Fifth Group Special Forces Pulled From Afghanistan to Fight Iraq War

[etech]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: etech

And the story was in the Guardian. Strike two.

Careful etech.

Based on my observations, merely mentioning the "Guardian" with a negative tone around here usually results in resident hordes of aspiring pseudo-sophists, detached freaks, associationally bereft intraverts, etc., binding together into a sort of obnoxiously defensive collective. Barrages of crass insults generally precede vehement denial of any and all inaccuracies contained within this supposed bastion of journalistic integrity.

One might compare the phenomenon to either a Cold War-era Soviet defense of Pravda or perhaps the unyielding Nazi attitude towards Der Stürmer. In fact, it ranks among the damndest things I've ever seen.

Anyway, moving right along......

Of course, if any right-leaning member criticizes any other right-leaning member for linking to the likes of Ann Coulter we'd undoubtedly see such a catastrophe that Ragnarok itself would pale in comparison.

IOW, if you guys condone heartsurgeon and others linking to Coulter, etc, then you are in no position to criticize The Guardian. And if you don't condone it, would you mind telling us all why you don't mention your dissatisfaction with all the Coulter links but find the time to opine on Guardian links?

By that logic Gaard, anyone that condoned Clinton cannot attack Pres. Bush for alleged lies.

I don't see many if any of the libs saying don't post articles from the Guardian or Salon, when I do than we'll have another talk about this.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: Gaard

Of course, if any right-leaning member criticizes any other right-leaning member for linking to the likes of Ann Coulter we'd undoubtedly see such a catastrophe that Ragnarok itself would pale in comparison.

IOW, if you guys condone heartsurgeon and others linking to Coulter, etc, then you are in no position to criticize The Guardian. And if you don't condone it, would you mind telling us all why you don't mention your dissatisfaction with all the Coulter links but find the time to opine on Guardian links?

Um, excuse me?!? My criticism of Ann Coulter's drivel on this forum is a matter of record. Apology accepted.

Sorry bo, no apology given. Nowhere did you criticize linking to Coulter...only of the content of her article. Now if etech would kindly do the same...

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: Gaard

Of course, if any right-leaning member criticizes any other right-leaning member for linking to the likes of Ann Coulter we'd undoubtedly see such a catastrophe that Ragnarok itself would pale in comparison.

IOW, if you guys condone heartsurgeon and others linking to Coulter, etc, then you are in no position to criticize The Guardian. And if you don't condone it, would you mind telling us all why you don't mention your dissatisfaction with all the Coulter links but find the time to opine on Guardian links?

Um, excuse me?!? My criticism of Ann Coulter's drivel on this forum is a matter of record. Apology accepted.

Sorry bo, no apology given. Nowhere did you criticize linking to Coulter...only of the content of her article. Now if etech would kindly do the same...

No Gaard, I don't have to justify my actions to you. But if you think that by not criticizing every link to a Coulter article that I cannot point out that the Guardian is a tabloid than you have much to learn young grasshopper.

 

[Gaard]

How about I pm you guys next time heartsurgeon or someone else links to Coulter? That way you guys can tell him what he's doing is unacceptable...and the rest of us will know you aren't just being hypocritical partisans. Sound good?

Oh, and in case you missed it, I posted how bad you come across in your mission to criticize every liberal in these forums here. Like I said earlier, if you would just, now and then, realize that there are right-leaning members who are guilty of what you criticize left-leaning members of doing I think you'd also realize how hypocritical you sound. Maybe you do realize it, but you seem to have made a conscious decision to not acknowledge their indiscretions. That, my friend, is why you come off as so hypocritical. An easy fix, if you are willing to do it.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Gaard
How about I pm you guys next time heartsurgeon or someone else links to Coulter? That way you guys can tell him what he's doing is unacceptable...and the rest of us will know you aren't just being hypocritical partisans. Sound good?

What heartsurgeon does is quite acceptable. He presents an opposing view that is open to criticism. He either defends the argument contained therein or ignores the counterargument.

