Funny Rolling Stone article on McCain

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Rolling Stone has a lot of valid, important political articles.

National Review has a lot of valid important political articles.
Rush Limbaugh talks about about a lot of valid important things.

But if I started a thread based on either of them I get jumped on for my 'source'

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Juddog
In my opinion McCain gave up on his moral grounds when he decided that it was OK to let America torture suspected terrorists. That's flip-flopping on a far grander scale than the likes of Kerry.

Except he never did anything of the sort?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
Rolling Stone has a lot of valid, important political articles.

National Review has a lot of valid important political articles.
Rush Limbaugh talks about about a lot of valid important things.

But if I started a thread based on either of them I get jumped on for my 'source'

No, they don't. NR has a lot of invalid, unimportant articles on important topics.

You confuse the articles with the topics.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Craig234
Rolling Stone has a lot of valid, important political articles.

For anyone who won't just attack them as liars for simply reporting that the facts lead them to side with the democrats, who want to judge the magazine:

Read the following story that first showed me how they had started doing some very useful reporting, and tell me if you can make a case for the article not being a good one, as it has some blunt commentary on 'what needed to be said' that's missing from a lot of reporting on the *last* Congress, the one the American people went on to throw out in 1006 a month after this was publiished:

Story on 2005-2006 Congress, the 'worst ever'

1006? Damn that was a long time ago!


-- just teasin' ya! --:laugh:

Whoops Did you read the linked article?

Yup, it was definitely a good read. It blasts both parties in Congress for blame. I found this particularly interesting:

It's Thursday evening, September 28th, and the Senate is putting the finishing touches on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, colloquially known as the "torture bill." It's a law even Stalin would admire, one that throws habeas corpus in the trash, legalizes a vast array of savage interrogation techniques and generally turns the president of the United States into a kind of turbocharged Yoruba witch doctor, with nearly unlimited snatching powers. The bill is a fall-from-Eden moment in American history, a potentially disastrous step toward authoritarianism -- but what is most disturbing about it, beyond the fact that it's happening, is that the senators are hurrying to get it done.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Craig234
Rolling Stone has a lot of valid, important political articles.

For anyone who won't just attack them as liars for simply reporting that the facts lead them to side with the democrats, who want to judge the magazine:

Read the following story that first showed me how they had started doing some very useful reporting, and tell me if you can make a case for the article not being a good one, as it has some blunt commentary on 'what needed to be said' that's missing from a lot of reporting on the *last* Congress, the one the American people went on to throw out in 1006 a month after this was publiished:

Story on 2005-2006 Congress, the 'worst ever'

1006? Damn that was a long time ago!


-- just teasin' ya! --:laugh:

Whoops Did you read the linked article?

The other scary part of the article was this:

The answer is easy: They spend. When Bill Clinton left office, the nation had a budget surplus of $236 billion. Today, thanks to Congress, the budget is $296 billion in the hole. This year, more than sixty-five percent of all the money borrowed in the entire world will be borrowed by America, a statistic fueled by the speed-junkie spending habits of our supposedly "fiscally conservative" Congress. It took forty-two presidents before George W. Bush to borrow $1 trillion; under Bush, Congress has more than doubled that number in six years. And more often than not, we are borrowing from countries the sane among us would prefer not to be indebted to: The U.S. shells out $77 billion a year in interest to foreign creditors, including payment on the $300 billion we currently owe China.

You have to wonder - what would happen to us if that foreign money dried up and other nations started to refuse to loan America more money? In a way that's what's happening now with the current economic crisis.

 

[Baked]

They did an article on GW last month. How Bush Destroyed the Republican Party.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
Rolling Stone has a lot of valid, important political articles.

National Review has a lot of valid important political articles.
Rush Limbaugh talks about about a lot of valid important things.

But if I started a thread based on either of them I get jumped on for my 'source'

No, they don't. NR has a lot of invalid, unimportant articles on important topics.

You confuse the articles with the topics.

Thank you for proving my point.

I didn't even have to post a NR article for someone to trash them just because of who they are.

Rolling Stone is a music magazine with a insane left wing slant. To take anything they say at face value is ridiculous.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
Rolling Stone has a lot of valid, important political articles.

National Review has a lot of valid important political articles.
Rush Limbaugh talks about about a lot of valid important things.

But if I started a thread based on either of them I get jumped on for my 'source'

No, they don't. NR has a lot of invalid, unimportant articles on important topics.

You confuse the articles with the topics.

Thank you for proving my point.

