body parts, I may add). I never said that Mr Tillman is a idiot dupe who can't think for himself. You did. I said it doesn't appear that Mr. Tillman wrote it himself because there are too many DNC talking points.
"I also think he'd kick your sorry arse if you said that stuff to his face."
Typical liberal reaction. Threaten violence when confronted with a differing opinion and when refuted by facts. I would hope that Mr. Tillman retained enough of his Army training to repect the freedom of speech and to respect those officers appointed senior to him. As Mr. Tillman probably has a inactive Reserve committment, and I am a retired LTC, I'm sure he wouldn't be provoked to violence by you incendiary remarks. Besides, I can handle myself fairly well. I still retain much of what I learned in the USMC, as a Special Operations Officer, and on the Presidential Security Detail.
A-10… I got to tell you, it’s a lot of fun watching you calmly smack Aarontime around with reason, logic and FACTS. Seems like he’s aching to get the last word in as though that mean he wins the debate. What he fails to see is all he’s doing is setting him/her self up for another round of getting smacked.
On a personal note – thanks for your continued patients to bring enlightenment to participants of this blog.
DM,
Like taking batting practice. He serves them up, right down the heart of the plate, and I swing for the fences. HOME RUN.
What I've noticed, however, is when the final smack-down is administered, he never admits that he was wrong, he just moves on to another thread and continues his mindless blather.
I've been thinking about asking the regular conservative posters here to vote on their favorite B4B liberal. By that I mean the most looney liberal that frequents B4B. We sure have a bunch of them. "Axis", "Jim Oliver", "Aarontime", "RAL", "steveGA", "Josh Keaton", "Willem van Oranje", "other_nate", "winnowhead", "PukeOrDie", "raker13", and "Cyberactor". They all need the "5-Step Program".
Personally, I'd vote for "Axis", "Josh Keaton", and "PukeOrDie" as my top three. Their comments are so off-the-wall that they are comical.
Then there's "Ricorun", "Tom Shipley", and "Georgia Frawg". At least their comments are usually rational, albeit misguided and wrong.
They should all be thankful that Mark and Matt don't administer this blog in the same manner as DU and DailyKos, or they would all be banned for life.
DM,
I forgot to add "orangealert" to the list. He/she/it may nudge "PukeOrDie" out of my top three wack-o liberals on B4B.
A-10,
That would be interesting. With the campaigning well on its way, even trying to narrow it down to the top 3 gets difficult. Just when you think you have it, someone else post a real gem that pushes them to the head of the list. Do you think the “winner” would see this as a good thing or a bad thing?
Mark / Matt,
What do you say? How about a post where the Conservatives & Republicans here vote on the most loony liberal that frequents B4B? A-10 already has the list.
DM,
Man, how can we leave off "coulterfan". He/she/it has some classic irrational, illogical, alternate-universe based rants.
Mark / Matt,
Now a bout a "What Media Bias" thread about the growing string of newspaper endorsements being given to Democrats who have lengthy records of corruption, unethical behavior, etc. Over at Opinion Journal - Best of the Web Today they are chronicling the various "unenthusiastic endorsements". But, true to form, the "unbiased" media continues to endorse Democrats, regardless of their qualifications or factors that should disqualify them.
A-10,
We left several people off the list that should be added; "wade", "Canuck Guy", "Canada Observer", "HugeWangUSAF", "shortz", "plunge", "SeesThroughIt" and “Christian Wright” to name a few more. Also, I'm not sure if "steve" and "steveGA" is the same person.
From my observation “Axis” is definitely in the top 3 with “wade” providing close company. Several newcomers "Josh Keaton", "PukeOrDie" and “plunge” are vying for the 3rd spot to round out the list but I think your right that “William Van Oranje” and "steve" continues to do their part to retain that position.
And still more… “DougW”, Moderate Voter”, “Morphie” and “Danimal”. I’ll bet there are some who are mad they haven’t made “The List” yet. What do you think?
Well, who's keeping score? I have Errortime at 0 for about a thousand, but it could easily be naught for more than that.
Error dribbles, and....dribbles. Never even got close to scoring. This time, he dribbles "If a Veteran says the sky is blue, and the DNC also says the sky is blue, then the Vet is merely parroting DNC talking points."
Nope, Error. Not even close.
What it would be would be, if Ranty Rhodes says the sky is green, and furthermore it is green because Bush agreed to make it green to benefit Big Oil and the Bin Ladens and Halliburton has a secret contract to take the green out and make it blue again but it will never be the same because the evil neocons have RUINED the sky forever and nearly a million innnocent Iraqis had to die to make it so and Bush's cousin runs a degreening company and then the neoradical mouthbreathers started posting this crap on all the blogs that would let them on, and KOS started to expound upon it, and Katie did a segment on it where she screwed up her face real tight to show how important it was and how awful it was and 60 Minutes had a segment on the new green sky with lots of forged documents----and then Kevin Tillman started to say the same stuff, in spite of living under a clear blue sky that had never been even vaguely green----THAT would be him "parroting Dem talking points".
As well as sounding as deluded as you do, every time you come on.......
"Dem talking points" are invented non-facts which are fed to a non-discerning audience whose only goal is to assimilate as much anti-Bush, anti-conservative, garbage as they can so they can regurgitate it in mindless spittle-flying hysterical attacks on people who are less radically left of sane than they are. Which is an accurate description of the bizarre list of disproven, goofball, accusations made by Kevin Tillman.
Almiranta,
They’re almost ALL 0 for 1000 (or worse). The newcomers need a little more time to catch up but they’re spinning hard. Keeping score would be a full time job. Maybe we should just post the top 3 “dumbest comments of the week” (deciding that may even prove impossible with all of the likely contributions) and then vote on the “winner” in the open weekend post sort of like the TV program Funniest Videos.
DM,
I didn't mention "Canuck Guy", "Canada Observer", and some of the others because they seem to be "hit-and-run" posters. They rarely post anything of substance. But, then again, neither do the rest.
It seems that "other_nate" claims that he is a ACTUAL conservative (in his words). As opposed to us faux-conservatives. Seems that we aren't "conservative" enough for his tastes, so we deserve his scorn as well.
Personally, I'm crushed. NOT
DM,
I'm game for the "Top 3 Dumbest Comments on B4B by a Liberal". There'll be sooooooooo many to choose from.