However, I'll somewhat agree that this "branding" of sources on this board leaves a little to be desired. For example, when some posters link to Fox News, they receive comparatively adverse criticism even though the story originates from the AP. If it were not for the personal insults resulting from actions by certain posters, then the anomosity towards various sources would not exist.

By the way, I have used the "Guardian" in support of argument in this thread. Nothing like employing a left-leaning source in a right-leaning argument, eh?

Finally, here is another thread containing further criticism from me regarding Coulter's remarks.

 

[Gaard]

If you deem linking to Coulter as acceptable, than why would you have a problem with someone linking to the Guardian?

You see, whether or not you feel that linking to questionable sources is acceptable or not isn't my beef. My beef is that some here b!tchslap people for linking to questionable sources, yet turn a blind eye when members who lean the same way are guilty of the same infraction. If etech, or you, had previously chastised right-leaning members for linking to their questionable-source-of-choice, I wouldn't have a problem. You follow me?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Gaard
If you deem linking to Coulter as acceptable, than why would you have a problem with someone linking to the Guardian?

You see, whether or not you feel that linking to questionable sources is acceptable or not isn't my beef. My beef is that some here b!tchslap people for linking to questionable sources, yet turn a blind eye when members who lean the same way are guilty of the same infraction. If etech, or you, had previously chastised right-leaning members for linking to their questionable-source-of-choice, I wouldn't have a problem. You follow me?

No, I don't follow you, but you keep on typing if it makes you feel better. You see, I would have to be concerned that you have a problem. I object or note the bias of the source to the articles in posts that I am replying to.

I am not going to go through every thread and point out every possible biased source just to keep you happy.

 

[Gaard]

No, I don't follow you

Not surprising. Reminds me of another quote by you. Something along the lines of..."I don't recall the president ever using those words."
Remember that one etech?

Oh well. Partisans will be partisans. Personally, I feel that to be a negative when describing a person...but others don't share that opinion, so I let that slide. What I think everyone agrees on is that being a hypocrate is a negative characteristic. Wouldn't you agree etech?

 

[etech]

So you are saying that because someone doesn't go around condeming every questionable link they are a hypocrite?

Yes, there are hypocrits on this board, that I can agree with.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: etech
So you are saying that because someone doesn't go around condeming every questionable link they are a hypocrite?

Yes, there are hypocrits on this board, that I can agree with.

Actually what I'm saying is that it's hypocritical to criticize someone for linking to a questionable source while turning a blind eye to another member (who leans the same way) who is guilty of the same thing.

 

[Perknose]

Statement:

Basically, one would have to know which ODA(s) got redeployed to know if it was a misuse of assets or not.

Anwer:

Without warning, they were then given the task of tracking down Saddam. "We were going nuts on the ground about that decision," one of them recalls.

"In spite of the fact that it had taken five months to establish trust, suddenly there were two days to hand over to people who spoke no Dari, Pastun or Arabic, and had no rapport."

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Gaard
If you deem linking to Coulter as acceptable, than why would you have a problem with someone linking to the Guardian?

You see, whether or not you feel that linking to questionable sources is acceptable or not isn't my beef. My beef is that some here b!tchslap people for linking to questionable sources, yet turn a blind eye when members who lean the same way are guilty of the same infraction. If etech, or you, had previously chastised right-leaning members for linking to their questionable-source-of-choice, I wouldn't have a problem. You follow me?

Yeah, as if the left-leaners chastise each other as well. Get real, dude.

Coulter=Pundit/Blowhard. Does she collect purported fact from primary sources and attempt to portray the fact as news? Negative. She presents commentary and is therefore recognized as a commentator. Even many of the so-called "right-leaning" posters recognize that Coulter's drivel is an opinion based on secondary sources.

On the other hand, this thread contains an outright lie from the Guardian (indeed, the story actually comes from the Observer, but look at the copyright on the story's page). The intent was to depict the information as "news" or accepted "fact" from primary sources.