I didn't even have to post a NR article for someone to trash them just because of who they are.

Rolling Stone is a music magazine with a insane left wing slant. To take anything they say at face value is ridiculous.

So based upon your logic, we should ignore news that is shown on Fox. I can live with that.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
Rolling Stone has a lot of valid, important political articles.

National Review has a lot of valid important political articles.
Rush Limbaugh talks about about a lot of valid important things.

But if I started a thread based on either of them I get jumped on for my 'source'

No, they don't. NR has a lot of invalid, unimportant articles on important topics.

You confuse the articles with the topics.

Thank you for proving my point.

I didn't even have to post a NR article for someone to trash them just because of who they are.

Rolling Stone is a music magazine with a insane left wing slant. To take anything they say at face value is ridiculous.

You need to point out a distortion they are making or a fact that is not true. I am willing to read a National Review article, although I have seen some wild distortions in there before they do have writers that make a good conservative case. Rush Limbaugh outright lies and distorts facts so he deserves to be discredited.

Life isn't fair. Not all the time are articles going to say what you want to hear but if they aren't lies you need to take them into consideration. Because life isn't fair.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
Rolling Stone has a lot of valid, important political articles.

National Review has a lot of valid important political articles.
Rush Limbaugh talks about about a lot of valid important things.

But if I started a thread based on either of them I get jumped on for my 'source'

No, they don't. NR has a lot of invalid, unimportant articles on important topics.

You confuse the articles with the topics.

Thank you for proving my point.

Thank you for a 12 year old type attempt to win a point. I didn't prove your point.

I didn't even have to post a NR article for someone to trash them just because of who they are.

I don't need you to post an article for me to have the view I have based on years of 'reviewing' the Review.

Rolling Stone is a music magazine with a insane left wing slant. To take anything they say at face value is ridiculous.

More nonsense from you. Because they publish mostly music stories, that means it's impossible for them to publish excellent political reporting, too?

"insane left wing slant" = your ideologically blind name calling. Note the lack of support for your claim as always.

And fnally, another PJ trademark weasel word - 'to take at face value'. I don't take the NY Times, or almost any other source, at 'face value' (a few I would give a big benefit of the doubt to, though). But the issue isn't 'taking them at face value', it's the fact they've published some outstanding political articles.

Your empty quiver for attacking them explains why you have and offer nothing but puerile name-calling.

You really need to learn how to argue with more substance than the fluff and few fallacies you repeat constantly.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Give me a break. A legit news source would never start an article about a politician with a line like "All love stories are beautiful at the beginning"

A line like that is the stuff of blogs. Anyone who is looking at Rolling Stone magazine as a good source of political information is a fool.

It's the difference between opinion writing and news writing.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Juddog
In my opinion McCain gave up on his moral grounds when he decided that it was OK to let America torture suspected terrorists. That's flip-flopping on a far grander scale than the likes of Kerry.

Except he never did anything of the sort?

Did you read the article?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Juddog
In my opinion McCain gave up on his moral grounds when he decided that it was OK to let America torture suspected terrorists. That's flip-flopping on a far grander scale than the likes of Kerry.

Except he never did anything of the sort?

Wrong.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
Rolling Stone has a lot of valid, important political articles.

National Review has a lot of valid important political articles.
Rush Limbaugh talks about about a lot of valid important things.

But if I started a thread based on either of them I get jumped on for my 'source'

No, they don't. NR has a lot of invalid, unimportant articles on important topics.

You confuse the articles with the topics.

Thank you for proving my point.

I didn't even have to post a NR article for someone to trash them just because of who they are.

Rolling Stone is a music magazine with a insane left wing slant. To take anything they say at face value is ridiculous.

Well, then why not read it and expose any lies, half-truths, or omissions so as to properly castigate it?

 

[Eeezee]

I haven't had respect for McCain since around 2003. He gave up on all of his principles and has exclusively sided with the Bush administration for the last 4-5 years.

He is the ultimate political flip-flopper.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Juddog
In my opinion McCain gave up on his moral grounds when he decided that it was OK to let America torture suspected terrorists. That's flip-flopping on a far grander scale than the likes of Kerry.

Except he never did anything of the sort?

Yes, he did. Which are you denying, that he is against torture most of the time or that he has supported torture some of the time?

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Juddog
In my opinion McCain gave up on his moral grounds when he decided that it was OK to let America torture suspected terrorists. That's flip-flopping on a far grander scale than the likes of Kerry.

Except he never did anything of the sort?

Yes, he did. Which are you denying, that he is against torture most of the time or that he has supported torture some of the time?

He was against it before he was for it, yet another flip-flip from the flip-floppiest flip flopper John Sydney McCain III.

 

[silverpig]

Yeah I read that article earlier this morning. It's a good read and pretty amazing.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: silverpig
Yeah I read that article earlier this morning. It's a good read and pretty amazing.

Another 'ProfJohn idiot', I see. That's a title of honor, FYI.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: silverpig
Yeah I read that article earlier this morning. It's a good read and pretty amazing.

Another 'ProfJohn idiot', I see. That's a title of honor, FYI.

?

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: silverpig
Yeah I read that article earlier this morning. It's a good read and pretty amazing.

Another 'ProfJohn idiot', I see. That's a title of honor, FYI.

?

He's referring to the resident GOP shill ProfJohn, who thinks FOX news is centrist and every other media outlet is liberally biased.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Yes, he did. Which are you denying, that he is against torture most of the time or that he has supported torture some of the time?

His position has always been the same:

http://www.time.com/time/polit...0,8599,1729891,00.html

McCain has long argued that the Bush Administration overstepped its legal authority by approving techniques like waterboarding, and has successfully championed two efforts to try to limit the White House to the plain language of international treaties, which ban cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. McCain has also spoken in opposition to other techniques in the CIA arsenal like sleep deprivation and the use of stress positions, both of which were employed by the North Vietnamese during McCain's captivity as a prisoner of war and may still be employed by the CIA.

"The field manual, a public document written for military use, is not always directly translatable to use by intelligence officers," McCain explained in February, reiterating his position from 2005. He added that the CIA should be allowed to use "alternative interrogation techniques," that are not otherwise outlawed as unduly coercive, cruel, inhumane or degrading.



The bill in question years later that he voted against was a bill that bound the CIA to the field manual. There is absolutely no reason for the CIA and the military to play by the exact same rules.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: silverpig
Yeah I read that article earlier this morning. It's a good read and pretty amazing.

Another 'ProfJohn idiot', I see. That's a title of honor, FYI.

?

He's referring to the resident GOP shill ProfJohn, who thinks FOX news is centrist and every other media outlet is liberally biased.

Oh I know about that... I'm just wondering why he's calling me a ProfJohn idiot. I just said the article was a good read, which it is. It's well researched, detailed, and has a lot of different sources. I also said it was pretty amazing, with the implication that I mean it was amazing that John McCain did all those things and by and large most of them are unknown to the average person.

I'm definitely NOT a McCain fan by any stretch of the imagination, nor did I express support for the man in my post, hence my befuddlement at being called a ProfJohn idiot.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: silverpig
Yeah I read that article earlier this morning. It's a good read and pretty amazing.

Another 'ProfJohn idiot', I see. That's a title of honor, FYI.

?

He's referring to the resident GOP shill ProfJohn, who thinks FOX news is centrist and every other media outlet is liberally biased.

Oh I know about that... I'm just wondering why he's calling me a ProfJohn idiot. I just said the article was a good read, which it is. It's well researched, detailed, and has a lot of different sources. I also said it was pretty amazing, with the implication that I mean it was amazing that John McCain did all those things and by and large most of them are unknown to the average person.

I'm definitely NOT a McCain fan by any stretch of the imagination, nor did I express support for the man in my post, hence my befuddlement at being called a ProfJohn idiot.

Craig and ProfJohn get into arguments on a regular basis, he's saying that based upon what you said, ProfJohn would think you were an idiot. To the rest of us, what you said makes sense.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: silverpig
Yeah I read that article earlier this morning. It's a good read and pretty amazing.

Another 'ProfJohn idiot', I see. That's a title of honor, FYI.

?

He's referring to the resident GOP shill ProfJohn, who thinks FOX news is centrist and every other media outlet is liberally biased.

Oh I know about that... I'm just wondering why he's calling me a ProfJohn idiot. I just said the article was a good read, which it is. It's well researched, detailed, and has a lot of different sources. I also said it was pretty amazing, with the implication that I mean it was amazing that John McCain did all those things and by and large most of them are unknown to the average person.

I'm definitely NOT a McCain fan by any stretch of the imagination, nor did I express support for the man in my post, hence my befuddlement at being called a ProfJohn idiot.

I apologize for too much of a reach with the comment, risking misunderstanding.

I was referring to ProfJohn sayins anyone who listens to Rolling Stone is an idiot.

It was a facetious comment based on my stated opinion that Rolling Stone has been putting out some excellent political reporting.